MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, April 13, 1999

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    Susan McLain (Chair)

Also Present:    Bill Atherton

Vice Chair Bragdon called the meeting to order at 1:32 P.M.

Vice Chair Bragdon announced that Chair McLain was in Salem testifying on two Senate Bills (SB) pertaining to Metro: SB 1031, giving Metro the authority to make minor boundary changes, and SB 1062, adding Metro to the list of government bodies with the authority to acquire conservation easements.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA), GOAL 5 UPDATE

David Moskowitz, Salmon Recovery Coordinator, briefed the committee on new listings on the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A written copy of Mr. Moskowitz’s testimony at the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee on April 12, 1999, includes information presented and is included in the meeting record.

Rosemary Furfey, Senior Regional Planner, distributed seven documents relating to Goal 5, copies of which are included in the meeting record. Information from Ms. Furfey’s presentation is included in the agenda packet and supplementary documents.

Councilor Park asked if the study area included the proposed urban reserves.

Ms. Furfey said yes, the study area did include the urban reserves. She clarified that the study area extended a quarter mile outside the Metro jurisdictional boundary, and a quarter mile outside any urban reserves that extend beyond Metro’s boundary.

Councilor Park asked if SB 1010 is considered part of the Oregon Plan on the Natural Stragetgies for Watershed Health document.

Ms. Furfey said the list was not meant to be an exhaustive list of programs in Oregon law relating to watershed health. Councilor Park suggested that Ms. Furfey add a disclaimer on the document to clarify that.

Councilor Park said he is concerned that Title 3 does not include an incentive for compliance or a mechanism to control upland activities. He said Metro needs to secure from the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) an acknowledgment that Title 3 satisfies EQC’s concern about streamside activities. As an example of incentive, he noted that farmers who complied with SB 1010 were deemed in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said the legal brief from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in support of Title 3 states that Metro is an appropriate regulator for the Clean Water Act. He said Metro has begun building coordination with DEQ, but has not yet set up a system in which those who comply receive certification.

Councilor Atherton said the acronym “CPR” (Conservation, Protection, and Restoration) conveys the public’s perception of the urgency of the issue. He asked what Metro is doing to immediately address fish recovery.

Ms. Furfey said Goal 5 administrative rule requires Metro to do several things to build a protection, restoration and enhancement program. Metro is required to either develop or adopt a safe harbor provision for fish-bearing streams, of which there is very little data readily available in the region showing the location of fish-bearing streams. Therefore, staff is compelled to inventory and collect information with regard to the quality and quantity of streams. She said Metro is moving as quickly as possible, but it is important to build a sound basis of technical information on which to develop any recommendations for Council action, as the action could have important implications for the region. Ms. Furfey clarified for Councilor Atherton that staff is looking at all streams in the region, but the information for fish-bearing streams is very limited.

Councilor Atherton said a controversy over headwaters surfaced during work on floodplain protections. He said logically, the headwaters need protection the most, yet they were omitted from Title 3. He asked why headwaters were not protected under Title 3, and if the Council can amend Title 3 immediately.

Ms. Furfey said all headwaters with perennial streams are protected under Title 3, while the headwaters of intermittent streams are not, based on the recommendations of staff and WRPAC. She said while protection of the headwaters of intermittent streams was not deemed necessary for the purposes of water quality and flood management, she believes it may be necessary for protection of fish and wildlife habitat.

Councilor Atherton said he has received conflicting information. He said during the City of Lake Oswego’s development of a surface water management plan, the city’s engineers said that the headwaters of intermittent streams are just as important as perennial streams.

Mr. Shaw said Title 3 regulations adopted to date address only Goal 6, water quality. He said the segregation is unique, and must be based on the science developed for the issue of water quality. He said in order to amend Title 3 and add a supplement to the scientific record, the Council would have to hold additional public hearings and vote to amend Title 3. He said in order to use Goal 5, fish and wildlife habitat, as a basis for the same kind of regulation, the Goal 5 inventory and study process must be completed.

Councilor Park asked staff to look at the feasibility of developing an agreement with EQC to receive formal approval for addressing non-point source pollution.

Mr. Moskowitz said he would like to address Councilor Atherton’s question of what can be done immediately. He said while there may be little that is directly within Metro’s purview, enforcement of existing laws at the state and local jurisdictional level would go a long way toward protection, conservation and restoration. He said there are a large number of incentives available, most of which are underutilized. He said he would be attending a conference on incentive programs, and would report back to the committee. He said one of Metro’s roles could be to educate local jurisdictions, citizens, and landowners within the region about the incentives available for protecting fish and water quality.

Vice Chair Bragdon asked if the CPR workshops are funded by the Department of Land Conservation Department (DLCD) grant, and he asked about the resources for the future.

Ms. Furfey said the DLCD grant has primarily funded consultants who have helped develop the workshops, but Metro staff organized most aspects of the public involvement effort.

