MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, April 20, 1999

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Rod Monroe

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

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 13, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Chair McLain abstained from the vote as she was absent from the April 6, 1999, Growth Management Committee meeting.

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2771, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING TIME EXTENSIONS TO THE FUNCTIONAL PLAN COMPLIANCE DEADLINE - APRIL 1999

Marian Hull, Senior Regional Planner, presented Resolution No. 99-2771. A staff report to the resolution includes information presented by Ms. Hull and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain said before the committee considers any requests for exceptions, she will hold a committee work session to talk about the criteria for considering exceptions. She asked if any of the jurisdictions are planning to request a second extension. She said she does not want the process to continue indefinitely.

Ms. Hull said staff has worked closely with all the jurisdictions to make the timelines realistic, so that further extensions will be unnecessary.

Councilor Park asked if Ms. Hull had heard how the loss of one of the City of Gresham’s long-range planners may affect its work plan. Ms. Hull said she had not heard anything yet.

Councilor Bragdon clarified that Resolution No. 99-2771 does not pertain to exceptions. Chair McLain agreed.

Chair McLain will carry Resolution No. 99-2771 to the full Metro Council.

3.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT - CONTINUATION OF PRESENTATIONS

• SCHOOLS, PLACES OF WORSHIP
• RAMP-UP, UNDERBUILD
• NON-RESIDENTIAL REFILL
• ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSTRAINED LANDS

Chair McLain said her goal was to give direction to staff today on the factor of schools and places of worship.

Mark Turpel, Manager of Long-Range Planning, Growth Management Services, said by the end of the week, staff will have prepared a document showing the relative weight of each component of the Urban Growth Report.

Schools, Places of Worship

Lydia Neill, Senior Regional Planner, presented a memo from Elaine Wilkerson, Director of Growth Management Services, to Chair McLain. The memo, regarding follow-up to the discussion paper on the 1999 Urban Growth Report: Parks/Open Space, Schools, and Places of Worship Factors, includes information presented by Ms. Neill and is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park asked if there is data on the student-to-parking space ratio, and if there is any way for Metro to influence it. He asked if surplus church land would be counted as vacant if it was owned by a corporation.

Ms Neill said yes, corporate-owned surplus land is counted in the vacant land inventory.

Councilor Park said the same should be true for land owned by places of worship.

Mr. Turpel said staff does not currently have data on the parking spaces per high school, but it could be gathered. In terms of Metro’s potential impact on the ration of parking spaces to students, school districts are concerned about impacting neighborhoods by not providing adequate parking. He said Metro could affect the amount of connectivity, such as sidewalks and streets, enabling students to safely walk or ride bicycles to school.

Chair McLain agreed. She referred to Table 1 of the memo, and said the trend in school site sizes is unclear.

Ms. Neill said that according to Hillsboro’s School Superintendent, Hillsboro’s new school sites are larger than existing sites because the district predominantly serves rural populations, and has additional traffic needs due to buses and a lack of sidewalks. In the superintendent’s opinion, Hillsboro has a deficit of parks and recreation land within the city limits, and the school district bears some of the burden of providing recreational facilities. She said in the future, as the lack of park land in Hillsboro is addressed, school sites may become smaller or more multi-use.

Councilor Park said there are parking ratios in the Functional Plan, and asked if there are similar ratios for schools. Mr. Turpel said he would find out and let Councilor Park know.

Chair McLain asked for further instruction from the committee. She said the committee appears to agree with staff’s analysis.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked whether a church in Pleasant Valley could build on land inside an urban reserve that was annexed into the urban growth boundary (UGB) in December 1998, but has not been master planned. He asked if the church must wait until sewer and water are available, or if it can use a septic tank and well until urban services are extended.

Mr. Turpel said Multnomah County would grant the building permit, but the cities of Gresham and Portland will also be involved in the master planning of the urban reserve.

Councilor Park asked if the church could legally begin building before the master plan is complete.

Mr. Shaw said rural land that is added to the UGB remains rural until a master plan and urban zoning are adopted by the city. Currently, a church could an allowable use under rural zoning for rural services. He said the church would not be allowed to extend urban services to the site, because that would be an extension of an urban service without an urban reserve plan or urban zoning.

Ramp-Up, Underbuild

Mr. Turpel reviewed the issue of ramp-up. A discussion paper, dated April 1, regarding 1999 Urban Growth Report: 2040 Upzoning, Underbuild, and Ramp-Up, includes information presented by Mr. Turpel and was included in the April 6, 1999, Growth Management Committee meeting record. He said ramp-up is not a major component of the Urban Growth Report and eliminating ramp-up would not significantly affect the final capacity determination.

