Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 09/10/1990
Revised 9/5/90 CITY OF TIGARD '1t'1 ►1 1 Y COUNCIL AGENDA OREGON I USII' ESS MIT 7ING 10, lggp ! PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to TIGARD CIVIC 'CENZER speak on an agenda Item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet Is available, ask to be recognized by the HAt»L BLVD Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda yyy~~~ TIGAI Dt O@EGON 97223 Items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. 5:30 p.m. • STUDY SESSION (5:30 p.m.) 7:30 p.m. ` 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 p.m. 2. - VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 p.m. 3. 6ONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Payment of Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation Quarterly Contribution 3.2 Approve Payment of League of Oregon Cities 1990-91 Annual Dues 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid for Greenburg Road Electrical/Telephone Undergrounding Project to John Arnold Company and Authorize City Administrator to Sign b. Authorize City Administrator to Enter into Agreement with Metro for Parcel-Level Database for Use with City's Geographic Information System r/ o -&0 3.4 Approve Contract Guaranteeing Costs of Improvement COUNCIL. AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 1 7:50 P.M. 4. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION - C.._ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-0006 PRESIDENTS PARKWAY A public hearing to change the current Plan designation from Commercial Professional back to Low and Medium Density Residential and to change the Tigard Comprehensive Plan text (policies 11.8.1 to 11.8.5) to delete the criteria and conditions that were to have applied specifically to the proposed Presidents Parkway Urban Renewal District. • Public Hearing Opened - Mayor Edwards - President Moen • Declarations or Challenges • Summation by Community Development Staff • Public Testimony a. NPO/CPO b. Public Testimony c. Cross Examination by Council and Planning Commission • Recomendation by Community Development Staff • Planning Commission Questions/Comments • Planning Commission Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 90-Le 9:30 P.M. 5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: PALMER ACRE STREET VACATION • Public Hearing Continued from 6/25/90 Recommendation by Community Development Staff to Continue Hearing to November 19, 1990 9:35 P.M. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10:00 P. M. 7. ADJOURNMENT cca910 COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 2. r COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.1 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, and Joe Kasten. Planning Commission Present: President Donald Moen; Commissioners Vlasta Barber, Harold Boone, James Castile, Judy Fessler, and Milton Fyre. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ron Bunch, Senior Planner; Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Rela,ions Coordinator; Tim Ramis, City Attorney; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. 2. STUDY SESSION: Presentation by Metropolitan Service District (METRO) Representatives Urban Growth Boundary; Regional Goals and Objectives METRO Representatives Present: Richard Devlin, Councilor; Richard Carson, Director of Planning and Development; Ethan Seltzer, Land Use Coordinator; and Mark Turpel, Local Government Coordinator. Ethan Seltzer reviewed purpose of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) which is the regional boundary line designed to manage the transition between urban and rural land. Ten years ago the Legislature decided METRO would manage the Urban Growth Boundary on behalf of 24 cities and 3 counties. Major accomplishments expected by the UGB were outlined as: 1. Preservation of prime farm and forest land. 2. Focus development inward for efficient use of land. The UGB has not changed much in last ten years. Mr. Seltzer advised total area of the UGB is 223,000 acres and only 2,500 acres have been added (about a 1 percent change). METRO is now performing a periodic review of the UGB. A lot of development is occurring outside the UGB. METRO is CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 1 concerned about future expansion of the UGB and protection of farm lands. Mr. Seltzer noted trends elsewhere in the country - towards decentralization of jobs and housing. He advised that 70 percent of automobile trips in Washington County are within Washington County; only 20 percent moves regularly to the "City." The trend suggests that with development of "Class All office space in suburban locations, the nature of relationships among cities within the boundary is beginning to change. Mr. Seltzer reviewed the process for the periodic review of the UGB Goals and Objectives. He advised METRO staff looked at growth for other metropolitan areas along the west coast to identify emerging issues. METRO does not do comprehensive land use planning; this function is reserved for cities and counties. The management of the Urban Growth Boundary is an element of the comprehensive land use planning. r; Mr. Seltzer referred to the success of the January 1990. Regional Growth Conference sponsored by METRO. The theme of the Conference was "Planning for a Livable Future: Growth Strategies for the 21st Century." (See packet material for a ! transcript of the proceedings of the Conference.) r In February 1990, METRO's policy committee began developing a list of Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives. Work has just begun on delineation of roles for cities, counties, and METRO for regional growth issues. METRO has just entered into a three-month public review process; this meeting with Tigard represented the first general meeting. METRO planners hope to meet with every City Council and Planning Commission in the region. They will also hold public workshops in all three counties in order to present the document outlining goals/objectives to citizens, Chambers of Commerce, etc. Also planned are meetings with developers, home builders, conservation groups (1000 Friends of Oregon, STOP, Portland Audubon Society), farm groups and others. Mark Turpel then reviewed the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives. (This document has been filed with the meeting material). Mr. Seltzer concluded the presentation by noting METRO would like to contact the City for continued discussion on the goals/objectives as outlined. A list of discussion questions was distributed. (A copy of the list has been filed with the meeting material). General discussion followed concerning growth issues and how the region has developed over the last few years. i t it CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 2 r. r Workshop Discussion - Planning Commission/City Council Role Issues Community Development Director noted the purpose of the workshop was to discuss role issues concerning the City Council and Planning Commission. For example, should the Planning Commission, City Council, or both become involved with responding to the METRO outline of their goals and objectives on the Urban Growth Boundary? Community Development Director outlined some ideas concerning the future role of the Planning Commission. He divided the role issues into two groups: 1. Development Review Issues: • Subdivisions with variances • Sign Code exceptions • Planned developments 2. Long-Range Planning and Policy Formulation: • Bull Mountain Development issues l Tigard Triangle planning • Metzger area planning • Development Code amendments • Periodic review issues Staff suggested there were items which, perhaps, should not go to Planning Commission but instead, would go to the Hearings officer for review. These items would be fairly straightforward as outlined in the Code allowing limited discretion and exercise of judgment. The Development Review Issues (No. 1 above) were identified as issues which were proposed to be heard before the Hearings Officer. Discussion followed. President Moen noted he would prefer that planned development review remain before the Planning Commission. There were no objections expressed to the Development Review issues being heard by the Hearings Officer in order to allow time for Long-Range Planning and Policy Formulation issues. Planning commission process with regard to meetings was discussed. Following are some elements of the discussion: l CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 3 { • Change of Meeting Day: Mayor advised Council was thinking of changing their regular meeting night from Monday to Tuesday after the first of next year. There was brief discussion on this, with no strong objection to the change expressed. • Length of meetings. Mayor urged commission to not conduct meetings past 10:30 p.m. He suggested that if it looked as if the meeting was going to go beyond the 10:30 time, then to set over remaining business to the next evening. There was discussion on this issue. Planning Commission members noted late-night meetings were the exception. • Hearing process. Mayor noted suggestions for conducting hearings which included: limiting length of testimony; holding a pre-meeting study session to discuss agenda items; following a clear agenda format, relying on staff for technical/professional information; and requesting the presence of City legal counsel. Planning Commissioners noted their desire to hold fair hearings which sometimes translated into lengthy hearings. It was also suggested it was possible that a Planning Commission hearing may take longer since it may serve as a rehearsal or opportunity for those who testify to "vent" prior to the Council hearing. • Transcription of hearings. There was discussion on tape transcriptions with Council noting transcripts were often difficult to interpret. Discussion followed on the need to make sure sound equipment was working properly. • Political Pressure. Councilor Johnson noted decisions must be made under guidelines prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed. Commissioner Fessler noted the importance of preserving neighborhood qualities. President Moen advised the Commission was well aware of developer's rights. He noted the Code was not written to cover every circumstance and said he believed, overall, the process works. Consensus of the Council and Planning Commission was that more discussion on issues would be beneficial during a longer workshop session. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 4 5 's Agenda Review Consent Agenda: • Item 3.4 was deleted from the Consent Agenda per the recommendation of the City Attorney. • Item 3.3b. requested authorization for the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with METRO for parcel-level database for use with the City's Geographic Information System. Paragraph No. 5 in the agreement would be deleted. • Item 3.3a. requested a bid award on the Greenburg Road project. Staff has received a request to save an oak tree scheduled for removal. City Administrator reported that the tree was a safety hazard and it would be costly to amend plans (i.e., change signals) to save the tree at this point. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: a. Gary Smith, 11040 S.W. Greenburg Road, Tigard Oregon 97223 presented a petition of "Concerned Citizens of Greenburg Road Area." The petition involved a large oak tree near S.W. North Dakota and Greenburg Road which they called the "Empress of Greenburg Road." The tree was slated for removal to make way for improvements to Greenburg Road; the citizens requested that efforts be made to save the tree. (The petition has been filed with the meeting material.) Mayor thanked Mr. Smith for the petition and advised him that Council was aware of the situation. The Council will review all aspects of the situation; i.e, costs of changes in road design. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve the Consent Agenda with removal of Agenda Item .4: .1 Approve Payment of Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation Quarterly Contribution .2 Approve Payment of League of Oregon Cities 1990-91 Annual Dues .3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid for Greenburg Road Electrical/Telephone Undergrounding Project to John Arnold Company and Authorize City Administrator to Sign b. Authorize City Administrator to Enter into Agreement with Metro for Parcel-Level Database for Use with City's Geographic Information System - Resolution No. 90-60. [.4 Approve Contract Guaranteeing Costs of Improvement Removed from Council consideration.] CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 5 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 5. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-0006 PRESIDENTS PARKWAY A public hearing to change the current Plan designation from Commercial Professional back to Low and Medium Density Residential and to change the Tigard Comprehensive Plan text (policies 11.8.1 to 11.8.5) to delete the criteria and conditions that were to have applied specifically to the proposed Presidents Parkway Urban Renewal District. a. Public hearing was opened by Planning Commissioner Moen who also called the Planning Commission meeting to order. (Planning Commission attendance is noted above.) b. President Moen read a statement which advised that meetings of the Tigard Planning Commission are governed by provisions of Title 2 of the Tigard Municipal Code and ORS Chapter 227. Under those statutes, certain standards are established for the conduct of public meetings. President Moen reviewed the public hearing format. c. Staff Report. Senior Planner Bunch reviewed the issues before the Council and Commission. (See staff report which has been filed with the Council meeting material.) Senior Planner summarized the citizen involvement and notification process. He outlined the satisfaction of the appropriate Statewide Planning Goals and City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies and City procedures. President Moen reported the Planning Commission recommended the reversal of the decision on the land use designation of the Presidents Parkway area. Planning Commission also recommended initiation of a planning effort to develop an area plan. Senior Planner Bunch noted this latter recommendation would require long-range planning due to staff workload constraints. Commissioner Fessler asked about Plan Policies concerning Sensitive Lands/Wetlands. Senior Planner Bunch responded that the Comprehensive Plan update on these issues have not been finally approved. Current Plan language would govern. (Council will soon be considering amendments to wetland sections in the Comprehensive Plan.) Commissioner Barber noted on page 2, paragraph 3, of the Staff Report the language noting passage of a resolution by the Planning Commission on August 13 was incorrect. The resolution was passed by the City Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 6 8 d. Public Testimony • Linda Tozer, 8770 S.W. Thorn, Tigard, Oregon advised she strongly supports the Comprehensive Plan amendment which would change the area back to residential zoning. She asked when the change could be completed. Community Development Director responded that the change would be complete once the Ordinance was adopted by council. • Troy Vanderhoof, 10181 S.W. Jefferson, Tigard, Oregon read a letter into the record. (Letter was submitted and is on file with the Council meeting material.) Mr. Vanderhoof urged expeditious action changing the comprehensive map and text designations from commercial/Professional back to the original Residential designations. Mr. Vanderhoof referred to development occurring in the area which was contrary to his understanding of how the process was to work. Mayor explained that development on Lincoln Street was not within the area of urban renewal. The reason for the joint Council/Planning Commission meeting was to speed up the legal process for this issue. Mr. Vanderhoof expressed his concerns with regard to the number of meetings which have been held since the vote to turn down the tax increment financing request. • Gary Ott, 9055 S.W. Edgewood, Tigard, Oregon supported the Comprehensive Plan change as presented. He said the original Plan change process did not address the LCDC goals or the Tigard Code regarding environmental impacts. He advised that it was a dangerous concept to assume that the highest and best use of residential land was to change it to commercial. He urged the City to incorporate the Metzger Area Plan into the planning efforts for this area. He requested an Open Space designation for Ash Creek and wetlands in the area. At request of President Moen, Senior Planner Liden confirmed that portions of the Ash Creek area could become greenway-designated area. If the land was commercial, it could be developed to a certain extent. The Community Development Code allows for development within the 100-year flood plain for land zoned commercial or industrial; however, it does not allow for complete development within the flood plain. Wetland areas would be identified and development must occur in such a way that it would not increase flooding hazards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 7 • Cliff Epler, 8845 S.W. Spruce, Tigard, Oregon signed in on the testimony sheet; however, he declined to testify. • Vivian Davis, 10875 S.W. 89th, Tigard, Oregon, noted her support of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She cited transportation problems as the basis for her support and she noted problems personally experienced with attempts to develop in the area. • Gene Davis, 10875 S.W. 89th, Tigard, Oregon, signed in on the testimony sheet but was unavailable to testify. • Louise Beck, 8820 S.W. Thorn, Tigard, Oregon, advised she supported the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She said there was no room for commercial growth in her neighborhood. • Ken Beck, 8820 S.W. Thorn, Tigard, Oregon Mr. Beck's name appeared on the testimony sheet; however, he declined to testify. • William J. Moore, representative of CPO 3 (Raleigh Hills/Garden Home area), 8440 S.W. Godwin Gourt, Garden Home, OR 97223 read a letter into the record. (The letter is on file with the meeting material.) The CPO strongly recommended that the City Council change the comprehensive plan map designations in the Metzger School area from Commercial Professional to Medium and Low Density Residential. Further, the CPO urged the Council to adopt the text of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan relating to this area as comprehensive Plan policies accompanying these plan designations. • Terry Moore, 8440 S.W. Godwin Court, Tigard, Oregon, encouraged the Council and Commission to support the reversal of the decision to amend the Comprehensive Plan text changing the designation of this land area to Commercial Professional. She requested a planning effort be initiated to develop an area plan which would use the Metzger-Progress Plan as the basis to evaluate future land use and development opportunities. She said it was her understanding of the July 24 Planning Commission action, that they intended the Metzger