MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, April 6, 1999

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Bill Atherton

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 2:47 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

Chair McLain said the committee is currently reviewing the factors in the Urban Growth Report and will consider expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) later in the year. She said she asked representatives from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to attend today in order to discuss the relationship of the concept of “carrying capacity” to state land use planning goals. A memo from Chair McLain to Richard Benner and Jim Sitzman of DLCD, dated March 25, 1999, summarizes the topics she asked them to address, and is included in the meeting record. She asked Mr. Sitzman to also talk about a letter from DLCD to Metro in November 1998 regarding a possible inconsistency between Title 3 protection and the UGB buildable lands capacity in the Urban Growth Report.

Richard Benner, Director, DLCD, said that to date, jurisdictions have complied with State Land Use Planning Goal 6 through provisions in their comprehensive plans stating that they would comply with federal and state air and water quality laws. He said DLCD tested for compliance with Goal 6 by looking for that language and by reviewing the public facilities and services plans required by Goal 11 to make sure there was a relationship between the growth forecast, the placement of the growth, and the facility plans. He said that while carrying capacity has not been a strong element in the past, since then the state and federal governments have learned much about the capacity of natural systems. He added that in a general way, Metro’s entire growth concept acknowledges the limits of carrying capacity.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Benner to explain the relationship of carrying capacity in Goal 6 to the other elements of land use planning, such as special need and complete communities. She said the purpose of the 2040 Growth Concept is to create compact, urban growth in order to protect resource lands. She said if Metro chose to expand the UGB into exception land only, the Metro region would reach out like a spider web from the coast range to the Cascade Range, with negative impacts on carrying capacity, affordable infrastructure, and protection of resource lands.

Mr. Benner said Goal 14 does not require Metro to avoid urbanizing exclusive farm use (EFU) land at all costs. He said DLCD did not appeal Metro’s urban reserve designations because the Council included EFU land, but because Metro did not adequately demonstrate need for some of the farm land that was included.

Chair McLain asked if, in Mr. Benner’s opinion, Metro is properly addressing carrying capacity through its 2040 Growth Concept. She asked for more detail on the element of carrying capacity.

Jim Sitzman, DLCD, said the 15 applicable State Land Use Planning Goals represent a wide variety of values, and the task of planning is to try to balance all 15 goals.

Chair McLain said the Council unanimously passed Resolution No. 97-2567B, the Green Resolution, in 1997, to clarify that Metro does not support density at the cost of environmentally sensitive areas. She asked Mr. Sitzman to talk about Goals 5, 6, and 7, and what Metro’s work on Title 3 covers.

Mr. Sitzman said Title 3 regulates the impact of floodplain runoff and discharge on water quality without reference to water as fish and wildlife habitat. The current work on Goal 5 is adding fish and wildlife habitat into Title 3. He said DLCD gave Metro a six-month grant to expand its Goal 5 work agenda as a result of the Endangered Species Act. He said the methodology currently under development will provide a foundation for future work.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Benner if he believes carrying capacity is a number that can somehow be determined during a planning process.

Mr. Benner said determining carrying capacity is much simpler when it can be converted into numbers, but it is not always possible. He said addressing the subject of carrying capacity excluseively as a conceptual matter makes planning decisions very difficult.

Councilor Atherton said carrying capacity is not a number; it is a process and a range of values. He said it is possible to estimate a range of numbers, but it is the process described that creates the carrying capacity. He said the overarching directive from the state to accommodate growth is at odds with the concept of carrying capacity. He said for example, the region could require new development to pay its own way, and could build into its process a feedback loop that would stop growth when it gets too costly, or when environmental standards are exceeded. He said carrying capacity signals when it is time to stop doing something.

Mr. Benner said constitutionally, a growth management system cannot stop growth, but if growth becomes too costly, people will choose to move somewhere less expensive. He said in order for Councilor Atherton’s system to work, it would still be necessary to measure everything possible and refer to numbers.

Mr. Sitzman noted that Councilor Atherton’s chief illustration of the process of carrying capacity is number based: it costs too much. He said the process is a combination of numbers and value judgments.

Councilor Park asked if there is process to determine when the region has reached the point where resource land will have to be taken into the UGB, because the exception lands will not yield enough housing units to justify the infrastructure costs.

Mr. Benner said in DLCD’s opinion, the region reached that point when Metro designated urban reserves in 1997. He said it was not a simple formula, but the Council looked at exception lands, determined capacity, and then evaluated the advantages of adding exception land further out versus adding poorer-quality farm land surrounded by exception lands. He said DLCD agreed with the majority of the Council’s urban reserve decision, but disagreed with the decision to add higher-quality farmland when there were still exception lands to be considered. He said the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) ruling explicitly stated that EFU land should not be automatically chosen over exception lands, simply because the exception lands cannot yield 10 units an acre.

Councilor Park asked if there is a less legalistic process the Council could follow that would not result in an appeal to LUBA.

Mr. Benner said yes, the Council can choose between two processes to expand the UGB: 1) as a plan amendment, and 2) as part of Metro’s periodic review. He said plan amendments, the process followed by the Council in 1998, are reviewed by LUBA, whereas periodic review are reviewed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). He said in the LUBA process, the issues are framed by petitioners and respondents, and the analysis is done by three attorneys, whereas in the LCDC process, the analysis is done by the department and the process is not as rigid.