Chair McLain asked to committee to consider whether it is comfortable eliminating ramp-up from the Urban Growth Report.

Mr. Turpel said the staff recommendation is to consider adding a small increment to account for the fact that the compliance reporting is not yet complete.

Chair McLain asked for that in writing. She said she is comfortable with the staff report, and she asked for general staff direction from the committee.

Councilor Park asked if there was any reason that would preclude the committee from omitting ramp-up.

Mr. Turpel said it is a committee decision how aspirational to make the Urban Growth Report. He said the region is fairly close to compliance, but some jurisdictions have requested time extensions.

Councilor Park said anecdotally, most new development appears to be at or close to maximum density. He said he would be comfortable calculating a smaller amount of time for ramp-up, given that the decision will be revisited by the Council within five years.

Chair McLain commented that the region is not yet 100 percent compliant, and the Council will be considering a number of time extensions. She said in her opinion, dropping ramp-up before the region has actually reached compliance would be inconsistent. She said she would agree to the one-year ramp-up figure.

Mr. Turpel added that the April 1, discussion paper on ramp-up also addresses 2040 zoning and underbuild, which are much larger components of the Urban Growth Report. He said the committee has requested a report on the current underbuild in jurisdictions, which may partially address Councilor Park’s concerns.

The committee forwarded ramp-up and underbuild. Chair McLain said the committee will need to review the upcoming document on the relative weight of each component of the Urban Growth Report before making a final decision on underbuild and ramp-up.

Non-Residential Refill

Sonny Conder, Senior Regional Planner, presented the discussion paper on non-residential refill. A technical memo from Mr. Conder to Ms. Wilkerson on non-residential refill includes information presented by Mr. Conder and is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Turpel highlighted that a change of one or two percent in the non-residential refill rate significantly affects the final capacity number.

Chair McLain said the opportunity for companies to remake themselves is affected by transportation opportunities. She asked how the non-residential refill study relates to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and to land-use and transportation elements.

Mr. Conder said that currently, the non-residential refill study does not related to the RTP, although the relationship will be included in the analytical report due out this summer.

Chair McLain asked for committee direction or comments.

Councilor Bragdon said the eight factors listed in the conclusion to the non-residential refill study indicate that the refill rate will be even higher.

Chair McLain said the committee is not trying to determine a number today, but a direction. She said she is comfortable stating that the study points to a higher number because of possibilities.

Councilor Park asked how staff would have calculated the additional development in the Clackamas Town Center area if the south/north light rail ballot measure had passed.

Mr. Conder said in all likelihood, it would have been calculated as refill, although some of the land is currently vacant.

The committee discussed the calculation of developed and vacant land on extensively landscaped, corporate campuses.

Dick Bolen, Manager, Data Resource Center, said staff used aerial photographs to identify building footprints and pertinent uses, such as parking, storage, and landscaping required by municipalities. He said it is an estimate, however, because it would be extremely difficult for staff to determine each jurisdiction’s exact requirements.

Councilor Park said if the property owner has the option to redevelop the property, then the landscaping should be calculated as vacant. If the property owner cannot develop the land further, however, because of jurisdictional requirements, it should be calculated as developed.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Turpel to bring two aerial photographs to the next committee meeting to demonstrate how vacant land was calculated.

Councilor Park concluded that not counting land as vacant will increase the refill factor. He said given the pressure on the region, it is important to use commercial and residential land as efficiently as possible.

Environmentally Constrained Lands

Ms. Neill presented the discussion paper on the environmentally constrained lands. A discussion paper to the 1999 Urban Growth Report: Environmental Lands, and the Federal Register (Vol. 64, No. 24, Friday, February 5, 1999, pages 5740 through 5749) include information presented by Ms. Neill and are included in the meeting record. She added that determining the buffer zone for environmentally constrained lands is an essential component to determining buildable lands. She said as soon as staff knows what assumption the committee wishes to use, it can proceed in calculating buildable lands by county.

Chair McLain asked the committee to consider whether the Urban Growth Report should continue to assume a 200-foot buffer width in light of the proposed Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing for steelhead. Secondly, should the Urban Growth Report continue to assume a development rate of one unit per five acres on constrained lands, even though staff found the actual rate to be closer to five units per five acres?

Councilor Park asked if the buffer addressed Goal 5 or Title 3 requirements.

Ms. Neill said it was a combination: Title 3 currently protects a limited buffer width along rivers and stream reaches, while the ESA listing and Goal 5 work may dictate a wider buffer. Because neither the ESA nor Goal 5 work has yet been completed, staff cannot recommend an exact buffer width.