Community Plan be recommended to be incorporated in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; otherwise, there would be a void since there was no text addressing this area. She requested the Metzger Community Plan be added to the staff's recommendation. Mrs. Moore said planning for the area should not be put on hold indefinitely. She referred to "urban villages" CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 8 and cited from written articles concerning such developments. This would provide an area to live, work, and play without relying on automobiles. She noted the new business and development occurring in the area which will bring more traffic. She said it was an erroneous thought that the residential land is being held for future commercial use. This was not the goal of the Oregon land use plan. She said 99W divided the City in half which would even become more evident if the State Highway Department builds the highway out to six lanes. She suggested the City take this opportunity and build on Hall Boulevard a pedestrian/bicycle,low density neighborhood-commercial link between this area down to the Civic Center area and Main Street. She advised and outlined some elements of a plan for the Metzger/Ashbrook area which could be put together within the next couple of years. • Tom Ashlock, 9200 S.W. Oak Street, Tigard, Oregon distributed a map outlining property owned by three people (map is on file with Council meeting material). He requested this land be exempted from any change in the Comprehensive Plan. This way, they would be in a position where to seek and obtain funds to perform the studies necessary to determine what can be done this property. The Metzger Plan says there should be a plan in the area for a mix of residential and commercial. The property owners are considering a development which would include a residential project on the land, but it would not fit under the current Residential guidelines the development would require a higher density. Funds are available from the State to encourage the type of project they would propose. • John Blomgren, 9460 S.W. Oak Street, Tigard, Oregon advised he was testifying as a member of CPO 4 which would like to see this area go back to the Metzger Plan. Mr. Blomgren noted many residents in the area met about a year ago and at that time they did not want commercial development in this area. Mr. Blomgren reviewed his concerns over traffic speed and added that the transportation system for the whole area must be addressed. He reiterated his support for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. i t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 9 t • Kerrie Standlee, 10285 S.W. 70th, Tigard, Oregon, said he would like to support the proposal as presented; however, he was testifying in opposition because of timeliness. Originally, the Comprehensive Plan change was made by the Council and supported by the Planning Commission as a legislative decision. According to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.30.030, the Commission should hear this matter on a certain time schedule. One of the original complaints was not hearing this item as specified in the code. He requested that the hearing be extended until the October City Council meeting; he would then be in support of the request. City Attorney advised he has discussed this issue with Mr. Standlee. Mr. Standlee's argument was that the Council and the Planning commission were limited in the times of the year during which they could consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Council, when they originally considered the process, decided that the Council retained the power to waive those time limitations and they did so waive. Upon that basis, the Council proceeded originally and the process continues upon the same theory. The ordinance originally adopted established and called for the process as was now being followed. Based on these two considerations, the city Attorney said it was justifiable to proceed. City Attorney said he had advised Mr. Standlee that if the Land Use Board of Appeals disagreed with this position, the process would be started over again. At this point, the City Attorney advised that he thought the Council's original interpretation was correct and supportable. • Community Development Director advised of two letters received as written testimony which were distributed to the Council and Planning Commission: 1. Columbia Group - Sierra Club, which was signed by David Mazza (dated August 27, 1990). This letter supported the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Club urged the City to carry out the appropriate analysis, not only in terms of local needs and proposals, but also in relation to regional structures and plans, before taking action on Comprehensive Plan modifications for this area or elsewhere in Tigard. 2. Fringe-Land Oregon, Ltd. - represented by Terry C. Hauck of the law firm Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt (dated September 10, 1990). The letter expressed support for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 10 t e. Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Community Development Director summarized the proposal and staff recommendation. Text and map canges were reviewed. He suggested a section be added to the ordinance which calls for immediate passage (emergency clause) to provide immediate effectiveness of the Ordinance if approved by the Council. Wording would be as follows: "Section 3. The Council declares an emergency and directs that this ordinance shall be effective upon its execution by the Mayor." The staff did not recommend adding the Metzger Plan goals and objectives at this time; nor did staff recommend a requirement to initiate a Comprehensive Planning process for the area. Staff does not agree with Mr. Ashlock that this would be the appropriate time to keep the area he specified as Commercial Professional land. As a proposal, staff may agree with Mr. Ashlock, but this was not the appropriate time to consider this suggestion. Commissioner Fyre asked why staff did not want to see the C Planning commission recommendation to initiate the planning effort in this area. Also, would there be an ongoing effort to adopt the Metzger Community Plan to the Comprehensive Plan at some point in the future? Community Development Director advised the future planning process should not be in this ordinance because the scope of such a study was unknown; i.e., who should pay for it, who should do it, etc. Many issues should be thoroughly discussed. The Presidents Parkway development required studies; however, a source of revenue to pay for the studies was also identified. Such a directive would not be appropriate in this ordinance which was a legislative directive. In response to commissioner Fessler, Community Development Director advised wetlands and sensitive lands for the Metzger area would be addressed under the same procedures as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for all such areas within the City boundaries. President Moen, noted that when this area was brought into the city of Tigard, similar land designations as assigned when in Washington County were used. He asked if there were any specific items which the Metzger Plan might address for this area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 11 F Community Development Director advised there has been no special planning effort for this area since annexation. Goals and policies of the City overall would apply. f. Public hearing was closed. g. Commission Comments: • Commissioner Fyre said it was important that, at some point in time, the Metzger Community Plan and Text be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. If it was not appropriate to add the language into this ordinance which would specifically direct initiation of the planning effort, then he suggested wording which would say, "consider... initiation of a planning effort." He advised he would be in favor of the ordinance with the addition of consideration of initiation of a planning effort for the area. • Commissioner Fessler advised she was in agreement with the ordinance. The Planning Commission needs written, up-to-date guidelines in order to address sensitive and wetland areas for pending development. She said she would also like to see the appropriate text of the Metzger Plan be included in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. • Commissioner Boone said he was in favor of the proposal as was previously reviewed by the Planning commission. • Commissioner Barber advised her decision did not change from her stance on July 24: Planning should be started for the area using the Metzger-Progress Plan as a basis to evaluate future land use. She said she was in favor of the ordinance with the addition of the emergency clause. • Commissioner Castile said a plan for the area should be developed to study the traffic flow and drainage f loin. If no study was completed, the area would develop in a piecemeal fashion. While he did not necessarily support the Metzger Plan, he advised the Plan could be used as a basis for examining the area to devise a new plan. He advised he was in favor of the ordinance. • President Moen advised he was in favor of the proposal. He noted the city undertook an obligation to the community to go forward on Presidents Parkway plan if approved by the voters. Since the voters turned down the plan, it became the obligation of the City to rescind the comprehensive Planning designation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 12 President Moen agreed that it was the intent of the July 24 Planning commission decision to recommend the City initiate a planning effort to develop an area plan using the Metzger Progress Plan as the basis to develop a new plan. h. Commission recommendation: • Motion by Commissioner Fyre, seconded by commissioner Castile, to forward the ordinance to the City Council with the recommendation for approval as written. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Commission present. • Motion by Commissioner Barber, seconded by Commissioner Fessler, to recommend to the City Council that planning be started for this area, which would have been the Presidents Parkway, using the Metzger-Progress Plan as a basis to evaluate and develop a plan for future land use and policies. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Commission present. i. Consideration by Council: f • Councilor Kasten noted he supported the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with inclusion of the emergency clause. He noted review of testimony received tonight, testimony from past meetings, and comments from residents in the City the support was nearly unanimous to return zoning to the pre-Presidents Parkway zoning. Other issues such as wetlands, rezoning portions of the area, or whether or not to include the text of the Metzger-Progress Plan should be considered separately. • Councilor Johnson noted her agreement with Councilor Kasten's comments. She referred to Mr. Ashlock's request for a portion of the area to remain as Commercial Professional. While she empathized with Mr. Ashlock's position, she advised she did not think it was appropriate to consider this property separately at this time. She advised she supported the ordinance as submitted to Council. • Councilor Eadon received clarification that the fifth "Whereas" statement on page 1 of the ordinance was simply restating the Planning Commission recommendation and was not part of the enacting section of the ordinance. Councilor Kasten also clarified that his support was for addition of a section which would direct that the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 13 Ordinance would be effective upon execution by the Mayor. She advised she could not support the recommendation to initiate a planning effort in the area. She does support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed. • Mayor Edwards noted his agreement with statements made by the other Council members. He said it was appropriate to rezone this area back to the conditions prior to the Presidents Parkway as had been indicated to the public by the vote. He referred to Mr. Ashlock's request and concurred with Councilor Johnson's statement that it would not be appropriate at this time to review these parcels separately. • Mayor Edwards called for a reading of the Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 90-26 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (ATTACHED) TO APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFMWMBNTS TO CHANGE THAT PORTION OF THE PRESIDENTS PARKWAY URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT WHICH WAS DESIGNATED COM[ERCIAL PROFESSIONAL BACK TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO DELETE THE RELATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES (POLICIES 11.8.1 TO 11.8.5) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (CPA - 90-0006). Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to adopt Ordinance No. 90-26. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. • Mayor advised Council would consider the second part of the Planning commission recommendation that the Metzger Community Plan be used as a basis to develop a plan for the area in the incorporated portion of the City of Tigard. • Councilor Johnson advised that such a recommendation would entail considerable financial and staff involvement. She said she was not prepared to prioritize this area plan at this time. A proposal would need in- depth discussion in order to be prioritized with other work projects currently being funded and staffed. • Councilor Kasten concurred with Councilor Johnson's comments. He said it would be more appropriate for this subject to come to the Council on its own initiative. • Councilor Eadon advised she had no additional comments. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 14 ' .i f i • Mayor commented he concurred with Councilor Johnson's remarks as well. He said he read the Metzger Progress Plan and noted when it was written, the Washington Square/Lincoln complex area was not in the City limits. While many items in the plan had merit, there were also many elements in the plan which did not fall in place with the City of Tigard at this particular time. Hearing no consensus, Mayor advised this issue would be held in abeyance until further notice. 5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: PALMER ACRE STREET VACATION • Public Hearing Continued from 6/25/90 a. Mayor advised the public hearing would be continued to November 19, 1990. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 8:51 p.m.under the provisions of ORS r 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. i r 7. ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City Re order ATTES i vGe al R. Edwards, Mayor Date: CCm910 I R CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 15 1 RlrC TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 NoticeTT 7685 SAP 05 1990 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 CnYiFTNM Legal Notice Advertising -v P City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice PO Box 23397 • Tigard, Or 97224 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit O AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' .6dz f Judith Koehl er 30J being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti oard dimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ' % "'mom and 193.020; published at T l na rd in the tsr aforesaid county and state; that the 311 site Devel ooment Revi ewf SDR 90-0019 ztn . a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 30, 1990 Subscribed and sw to before me this 30th day of August 1990 Notary Public for Oregon My Comm! iori ExpiresV AFFIDAVIT PUBLIC HEARING following will be considered by the Tigard City Council and Planning Commission oR at 7:30 PJd., at Tigard Civic Cciater, Tovin Hall Room; 13125 SV ,fal ;Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Further in- formation may be obtained from the Community Development Director or City Recorder at Ute same location or by calling 639-4171. You are invited to submit written testimony in advance of the public hearing; written and oral testimony will be considered at the hearing The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the applicable Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council fa and available at City Hall. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-0006 PRESIDENT'S PARKWAY A PUBLIC HEARiIVG TO CHANGE THE CURRENT PLAN DESIGNATION from Commercial Professional back to Low Density Residential for the area illustrated by Map "A" and to change the Tigard Comprehensive Plan text (policies 11.8.1 to 11.8.5) to delete the criteria and conditions that were to have applied specifically to the President's Parkway Urban Renewal District illustrated by Map "B". ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5~u-n}iWac{re). i>r11 L11_L1 F t- v~amr C .M Map "116° Boundary for the area that was redesignated from Residential to Commercial/Professional. No scale MMwYaa+ fO.M~ MMI $ `...C'~ ,LAOYiY ~ 1 n Il--_~ 5 Map "B" - Boundary for the Conceptual Development plan area. M685 - Publish August 30, 1990. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed SPATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I, A-M begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose say: That I posted the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) - which were adopted at the council Meeting dated 0 copy(s) of said oElinance(s) be' here atta ed and by reference made a part hereof, on the -3- 1-1 of 1990. 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. US National' Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. ( State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon t E • ~ f 5 Subscribed and sworn to before me this date of _ Notary Public for Oregon ,r a My Coimnission Expires: ' P 'i fi >~l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON,, ORDINANCE NO. 90 - QL AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (ATTACHED) TO APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THAT PORTION OF THE PRESIDENT'S PARKWAY URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT WHICH WAS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL BACK TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO DELETE THE RELATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES (POLICIES 11.8.1 TO 11.8.5) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (CPA - 90-0006). WHEREAS, on May 15, 1990 Tigard's citizens voted not to allow the use of tax increment funds to support the implementation of the President's Parkway Urban Renewal District. WHEREAS, on June 11, the Tigard City Council repealed the President's Parkway Urban Renewal Plan and on August 2, 1990, filed an Affidavit of Extinguishment with Washington county to nullify said plan. WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan policy 11.8.5 directs that, "If for any reason the President's Parkway Development Plan is not adopted or approved, within 90 days of such a decision, the Tigard City Council shall hold a public hearing in order to re-evaluate the policies noted above and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment." WHEREAS, several public meetings were held to solicit public input from Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO's) and Citizen Planning Organizations (GPO's) in regards to khis issue, and at these meetings public comment favored changing the Comprehensive Plan of the subject area back to what it was previous to the development of the urban renewal plan and repealing the associated text amendments. WHEREAS, on July 24, 1990 the Tigard Planning Commission following a public hearing were unanimous in a motion, "To recommend to the City Council to: (1) reverse the decision that amended the Comprehensive Plan and text which initiated the President's Parkway proposal, and (2) initiate a planning effort to develop an area plan using the Metzger-Progress Plan as the basis to evaluate future land use and development opportunities in the area." WHEREAS, on August 13, 1990 the Tigard City Council passed Resolution 90 - 51 to initiate the Plan amendments following a public hearing to receive the Planning Commission's recommendation, hear additional public testimony, and to re-evaluate the relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies and Plan map amendment. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council and Planning Commission held a joint public hearing on September 10, 1990 to review Planning Commission recommendations as well as receive public testimony. ORDINANCE NO. 90 - Page 1 .L NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments are consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the attached facts, findings, and conclusions noted in Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: The Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to change the current Plan designation from Commercial-Professional back to Low and Medium Density Residential for the area illustrated by Map "A" and to change the Comprehensive Plan Text (Policies 11.8.1 to 11.8.5) noted in Exhibit "B" to delete the criteria and conditions that were to have applied specifically to a portion of the proposed President's Parkway Urban Renewal District as illustrated by Map "B." *SECTION 3: The Council declares an emergency and directs that this ordinance shall be /e~ff/e~ctive upon its execution by the Mayor. PASSED By Ui ( Ct r) / M U u.S vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this /U!~ft day of September, 1990. Catherine Wheatley,-Bepaty City Re order APPROVED: This day of September,0. P -13 e ald R Edwards, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: L__ A ~ 1 City ttor ey Date *Added by Council motion on September 10, 1990. Ca t7lg -L Z /V- ORDINANCE NO. 90 - CP Page 2 EXHIBIT A AGENDA ITEM IL STAFF REPORT TO A JOINT MEETING OF THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 7:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 90-0006 REQUEST: 1) Plan Map Amendment from Commercial Professional (approximately 78 acres ) to Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential (approximately 10 acres). 2) Delete Comprehensive Plan Policies 11.8.1 to 11.8.5 which were to have applied specifically to the proposed President's Parkway Urban Renewal District. The plan text outlined a process for development and approval of a master plan -for the proposed President's Parkway Urban Renewal area, future rezoning, and provision of necessary public facilities. APPLICANT: City of Tigard. LOCATION: See attached Maps A and B. 2. See attached Maps A and B regarding the area proposed for redeeignation and Exhibit B for the Comprehensive Plan Policies which are to be deleted. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are intended to be a final step in process which was prompted by Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.8.5 relating to the proposed President's Parkway Urban Renewal Area. The policy states: "af for any reason the President's Parkway Develop®ent Plan is not adapted or approved, within 90 days of such a decisian, the Tigard City Council shall hold a public heating in order to stir-evaluate the ]policies noted above (enclosed as attachment A) and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment." In May, 1990 the tax increment method of funding the President's Parkway Urban Renewal Plan was rejected by Tigard voters.. Tigard City Council subsequently directed staff to meet with the various NPO's and CPO's to Staff Report CPA - 90-0006 1 determine the future of the failed tax increment financing district. A public hearing was subsequently held before the Planning commission in this regards. The general consensus of the neighborhood planning organizations and the citizen participation organizations was to change the Plan for the area back to what it was previous to the President's Parkway proposal. In addition the Planning commission was unanimous in a motion, "To recommend to the City Council to: (1) reverse the decision that amended the comprehensive Plan Map and text which initiated the President's Parkway proposal, and (2) initiate a planning effort to develop an area plan using the Metzger-Progress Plan as the basis to evaluate future land use and development opportunities in the area." There were some individuals who testified that some commercial and professional uses were appropriate for the area, and they desired the City to evaluate the need and feasibility for these uses. &►un f~ L The I 3-on g-Commis ton on August 13, 1990 passed Resolution 90 - 51 to initiate the Plan amendments as described above. Substantial testimony was heard at this hearing supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation. 3. Aaencv and NPO Comments Other than extensive comment received from the above groups within the last several months there were no additional agency and/CPO or NPO comments. S. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicable Statewide Planning Goal criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, do not apply. It is concluded that the proposal is consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: Goal 1: (Citizen Involvement) The City of Tigard ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the review of land use and development applications though referral of applications to neighborhood organizations for comment, through the review of certain types of land use and development actions through public hearing procedures= and through following prescribed notification requirements for public hearings and notices of decisions. Notices of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map and text amendments was provided to the neighborhood planning organization, published in the Tigard Times and mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the properties subject to the map amendment. Staff Report CPA - 90-0006 2 The City Council and Planning Commission will receive either written or oral testimony at a Public Hearing to be held September 10, 1990. c Goal 2:(Land Use -Planning) This goal is satisfied through City procedures which call for the City to apply all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Community Development Code Requirements to the proposal being presented. Goal 5: (oxen Space and Natural Resources) This goal is satisfied because any future development in the area will be accomplished in accordance with City, state, and federal regulations which are intended to protect existing wetlands, significant vegetation, streams and watersheds, and other natural features in the area. Goal 7s (Natural Hazards) This goal is addressed because any development proposals affecting the 100 year floodplain, floodways, and wetlands of the area will be reviewed according to the City of Tigard's sensitive lands ordinance and by appropriate state and federal agencies. Goal 10: (Housing) Housing opportunities will be maintained by amending the Plan from Commercial - Professional back to Low and Medium Density Residential. The applicable City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Criteria in this case are: 1.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1 It is concluded that the proposal is consistent with applicable City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies based upon the following findings: Plan Policy 1.1:1 As indicated previously the change is consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. Through an extensive Citizen involvement process regarding the proposed actions the Plan is being kept current with the needs of the Community. Plan Policies 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.4.1, and 3.4.2 These policies will be addressed through review of any future development proposals for the subject area that may have impacts on the designated floodplain and floodway of Ash Creek and associated wetlands. Any future development proposals affecting these resources will be evaluated by the City of Tigard's Sensitive Lands review process. Furthermore, proposals affecting wetlands will be reviewed by the appropriate state and federal agencies. Plan Policy 6.1.1 Redesignation of the area back to Low and Medium Density will maintain an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types. However, the redesignation of the subject area to residential will not affect the City of Tigard's compliance with Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7- the Metropolitan Housing Rule's housing opportunity requirements for single family multi-family and medium residential density for developable residential properties. The City's housing opportunity index currently provides an opportunity for 10.22 dwelling units per Staff Report CPA - 90-0006 3 buildable acre on 1,295 vacant buildable acres. C. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Comprehensive Plan Map be amended to change the current Plan designation from Commercial-Professional back to Low and Medium Density Residential for the area illustrated by Map "A" and to change the Comprehensive Plan Text (Policies 11.8.1 to 11.8.5) noted in Exhibit "B" to delete the criteria and conditions that were to have applied specifically to a portion of the proposed President's Parkway Urban Renewal District as illustrated by Map "S." Prepared by: Ron Bunch, Senior Planner rb/orprex.pw Staff Report CPA - 90-0006 4 • wAiN11~g1 4 Fj~~j~j f Sqnm rat t 1 tACLOST ST t I C } i • A; as ar M IUM Map "A7 Boundary for the area that was redesignated from Residential to Commercial/Professional. No scale e~a.aUyk+n : rat 4 + r- 4 IAQIST ~t ST \ i C m ir" - arc s Map B FI,9M - Boundary for the conceptual Development plan area. (Cosprohmwive Plan Polioiee 21.8.1 - 11.8.5 apply to thin f ~t area) No scale EXHIBIT B C PLAN POLICIES THAT APPLY TO PRESIDENT'S PARKWAY POLICIES 11.8.1 A COMPREHENSIVE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED FOR THE AREA SHOWN AS MAP TWO. THIS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED AND ADOPTED AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 18.80 OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (CDC). 11.8.2 WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ALL APPLICATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - (18.120, CDC), CONDITIONAL USE (18.130, CDC) AND LAND DIVISION (18.160- 162, CDC) SHALL BE FOUND TO CONFORM TO THE APPROVED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (18.80.110, CDC). APPROVAL OF A DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EACH PHASE IDENTIFIED IN THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 18.80 OF THE CDC AND OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED. IN ADDITION, THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE A MORE DETAILED ASSESSMENT OR UPDATE OF AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT AS NECESSARY FOR ANY ITEM OUTLINED IN POLICY 11.8.5. IN ORDER TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS POLICY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS REFERRED TO IN THIS SUBSECTION,- ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOUND TO BE NEEDED BY THE CITY DURING THE PREPARATION AND SUBSEQUENT UPDATE OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (11.8.5) MUST EXIST PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT WITH APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. 11.8•.3 APPLICATIONS WHICH ARE MINOR IN NATURE RELATED TO THE ON-GOING MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND WHICH WILL NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE DIRECTOR, JEOPARDIZE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROVED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAY BE EXEMPT FROM POLICY 11.8.3. 11.8.4 THE CONTENTS OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL INCLUDE THE ITEMS LISTED IN 18.80.110 OF THE CDC. IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL STUDIES AND OTHER NECESSARY ITEMS SHALL BE ACCEPTED OR ADOPTED AS APPROPRIATE AS A PART OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: THE TYPE, AMOUNT AND LOCATION OF VARIOUS USES. THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SHALL BE . IDENTIFIED FOR THE AREA AS A WHOLE, AND FOR VARIOUS PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT. B. PHASING PLAN: THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM BY PHASE ALONG WITH THE NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES, UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, BOTH ON AND OFF-SITE, WHICH ARE NEEDED FOR EACH PHASE. THE PHASING PLAN SHALL ALSO INDICATE MEASURES PROPOSED TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND ON-GOING IMPACTS TO AREAS NOT BEING REDEVELOPED, AND TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. C. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ON AND OFF-SITE TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS RESULTING FROM AND RELATED TO EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE ASSESSMENT SHALL IDENTIFY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, INCLUDING = TRANSIT, TO REDUCE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE DEVELOPMENT AREA. D. PUBLIC FACILITY AND UTILITY ASSESSMENT: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ON AND OFF-SITE WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY REQUIREMENTS RESULTING FROM AND RELATED TO EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. E. FLOOD CONTROL AND FLOOD PREVENTION ASSESSMENT: AN t ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR THE WETLAND PONDS AND LAKE PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S PARKWAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD ADDRESS THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES. THIS ASSESSMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE ANY PHASE WHI4PH MAY PHYSICALLY IMPACT THE WETLAND LAKE AND POND, OR WOULD REQUIRE THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN ORDER TO HANDLE STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS. F. METZGER SCHOOL RELOCATION: A PLAN FOR THE RELOCATION OF METZGER SCHOOL WILL BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT METZGER SCHOOL WILL NOT BE MOVED, AND WILL REMAIN IN ITS PRESENT LOCATION, THEN THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL MARE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS FOR THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF THE SCHOOL IN THIlp AREA. G. IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING ASSESSMENT: SHOWING TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC FACILITY AND OTHER PROJECTS REQUIRED BY PHASE, COSTS, FUNDING SOURCE AND FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY. H. DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. SHOWING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING HEIGHT, BULK, ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER AND OTHER FEATURES, AND STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS STREETS, STREETSCAPE, LANDSCAPING, SIGNAGE, ETC. GUIDELINES SHALL ALSO INCLUDE METHODS TO ADEQUATELY BUFFER ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. 11.8.5' IF FOR ANY' REASON THE PRESIDENT'S' PARKWAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS NOT ADOPTED OR APPROVED, WITHIN 90 DAYS OF SUCH A DECISION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SHALL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN ORDER TO RE-EVALUATE THE POLICIES NOTED ABOVE, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. r r c .ti i ~H; AGENDA ITEM N 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 9/10/90. (Limited 'to1 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City z Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. i i f N ME 6 ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED r r r B U-40-9 / ~~o gv G1z e r Cr/~.ecn,~G,Q ~ ~~fZ-e ` - 1/7Z Z -z F 's r r w x i i c V15 -~,--rs Q ,J ~ September L, 1990 ~'/~I Dl~t CU TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FROM: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF GREENBURG ROAD AREA RE: LARGE OAK TREE NEAR S.W. NORTH DAKOTA AND GRRENBURG ROAD When we voted for the levy to improve streets and roadways in Tigard, we were never told that this included the destruction of our beloved old OaA 't'ree whom we call the "Empress of Greenburb Road". It provides oxygen for those of us who live close to her. The "Empress gives us visual beauty, is home for wild life, is esthetic in nature and must have a wonderful history. She snould oe declared a LANDMARK!!. How old is she?-- we do not know but we want her to stay with us for many long years to come so that we all can enjoy the many things she offers us. Randy Wooly (sp?) has been very kind about returnins pnone calls concerning the tree. Two blocks away from Greenburg Road - on S.W. Tiedeman, an old beautiful fir tree has been saved by designing the sidewalx to curve around it. Please join us in the effort to save this lovely old tree: We thank you for your time and help in this most crucial concern. v~ _ t. r. C 7 ) ('ter r c) N ~f~ 0, i Ids z u.~ , c L ^r c_~ CIO (,NCt' : t'.. ~ l`pl I o~y rti r~.v~. 461 (-T t ) i Sa J F :I ZC. f r,t,~.a- r i\ `1 51.~-:zCw. A-t./~.~ 1/i:• i t: ~ Y . Lam'-.^ ri ! ~ sr ~`s~ccr i.~n c~ to I I S; J tfizr S4- ,.,7 Yei44zb 9T-?-z- 3 DATE 9/10/90 /and Planning Commission I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS. OO L AGEMA NO. 4 - PUBLIC EENRING - COMPREHMIVE PLAN..AMENWE1T CPA `PRWID1WM PARKWAY Name, Address and Affiliation is Add ~s~d.ALf~ati /N17A S~-p zE2 h /~'~E QItJIU 7 C7 i W 7)V v 4,FV ti o i g 5w JEF~tt - . r NPo L _E ~BYSStrS u i ~ d'75 ca GY. NcfiPrest~•~~G ((61A, ~ T n-v_ - CPO3 Ci- . (t2 tic 1. ~//L2 j r-- 1 -rev s 145 C, MZ A /V Orr' a t-tv SW f1 ( > -j f . 