"Table 1 of Title 1" – five words that can spike the blood pressure of most planners in the Portland region.
The chart is the basis of many zoning decisions in any given city, and is a reason disgruntled residents often blame Metro for denser developments in the suburbs.
Table 1 of Title 1
Under the current system, which MPAC recommend replacing, Table 1 of Title 1 lists the housing unit capacity of cities in the Portland region. It was last updated in 2002. A sampling:
- Beaverton - 13,635
- Fairview - 2,929
- Gresham - 20,020
- Hillsboro - 16,106
- King City - 461
- Lake Oswego - 4,049
- Oregon City - 9,750
- Portland - 72,136
- Rivergrove - 20
- Tualatin - 4,054
- Wilsonville - 4,425
- Regional total - 246,053
Yet, in a twist, a Metro proposal to dump the table got a lukewarm reception from city planners and representatives, who in a sense seem to prefer the known to the unknown.
Title 1 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is aimed at ensuring every city picks up its fair share of residential growth under the Portland region's unique land use planning system. It basically says cities and counties can't have less than a specified amount of land available for new housing development, and its zoning plans must be feasible given market conditions.
Here's an example. Say there's a city on the edge of the urban growth boundary with a capacity of 5,000 homes, with 501 developable acres. That city couldn't come back and say it was going to put 500 one-acre estates on most of the land, and a 4,500-unit, one-acre development on the remaining acre. The city might, however, get away with 100 one-acre estates, and 400 acres of 13 units-per-acre development. (A 5,000-square-foot lot, typical of many single-family neighborhoods in Portland, adds up to nine units per acre.)
There's a catch, though – once a city and Metro agree on its zoned capacity, the city can't lower its number. If a city agrees to increase its capacity, there's no going back.
But the table could be scrapped if the Metro Council supports a recommendation from the Metro Policy Advisory Committee, which voted 10-1 on Nov. 10 to support an overhaul of Title 1.
Instead, the region and cities would take a “no-net loss” approach to zoning changes. Gone would be costly number-crunching and “banking” of density in certain areas; instead, cities would just have to show Metro that a proposed down-zone could be mitigated in another neighborhood.
Under the proposal agreed to by the committee, small downzonings, referred to by Metro planner John Williams as “decimal dust,” would be exempt from Metro review.
If a city doesn’t adhere to Metro’s planning guidelines, the agency could recommend the state reject the city’s zoning proposals. Williams said negotiations among Metro and municipal planning staffs usually heads off that level of contention.
The biggest questions about Title 1 came from Gresham government affairs director Ron Papsdorf, representing his city at the committee’s Nov. 12 meeting. He came with a letter from Gresham Mayor Shane Bemis detailing his city’s concerns with Title 1.
Papsdorf later explained that Gresham has excess capacity built into its plans, allowing for downzinings in certain areas. But under the no net loss approach, Papsdorf said that capacity could become the new minimum for the city, wiping out their capacity bank.
There were others around the MPAC table who had ideas on changes to the proposed solution.
“Why couldn’t our demonstration of no-net loss be tied to that five year update cycle instead of the other intermediate requirements of no net loss along the way?” said Wilsonville Mayor Tim Knapp. “Wouldn’t that be much less demanding of staff time and resources the city has to apply to make this work?”
A few days after the committee meeting, Metro planning attorney Dick Benner explained the potential trouble with that approach. Benner said if downzonings were re-analyzed every five years, when Metro does its periodic review of the capacity within the urban growth boundary, the numbers would be artificially low – forcing Metro to look at a boundary expansion.
Two changes were made to the initial proposal from Metro's staff in the wake of MPAC's recommendations. A provision was kept that allows jurisdictions to "trade" density with other cities – it was already in Title 1 but had not been used, and Metro proposed scrapping it. And cities won't have to find offsetting zoning if "the loss of zoned capacity is negligible," Benner said.
Overall, the agency's planning law guru felt like the proposal would be a benefit to both the agency and skeptical city governments and planners.
“Nobody explained to them they’re going to like this,” he said.