Councilor Park said he is concerned that mixing Title 3 and Goal 5 buffers would not be legally defensible, and they should be clearly separated. He added that it is paramount to receive formal approval from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) so that Metro’s partners will participate.

Mr. Shaw agreed. He said Metro can legally calculate buffer zones that are regulated by Council action, even if the measures are not yet fully implemented. However, because staff is still studying Goal 5 and the Council has not yet adopted a regulation, it is legally difficult to calculate buffer zones. He said it is crucial that Metro’s counting have a factual basis. He added that there is no legal reason why these lands cannot be designated as low-density, because Metro has a database to demonstrate that these lands are historically built to a low density than allowed under current zoning.

Chair McLain summarized that Councilor Park’s concern was that the report needs to reflect what Metro can legally define as unbuildable, based on Title 3 regulations. She said the committee generally knows what species will be listed under ESA and the conditions needs for fish recovery. She asked the committee to consider what rate of development to assume for environmentally constrained lands, and to consider Mr. Shaw’s suggestion.

Mr. Turpel said the method for calculating the width of the buffer zone, and the rate of development of environmentally constrained lands, dramatically affects the land capacity. He said staff has scientific evidence to support 100-foot and 150-foot setbacks. He said staff is currently working on Goal 5, and fast-tracking the piece on riparian areas, but the wildlife component is still to come. He said the environmental community has argued that if Metro only calculates what is currently regulated under Title 3, it will be very difficult to protect fish and wildlife habitat because the inventory will have to be redone.

Chair McLain said while it is important for the committee to consider the larger picture, legally speaking, Title 3 buffers must remain discrete from Goal 5 buffers.

Councilor Park said his goal is to ensure that Metro’s positions are legally defensible, and it is not legally defensible to extend habitat protection into the water quality area. He said until the Goal 5 work is completed in March 2000, land outside of the Title 3 buffer zone is buildable and should be counted as buildable.

Mr. Turpel asked for clarification. He said he understands if the committee is concerned that legal problems may result due to staff combining a number of different items under the same heading. However, if the committee wishes to set a new policy direction and change the assumptions on the riparian area buffers, staff needs to know that as soon as possible.

Chair McLain asked the committee for its opinion on the 200-foot buffer.

Councilor Bragdon said in his opinion, the worst case scenario would be to count the land in between the Title 3 buffer and the proposed 200-foot buffer as unbuildable, when in reality, it is being built upon right now, at a rate five times above expectations.

Chair McLain agreed and said there are two separate issues to address: first, should the land be counted as buildable, and second, how can the land be protected.

Ms. Neill said it is a complicated issue, and difficult to quantify without case-by-case analysis. For example, a site inside the 100-year flood plain may be buildable depending on the characteristics of that particular lot.

Mr. Turpel added that the figure of five units per five acres may be misleading.

Ms. Neill agreed and said the forecast assumes an even rate of development. In reality, there is a finite number of environmentally constrained lands, and the easiest parcels will be developed first. Therefore, the rate may decrease in the future.

Chair McLain asked the committee whether staff should count anything beyond the Title 3 buffer as unbuildable. She recommended that the committee refer to the original definition of buildable and unbuildable lands. She said the dilemma is balancing the need to protect fish and wildlife habitat, without knowing yet how large a buffer will be sufficient, or if buffers are the correct approach.

Mr. Shaw recommended that the Council request a limited extension on completing the expansion of the UGB until the Goal 5 work can be completed. He said the Council could carve out the buffer area between 50 feet and 200 feet. By parceling out the UGB need in this way, the Council would be able to complete nine-tenths of the need assessment, and then treat the potential buffer land as a separate issue once the factual basis for a decision is in place.

Chair McLain said that while the Council is not on record for requesting an extension, the Council is now composed of different people who have indicated an interest in asking for an extension. Secondly, the committee has indicated a desire to protect the land as much as possible. Finally, the committee needs to thoroughly, but quickly, review the opportunities available to determine how they relate to the current work.

Councilor Bragdon said he was interested in the possibility of segregating just the marginal area and the proportion of the dwelling unit requirement that it represents.

Councilor Park said it would be very difficult for him to move the UGB without first knowing what the buffer regulations would be for Goal 5 and ESA. He said he wants to systematically address the Urban Growth Report, and make sure that it is legally defensible.

4.  PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Due to time, no presentation on performance measures was given.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

The committee agreed to meet on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, at 3:30 P.M. to continue the conversation on the Urban Growth Report, listen to an update on the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC), and consider a resolution to grant an four-month extension of the conditions of the Tsugawa UGB resolution.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:33 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\04209gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1999

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