3 r °r i r, 6 Planning a Livable Future Growth Strategies for the t 21st Century 1. imago Proceedings of the 1990 Regional Growth Conference 9 Sponsored by the Metropolitan Service District, Portland General Electric and the League of Women Voters (Columbia River Region Interleague Organization) .moo. i t . ~ E i Urban Growth Management Urban Growth Management Conference Staff ` Plan Policy Advisory Plan Technical Advisory Committee Members Committee Members Metro Planning and Development Jim Gardner, Metro Council, chair Richard Carson, director, Planning and Richard Carson, director Development Dcparment, Metro, chair pat Lee E✓ ' Bonnie Hays, chair, Washington County Ethan Seltzer Commission representing Washington Lorna Stickel, planning director, Mark Turpel County Multnomah County Darlene Badrick l i Bev Nason Gladys McCoy, chair, Multnomah County Norm Scott, Planning Department. i Commission representing Multnomah Clackamas County Data Resource Center ! County Dick Bolen, director Brent Curtis, planning director, plan Hoisted Darlene Hooley, chair, Clackamas Washington County Dave Drescher County Commission representing Doug Anderson Clackamas County Bob Stacey, acting planning director, Bob Knight city of Portland Earl Blumenauer, Commissioner, Public Affairs city of Portland representing the city Leslie Hauer, planning director, Marilyn Matteson of Portland city of 7tioutdale Cathy Thomas Larry Cole, mayor, city of Beaverton, Sandra Korbelik, Planning Department, Janice Larson representing Washington County cities city of Lake Oswego Teri Sherman Gussie McRobert, mayor, city of Denyse McGrilT, planning director, Portland General Electric i Greshar,t representing Multnomah city of Oregon City David Fredrikson County cities Jon Allred, Planning Department, Kathy Carlson Craig Allen, councilor, city of West Linn city of Forest Grove Teresa Vrvilo representing Clackamas County cities Becky Gunderson Wink Bra;ks, planning director,' Lawrence Bauer, Metro councilor city of Hillsboro representing the Metro Council Jim Sitzman, regional representative, _ Tom DeJardin, Metro councilor Oregon Department of Land Conservation representing the Metro Council and Development Richard Devlin, Metro councilor Terry Wilson, Grubb, tnd Ellis representing the Metro council Arnold Cogan, Co__( an Sharpe Cogan Mike Nelson, president, Ben/Fran Development representing land Mary Dorman, Dorman White Company development interests Cathy Clark, Clackamas County CPO's Charlie Hales, Home Builders Association - of Metropolitan Portkurd representing land John Miller, Multnomah County CPO's development interests Pat Kltewcr, Washington County CPO's Henry Richmond, executive director, 1000 Friends of Oregon representing land Burton Weast, executive director. Special conservation interests Districts Associations of Oregon L: Edmund Duyck, Oregon State Farm Mary Weber, project manager, Tualatin Bureau representing land conseruation Valley Economic Development Corpora- L' interests tion. Inc. i_ Don McClave, president, Portland Paul Ketcham, senfor plaruter, 1000 Chamber of Commerce representing Friends of Oregon Fv. business interests Andy Cotugno, director, Transportation Linda Peters, representing citizen Department, Metro interests C. 1990 REGIONAL GROWTH CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS CONTENTS: i L C INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 r L. CONFERENCE SCHEDULE 6 3 L C REGIONAL GROWTH ISSUES FRAMEWORK 7 s GROWTH FORECAST 12 TRANSCRIPTS OF REMARKS r C RENA CUSMA 18 L KAY STEPP 21 JOHN DeGROVE 23 ARNOLD COGAN 40 PANEL: MIKE RAGSDALE 50 HENRY RICHMOND 59 EARL BLUMENAUER 65 L NEAL PEIRCE 70 L WORKSHOP REPORT 85 EVALUATIONS 109 L C L L C L L L s P.: C` C 1 t. I I i i A V i Alt C INTRODUCTION C.. C L Metro's urban growth management (UGM) planning effort was initiated in response to both a lack of policy for guiding management of the region's urban growth boundary (UGB) and to development patterns and trends in the metropolitan area. The t_ primary goal for this process is to develop a set of urban growth goals and objectives that will serve as the policy base for managing the urban growth boundary, and which will identify priorities for Metro's ongoing regional planning program. PHASE 1: The Work Program t The planning process was initiated early in 1989 with the formation of Policy and Technical Advisory Committees. The committees developed and adopted a work program for the project with four distinct phases (see figure 1). The first phase involved collecting information about urban growth issues both in this region and from other regions throughout the United States. This information led to the development of a Regional Growth Issues Framework, a*"soup to nuts" compendium of issues that are i associated with urban growth. i Not all of the issues in the framework will necessarily be directly addressed by Metro. Metro's regional planning program will focus on issues of metropolitan significance, and will not duplicate city, county, or state efforts. However, all these issues need to be discussed in the context of any urban growth c., management effort, and are included at this point regardless of which jurisdiction ultimately takes responsibility for them. PHASE 2: Public Participation The second phase, of which the scoping workshops were a part, involved the public review of the issues framework. Metro sponsored 16 workshops throughout the metropolitan area to review and revise the issues based on present perceptions of the state of the region's growth. Some 200 individuals participated in the workshops, each of which lasted about 2 - 3 hours. Attendance ranged from a low of 4 to a high of 30, with an average attendance of about 14. Over 1200 letters were sent to organizations and individuals notifying them of the times and purposes for the meetings. The results of these workshops have been published as the "Urban Growth Management Plan - Issues Scoping Workshops Report," dated February, 1990, and available from Metro. Following the workshop sessions, the Growth Issues Framework was revised. The revised framework was used to structure the first, and hopefully annual, Regional Growth Conference held 2 i t i January 10, 1990, at the Red Lion - Lloyd Center in Portland. The theme for the conference was "Planning a Livable Future: Growth Strategies for the 21st Century." These proceedings document that event. The conference was organized with three major objectives in mind: 1) To mark a point in time where the region took stock of its growth opportunities and concerns, and began the process of setting some policy objectives and choosing management strategies; 2) To both broaden appreciation for and raise the visibility of growth management issues, both regional and national; and 3) To engage conference attendees in the development of the growth management plan by making some portion of the event participatory in nature. The conference was envisioned as the capstone on the second phase of the project, as well as the beginning of a more formal planning effort. As with work last done at a regional scale in this area in 1966, the conference was to mark a watershed of concern, on the way to creating the second generation of development of the region's UGB. Portland General Electric and the Columbia River Region Interleague Organization of the League of Women Voters cosponsored the event with Metro. Planning for the conference began in August, 1989, with early January, 1990, as the target for the event. The cost for registration was held as low as possible to encourage participation. The conference registration fee of $25 covered about half of the total direct cash cost of the event, the rest coming from Portland General Electric and Metro. Portland General Electric printed 7500 copies of the conference brochure. Over 6200 were mailed directly to a wide range of groups and individuals. Attention was paid to assuring good coverage of neighborhood associations and citizen planning organizations, real estate and economic development groups, and elected officials and public sector planners. The remaining brochures were distributed at the issue scoping workshops, in late November and early December, 1989, and at meetings prior to the conference date. Conference registration was limited due to the size of the facility and the logistics of the workshop session, described below. A total of 443 formally registered for the event, with numerous others turned away due to lack of space. The depth and 3 intensity of interest surpassed the expectations of all those involved in the Urban Growth Management Plan process and the organization of the conference. t. The conference concluded the process of issue identification and began the identification of strategies to address the issues. It accomplished these tasks through an agenda broken into two main sections. The first section, constituting the morning ( session and luncheon speaker, set the stage by outlining the f- issues of urban growth and change from national, regional, and _ local perspectives. Each conference attendee received a "fact book" that summarized growth trends in the region and presented the Regional Growth Issues Framework. The Regional Growth Issues Framework provided structure for ( the speakers, among whom were private, public, and nonprofit sector representatives. An attempt was made to put the growth issues of this region into a familiar context provided by recent ( events in the Puget Sound region and Southern California. Transcripts of remarks made by the speakers are included below. The afternoon was organized differently. Especially in light of the third objective for the conference, the entire t_ second half of the event was structured as a workshop which took place in small groups of no more than ten. Thirty round tables were set up, and each table was provided with a facilitator who had been trained in advance. in essence, the morning session provided attendees with common concepts and data, and the afternoon session gave them a chance to work directly with that r material. Results of that session are reported in a later section of this document. PHASE 3: Goals and Objectives Phase three of the Urban Growth Management Plan project will be the drafting, by the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees, of an initial set of regional urban growth goals and objectives. Q This activity will occur during the winter and spring of 1990. Phase four will be the public review, revision, and Metro Council adoption of the regional urban growth goals and objectives. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This conference would not have occurred without the dedicated efforts of a large group. Portland General Electric t provided critical financial support. David Fredrikson was the key contact within PGE. In addition, PGE contributed the time and considerable skills of Kathy Carlson, a veteran conference C_ planner. The PGE print shop produced the brochure, the conference fact book, and the proceedings. On the day of the event, PGE staff assisted with registration and managed the ` taping of all presentations. 4 Conference planning was coordinated by Metro's Planning and Development Department, as part of its ongoing Urban Growth Management Plan effort. Richard Carson, Ethan Seltzer, Pat Lee, Mark Turpel, and Darlene Badrick contributed to the development and execution of the event. The Urban Growth Management Plan Policy and Technical Advisory Committees assisted with the development of the conference format and theme. Metro's Data Resource Center, especially Dick Bolen, Alan Holsted, Doug Anderson, and Bob Knight, contributed the background material used in the conference fact book. Metro's Public Affairs Department provided key creative and logistical support. Marilyn Matteson developed the press and publicity strategy, and linked Metro to PGE and the Red Lion. Janice Larson did all of the graphic design and prepared all materials for printing. Cathy Thomas produced the slides used in the slide show. The Columbia River Region Interleague Organization of the League of Women Voters assisted with publicity for the conference u and furnished 10 of the 30 facilitators needed for the afternoon workshop. The remaining facilitators were drawn from among Metro Staff and members of the Urban Growth Management Plan Policy and Technical Advisory Committees. Arnold Cogan, Cogan Sharpe Cogan, in addition to presenting the slide show, assisted with its development. Metro is extremely appreciative of the time and effort extended by all of the speakers. All speakers were videotaped by a crew from ` Tualatin Valley Cable Access led by Mark Dodge. - Finally, Metro would like to recognize the time and enthusiasm of the attendees, without whom there would not have been a conference. y 5 C C. c Conference schedule C. C. 8:00 - 8:30 Registration and coffee 8:30 - 8:45 Welcome to the Future Rena Cusma, executive officer L.. Metropolitan Service District and . Kay Stepp, PGE president 8:45 - 9:30 Keynote: Framing the Issues in 1990 John DeGrove, director Florida Atlantic UniversitylFlorida International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems Urban growth challenges, opportunities and responses in the late 20th century ( 9:30 - 10:00 A Portrait of the Region Arnold Cogan, Cogan Sharpe Cogan i Discussion and slide presentation of crucial growth management issues and challenges for the region 10:00 - 10:15 Break and coffee 10:15 - 11:50 Panel discussion: Strategies for Livability t Ed Whelan, PGE, panel moderator i,. Mike Ragsdale, vice president, Grubb & Ellis L Henry Richmond, director, 1000 Friends of Oregon ( Earl Blumenauer, Portland city commissioner Each panelist will present a view of the t region's growth management issues, recommended L strategic actions and predicted results in 2010. Noon - 1:20 Lunch and speaker: C A Tale of Two Regions Neal R. Peirce, columnist, author, TV commentator Problems of growth in the Puget Sound area and the ways in which these issues are being faced in the Portland metropolitan region today. 1:30 - 4:00 Workshop: Strategic Planning for Livability Jim Gardner, Metro councilor, moderator Small group discussion of positive and negative perceptions of the region, future growth conflicts and planning strategies leading to a new urban vision. C C 4 to 6 p.m. Reception sponsored by Metro Council C C l" 6 C t. ` REGIONAL GROWTH ISSUES FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION The issues of regional urban growth are fast gaining attention throughout the United States. In metropolitan regions throughout the country there is great concern about being able to accommodate new growth while maintaining the quality-of-life and character of communities. t The issues listed in this section are the product of Metro's investigation into the broad issues of urban growth and change both in this region and in other urban regions. Although Oregon's planning system gives local government tools that are not available in other places, the issues are the same, varying primarily in degree of severity. ( Following the initial drafting of this framework, and its ( review by the Urban Growth Management Plan Policy and Technical Advisory Committees, these issues were reviewed at 16 public workshops throughout the region in late November and early December. Three separate meetings were held in each of r Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties for citizens, government and special district staff, and elected and appointed officials. In addition, meetings were held with agricultural and farm interests, development interests, conservation and environmental L organizations, corridor development groups, regional, state, and federal agencies, and the City Club's Land Use and Transportation t Committee to further clarify and define the issues for this L region. Following these meetings, the Growth Issues Framework was redrafted into the form before you today. A report on the outcome of the workshops is available on request. This issues framework represents the broad range of issues ( accompanying growing urban regions. Metro is raising these issues because they are part of regional urban growth, not because they are necessarily intended to be the object of Metro's ongoing attention. Ultimately, Metro's planning program will focus on issues of truly regional concern, and will not duplicate c or replicate the roles played by the state or local governments. c t In a sense, this list represents a checklist of the concerns likely to be evident as the region grows. The purpose of this l conference, particularly the afternoon workshop session, is to identify and focus on the issues of greatest concern, and then to begin to devise a number of strategies to deal with them effectively. The stakes are high. This is a pivotal time for 1 the region and choices need to be made. 7 t c ( .B .B ~B B The first ten issues were presented to the public in the round of public workshops mentioned above. The eleventh issue is a product of those meetings. The twelfth issue, "Other", is included to let you add to the list should you find something missing. ISSUES 1. Housing - is there a range of house types available for rent or purchase at costs in balance with the number and types of jobs and range of household incomes in or near activity 4 centers throughout the region? Explanation: In many rapidly growing regions, buying a home is becoming more difficult for more of the population as prices increase. In addition, new employment is developing in areas far from existing neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods with more ' affordable housing. Housing density is fast emerging as a major issue in local communities. 2. Public Services and Facilities - are public services and facilities (municipal services, water and sewer systems, parks, schools, libraries, etc.) being developed efficiently, in a manner that is environmentally sound, and at a pace that is consistent with the rate of growth in the region? Explanation: The big question here is how to pay for public facilities and services and how to make sure that they are in place concurrent with development. Associated with this is the question of who should pay, and when. There is a growing sense that we are falling behind and not adequately meeting the service and facility needs of local communities. 3. Transportation - are we developing a regional transportation system efficiently, with minimal environmental impact, and at a pace consistent with the rate of growth in the region that, to the maximum extent possible; doesn't rely on any single strategy for moving people and goods? Explanation: As new jobs are created outside of traditional locations in the center of the region, and as households change their working and travel behavior, old assumptions about how people and goods move around for business and pleasure must change. An increasing proportion of the "trips" that people make are within or between suburbs, rather than in and out of the center of the region. The challenge here is to develop a transportation system that isn't solely dependent on the automobile, and finding the means to pay for it. 8 4. Economic Opportunity - is there a sufficient supply of t stable jobs in a variety of sectors being created in activity centers throughout the region? C. C.. Explanation: The development of a stable, diversified, and sustainable economic base for the region as a whole as well as for individual cities and counties is of C, prime concern. Major job growth is occurring in service and trade sectors, and there is increasing t concern about the ability of those kinds of jobs to pay wages capable of meeting the needs of households. In C addition, labor shortages are a concern for many economic sectors, including agricultural employers. C. 5. Clean Water - is planning and management of water sources L taking place in a coordinated fashion to maintain the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater in and available to the region? Explanation: Within the next 50 years it's highly likely that major new sources of water will need to be tapped to meet the needs of the region. Lack of ( sufficient supplies of water and deteriorating water quality will have an affect on all aspects of the growth and development of the region. 