MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Wednesday, May 12, 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 1:35 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 4, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 99-803, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING CHAPTER 3.09 OF THE METRO CODE RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, presented Ordinance No. 99-803. A staff report to the ordinance includes information presented by Mr. Cooper and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain said she participated in the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) Boundary subcommittee and felt the committee did a good job. She added that the subcommittee and MPAC both voted unanimously to support the ordinance. She said Ordinance No. 99-803 keeps the process inclusive of citizens and their concerns.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing. No one appeared to speak with regard to Ordinance No. 99-803. Chair McLain closed the public hearing.

Councilor McLain will carry Ordinance No. 99-803 to the full Metro Council.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2780, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE WATER RESOURCES POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS TO DELETE AND ADD A VOTING POSITION AND ADD NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES

Chair McLain presented Resolutions Nos. 99-2780 and 99-2781, as chair of the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC). Staff reports to the resolutions include information presented by Chair McLain and are included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon will carry Resolution No. 99-2780 to the full Metro Council.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2781, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING MICHAEL WEINBERG AND ELIZABETH CALLISON TO THE WATER RESOURCES POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Councilor Park said it was inappropriate to place Councilor Bragdon in a position of voting on the nomination of Elizabeth Callison, as Ms. Callison ran against Councilor Bragdon in the prior election. He said consideration of Resolution No. 99-2781 in the Growth Management Committee also placed Chair McLain in a difficult position, as she also chairs WRPAC. He concluded that it would be appropriate to refer the resolution to the Metro Operations Committee.

Councilor Bragdon said he did not feel he was in an awkward position, and he did not fear criticism on his vote. He said he would not support Councilor Park’s second motion to amend, but would support the main motion as amended.

Chair McLain agreed, and added that she would support Resolution No. 99-2781, as it followed the proper process.

Councilor Park closed by saying that while Councilors should expect criticism on the policy decisions they make, they should be criticized for the personal part, hence the ability to declare a conflict of interest. He urged the committee to move Resolution No. 99-2781 to the Metro Operations Committee or another Council committee.

Councilor McLain will carry Resolution No. 99-2781A to the full Metro Council.

Councilor McLain clarified that the new resolution would be identical to Resolution No. 99-2781A, except that it would nominate Mr. Weinberg to WRPAC.

Councilor Park will carry the new resolution to the full Metro Council.

Mr. Cooper asked if the committee wished to retain the alternates to the WRPAC positions in the new resolution and Resolution No. 99-2781A. Chair McLain said yes.

5.  REVIEW OF METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MPAC) RECOMMENDATIONS ON URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB) CODE AMENDMENTS

Chair McLain opened a public hearing.

Olive Kuhl, 445 South Rosemont Road, West Linn, read from written testimony, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain said MPAC would vote on the proposed urban growth boundary (UGB) code amendments on
May 26, and the committee did not need to act on the proposal at this time. She said the committee would decide the appropriate time frame for carrying the motion to the full Metro Council.

Mr. Cooper reviewed a memo he wrote to Chair McLain, dated May 12, 1999, regarding policy considerations discussed at MPAC 5599 Metro Code Amendments. The memo includes information presented by Mr. Cooper and is included in the meeting record.

Chair McLain said two questions for the Council to address are, how would Title 11 requirements be enforced if a local government did not take timely action to adopt a specific plan, and how would Metro ask another jurisdiction to do something it did not want to do.

Mr. Copper said over the next two weeks, he plans to circulate the document for technical review.

Chair McLain said the committee would not act on this item until June, after MPAC makes its recommendations, and legal counsel completes its peer review.

Councilor Park asked whether Metro’s moving of the UGB, and then requiring jurisdictions to complete master planning before annexation, was not contrary to the prior Council’s discussion about master planning before any boundary changes.