Vice Chair Bragdon asked what kind of staff resources would be needed to develop a comprehensive functional plan. He asked about the status of local jurisdictions’ work, level of cooperation, and sharing of information and staff resources.

Ms. Furfey said one of the tasks of the newly established WRPAC subcommittee is to develop a budget and scope out the various tasks that would be required. She said the level of work on Goal 5 that has already been completed by local jurisdictions varies greatly: in the staff analysis to date, many jurisdictions have done little or nothing. She said Metro could plan a large role in determining protection of those resources that are not currently protected adequately at the local level. She said there has been a good level of participation to date, although local jurisdictions would be concerned if it appeared that Metro was duplicating work.

Ms. Wilkerson said the current budget allots less than two full-time equivalents (FTEs) and about $53,000 in professional service money for Goal 5 work. The proposed budget for next year adds a stormwater/watershed planning component, increases the FTE to 2.7, and maintains about the same funding for professional services. The department will also continue to pursue grants. She said Metro has saved a significant amount of money due to its successful use of volunteers: the technical advisory committee and peer review group include many technically skilled people.

Mr. Moskowitz said the City of Portland recently passed a resolution asking the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) to consider declaring the ESA listings and response as matters of metropolitan concern. The resolution has not yet been widely discussed with the other jurisdictions in the region, and he expects it to come up at the MPAC meeting April 14, 1999.

3.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT - CONTINUATION OF PRESENTATIONS

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

Capture Rate

Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, reviewed his memo to the committee regarding capture rates, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Atherton asked if the state mandates that Metro must accommodate workers from outside the region.

Mr. Shaw said the capture rate study is an estimate of the results of market forces, and there is not a law related to the import or export of workers. He said one primary impact in the law would be the federal highways program that allows for the easy import from Clark County.

Councilor Atherton said this becomes important in terms of Metro’s forecasts of growth, because the State of Oregon mandates Metro to accommodate forecast growth. He said if the jobs situation is part of the growth forecast, Metro could say that it is not mandated to accommodate jobs held by people who do not live in the region.

Mr. Shaw said the constitutional right of travel allows people to come into the region, and then it becomes a question of other laws and programs that make it easy for people to commute. He said the 20-year traffic forecasts predict that it will become very difficult to travel I-5. He said the difficulty of travel could be a disincentive, and change the forecast of job location.

Councilor Park asked whether, even though Mr. Yee’s predictions show only a slight increase in the difference in employment minus workers from 1996 to 2017, the effect on road capacity may actually be much worse because the slight increase of commuters will be in addition to the 500,000 people who will be moving into the region.

Mr. Yee said Councilor Park’s question is very difficult to model, but the regional forecast assumes that the supply factors, such as bridges and roads, are of sufficient quantity to allow for continued economic commerce to grow at sustainable rates based on assumptions of economic growth at the national and international level. He said the predicted capture rates are based on historical precedence, and can be altered according to the Council’s target numbers. He said if road conditions remain constant, the level of service will decline with the increase of 17,000 workers. He said the model assumes that the transportation system will grow incrementally. He said if growth is stopped, the region will experience a decline in its economic prosperity, and people will stop moving to and living in the region.

Councilor Atherton said Mr. Yee made the editorial comment that commerce will continue to grow at a sustainable rate, and that if the region stops growing it will die. He asked if Mr. Yee had scientific data to prove these statements.

Mr. Yee said he has not run the model under Councilor Atherton’s scenario.

Councilor Atherton said he is concerned that Metro’s modeling does not show a limit to growth. He said there is no basis for the statement that if the region does not grow, it will die. He said the model should reflect that the quality of life will decline because there is not enough money for the necessary infrastructure.

Mr. Yee said his charge is to provide a baseline forecast that represents the most credible inputs. He said those inputs lead him to believe that population will continue to grow, economic growth will then either follow or grow in conjunction with the population increase, and commerce will continue as a result of the interactions between business agents and household agents.

Councilor Park asked if there is modeling of what people consider to be reasonable travel time and quality of life.

Vice Chair Bragdon asked if the committee is comfortable with the methodology behind the capture rate, and with sending it to the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) for consideration and evaluation.

Councilor Atherton said he is not comfortable sending the forecast to MTAC, because the forecasts have been elevated to something that is not reasonable.

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

Ms. Wilkerson said Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, has been working on the committee’s prior questions. She said staff is still collecting and compiling parks and open space data from local jurisdictions, and will report to the committee in a few weeks. She said Ms. Neill would share the results of her preliminary investigation on schools and places of worship, and would follow up with a memo to the chair. She recommended moving the factor to MTAC, even though there is still some information to follow.

Ms. Neill said she researched where schools and places of worship can be built outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB), as per committee direction. She said they are generally permitted as a conditional use on lands outside the UGB. She said Washington County appears to have the most restrictions on siting, impacts on farm land, and distance from the UGB. She will confirm this with Washington County staff before writing a formal memo to the committee.