6. Clean Air - is air quality being protected and managed according to functional airshed boundaries so that growth i can occur, human health is unimpaired, and the visibility of i the Cascades and the Coast Range from within the region is maintained? L Explanation: Air quality, like water quality, will be a major determinant of how, when, and where growth occurs in the future. Currently, Clark County, Washington, is not included in the same air quality planning unit as the rest of the metropolitan area, even though there are obvious inter-relationships between the two. L 7. Urban Open Space and Wildlife Habitat - is a system of open space in the urban region being identified, acquired, planned for, and managed to provide residents with reasonable and convenient access to open space resources, and habitat capable of supporting the continued presence of wildlife in the urban area? L C Explanation: Open space and wildlife habitat within ( the urban region are still present but there is a sense ( that they are fast vanishing in the more rapidly developing areas. Planning and financing the creation l~. and maintenance of a permanent open space system in the 9 C region will be critical to maintaining the quality of life we now enjoy as growth continues. 8. Protection of Agricultural and Forest Resource Lands - is prime agricultural and forest resource land adjacent to or near the urban area sufficiently buffered from urbanizing pressures, and accounted for in regional economic and development plans? Explanation: One of the major objectives for the region's urban growth boundary is to assist with the preservation of prime farm and forest resource land by limiting urban sprawl. However, the urban region is having an affect on the pace of development in nearby rural areas, and the market for rural land. 9. Urban Edge - is the settlement pattern on the urban fringe developing in a manner which makes best use of the landscape, efficiently connects to public service and facility systems, and which anticipates the long-term prospects for regional urban growth? Explanation: There is a transition from urban to rural at the urban growth boundary that occurs differently in different parts of the region. How that transition takes place and what we want to achieve long-term at those transition points has yet to be consistently spelled out. Nonetheless, there is a growing sense that we need to look out beyond the traditional 20-year planning time frame in order to truly get a grasp on this issue. 10. Urban Center - are obstacles to the continued development and redevelopment of existing urban centers being overcome so that the prospect of living, working, and doing business at locations interior to the urban fringe remains attractive to a wide range of individuals, families, and businesses? Explanation: Urban land, like a farmer's field, was not meant to lay fallow for years after a single "crop" has been harvested. Urban land needs to be stewarded with an eye to the substantial public investment already made in locations central to the region. Redevelopment and infill need to be part of any growth management strategy. However, urban land in the center of the region has its own set of obstacles that need to be overcome in order to promote that kind of activity. Furthermore, there is a relationship between the total land supply in the region and the likelihood that redevelopment and infill will occur. More needs to be understood about this relationship. 10 i 11. Planning Process - are processes for and products of land use planning in the urban region accessible to and clearly f anticipating the needs of a wide range of interests? Explanation: It has been over 15 years since the inception of the Oregon land use planning system. C. Plans and planning processes are not plainly apparent to new and old residents alike. One of the cornerstones of the Oregon system is the ongoing C involvement of citizens and elected officials. Yet, C: both citizens and elected officials frequently complain C about the legalization and fossilization of the system. An effort needs to be made to launch the next generation of the Oregon planning system if it is to C keep up with the pace of change occurring in Oregon C communities. 12. Other - are there other issues that will strongly influence j < and define the nature of our urban region, and which f therefore ought to receive direct attention from policymakers as growth occurs? s L i i f L 1 L L L L C ~ 11 C REGIONAL GROWTH FORECAST { t The pace of growth and development is speeding up in the ( metropolitan area, in stark contrast to the doldrums of the early 1980s. This region will continue to grow in the future, and the nature and rate of growth will continue to be a public issue. The following information for the period 1987 to 2010 comes from The Regional Forecast, published by Metro in June of 1989. t. C EMPLOYMENT C. ( Major national and regional economic and demographic trends C will contribute to the economic prosperity of the region in the future. Global trade, particularly with Asia, will play a major role in the economic future of this region. Capital will ( continue to flow freely across national borders, thus continuing the trend of direct foreign investment in Oregon. Technological advancements will continue to increase productivity. c. The aging of the population and the rising number of two- earner families will generate increasing demand for services. ( However, the aging of the population in general and low fertility rates will lead to a shortage of entry-level workers, thus ( leading to an in-migration of younger workers from rural areas, other states and other nations. The growing numbers of empty nesters will have higher proportions of discretionary income to spend on goods and services. World trends towards urbanization are expected to continue t_ despite technologies which overcome the obstacles of distance. Hence, the Portland region, having substantial land in proximity t to major transportation facilities and a commitment to public investments will be highly competitive relative to other West Coast cities. Based on these trends, and others, the Portland region is { expected to retain its 52.5 percent share of Oregon nonagricultural employment during the next 20 years. However, ( within that employment base, there will be a shift in the ( proportions of the region's employment attributable to different employment sectors: i Sector 1987 2010 Manufacturing 17.6% 12.8% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 7.7% 7.9% Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities 6.1% 4.8% Construction 3.5% 3.4% C. Service 23.7% 27.0% i Trade 26.6% 30.0% t~ Government 15.0% 14.2% 12 t The downtown area will continue to maintain its share of the region's employment. This is a major accomplishment relative to the trends observed in other metropolitan regions. However, accompanying this continued job growth downtown will be significant increases in suburban employment, particularly in Gresham, Hillsboro, Clackamas, and the Highway 217 Corridor. Hence, although the downtown core will remain as a vital center for the region, the dispersion of employment generally will continue to occur here as it has in other metropolitan areas. POPULATION AND HOUSING The Regional Forecast presents a picture of an expanding economy at a time when the population is aging. The baby boom generation will be reaching retirement age by the year 2010. With more women in the labor force, the birth rate will continue to decline. Hence, the region will experience in-migration to meet its labor needs in the future. This in-migration will counter the "baby bust" in the region's population age distribution in the years to come. Household size will continue to decrease here as it has nationally. Therefore, although the total population of some parts of the region may decrease in some communities and increase in others over the next 20 years, the number of households throughout the region will continue to increase. Since households are primary units of consumption in our economy, a decrease in population in some areas will not necessarily translate into a decline in local economic activity. The aging of the population combined with this decrease in household size will generate dynamics for which we cannot presently fully account. One "wild card" in the regional population picture is the nature and extent of migration or "flight" from less livable metropolitan areas. Households moving for reasons of livability rather than for strictly economic, job-related reasons add a further element of uncertainty into the dynamics of growth in the future. The reasons promoting this kind of migration can range from the same kinds of issues that cause people to seek different locations within this metropolitan area, to economic issues related to housing costs and the cost of living, to unforeseen natural or man-made disasters. The east side of Portland, generally east of the Willamette river and west of 111th street, is the only area of the region where population is expected to decline, largely because of the loss of housing to non-residential development. In 2010, Washington County will have grown by about 160,000 persons, Clark County by about 144,000, Clackamas County by about 115,000, and Multnomah County by about 66,000. 13 Growth in single-family housing will occur largely in W Washington, Clackamas, and Clark Counties, although the Gresham- C_ Wood Village-Troutdale area in Multnomah County will also C: experience a significant increase. The focus for growth in C multi-family housing will shift from Multnomah County to t~ Washington County. Nonetheless, the majority of the region's population, F C housing, and jobs will continue to be found on the east side and in Multnomah County. The growth in suburban areas will be dramatic and will certainly affect older urban centers close to C the center of the region. However, unlike other metropolitan C areas, older parts of the region are expected to continue to be C important contributors to the economic vitality of the area. In C. coming years, coordinating to meet the needs of both growing and maturing communities throughout the region will become a primary C_ challenge for all. r C C C. C C_ C. C C, C C,. C_ C. C C C C C. C C.. r C_ C. 9 C._ C.. 14 C C C.. C. %O a Sodom to Y W fi'~tyj{ W \ ~ Island ' TH `E1 C 4 i~i° It en •y ••'^y. ~ Vaft Ou 4t IN BLVD B CLA SAY" (i$It18 ARM DR Crab c Nwr aehoug 4 O 1 Da.rnn.,klYq . ks t a t yp tDyBARO Si q NWY MAY North Ali ' • $A plain At? KIU M851VORtH ~ e oP~k 1,..~ z ~ ~ erk e ~ Tf0 t e Y ¢ Village ~ ~ 0 x T CF .y Suh u~ a~ ~ ~ 2 SAY { o PNSIDE t Sim tian v 3 F ~+rr L ` • ~ ~ _ ~ ~ z = x. • e f,L pOftleni] _ IVI 1 N ^ 1 fe9 B O Y+40~ W SELL AD F' g ~y P+ 2 a PO.Nt y ill to BASELI D w sAa S z Bum tF ar ' k n O H•! l rai ~ T 9 fw fOYB G NIL S ~F • Jn nu.n rK - •M1SL _ f rUALAitN V WY BEAVEPTON HWY L',*111 tiy. A1W 11 AD Q i I ~c J svo 14ePPY ~n .rw o c 'pP m 0r' '►o . KING AD Valley OKIOV ire a a f Bt rD V TS ilW BulL18 0 A jlgaf T W o Lae O Y' Earmr~^ ee' Oswego ~ ~,F c.~ twr•^ ~ 9 EEAAY W o to JDh Ci r. tb f, sew d =f n, .un Y r eALO tEr Ing ti e ity diem y G1 Sto EOASY C° YAWN IVef a C k L ~ INISItI11GTilN .-1 ° e . Tualatin re L vANNilu CO. ' • n t~ ~Vff WLinn f awM+d s OS p p Y IF AND EISGiF ao J`~,YO w • ~dv ~N 9o alit 'm 6 n h9fW ~ k~ qq 3 N o yt 0 1 v _ S Ville C480 wWM0 I ~b jjslban MetroPoiltan Area Portia 4 8arics VO=uver North %i l $ t / Cam '•r • Woshougd o ie lak .:55 h 3 P ation Change 1987-2010 f l ~ C f by Underlying Zone >.0 Less of ID or care persons - •i'•'~''. ® owl of -10 to +h0 persons Q Growth of 11 - 250 persons p h 4• Growth of 251 - 500 persons :wt:;+': .`l;Q:;• .,'r•-4* Growth of 501 - 1000 persons Newberg f } gasv.~:;: ~ Growth of over 1,000 persons i %rt t 4rwn growth Wuvlmy "7%-/i% , / , MET «s.-m4m swmy asrm xsmFwrtn:.: i/' ~ .';/i/%/~ / j• j;. c c" 3 ~ \ L i` 4 \ -,ICJ yY~ \ a ~ ggg ~~~\:~~\~s•. ;xs ask` ~ \ 1 I xgng, "NU \ ~ \ ' ~ ~ ~ V ~ it c o 0 f i I t { { t t ji I I ) t r i' t i d I i i t r' t. REMARKS OF RENA CUSMA t ` If we were to go around this room and ask each person here to ' articulate their vision of what the metropolitan region should be t like in 5, or 10, or 20 years, chances are that no two people in this room would see it exactly the same way. But somewhere in the mix of ideas would be a pretty clear picture of what the future will actually be. That's especially true if we can reach consensus on a single vision and plan for it. I believe that the quality of life that we enjoy here in the Portland metropolitan area is a direct result of the planning we have done over the past decade. I also believe that, if we are l to maintain that quality of life, we must redouble those planning efforts. And regardless of what you might read or hear, we still have an incredibly high quality of life here. How many of you would rather be living in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago? C How many of you moved here from New York or Los Angeles or l Chicago? Planning is the means by which we ensure that we don't become another sprawling, problem-plagued megalopolis. We're going to add almost 400,000 more people to the region's population base in L the next 20 years. That's the equivalent of a city the size of L Portland. That growth is going to place enormous strains on our C infrastructure and on our environment, both natural and urban. You need not look very far to see the backlash against this kind of growth in other regions. voters in the City of Seattle, which now suffers from consistent rush hour gridlock, recently passed what amounts to a no growth initiative. The City of San Diego C has set a cap on the amount of new housing that can be added in a L year, and Orange County attempted to pass a limits to growth initiative. That initiative failed but the campaign to defeat it C cost developers $2 million. C Actions like these are not isolated incidents and they are not C the work of xenophobic no growth activists. They are what I L believe is an almost natural outcome of unplanned, uncontrolled ( growth and it's what a lot of other regions can look forward to in the next 10 or 20 years. € Of course, we're better off than many of our West Coast C neighbors, thanks to the foresight that you and other Oregonians C demonstrated in the 1970s. In a sense, however, that foresight was rendered moot in the early 1980s. The recession years that L_ plagued Oregon were years without a great deal of growth or 18 C C IL C development. People didn't oppose planning for growth because there simply wasn't much growth going on. Well, that's changed in the last couple of years and growth is once again a very hot subject and that means a renewed sense of activism on the part of those who will favor and oppose it. The challenge now before us is to take the framework that already exists and use it to manage the inevitable growth of the coming decade and beyond. We must work together as partners in the process of change even if we don't always agree on the specifics, avoiding the turf wars and the parochial squabbling that have torpedoed planning efforts elsewhere. Metro, of course, is responsible for managing the region's urban growth boundary. But issues I would ask you to consider today go far beyond land use and growth boundaries. Under the heading of growth, there are a dozen more issues that are all tied together. These include housing, and particularly low income and affordable housing. Questions remain as to whether there is a proper regional balance of housing types and for different income levels. Public services - we can't grow if public services can't keep up with that growth. And there is a question of how we can provide the highest level of services at the lowest cost and with the least environmental impact. Transportation - and again everyone wants a high level of service at the lowest cost and at the least environmental impact. Economic development - where will the jobs come from? Will there be economic opportunity for everyone or just some people with the right education or the right training? Clean water - can we protect or enhance our water resources, even as growth places increasing demands on those resources? And the same question can be asked about air. Parks and natural areas - parks are sort of like flag and apple pie in that nobody really has anything bad to say about them. But they always seem to be the last program to be funded and they always seem to be the first program to be cut. We need to plan for a future that has enough open space and natural areas for both our people and for the continued presence of wildlife in the urban area. And, finally, the shape and the form of our urban area. We must think in terms not only of where the urban growth boundary should lie, but what will take place both within and outside that boundary. This presents you with a lot to think about and to talk about. Hopefully, by the time you leave here today, some strategies will emerge and issues that I haven't even touched on will take a new sense of importance. Along the way, you will be hearing from some wonderful speakers who should stimulate your thinking process. They include John DeGrove, Director of Florida Atlantic University/Florida 19 Suru..•Dui.......~.~..._........_.._ _ _ I 1 International University's Joint Center for Environment and Urban Problems. Arnold Cogan, a man who is familiar to many of us here C in the Portland area as a partner in the consulting firm of Cogan Sharpe Cogan, and is former director of the Department of Land E C1 Conservation and Development. And Neal Peirce, a nationally. C._ syndicated columnist who is, I am sure, familiar to everyone who C: is concerned about urban growth issues. C C.. In addition, later this morning, we will have a panel discussion of strategies for livability, moderated by Ed Whelan of Portland C.' General Electric, and featuring our own Mike Ragsdale of Metro C_ and Grubb and Ellis Inc., Henry Richmond of 1,000 Friends of C: Oregon, and City Commissioner Earl Blumenauer. C C But most important of all, you will be hearing from each other. C It is in your vision and in your strategies that we achieve our C future. So put your thinking cap on and get out your crystal ball. This is not merely the start of a conference on planning a C livable future, it's the first day of that future.; C. C, C F C' `C• r` L. L. C C t ~t. 20 f_. C C. C.. C. REMARKS OF KAY STEPP, PRESIDENT, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RENA CUSMA: t.