Mr. Cooper said yes, this was a recognition that the Council may be moving the UGB before master plans are finished. He said last year, the Council faced a legislative mandate to move the UGB based on need determination, but with one exception, there were no master plans completed which had local jurisdictional support. He said the code amendments would state that plans would have to be in place before any urbanization could occur. He said while plans could be prepared ahead of time, they would not be adopted until after annexations or UGB amendments have occurred. He said it would be a policy decision for the Council to make.

Chair McLain said the original intent was for master planning to occur before any movement of the UGB in order to ensure that the area was planned. She said the original approach did not work because Metro’s only authority lay in Title 11 of the Functional Plan. She said the purpose of the proposed code amendments was to find a practical way to carry out the original goal.

Councilor Park asked if Metro has the authority to require a jurisdiction to master plan an area that Metro adds to the UGB.

Mr. Cooper said yes, the Functional Plan gives Metro the authority to require local governments to amend their comprehensive plans.

Councilor Park asked if Metro can force a city to annex land.

Mr. Cooper said the authority to require an annexation would be problematic, but he would not say the Council could never do it. He added that there is no state law requiring urban areas to be annexed into cities.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the term “master planning” is a generic term, without regard to whether the plan is privately or publicly funded. In the case of privately funded master planning, what part of the Code requires public involvement?

Mr. Cooper said the proposed code amendments were premised that if there is private funding for master plans, it would be in conjunction with government involvement, not on a stand-alone basis. He said the Council will not approve plans at the time it amends the UGB, so if there is not local government involvement or commitment, the Council may still move the UGB regardless of whether there is a privately-prepared plan. He added, however, the plans must be adopted by local governments to have any land-use meaning, and local governments are required by Goal 1 to go through a citizen involvement process. By emphasizing that the end result has to be a comprehensive plan amendment done by a local government, public involvement is guaranteed.

Councilor Bragdon concluded that citizen involvement was by extension of state law, rather than by the Metro Code. He asked whether he was correct in saying that, from the perspective of a citizen who wants fire, water, and planning services, there is not a mechanism to give citizens a say in urban services agreements.

Mr. Cooper said the document in front of the committee does not address Title 11 compliance enforcement issues. He said in the future, the Council will consider how to ensure that a local government carries out its requirement to adopt such a plan.

Councilor Bragdon asked if incorporation is an option for people in the situation described by Ms. Kuhl.

Mr. Cooper said yes, and added that Oregon Representative Kurt Schrader introduced a bill this session that would provide for a modification of the “three-mile veto rule,” that allows any city within three miles of a proposed new city to object and block the creation of the new city. He said the process is complicated, but the bill, if approved, would provide a clearer mechanism.

Councilor Atherton asked if there is anything in state law that could require a city to serve an area at the city’s expense.

Mr. Cooper said generally no, although if there is a sewer failure in an area, the State Health Division may have the power to order a health-hazard annexation.

Councilor Atherton commented he was concerned about the direction of the committee’s discussion. He said at MPAC, he heard that urban reserve concept plans are quite different from comprehensive plans for the cities.

Mr. Cooper explained that the requirement for the urban reserve plan is for a concept plan that would be adopted into the local comprehensive plan as the guidepost for future detailed comprehensive plan amendments and zoning changes. Therefore, the level of detail that goes into the concept plan is conceptual, but it is to be done as a portion of the local comprehensive plan that would then be the guidepost for future detailed amendments.

Councilor Atherton said the local comprehensive plan would have to be consistent with the concept plan, and the whole purpose of the concept planning was to try to get a handle on cumulative impacts so that the regional government could evaluate whether limits were being exceeded.

Mr. Cooper added that the Metro criteria and Council conditions for a specific plan would be at the conceptual level; local governments would still be responsible for the details.

Councilor Atherton asked if the concept plan has to be consistent with other frameworks adopted by the regional government, such as the Regional Transportation Plan. Mr. Cooper said yes.

Mr. Cooper added that if Senate Bill (SB) 1031 becomes law, the Metro Council will need to consider further amendments to the boundary change code and to the UGB amendment provisions.