Ms. Wilkerson said the committee had also asked about schools sites and sizes. She said Joe Rodriguez, Hillsboro Public School District, has volunteered to update staff on Hillsboro’s basic considerations. During their conservation, Mr. Rodriguez stressed that schools are now multi-purpose facilities and the usage of the land is much higher than it was. She said that Ms. Neill would also address school sites and sizes in her upcoming memo.

Vice Chair Bragdon said the point of his question was to look at how the variables are affected by factors such as Metro’s policies, the price of land, and the market economy.

Ms. Wilkerson said in her experience with Beaverton, schools are using the same amount of land, but utilizing the land more efficiently by building larger, two-story facilities, sharing facilities, and decreasing parking space.

Vice Chair Bragdon said the other question he had raised was that the Portland Public School District has surplus property that needs to be transferred into either the parks or developable lands inventory.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, reminded the committee that this particular variable has several subsets, and the original work submitted by Ms. Neill posed a set of questions for the committee which would give direction to staff. He asked Ms. Neill to reiterate her questions in her upcoming memo.

Vice Chair Bragdon agreed. He said at a prior meeting, the committee agreed to adjust the streets factor to 18.5 percent.

Councilor Park said it is important for the Council to remember the importance of facility siting in creating multi-use facilities. He said Metro should look for ways to help the people provide facilities creatively.

Ms. Wilkerson said the memo would be written in time for the next committee meeting, at which time she hopes it will be forwarded to MTAC.

Employment Density

Ms. Wilkerson said this report is the first step of staff bringing together a number of items related to employment. She said staff is not looking for clear direction at this time. She hopes that on May 4, staff will be able to present a sensitivity analysis of how the new modeling system will affect outcomes. She said MTAC is looking at floor-to-area ratios (FARs) and the question of observed versus aspirational values, and will respond at its next meeting.

Councilor Park asked which model addresses mixed-use buildings, such as the four apartments above the new Multnomah County library in Fairview Village.

Mr. Yee said the Zonal Employment Land Demand Analysis model (ZELDA) does not calculate mixed-use, because mixed use is a supply factor. ZELDA and the Employment Density Study includes information presented by Mr. Yee and is included in the meeting record.

Ms. Wilkerson said at the next committee meeting, the committee will receive the report on non-residential refill, which addresses the difficulty of calculating the number of employees in a building due to fluctuation over time. She said the non-residential refill factor is extremely complex.

Mr. Yee said refill is an input into ZELDA and will be taken into consideration before ZELDA estimates land demand for each industry and land use type.

Councilor Park asked if there is any spreadsheet modeling of this yet. Mr. Yee said he is not yet live with an operational version of ZELDA.

Vice Chair Bragdon said the committee would look at employment density again on May 4.

2040 Upzoning, Underbuild and Ramp-Up

Ms. Wilkerson said that, as indicated in the original report, staff is gathering the current zoning information and hopes to have a report prepared for the committee on May 4. She asked Ms. Neill to talk about underbuild and ramp-up.

Ms. Neill said previous urban growth reports have used an underbuild variable of 21 percent, however, Title 1 requires a minimum density of 80 percent, which translates into a 20 percent underbuild.

The committee agreed that it is comfortable using an underbuild variable of 20 percent.

Ms. Wilkerson asked if the committee wishes to include a one-year ramp-up in the calculations. She said some jurisdictions have not completed their zoning changes yet, but market demand has been encouraging denser development. She said the committee did not need to make a decision about ramp-up immediately. She said staff will return in May with comments from MTAC and MPAC.

The committee agreed to forward the factor to MTAC, and that it will consider eliminating ramp-up.

4.  PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Mark Turpel, Long-Range Planning Manager, reviewed the action taken by MPAC on performance measures. A memo from Lisa Lister to Chair McLain, and a letter from Executive Officer Mike Burton to MPAC Chair Lou Ogden include information presented by Mr. Turpel and are included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park asked for an explanation of the term “acres of unbuildable land developed.”

Mr. Turpel said the Urban Growth Report makes assumptions about the number of acres of unbuildable land, such as wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplains. In many cases, however, there is no regulation to prevent the development of those lands. “Acres of unbuildable land developed” is used to check whether Metro’s assumptions are reasonable.

Councilor Park asked if it would be possible to use a less confusing term.

Ms. Wilkerson said MPAC has addressed performance measures and has accepted MTAC’s recommendations. She said the next step is for the committee to review MPAC’s recommendations and forward them to Council. She said it would be useful to staff to know if the Council agrees that the date should be mid-year. She said mid-year was chosen because it appears that the urban growth report data will be ready then.

Vice Chair Bragdon said he will delay official committee action until Chair McLain is back. Informally, he said he agrees with MPAC’s recommendations. Councilor Park agreed.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Vice Chair Bragdon adjourned the meeting at 3:28 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\04139gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1999

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