- I'd like to introduce our first speaker. Kay Stepp is president i_ of Portland General Electric, and I must say we are deeply indebted to Portland General Electric for providing the bulk of the funding for this conference. Kay first joined PGE in 1978 as a human resource development specialist, and has held a variety of positions with the company prior to becoming its president t- last year. She serves on a number of corporate boards, including the West One Bank of Oregon and Federal Reserve Bank Advisory Board. And she has a list of awards and honors too long to list. Please join me in welcoming Kay Stepp. KAY STEPP: i On behalf of Portland General Electric Company, I am very pleased t, to welcome you to today's conference. It's wonderful to see such a tremendous turnout. Over 400 people - a number far beyond what the planners had expected to meet today - to talk about this very important issue. We do have a full agenda, so I plan to take just a few minutes to try to frame today's task. L I believe the words "growth and management" should always be used together. Community growth without management will most likely result in consuming many resources to get something that we really don't want to live with. Now, growth is inevitable. It may be expansive; it may be stunted; it may even be reversed for a while, but over the long run, communities do not shrink. They grow. And wren cities grow, they change. { It's generally accepted that when a child who grows under the careful direction of a loving, nurturing parent, they develop into a contributing, responsible, and mature adult. However, a child who lacks guidance and direction finds growing up often painful and difficult. C_ Cities can be compared to growing children. Growth, and the C change that growth brings, can be positive or it can be negative. We cannot stop change, and we cannot ignore it and expect positive outcomes. We cannot try to postpone or reverse the growth of a city and expect it to reach the zenith of its potential. C { 21 C C Our metropolitan area is growing and changing, and today we are charged with nurturing its development. It's been more than a decade since the Regional Urban Growth Boundary was first drawn. Since then, we have been through an economic recession. For the last several years we have been experiencing a real resurgence of growth. Our region has a rich combination of people, business, institutions, and natural resources. These are all the right ingredients for positive growth. Our challenge is to shape it and to direct it. To do that, we need to recognize and to celebrate our diversity and balance all the issues to reach a consensus on a long-range regional growth policy. PGE is very proud to be a part of this significant public and private partnership effort that is represented here today. We commend the League of Women Voters and Metro for their effort in sponsoring today's conference. We at PGE support the well-being of Oregon and its natural resources. This conference is, I - believe, a very important step in determining what kind of tomorrow we will have in our state. Among us are neighborhood associations, developers, planners, private business, environmental organizations, activists, and representatives from cities and counties throughout the Willamette Valley. It's a very exciting and diverse group. Thank you for your concern for urban growth and your willingness to participate in the planning process today. Past experience, as Rena has mentioned, has proven that Oregonians can come together and develop policy by consensus. In the early 170s over 10,000 Oregonians came together to help develop the Land Conservation and Development Commission goals. In the 180s, even more people provided input into the Portland Central City Plan. So, the challenge today is for all of us to play a role as regional planners. We will identify the growth issues that will shape the metropolitan area for the next two decades and help implement an urban growth policy. This is the attention that we need from concerned citizens to move planfully into the 21st century. Best wishes. 22 y. E. REMARKS OF DR. JOHN DEGROVE RENA CUSMA: We have one of the nation's most distinguished planning experts with us to get things rolling this morning. Dr. John DeGrove is the director of the Florida Atlantic University/Florida ( International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. That's quite a mouthful. He is a nationally recognized authority on planning and growth management. For the past 30 years, he has been active in land use, growth, ( and water quality issues in the state of Florida. He served as Secretary of Florida's Department of Community Affairs from 1983-1985 and was instrumental in the conception and passage of that state's 1985 Growth Management Act. Today, in addition to serving on a number of federal and state planning boards, he 3 serves as a planning and growth management consultant to the c,. states of Virginia, Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Georgia. Please welcome Dr. John DeGrove. i L DR. JOHN DEGROVE: I'm delighted to be here! I've been in and out of Oregon for ( longer than some of you are alive almost. Some of you look very young. It's always a pleasure. It's a special pleasure to be here in a conference sponsored by Metro, the regional metro organization, because I'm kind of a father of that group. l I was a member of the National Academy of Public Administration ( panel that, through HUD, funded the first citizen's committee that developed the proposal that led to the referendum that led to the organization. We did five of those over a five-year period, and I want to tell you, I have a special place in my heart for you because you're the only one that did it! Denver almost did it, but not quite. My own area of Tampa Bay didn't even come close, the so-called Sun Coast effort, so it's a l special pleasure to be here and to talk to you about what's going on across the country in planning and growth management and in crafting the real strategies that can and will be implemented to guide the growth and development of local governments, regions, and states. ( I'm going to go over very quickly some of the new state and regional roles in planning and growth management that have 1. 23 t. C emerged over the past five or six years, connecting that with what happened when Oregon got into this game in the early 170s, along with some of the other states. But I'll cover that very quickly and then talk in some more depth about the present growth management system in Florida because it has some direct relevance for you here in Oregon, particularly in regard to the matter of concurrency. They say that word is not in the dictionary, but it's a powerful concept that's being embraced, including in this region. I was on the airplane four or five or six or seven or eight hours yesterday, however much, and I read all the stuff that Ethan Seltzer sent me, and he sent me enough stuff to sink a battleship. Particularly, I read about your efforts to figure out what your backlogs and future needs are in transportation. You know, it didn't surprise me a bitl Per capita, you've done as badly in transportation as we have in Florida. I wouldn't have thought that was possible! That is, your backlogs are as massive as ours. Your keep-up needs are as , great. Your catch-up needs are as great. Again, like Florida, you're having a hard time coming up and agreeing on the substantial new sources of revenue that you've got to have grow responsibly. The only thing we've done differently in Florida, and more on this later, is that if we don't come up with the revenues to grow responsibly, it's unlawful for us to grow. That's a powerful, powerful statement, and I never thought I'd live to see the day when Florida would pass any such law as that. It's not a no-growth, it's not a stop-growth thing at all. 1 Listen, we either grow responsibly or we wait until we can. That also applies to individual cities and counties and their ability to issue permits. They cannot do it if you cannot show that the 1 infrastructure can be put in place concurrent with the impacts of 1 any development you permit, and that you've got a strategy for 1 making up the backlog. 1 Apply that to the greater Portland metropolitan area, in 1 anticipation of an additional 400,000 people joining the region 1 in the next 20 years, and you have to make some changes. You 1 have to raise some more money. You have to do things 1 differently, and I'm going to urge you to do just that. 1 Well, growth management. The definition. You did it right 1 already. What growth management is and what it isn't. Let's 1 first say what it is. It's not a no-growth/slow growth/stop the 1 world, I want to get off kind of a notion. It's not thatl You 1 know, Oregon for years has had the reputation of being just that 1 kind of place because your original law which had none of those characteristics was tagged as being a no-growth policy across the eighties. 1 24 ) J ._I P f I still argue with people who say well, I know about Oregon, those are the people who put up a wall and they wouldn't let anybody come! Growth management is an effort to balance the equally legitimate needs of growth in terms of housing, commercial, and industrial facilities and an equally legitimate C need to protect the environment, and they go together. The one cannot be sacrificed to the other. Growth management properly assigned is focused on quality of life. It's being expressed that way these days, especially through the question of providing the infrastructure to support growth in a timely way. That's ( pretty common sense. More on that later. The first efforts at planning and growth management were driven ( by concern for the environment that had been building since the 150s at least and peaked in a way in the late 160s and early 170s with a profound citizen mistrust of local governments as to their ( will or capacity to protect natural systems as they grew. Vermont started this, and an unlikely state it was with a conservative Republican governor. Vermont kicked it off in 1970 because they believed with the construction of the interstate system, they were going to be overrun by people from New York City and Boston. That's enough t ( to get anybody concerned! They passed Act 250, which was a major ( effort to put the state into a new kind of partnership with local ( governments to manage their growth. California and Florida acted in 1972 - California with a coastal program, Florida with a more comprehensive or selective program. California has had a tough time implementing that program effectively, and the earlier program in Florida wasn't very effective either. L Oregon, as you know, acted in 1973 to enact Senate Bill 100, the most comprehensive and the most misunderstood to this day of L these early initiatives. On balance, I assert it's been very successful. When I'm making this speech someplace else, I go into the reasons why as time permits. I don't need to go over the details for you. Your use of urban growth boundaries, L exclusive farm use and forestry zones, your initiatives for affordable housing have had a tremendous effect. t When I outline those initiatives across the country, people just t say, "Well, professor, you've been smoking something. I know ` that the Oregon system is absolutely subversive of any ability to provide affordable housing." And that's not true2 Oregon t_ deserves a lot of credit for what you've done in this area, but L you have a lot of challenges still lying before you. It seems to me that a consensus for support of the Oregon program has evolved in the state in three efforts to repeal the law. I C managed to get my nose heavily into one of them, the last one, C~ the most dangerous one. I was delighted to see that in spite of { a really tough economic downturn, you survived nicely. A s M C. 25 coalition that's composed of farmers, homebuilders, and what some people in Oregon might call the "coasties" - folks from the coast. A lot of you folks are here today. The Oregon system then was, for it's time, the best in the nation. North Carolina came along in 1974, Colorado in 1974, with programs. What about an overall assessment of these first efforts in about two minutes? The results were uneven, typically incomplete, and underfunded. Oregon was the best. Colorado was the only outright failure. It floundered on the rock of partisan politics. Ladies and gentlemen, growth management efforts at any level that get caught up in partisan party political politics - it's a fatal disease. Guard yourself against it. You've not fallen into that trap. You've had Republican and Democratic governors support your growth management efforts and, at the local level, I presume that too is the same. Florida well illustrates the mixed picture emerging from these early initiatives. Funding, rather the failure to fund, a failure to develop effective state comprehensive or regional plans to guide the efforts of local government, and a local government planning act that was weak and had no real implementing demands or requirements tied to it, no qualitative measures, proved to be insurmountable obstacles. It was not a very good effort among this whole first set of states. The idea of important state and regional roles in the planning process was not a notion that was excepted at all before the mid- 1970s. Mandating the preparation of local plans, and in some cases implementing regulations, began to be excepted, particularly in Oregon. In Oregon, the policy thrusts were of major importance and have been a guide to states ever since. I understand that some people assert confidently from the podium that no other state ever used anything Oregon did in 1973. Well, anybody who says that is fundamentally confused. That's just not accurate - agricultural land protection in Oregon, compact urban development, anti-urban sprawl strategies, affordable housing, coastal protection, which has been painful for you and it's been painful for a lot other areas as well, represent some very great accomplishments that have been emulated by other states. The second wave, 1985 to date, of states getting into this game saw some repeaters from the first wave, but a lot of new actors as well. Led by Florida! Well, folks, if you don't get it right the first time, you go back and try it again. And that's what we did. We tried it again with a new law in 1985. New Jersey tried it in 1986, driven by an affordable housing issue. Henry Richmond and I went over there and preached to them fervently, and they took some of our advice. Then a kind of incredible thing, a trio of states - Maine, - 26 Vermont, Rhode Island - were all adopting comprehensive planning C and growth laws in 1988. Then, I call this a modern miracle: the state of Georgia adopting in 1989 a very progressive planning and growth management law. I would not have predicted it in a t.- million years. I don't mean to be negative about my friends in Georgia by saying that, I just thought there were political forces so deeply entrenched, that it would just never happen. Folks, it not only happened, it happened with the most massive display of consensus within and among all the actors I have ever seen! When the bill t. finally went to the legislature as Act 215, it was totally t noncontroversial because everybody had already signed on. If I had time, I'd tell you about that, but some other day. Other states are actively moving toward a state and regional role - Washington State, where Neal Peirce, your luncheon speaker and t• I have been up visiting our alleged wisdom on those poor innocent people. Massachusetts. Well, Massachusetts lost a lot of its zip, but it does have a growth strategies commission. The governor was distracted with an effort to run for the presidency. They're kind of back on track now. Others began to move. ( California, your neighbor to the south, folks. One that you t.. always are a little leery about in Oregon. You're worried that they will all finally one of these days get smart and decide to t come up here. Well, they may do that. I bet there are people from California sitting right in this rooml People don't admit it. Say, listen, my great grandmother was born in Oregon. L I've been preaching in California. I'm a man of courage or else t foolhardy - it's hard to say which. I was in San Francisco three L weeks ago, speaking to the California League of Cities about how their traditional concept of home rule, doing everything on their own, separately from each other, was totally outmoded, irrelevant, counterproductive, and they had to give it up. Now, there were 4,000 people at that conference, and I only talked to two or three hundred of them. I mean, you know, they have all these concurrent sessions, but let me tell ya, I didn't get into an argument. They've established a new group in San Francisco, a regional group. Bay 2000 or something like that. In Los Angeles, you can't mess around with every county and city in the Los Angeles area doing their own thing and deal with those problems. They're not. They are looking toward, what I call, the "Post-Duke" era in California. Governor Deukmejian is not going to run again. They are crafting new laws for the next session of the California C Legislature. In the meantime, they are voting on a new initiative to repeal the Gann Amendment for Lord sakes, at least you haven't tied your hands in that incredibly dumb way so that they can spend another doubling of the gasoline tax and a ( 27 t i i t $19 billion transportation initiative. Are they behind in transportation? You bet they are. Way behind. Does that erode your quality of life? You bet it does, just like it does in the Portland area. The second wave of state planning initiatives is generally driven by broader concern for protecting people's quality of life. I see it all through your materials that you sent me. It's everywhere. And people say to me, "What is that? You can't define that." I don't care if you can define it or not. It's a powerful concept that's driving citizens in regions, cities, and states all across this country to try to do things in a different way. You know, it gets translated. It's not narrowly focused on the environment - that concern, however, is still there. Don't let me mislead you. But it has been joined by others and, perhaps above all - traffic, traffic, traffic. Lets look at some of the issues driving this second wave of growth management efforts: 1) If there is anything driving these new growth management issues, it's people's frustration with semi-gridlock on their freeways and sitting at red lights for three or four changes before they get through. So, some of these differences, these new approaches, are engaging the attention of citizens just like yourself and governments and the private sector all across the nation. 2) In addition to the frustration with traffic is a heightened concern for paying as you grow, for providing infrastructure - roads and other facilities to serve growth, as growth occurs. And the one I usually add at this point is storm water management systems. There is a hidden, almost secret infrastructure backlog that is subversive of your water quality and quantity, and that has to be addressed in a responsible way in practically every major urban area across the nation. We're not keeping up with storm water management needs, and we're having a tough struggle with that in Florida. In Florida, this has taken the form of the concurrency doctrine, and more on that in a minute. 