MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, May 18, 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 1:40 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT

• REVIEW OF MPAC RECOMMENDATIONS
• FINAL DIRECTION TO STAFF

Chair McLain said the committee would meet again on Thursday, May 20, after Council, and could complete any unfinished work on the Urban Growth Report (UGR) then.

Elaine Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services, presented a chart on Urban Growth Report Factors -- Status, and a map of Capture Rates: Housing and Jobs. The chart and map include information presented by Ms. Wilkerson and are included in the meeting record.

Councilor Park thanked Ms. Wilkerson for the chart on the status of Urban Growth Report factors. He asked her to highlight any differences in the recommendations from the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) versus the recommendations from the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC).

Ms. Wilkerson said the recommendations from MTAC and MPAC were almost identical.

Capture Rate

The committee discussed MPAC’s recommendation to conduct a subregional analysis in the future, to determine if capture rates vary on a subregional basis, and to tie it to jobs/housing balance.

Councilor Park asked staff to consider economic drivers in the study, and to identify issues affecting capture rate that are outside of Metro’s control. As an example, he noted that commuters from Vancouver, Washington, may purchase most of their gas in Washington, but predominately use Oregon roads in their commutes.

Councilor Bragdon recommended referring the question to the bistate commission recently created by the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT).

Chair McLain added that it would also be a good topic for MPAC, as three of the members are elected officials from Vancouver, Washington.

Ms. Wilkerson proposed creating a work plan for the subregional analysis. She said the first step is to update the forecasts, and staff has committed to completing the study in a year. Chair McLain agreed.

The committee agreed to continue with the 1997 UGR capture rate assumption of 70 percent residential and 82 percent jobs, with the commitment to further refine capture rate in the future.

Parks

Ms. Wilkerson said MPAC recommended using the most current data for parks, which shows an increase of 1500 acres in park land since the last inventory.

The committee agreed to use the most current parks data.

Chair McLain said in the future, the committee will consider how to determine minimum park service. She added that Metro has been asked by its partners to create a functional plan for parks.

Councilor Park asked if the level of park service is ever calculated as a percentage of land mass.

Ms. Wilkerson said level of park service is commonly expressed as the number of acres of park land per 1000 people, although it can be expressed in the context of actual facilities.

Councilor Park noted that 100,000 people in 100 square miles would need a lower level of park service than 100,000 people in 50 square miles. He asked staff to study levels of park service in regional centers to see what density would be, and what kind of sliding scale should be used for level of park service.

The committee agreed to continue its discussion at a later date.

Schools

Chair McLain said MTAC and MPAC have agreed with the basic assumptions. She asked the committee if it wished to change the assumptions and challenge schools to build differently, or keep the basic assumptions.

Councilor Atherton asked if the future land use ratios for schools are increasing or decreasing.

Ms. Wilkerson said the size of school sites have remained consistent, however, the number of uses for the sites has increased dramatically. She said overall, the direction of school planning is for more efficient use of sites.

Councilor Bragdon said he was concerned that the assumptions in the UGR may not be realized, as demonstrated by the school district currently requesting an expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) to build a school on non-urban reserve land.

Chair McLain said school districts appear willing to be more creative in their use of space, but they are still working out details, such as who pays for the maintenance of multi-use sites.

The committee agreed not to change the basic assumptions.

Places of Worship

The committee agreed not to change the assumption, and not to conclude that there is a surplus.

Streets

Ms. Wilkerson said the streets factor is quite sensitive: the change from 22 percent to 18.5 percent could yield an increase as high as 7000 dwelling units in the UGB. MTAC, therefore, was concerned that the numbers be verified. MTAC members from different jurisdictions volunteered to verify the numbers, and they found a spread: Hillsboro found that its street percentage was slightly higher, Troutdale was almost the same, and Clackamas was a little lower.

Ms. Wilkerson said as a result, staff felt that its detailed research accurately represented what could be expected in the near future. There was some discussion in MTAC and MPAC about whether the connectivity requirement would mean more streets, but the committees decided that the additional number of streets would be offset by skinnier streets in the subdivisions. At MPAC, the question was raised about how the street factor handled arterial and major roads. She said she looked into the question, and the 18.5 percent is applied to all vacant lands, not just platted subdivisions, and therefore it includes an assumption for arterial roads. She said she believes the information can be substantiated.

The committee agreed to use a rate of 18.5 percent for streets.

Ramp-Up

The committee agreed to assume a one-year ramp-up become of time extension that have been granted.

Underbuild

The committee agreed to assume an underbuild rate of 20 percent.

2040 Up-Zone

Ms. Wilkerson said staff’s proposal is to use the current standardized zone categories, with the 2040 up-zoning factor. Because a number of jurisdictions have not quite completed their zoning changes, she said it is important to continue the 2040 adjustment to reflect the level of capacity the region will have attained once it has reached full compliance.

The committee agreed to use current standardized zone categories, with the 2040 up-zoning factor.

Jobs Refill

Chair McLain noted that jobs refill and capture rate are related, and said the committee would further study how and why the factors are connected as it continues its work on the Urban Growth Report.

The committee agreed to use 40 percent for the first run.

Employment Compilation

Councilor Bragdon asked if the school double counting had been addressed. Dennis Yee, Senior Economist, Data Resource Center, said yes.

The committee agreed to proceed with staff suggestions in the first run.

Residential Refill

The committee agreed to maintain a rate of 28.5 percent as an aspirational goal.

A memo from Ms. Wilkerson to Chair McLain, dated May 18, 1999, regarding residential refill is included in the meeting record.