6.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT - FURTHER DISCUSSION

• EMPLOYMENT COMPILATION

Chair McLain announced committee meetings on Tuesday, May 18, from 1:30 to 3:29 P.M., and Thursday, May 19, at 4:00 P.M., or after Council adjourns.

Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, presented a memo to Chair McLain, dated May 7, 1999, addressing Urban Growth Report (UGR) - Employment Issues: 1) Double Counting of School Employment Demand, 2) Home Occupation/Jobs, 3) Non-residential Re-fill Rate, 4) Mixed-Use Double Counting, and 5) Zonal Employment Land Demand Analysis model (ZELDA) Density assumptions. The memo includes information presented by Mr. Yee and is included in the meeting record.

The committee directed Mr. Yee to adjust the government job demand projection by fifty percent to account for the education component of state and local government employment to correct the school land need double count.

The committee directed Mr. Yee to adjust the demand forecast to reflect home occupation, based on current information.

Mr. Yee clarified for Councilor Park that adjusting the demand forecast would not result in a reduction in residential capacity.

Mr. Yee reviewed the issues surrounding the non-residential refill rate. He asked for committee direction on whether to use a 40 percent or a 43 percent non-residential refill rate.

Elaine Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services, added that in recent years, the region has experienced substantial economic growth. In its calculations, staff has assumed that many of the new jobs have occurred in existing buildings, a pattern which cannot continue indefinitely. Ms. Wilkerson said that while it is probably not reasonable to expect continued high growth over the next twenty years, other factors such as redevelopment may offset the non-residential refill rate. She said staff can document a 40-percent rate, but it may be more difficult to support a 43-percent rate.

Councilor Bragdon asked if refill rate would be lower in times of economic prosperity.

Ms. Wilkerson said in her experience, while the number of people employed fluctuates depending on the economy, the jobs capacity, or buildings, remains relatively constant. She said staff has assumed that in great economic times, companies start hiring and placing more people in the same buildings.

Mr. Yee reviewed the document, ZELDA Projection, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

The committee tentatively supported a 40-percent non-residential refill rate.

The committee directed staff to use the mixed use utilization rates in table 3 of Mr. Yee’s memo.

Mr. Yee noted a revised copy of the 1999 Employment Density Study: Technical report. A copy of the revised edition is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park asked Ms. Wilkerson to add a resource utilization component to ZELDA at a future date. He said it would be useful to compare how the region would look and function depending on its industrial base.

Mr. Yee said he and Sonny Condor, Senior Regional Planner, Data Resource Center, have been discussing the second part of ZELDA, which would be able to account for the variations that determine future densities based on economic concerns.

Mr. Yee directed the committee to page seven of his memo on UGR - Employment Assumptions, and asked for comments or direction on Table 5, Floor-to-Area Ratios (FARs) by 2040 design type - ZELDA Baseline Assumptions.

Chair McLain said she would like more time to review the information and to discuss it with MPAC.

Ms. Wilkerson suggested running the numbers with the baseline assumptions, and then reviewing the questions on June 1, to see if the numbers convey what the committee anticipates.

Chair McLain agreed, and added that this area is where the committee can start looking at what it can support and prove as status quo, and what it assumes will be opportunities, based on future compliance plans.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the FARs for Regional Centers in Table 5 meet the original expectation.

Ms. Wilkerson said in order to reach FARs above 0.50, there must be structured parking, which current market conditions do not yet support. She said most of the jurisdictions are submitting compliance plans that require a minimum density of 0.50 for regional centers, with the hope of moving to higher densities over time.

Councilor Park said he recently spoke with a developer who said they consider parking lots available for development.

Councilor Bragdon added that the developer spoke highly of Mr. Yee and Metro’s work.

Ms. Wilkerson clarified that Mr. Yee would run the model using the assumptions in the right-hand column of page 2 of his May 7, 1999, memo.

7.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:17 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\05129gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 12, 1999

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