3) All of these new initiatives involve some kind of state, regional, where appropriate (and it often is), local sharing of responsibility for managing growth. Setting goals, policies, and standards as criteria that are authorized by the state legislature as happened here and implemented by a state agency or commission. In Oregon, it's LCDC; in Florida, it's our Department of Community Affairs, which is roughly comparable to LCDC. 28 c. What has emerged there is probably the most powerful and significant state agency, and from the time I went there as secretary in 1983, serving under Governor Graham, it was ( well recognized as the wimpiest state agency in Tallahassee. Well, that has changed, I'm happy to say. It's changed ( because their duties and responsibilities, as well as their funding, have drastically changed. Well, these new systems ( involve regional agencies and, of course, local governments. ( Local planning and implementing strategies are typically t_ mandated with some version of a consistency requirement in ( place, tops down/bottoms up, take your choice. C.. ( 4) An integrated policy framework is a key component of these new planning initiatives. More effort is focused on economic development and redevelopment in areas that need C it. Growth management is not just for those who are growing fast. Growth management is for those who need to grow. C Now, that's my definition, folks, and I don't want you C messing around and having any other one. I want you to just ( take mine because that's really what's it's all about. ( 5) Maine, Georgia, and New Jersey - all three of these states C. that have adopted these new systems have areas that very much need to grow and need economic development. Encouraging growth in areas that need it is built into these new systems, putting to rest (at least it should) the notion that these new state, regional, and local efforts are stop-growth or slow-growth measures. L 6) More emphasis on affordable housing. New Jersey of course ( because it grew out of the Mt. Laurel cases, but also Maine, Vermont. Even Florida, growth of affordable housing has been targeted by the Secretary of our Department of Community Affairs as the policy area he intends to emphasize ( most in the next round of reviews of local plans. And that's happened the same in Oregon, you remember. Different L policy areas got called up on the policy agenda in different L ways over time. 7) Connected with the concurrency doctrine is a focus on compact development patterns. You wrote the book on that, C. folks. Even you were having some problems in fully implementing this approach. On in-fill, on discouraging urban sprawl, on separating rural and urban uses, New Jersey is on its way to some very creative things and other states are doing the same. I'm happy to tell you, even Florida. I also thought I'd never see that happen. C 8) A heavy focus and major strengthening of regional levels as the major interface between state and local levels, including funding. Much more emphasis on funding. Software - that means money for planning. Hardware - hey, money for C 29 C L y; t C planning is a multimillion dollar question. Money for infrastructure or hardware is a multibillion dollar question. But they are both very important to facing up to the deficit financing of growth. That deficit financing of growth has characterized most states' approach to mismanaging growth, including Oregon since World War II. Pay as you grow. Yeah! That may be the easy part. What about the backlogs? How much to keep up? How much to catch up? Now for the first time, efforts are being made nationally to put reasonably hard numbers together that spell out both catch-up and keep-up needs. You know, I read all that stuff you sent me about your state's efforts to get some hard numbers on what your backlogs are and what your needs are going to be. That's absolutely commendable and an excellent job because it puts you in the position of knowing where you are, what you need to do, and when you'll have to face up to the consequences. If you don't do it, you're going to be a mess. Your quality of life is going to be eroded. You're going to have to sit there on those roads. You've got to spend the money on the public transportation systems, light rail, and so forth. 9) A continuing concern for the environment with more focus on open spaces, protecting rural lands, water recharge areas, wetlands, uplands, natural areas, habitats, farm lands. I could tell you about Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, and Florida in that regard if I had time. Now, what are some of the stumbling blocks and myths? Most of these don't bother you. You've gotten over them long ago, the red herrings that dragged across the path of efforts to grow sanely and sensibly, and doing what common sense and responsible behavior demands. Home rule is one. "Oh, you can't take my home rule power away." Well now folks, I don't have any problem dealing with that issue. If I can get a city or county person to sit down and talk to me, I can say, Listen, this is a win-win deal for you folks. Get off this notion that you are going to just keep planning in isolation, doing your own thing, going your own way". I know that you don't do that here in Oregon, but it's a problem in some other placesi Done properly, a growth management system protects local governments from irresponsible neighbors, neighboring cities and counties. Done properly, a growth management system protects local governments from irresponsible state agencies. Departments 30 of Transportation coming in and putting roads where they ought not to be rather than roads that are consistent with the comprehensive plan that has been put in place and approved by the state for a reason. We've been facing up to that in Florida. We're going to get DOT into the game - or elseI And we're going through one secretary, and now we've got another one. We're working on it. We're going to do itI I think the new secretary has got the messagel E Here's another one. Private property. "Right now, we'd love to do something about growth management, but you can't take people's private property rights awayl" Well, that's another red herring of the first order. A carefully crafted growth management system in no way subverts anybody's legitimate right to their private property rights. It does not ensure, however, that everybody who owns a piece of property can do with it as they will! But you can't do that anyway - with or without a growth management system. So, don't buy that nonsense. Sure, you need to have a carefully crafted, fair, and equitable plan. But, if you do, there is nothing you want to do that you can't do, and still keep within the reins of legality with regard to private property rights. Affordable housing. I tell you, my developer friends all over the country at one time or another come up to me and say, "Well now, John, this growth management stuff, it's all right. Now if we have a growth management system, there won't be any affordable housing." Why? Well, they say it costs more to grow in a sane and sensible way. In the first place, that's not necessarily L. true. Compact urban development carefully implemented may cost less for infrastructure and sprawl. E` But, secondly, I say to those people, "How much affordable A_ housing are you putting in now? Tell me all about that L affordable housing you're doing, and I may get in your camp. I l may get in your camp, I may be for you." Well, they aren't doing any affordable housing now, and the thing about these new initiatives is that they are putting the affordable housing k- problem up to the top of the public policy agenda and doing some very creative things about it. New Jersey and, indeed, even Florida. Now, negative economic impact. Well, we love to do this. I remember in 182 when I was out here sort of campaigning to keep your land use system in place. Wasn't it 182? I think that's when it was. People said, "Look at the mess we're inI You know what caused it - it's that damn land use law that did all this to us." Well, my argument was, conversely, it's the land use law, and wise and sensible growth management in establishing real t. quality of life for Oregon that offers you the opportunity to grow. { 31 i, l t Now, what are the keys to success in what you're trying to do? Let's bring it right down to here. Above all, building a new consensus among all of the levels of government, the private sector, the developers, realtors, environmental community, to set a vision for your region, to develop the components of that vision in terms of goals and objectives, to put it in the form of a strategic plan that's all you are setting out to do here and then really do it. You have got to have a community consensus. Is that an impossible task? No, sir. If the State of Georgia can do it, it can be done anywhere. And they did it, and they did it very impressively. Florida - we didn't do it so impressively. It has been really painful, but we've done it. We have finally got everybody in except the governor, and that's another story. And he's in, except he's got this "read my lips" disease, you know, "no new taxes". Well, he'll get over that, either because he won't be back after the next session - the next election, or he will change his mind. I think one or the other of those things will happen. Now, out of this consensus you need a well-funded growth management effort and, finally, you have got to have a watchdog group to support, to challenge, to encourage the development and full implementation of growth management systems. The little thing on my lapel here is 1,000 Friends of Florida and we cheerfully copied from 1,000 Friends of Oregon, with Henry Richmond's help. I know some of you get frustrated with Henry now and again and you think he just tries to get into your business too much and tries to keep you from doing good, creative things. I had some of my planner friends out here saying "That Henry Richmond, he's stifling our creativity!" Well, let me tell you, folks, that's probably true now and again, but you need that kind of watchdog group and I want to tell you, you would not be where you are in the implementation of your Senate Bill 100 were it not for 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Now, I say that out of a careful assessment of what's been going on over here since 1973. So you need all of those things. Now, I want to, having said that, talk 10 minutes maybe - I'm not doing too badly - about Florida because we are doing some things that are relevant to you. We began by putting in place a good system of managing water resources, something we did do right the first time around. We have five water management districts in place that have the power of permitting, regulating, managing, and planning for Florida's water resources. 32 I ~1. We are still having a hell of a time because the natural cycles in Florida are wet and dry. And it used to be that it wasn't so tough, you know, because the wet cycles came and we all got flooded a little and we waited until the water finally went away. Floods just stay a long time in Florida because it's so flat. C And then we have a dry cycle and we all have to be a little C careful, but it wasn't such a big deal. We are still having about the same dry cycles still but there are so many more people. We will have 13.1 million people - or do t have that right now. That's a bunch of people when you figure t that in 1950, we started with 3 million. I hesitate to throw out those numbers because you might say, well, we haven't grown that C much in Oregon so nothing this character says has any relevance to us. Wrong, wrong, really. The same kinds of issues; they are magnified sometimes by the magnitude of growth on that order, but the same kinds of issues that you struggle with, we struggle with. In trying to do things right in the 170s, we decided that we ( hadn't. So from 1979 to 1984, we assessed the weaknesses of the existing system, and not putting up the funding was a major problem. We promised local governments $50 million to do the new plans and we gave them $750,000 - that's a little gap there. So we went through a series of consensus-building efforts and submitted a series of proposals to the governor and the legislature starting in 1974 and going on through 1985. t Here is the shape of the new system: a state plan, simple, written in English, not "plannerese", a statement of goals and L policies that frame the rest of the system. State agency functional plans had to be crafted to be consistent. You are still working on that in Oregon; keep at it, it's hard. State agencies are a lot harder to bring into the fold, folks, L than local governments. State agencies - its unnatural and some of them feel immoral for them to work either with each other, or even the governor on occasion, or with anybody else. I mean it i isn't natural so you need to retrain them. You need a psychiatrist, you need lots of help with that kind of thing. But we're working on that. So our state agencies had to do state ( agency functional plans. Regional agencies - we have 11 in Florida. They had to craft comprehensive regional policy plans. The acronym is CRAP; that's a little unfortunate but, even so, there are some who think it's all too accurate. No, no, they are doing pretty well. j Then, finally, finishing the system, local plans. Local land development regulations - plans and land development regulations. ( Consistency is the thread that binds it all together vertically and horizontally. Not unlike your system, now; not unlike your S 33 ► ► ► system at all. ' By the way, it's going pretty well, folks. We're right in the middle of it. We've had about half of the 467 local plans come in for review to the Department of Community Affairs. Half of those have been turned down as not fulfilling the consistency requirements. Most of those turned down have worked out a compliance agreement. And some very powerful, new policy thrusts are being implemented in the State of Florida. In short, it's working. The only thing that's threatening it is the failure of the governor to support a couple of billion dollars a year extra in revenue. Everybody is for it. The chamber of commerce, local governments, environmental groups, development community, homebuilders, my 1000 Friends of Florida, the Association of Realtors - there was a time they wouldn't even speak to me. They considered me a card-carrying you-know-what, but they are now my friends and we do work together. And we all went to the legislature and we had the legislature lined up and then the governor said, well, I'll veto this $2-$3 billion in extra money if you pass it. Well, that's a pretty heavy burden, folks, to ask of legislators, as you know. And we're going to work that out in 1990. Consistency is the thread. Local plans have to be compatible with each other. They have to be. You can't mess up your neighbor, all right? The other driving thrusts that are relevant to you include some notion of concurrency. The most powerful provision for pay as you grow, pay as you go - a simple, simple concept. That's its beauty. You don't have to explain this in terms of fancy levels of service and big old books about transportation that are this thick. All you have to do is say to people what we are saying and that is that we have got to stop selling Florida on the cheap and pay as we go; pay as we grow and make up the backlog. A local government in its development of new plans and land development regulations will be required in six facilities to set levels of service. If that local government can't show when it issues a development permit that the service is going to be there to prevent lowering the overall level of service, it is unlawful for them to issue the permit. Pinolas County in Florida, acting very responsibly, has adopted a 1C optional sales tax and adopted a 64~ optional gasoline tax. They have done everything they can to raise revenue, and they still have got a lot of roads and they are state roads technically, never mind that in Pinolas County that are at or below the level of service they set. No development will be approved along those roads that will further degrade the level of service. Further degrade - that's an important difference 34 between saying it has to come all of the way back up before you can do anything else. Well, that's a shocker, folks, we never did anything like that before in Florida. You didn't in Oregon. You have continued cheerfully building when you weren't putting your infrastructure in place to support the impacts of the development. If that's not true, how is it that you have a $32 billion need for catch up { and keep up over the next, I believe, 20 years in Oregon for your growth. You know, I read those numbers. Don't hold me for every C one of them, but you have got the same numbers in your background ( paper. c Concurrency - a powerful, powerful concept that threads its way through every one and it threads itself through the background material I read. Except you just come a little short of saying if we can't show we can put the infrastructure in place, we just won't grow anywhere where you can't show it. Now, you need to struggle with that notion, folks. ( You know what the hardest part of this is, putting transportation together with land use. Planners historically, bless our hearts, s.