Environmentally Constrained Lands

Mark Turpel, Long-Range Planning, Growth Management Services, distributed a memo to Ms. Wilkerson, dated May 14, 1999, regarding Environmentally Constrained Lands -- Urban Growth Report 1999. The memo includes information presented by Mr. Turpel and is included in the meeting record. In addition, Mr. Turpel distributed a letter from Mike Houck, Audubon Society of Portland, concerning the memo. A copy of Mr. Houck’s letter is included in the meeting record.

Ms. Wilkerson clarified that Mr. Houck’s letter is in response to a draft version of Mr. Turpel’s memo, which was produced earlier in the week. She said the final version of Mr. Turpel’s memo, and the final recommendation, have been changing from the draft version.

Chair McLain said MPAC indicated it was interested in more work on environmentally constrained lands.

Ms. Wilkerson said staff is waiting for response from six individuals who are reviewing Mr. Turpel’s memo. In addition, MTAC will review it further on Thursday. For the purposes of the first run of numbers, she said directions from the Growth Management Committee would be sufficient, and could be adjusted later if necessary.

Chair McLain said MPAC recommended using Title 3 assumptions for the first run of numbers.

Ms. Wilkerson said all the advisory committees support using Title 3 as the base case. She said staff is still struggling to determine the development potential of environmentally constrained lands.

Councilor Bragdon said he could not give direction on environmentally constrained lands, having just received Mr. Turpel’s five-page memo, and the seven-page response from Mr. Houck.

Chair McLain clarified that the committee did not need to make a decision until May 20 or May 26.

Ms. Wilkerson apologized for the late memo. She asked for committee direction on whether to use Title 3 is the base case, so staff could begin running numbers. She said the issue of constrained lands and its capacity could be decided on May 20 or May 26.

Chair McLain said the committee’s initial direction to staff was to assume Title 3 setbacks for the first run of numbers, because legally, the committee can only count what is regulated at this point.

Councilor Park asked for clarification of the table on page four of Mr. Turpel’s memo.

Mr. Turpel said MTAC recommended that staff look at the actual zoning of constrained lands to account for density transfers and for areas zoned higher than one dwelling unit per five acres.

Councilor Park asked if Metro could legally assume a development rate of 8.5 dwelling units per five acres, if the land is currently zoned at 28.4 dwelling units. He asked what Metro’s position would be legally in terms of takings issues and down-zoning property.

Ms. Wilkerson said the areas that have historically been developed at a rate of 8.5 dwelling units are zoned at much higher rates, but have not performed at those levels because of natural constraints. She said assuming historical rates of development for the Urban Growth Report does not prevent someone from developing property at higher, or lower, densities; 8.5 is simply a reasonable assumption of what will probably happen. She added that assuming the historical rate does not protect land from development; the land would have to be protected with separate regulations. She said one advantage of the combination of assuming Title 3 and higher densities is that it puts off decisions about UGB amendments until the regulatory changes occur, because the approach assumes a higher level of capacity than was assumed in the past. She stressed that MTAC and MPAC both recommended that the Council not wait five years to review the environmentally constrained lands factor.

Chair McLain added that the idea at MPAC was to put a placeholder in the Urban Growth Report for those environmentally constrained areas not protected under Title 3, with the understanding that it will be revisited in two to three years. During that time, staff will have completed its work plan on Goal 5, and its effect on capacity will be known. She said Mr. Turpel’s intent in the memo was to balance what is protected under Title 3 with an historical perspective.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the zoning potential reflects current zoning, or if it includes Title 3 regulations, which will be implemented by December 1999.

Mr. Turpel said staff took the current zoning and applied it out. He said local jurisdictions are obligated to implement Title 3 by December 1999, which could potentially reduce that rate. Presumably, therefore, the historical development rate for Title 3 areas would drop.

Councilor Bragdon asked if current zoning also incorporates zoning overlays, such as the City of Portland’s environmental zone (e-zone) overlays.

Mr. Turpel said overlays are reflected in the zoning potential.

Councilor Bragdon asked if he was correct that while densities of 28.4 are allowed, as a practical matter, such densities are difficult to achieve and therefore not likely to occur.

Mr. Turpel said yes. As an example, density transfers are allowed in Oregon City, but the setback requirements were not relaxed, so it is still difficult to get all of the density transferred.

Councilor Park said he was concerned that using the historical numbers sends a strong message to property owners that they need to develop now, or they will lose the opportunity. He said he is a strong land use proponent, but by trying to zone people into densities that are lower than historical, Metro will undermine support for land use policy. He said Metro needs to be more creative in compensating property owners, such as through tax incentives, tax credits, and compensation for a loss of ability to develop property.

Chair McLain said Mr. Turpel’s memo starts to recognize those rights by noting the actual zoning versus the actual physical or jurisdictional ability to build up to the maximum zoning potential.

Councilor Atherton asked how the Urban Growth Report addresses the siting of places of worship outside the UGB, which serve people inside the UGB.

Chair McLain said the committee discussed this in detail at a previous meeting, and staff is researching it further. She offered to give Councilor Atherton a copy of the memo which summarized the information staff had gathered to date. A copy of the memo from Ms. Wilkerson to Chair McLain regarding follow-up on the schools and places of worship factors in included in the April 20, 1999, meeting record.

Chair McLain said MPAC will look at environmentally constrained lands at a future meeting. She said on May 20, the Growth Management Committee would have an opportunity to continue its discussion on environmentally constrained lands and consider the peer review of the Urban Growth Report. She said on May 26, the committee will consider the Urban Growth Report and will hold a public hearing on Urban Reserve (UR) 55. She noted that letters have been sent to all of the people who own exclusive farm use (EFU) land in UR 55.

3.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:10 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\05189gmm.doc

NOTE:  The minutes were revised at the June 8, 1999, Growth Management Committee meeting. The correction appears on page 2.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 18, 1999

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