Chair McLain said Metro does have a formula to determine when to take resource land instead of exception land. She said the formula started with the Future Vision document and 2040 Growth Concept, which promote compact urban form. She said during the urban reserve decision, the Council considered productivity studies, geography, soil types, slopes, and other factors.

Councilor Bragdon asked how DLCD settles internal differences of opinion on land use planning, and how it reconciles the natural tension among the 15 State Land Use Planning Goals.

Mr. Benner said when the goals were first developed, there was strident debate on how to balance Goal 3, preservation of agricultural lands, with Goals 9 and 10, economic development and affordable housing. He said LCDC ultimately resolved the tension by deciding that Goals 9 and 10 should be met inside urban growth boundaries, not on resource lands. He said DLCD’s job is to review jurisdictions’ land use decisions, and look for an adequate basis for those decisions.

Chair McLain thanked Mr. Benner and Mr. Sitzman for their time and asked them to return.

Mr. Sitzman recommended that the committee focus on two issues in the next few months. First, he said regional centers are part of the genius of the 2040 Growth Concept, and are critical to a successful transportation system and achieving the targeted density within the UGB. Second, he said it is important to predict what areas will be ready for infill and redevelopment in 15 to 20 years. He recommended that the committee expect more, rather than less, in its calculations, knowing that the numbers can be corrected every five years during the UGB amendment process.

3.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT

• PARKS/OPEN SPACE, SCHOOLS, PLACES OF WORSHIP, STREETS FACTOR UPDATE
• EMPLOYMENT DENSITY
• 2040 UPZONING, UNDERBUILD AND RAMP-UP

Parks/Open Space, Schools, Places of Worship, Streets Factor Update

At the request of Elaine Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services, Chair McLain deferred the item to the next committee meeting.

Employment Density

Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, Data Resource Center, presented the 1999 Employment Density Study and ZELDA (Zonal Employment Land Demand Analysis model). ZELDA and the Employment Density Study Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and the 1999 Employment Density Study Technical Report include information presented by Mr. Yee and are included in the meeting record.

The committee discussed floor-to-area ratios (FARs) and how the model attempts to predict future industry trends. Councilor Park voiced concern that incorrect assumptions could skew the results of the model. The committee also discussed its ability to alter assumptions in the model in order to make it more aspirational. The committee agreed that its goal is to use Table 4, Observed Building Densities, to look at the feasibility of FARs to 2040 design types.

Ms. Wilkerson drew the committee’s attention to page 17 of the 1999 Employment Density Study:

However, policy officials might want to choose aspirational targets or current regulatory zoning parameters in place of observed parameters. By altering the density assumptions contained in ZELDA, policy makers can test alternative assumptions.

During committee discussion of building densities, Councilor Park asked if the large landscaped areas on high tech company campuses are calculated as developed land.

Mr. Yee said no, undeveloped land on large campuses is considered landbanked, and is included in the vacant buildable land inventory.

Councilor Bragdon noted the difficulty of Metro’s two goals, to both predict and shape the future. Mr. Yee agreed and stressed the importance of dialogue between policy makers and forecasters.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Yee to return to the next committee meeting to answer any questions the committee members may have after reviewing his report.

2040 Upzoning, Underbuild and Ramp-Up

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, Growth Management Services, reviewed the discussion paper on 1999 Urban Growth Report, 2040 Upzoning, Underbuild and Ramp-Up. The discussion paper includes information presented by Ms. Neill and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain asked Ms. Neill to return to the committee with frequent updates on vacant buildable land and updated zoning coverage.

The committee discussed underbuild, and Chair McLain asked Ms. Neill if staff has looked at the trend in underbuild. Ms. Neill said staff has looked at information from local jurisdictions, but has not done its own study to verify the information. She said for the majority of jurisdictions, the underbuild is around 20 percent or slightly higher.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said if there is a significant size of city, such as Gresham, with a five to six percent underbuild, it could make a difference when looking at the trend. He said in addition, because there is an 80 percent minimum density requirement in the Functional Plan, some jurisdictions with a five to six percent underbuild may choose to increase the maximum densities. If the maximum density was increased, the 80 percent minimum density requirement would apply to a larger number. He recommended asking the larger jurisdictions if they are significantly increasing their maximum permitted density for significant portions of their cities, and if it could result in increased capacity in the UGB.

Chair McLain asked Ms. Neill to call the larger jurisdictions that have claimed low underbuild percentages, and ask for more information.

Councilor Park asked if the models used to demonstrate compliance with air quality are based on zero underbuild, or 20 percent underbuild. For example, Gresham was calculated to be in compliance with air quality standards based on an 80 percent buildout. If Gresham, in fact, is moving towards a 95 to 96 percent buildout, will it remain in compliance with air quality standards?

Mr. Shaw said the air shed, for purposes of analysis for federal compliance, covers the entire Portland/Vancouver area. Therefore, if the majority of projected growth locates in one jurisdiction, it will not change the area-wide airshed numbers.

Councilor Park said it could influence which areas are allowed to grow in the future, however. For example, if one area is developed and built out first, and the region reaches the limits of air quality compliance, another area may not be allowed to grow.

Chair McLain asked Ms. Neill to return to the next committee meeting to complete her presentation and answer any questions from the committee members.

For the record, Councilor Park asked about the possibility of infrastructure overcharge, if the infrastructure is planned and built for maximum densities, but only 80 percent of maximum density is anticipated.

4.  SUMMARY OF PLANNING ACTIVITY IN URBAN RESERVES

Chair McLain deferred the item.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 4:53 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\04069gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 6, 1999

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