- have been absolutely committed to avoiding that hard and onerous task. Transportation planning has been done over here. Land use t_ planning has been done over here and never the 'twain shall meet. And it hasn't met and that's why you see future land use plans that are not compatible, or consistent, in harmony with your capacity for transportation systems of any kind. You've got that very problem right here in this very metropolitan area. You've got to face up to it if you are going to protect your quality of life. Are you thinking of a new - what's the name of it? A Westside Freeway? I don't know anything about that, folks; I'm not here to tell you whether to do that or not. I am here to tell you that you should not do that or build any other major l transportation facility in this area until you have made sure of L the land use implications, and that there is harmony between your existing and future land use and those transportation t initiatives. And that they are working together and are supporting each other. They are compatible with each other. That's very hard. It's unnatural, you know. It's common sense t. but it's unnatural. We just haven't done that in the past. We ( have got to start doing it. t A lot of stuff on coastal; a lot of stuff on new citizen roles in Florida; a lot of stuff on new cash money, putting up the money - we are doing pretty well. Z. Now, just five minutes on what all of this means. What the heck ( am I doing out here anyway? Other than I like to come to Oregon. I mean, you know, it's kind of fun to find out what's going on t' 35 c around the country but what does it mean to Metro and its responsibilities for this region. Again, let me commend you for setting yourself the task of developing the plans of the region. I know that's a little touchy to just come right out and say it that way, huh? But I'm going to say it that way. Cities and counties do comprehensive plans, I understand that, and Metro has sort of said, well, we don't do those kinds of plans because, of course, we don't want to duplicate or overlap. That's all very noble and I commend you for it. But listen, let's forget all of that and say you've got to come up with, we'll call it a strategic plan for growth in the region. A set of goals, policies, and objectives that flow out of a vision for where you want to be 10, 20, 30 years from now and even beyond. You have got to have a vision for your future. And you've got to be a leader for that vision. That's where you ought to be spending all of your time. Helping craft - I know you've got other things to do - helping craft that vision in this kind of effort that you've got going on and will continue to have going on. And then be the region's leader to make sure, in concert with the mayors and the county commissioners, and otherwise. It is a task that is overdue and you've got to do a strategic plan for growth management. Only then can you have a vision for the region that has a chance to be implemented. The goals, the objectives, the implementing strategies to make it happen. Now, there are some issues, some problems, some opportunities that you face that I want to just comment about out of my experience in following these things all across the country. You do talk a lot in your background papers about transportation. You identify the catch-up needs. You identify the keep-up needs. You identify possible funding sources. You identify the shortfalls. But you don't address in a direct way the concurrency doctrine except as a fervent hope. Because you do recognize if you don't do it, it's going to erode your quality of life. And by the way, folks, that will not only mess up your environment, it will; but it will mess up your economy, too. The hope for your future is to take advantage of this Pacific Rim stuff. Take advantage of the fact that some people are going to get sick of California when it is sufficiently in a mess - or even your neighbor to the north, Seattle. They are going to want to come down here because it is a better managed place in terms of growth and quality and, therefore, has a higher quality of life. That's a strong point you have got going for you and you shouldn't forfeit it. You're on the right track. You can fashion a vision for the region and a strategy to implement that vision but I do want to conclude - you probably heave a sigh of relief when you hear that 36 it's really possible for me to conclude. But, I did read all of this stuff. You have got to be careful about sending stuff to me because I will read it. It says the urban growth boundary tour, September 8, 1989. I C don't know how many of you went on that tour. Hold up your hand if you went on that tour. I see hands popped up all over the room. Quite a few people went. Well, this is a little summary of that meeting, a summary of the report on that tour. I'm going to read a few lines that I think you need to take to heart. i,. "There are lands inside the boundary that are developing at far less than urban densities for a variety of reasons and this underbuilding could undermine the development of a t compact urban growth form in the region." E f_ And that's right. We struggle - we are now for the first time struggling with that issue in Florida and setting urban service boundaries copied directly from you and we're thinking whether we ought to have a reserve boundary outside the initial boundary. And you start thinking a little about that, too. And one of the t great dangers is that, in some of your areas, in effect inside your urban growth boundaries, you might have some things that are reserve areas. If they develop at very, very low densities, you can't use your land efficiently. You know it's critical to keep those densities up inside the urban growth boundary. Now, that doesn't mean nobody can have a martini farm, folks, that they can go outside in one of these fancy - I saw one here. Why there's a picture of one here on the back of something I r have. It's a $750,000 mansion on 2-1/2 or 5 acres. There it is. Exquisite new country manor; $775,000, sorry about that. Well, it's not that you can't have any of those things. I call those martini farms, you know. Yuppies go out there on the weekend. They mix their dry martinis and they put their feet up, and they 1. sip, and they're farmers, you know. That's the way they do it, folks. But let me tell you, we can provide that for some of these folks and you are providing it. You are just threatened with providing too damned much of it. C And that's my next point. Underbuilding in concert with a leapfrog consumption of rural exception lands, in concert with diminished certainty regarding the provision of public facilities and services and lack of willingness to experience development at comprehensive plan densities could add up to an increasing pressure for nonresource use of resource land. Inappropriate urban growth patterns subverting your protection of forest, agriculture, and other natural resource lands. We are facing up Z. to that for the first time in Florida. Thank God, we have you as a kind of a beacon for us in that regard, folks. And I don't want you messing up out here. I want 37 C. C you to do it right because I keep saying, yeah, it can be done. You know, it's not the end of the world, but you can't just sprawl haphazardly and mindlessly all across the countryside. And our governor is right on this one. He is arguing that it's inordinately expensive and we are going to stop it. And we're trying to stop it. And you have such an opportunity here. You have done so many things right. I must say I was shocked at the amount - at the degree to which you are threatened with being hemmed in just outside your urban growth boundary with these exception lands. Some of them stem back from when they were grandfathered in but some of them have been new exceptions, and some of the exceptions that counties are permitting in this state have been wrong, in my judgment. You've just got to be careful about that because you can see that it messes you up in the kind of compact urban pattern, the separation of rural and urban uses. Somebody that went on this tour - I don't know who it was - said, you know, some places we could really tell where the urban growth boundary was, and other places you couldn't tell the difference when you went from urban to rural. Maybe that was because of things that were grandfathered in. I'm not trying to be the preacher necessarily, but it's a major, major issue. And it just is part of this strategic growth management plan for the region that you're trying to crack. And so I urge you to stay the course. Keep your courage. Build your consensus. Don't put anybody outside the fold. If there is somebody that thinks this is the absolute subversion of his or her private property rights, get them on a committee. Convince them that it's not that bad after all. That you are going to have some legitimate use left i-ii your property. Then put up the money to buy land that you really need to buy. That's one thing we do right in Florida. We have a new initiative supported by Nat Rouge, our leading, card-carrying Republican environmentalist, bless his heart. Growth management is a bipartisan issue in Florida. Republicans and Democrats both support it. We are proposing a $4-1/2-billion trust fund to be funded by a 1~ increase in the sales tax for three years, the proceeds of which would be invested to add another half-billion dollars a year to an already very large land acquisition fund. You need to do more of that in Oregon. You do some of it now. It wouldn't hurt you to do more. Well, what an exciting time for all of you here. Oregon is growing again. The Portland area is growing again. And the valley is going to have severe growth pressures. Your growth management system is going to be tested as never before. The 38 fact that you've got over 400 people in this room ready to participate in meeting that test is good news. And so when I come back here, one or two years from now, and speak to you again, having been given only 10 minutes after today, I do hope C, that I will be able to say to you, you not only rose to the occasion, you stayed the course, and you did well. Thank you very much. C_ C,. C_ l_ L C t_ C, L C_ C. C- C_. C. C 39 C C. C. C ~w - ARNOLD COGAN - SLIDESHOW - "SNAPSHOT OF THE REGION" SLIDE 1 (OPENING TITLE SLIDE - NO TEXT) 1. SLIDE 2 ( WE'RE GOING TO COVER FOUR TOPICS THIS MORNING - THE FIRST TWO - - HISTORY AND PRESENT LAND USE/DEMOGRAPHICS CONCERN WHAT WAS, AND WHAT IS. THE LAST TWO ADDRESS THE GROWTH WE CAN ANTICIPATE AND THE CHOICES WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE. SLIDE 3 ( FIRST LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL GROWTH PATTERNS THAT HAVE HELPED FORM OUR REGION. L SLIDE 4 FT. VANCOUVER, WAS THE ORIGINAL HUDSON'S BAY TRADING POST FOR THE C. BRITISH, AND BECAME THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENT IN THE PORTLAND ( METROPOLITAN AREA. C SLIDE 5 ANOTHER EARLY COMMUNITY WAS OREGON CITY, THE END OF THE OREGON TRAIL. THIS IS A SCENE IN 1857. THE WILLAMETTE RIVER SHOWN HERE IN THE BACKGROUND WAS THE MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTE. t SLIDE 6 THIS SURVEYOR'S SKETCH OF THE OREGON CITY/ CLACKAMAS AREA DATES C BACK TO 1852. THE AREA EAST OF OREGON CITY IS DESCRIBED AS "HILLY, AND ROLLING, SOIL - 2ND RATE CLAY LOAM.." WITH FIR, WHITE OAK, ASH, ALDER, AND CEDAR." THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE c SOILS INFLUENCE THE CONCENTRATION OF SETTLEMENTS IN FLATTER LANDS WITH ACCESS TO THE RIVER, AS YOU CAN SEE AT THE LEFT CENTER. SLIDE 7 C PORTLAND WAS ALSO AN IMPORTANT EARLY SETTLEMENT, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT LOOK LIKE IT IN THIS 1852 PHOTO. IT, TOO, BENEFITTED FROM C. CONVENIENT ACCESS TO THE WILLAMETTE RIVER. C. ( SLIDE 8 BY THE 1850'S, A BASIC NETWORK OF ROADS WAS IN PLACE THAT WAS THE FORERUNNER OF OUR CURRENT HIGHWAY & ARTERIAL SYSTEM. FOR EXAMPLE, THE SQUARES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN ARE THE PLATTED t STREETS OF PORTLAND. ONE OF THE TWO ROADS TO THE WEST (OR LEFT) C IS THE OLD PLANK ROAD, WHICH IS NOW HIGHWAY 26, OR THE SUNSET C HIGHWAY. THE OTHER IS BURNSIDE/BARNES ROAD. L SLIDE 9 THIS 1852 SURVEY IS THE AREA THAT IS NOW LAKE OSWEGO. WE CAN'T BLAME THE MARKETING PEOPLE WHO CHANGED IT FROM THE ORIGINAL C PLACENAME "SUCKER LAKE". C 40 1, q SLIDE 10 OTHER AREAS IN OUR REGION ALSO HAVE CHANGED. THIS IS DOWNTOWN BEAVERTON IN 1912. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OBVIOUSLY WAS MUCH SIMPLER THEN. IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE BEAVERTON WE'VE COME TO KNOW AND LOVE. SLIDE 11 IN THE EARLY NINETEEN HUNDREDS, AS WITH MANY CITIES IN THE REGION, BEAVERTON COMMUTERS COULD USE THE ELECTRIC INTERURBAN TRANSIT. LIGHT RAIL ON THE WEST SIDE ISN'T SUCH AN ORIGINAL IDEA AFTER ALL. SLIDE 12 AS YOU CAN SEE, DEVELOPMENT GREW FROM THE EARLY SETTLEMENTS IN THE FLAT LANDS ALONG THE COLUMBIA AND WILLAMETTE RIVERS. IN THE UPPER LEFT MAP WE HAD MANY SMALL COMMUNITIES WITH NAMES LIKE RUSSELVILLE & JACKTOWN, BRADLEY CORNER & SEXTON, HILLGAVER AND WOODLAWN. IN THE MAP ON THE LOWER RIGHT, MANY OF THOSE NAMES ARE GONE, AS WE BECAME A MORE CLOSELY KNIT REGION. SLIDE 13 THERE ARE SEVERAL IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS WE CAN DRAW FROM OUR HISTORY: - FROM THE EARLY TRADING POSTS IN VANCOUVER AND OREGON CITY, PEOPLE CAME TO THE REGION FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES. -THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY THE RIVERS AND THE EARLY ROADS INFLUENCED THE LOCATION OF SETTLEMENTS. - OVER TIME, MANY SMALL COMMUNITIES GREW INTO ONE MUCH LARGER URBAN AREA - AND SOME OF THEM LOST THEIR DISTINCT IDENTITIES. SLIDE 14 WE NOW HAVE A METROPOLITAN AREA OF OVER 1.3 MILLION PEOPLE. SLIDE 15 THIS SATELLITE PHOTO ILLUSTRATES THE EXTENT OF PRESENT DAY GROWTH. SHOW LANDMARKS: - RIVERS - VANCOUVER - WEST HILLS - SWAN ISLAND AND GUILDS LAKE SLIDE 16 THE DARK LINES ON THIS MAP SHOW THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AS AMENDED. THE ORIGINAL WAS ADOPTED IN 1979. IN THE TEN YEARS SINCE THEN, ABOUT 1% MORE LAND HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE BOUNDARY. 41 K C THERE ARE SEVERAL COMMUNITIES THAT ARE PART OF THE UGB, BUT NOT CONTIGUOUS: WILSONVILLE ON THE SOUTH; FOREST GROVE AND CORNELIUS ON THE WEST. TROUTDALE AND GRESHAM ARE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY AT THE EASTERN EDGE, AND THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS THE NORTHERN l BOUNDARY. VANCOUVER AND CLARK COUNTY ARE NOT A PART OF THE URBAN ( GROWTH BOUNDARY. SLIDE 17 THIS ENLARGEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE BOUNDARY ILLUSTRATES HOW COMPLEX IT ALL IS. 24 CITIES, 3 COUNTIES AND OVER 60 SPECIAL DISTRICTS TOOK PART IN SETTING THE UGB. POLITICAL BOUNDARIES, DRAINAGE BASINS, LAND USE PATTERNS AND MANY ( OTHER FACTORS WERE CONSIDERED. WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED IN 1979, THE e UGB CONTAINED MORE THAN A 20 YEAR SUPPLY OF BUILDABLE LAND. t SLIDE 18 IN THE METROPOLITAN REGION, POPULATION INCREASED FROM 1970 TO i_ 1975 AT A STEADY RATE. FROM 1976 TO 1981, THE GROWTH RATE { INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY. AS A RESULT OF THE 1979-1983 RECESSION, THERE WAS A DROP IN TOTAL POPULATION. NOW, POPULATION GROWTH IS AGAIN ON THE UPSWING. THE APRIL 1989 ESTIMATE FOR OUR i FOUR - COUNTY REGION IS 1,366,000, AND APPROACHING 1.4 MILLION IN 1990. t SLIDE 19 ` BUILDING PERMIT STATISTICS ALSO SHOW THE EXTENT OF GROWTH. 1972 AND 1979 WERE PEAKS OF CONSTRUCTION, WHILE 1974 AND 1982, REPRESENT THE LOW POINTS. WE'RE ONLY NOW BACK TO WHERE WE WERE IN THE 1960'S AND 19701S. 1989 STATISTICS WILL SHOW EVEN HIGHER LEVELS OF BUILDING ACTIVITY. SLIDE 20 THIS CHART SHOWS GROWTH IN COMPARABLE WEST COAST CITIES. PORTLAND IS ON THE LEFT AND THE UNITES STATES AS A WHOLE ON THE RIGHT. THE FIRST 1/2 OF THIS PAST DECADE IS IN WHITE, THE DARKER l PORTION , THE FULL DECADE. AS YOU CAN SEE, PORTLAND GREW SLOWER C_ THAN THESE OTHER CITIES AND THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. L SLIDE 21 ANOTHER IMPORTANT DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURE IS THE AGE OF OUR POPULATION. AS THIS CHART ILLUSTRATES, THERE IS A LARGE BULGE IN THE 35-44 AGE GROUP. THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY REFER TO ANY ONE'S WAIST IN THAT AGE GROUP. THIS GROUP ACCOUNTS FOR A GOOD SHARE OF t THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING AND JOBS AS THEY COME OF AGE AND FORM HOUSEHOLDS. OTHER GROUPS ARE NOT NEARLY AS LARGE, AND DO NOT NEED AS MANY JOBS AND HOMES. SLIDE 22 ! JOBS ARE THE ENGINE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH. IN 1980-1987, MANY ECONOMIC SECTORS WITHIN OUR REGION LOST JOBS; AGRICULTURE ( SUFFERED OVER A 30% LOSS, AND CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCED ALMOST A 20% REDUCTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, SERVICES, RETAIL TRADE AND C. 42 c. c ` c PUBLIC JOBS INCREASED. SLIDE 23 IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, CONSTRUCTION REBOUNDED SIGNIFICANTLY, AS DID OTHER HARD HIT INDUSTRIES. THE SERVICE SECTOR CONTINUED TO GROW. SLIDE 24 THIS IS A COMPILATION OF ALL OF THE URBAN LAND USE PLANS OF THE 3 COUNTIES AND 24 CITIES WITHIN THE METRO BOUNDARY. THE YELLOW REPRESENTS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL , BLUE - INDUSTRIAL, RED - MULTI-FAMILY & COMMERCIAL, AND THE GRAY/GREEN IS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND PARKS. THIS MAP ANTICIPATES DEVELOPMENT, AND IS NOT NECESSARILY THE WAY THE LAND IS USED TODAY. SLIDE 25 THE BLUE ON THIS MAP SHOWS THOSE AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN "EXCEPTED" FROM FARM AND FOREST LAND REQUIREMENTS. IN OTHER WORDS THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE CURRENT URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND HAVE BEEN ZONED FOR LARGE LOT DEVELOPMENT, 5-10 ACRE PARCELS. MOST OF THEM WERE APPROVED BEFORE OUR STATE PLANNING LAWS TOOK EFFECT. THIS PATTERN HAS IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL LAND USES IN THE REGION. SLIDE 26 NOW THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT HISTORICAL TRENDS AND PRESENT DAY PATTERNS, LET'S EXPLORE SOME PROJECTIONS FOR OUR FUTURE. SLIDE 27 IN REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT, AS YOU CAN SEE, WASHINGTON COUNTY IS EXPECTED TO HAVE THE GREATEST JOB INCREASE, FOLLOWED BY MULTNOMAH, CLARK, AND CLACKAMAS COUNTIES. WE HAVE INCLUDED ALL THE CITIES WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTIES. SLIDE 28 NOT WITHSTANDING GROWTH EXPECTATIONS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MULTNOMAH COUNTY WILL STILL HAVE MOST OF THE JOBS IN THE REGION. SLIDE 29 ALTHOUGH MULTNOMAH COUNTY WILL REMAIN THE LEADING EMPLOYMENT CENTER, ITS POPULATION INCREASES ARE FORECAST TO BE MODEST IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER COUNTIES. OBVIOUSLY, PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE TO LIVE SOME DISTANCE FROM THEIR JOBS. SLIDE 30 AS A RESULT OF THE FORECASTED GROWTH, MULTNOMAH COUNTY'S TOTAL POPULATION IS EXPECTED TO BE 629,000 BY THE YEAR 2010; WASHINGTON COUNTY - 439,000; CLACKAMAS COUNTY - 368,000; AND CLARK COUNTY - 353,000. 43 ° SLIDE 31 IN REGARD TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTION FORECASTS, CLARK COUNTY, WITH 47,000 NEW HOMES, WILL HAVE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF C. NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BY 2010... SLIDE 32 WASHINGTON AND CLACKAMAS COUNTIES WILL FOLLOW CLOSELY. MULTNOMAH IS EXPECTED TO EXPAND BY 27,000 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. l SLIDE 33 ( FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, WITH THE EXPECTED ADDITION OF 33,000 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IS THE FORECASTED LEADER, WITH CLARK COUNTY ADDING 20,000 UNITS.... ( SLIDE 34 ...MULTNOMAH COUNTY FOLLOWS WITH 19,000 UNITS AND CLACKAMAS WITH 14,000 BY THE YEAR 2010. t. SLIDE 35 CONTINUED GROWTH UNDOUBTEDLY WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE URBAN t- GROWTH BOUNDARY. l t SLIDE 36 FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE PUBLIC DOES NOT SUPPORT ROW HOUSES AND HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AND THE RESULTING COMPACT URBAN FORM, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL PRESSURE TO MOVE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY t SOONER THAN OTHERWISE MAY BE REQUIRED... r SLIDE 37 LARGE LOT DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OUTSIDE THE GROWTH BOUNDARY WILL MAKE EXPANSION OF THE UGB MORE DIFFICULT. L SLIDE 38 C EVEN THOUGH I-205 IS A PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN OREGON AND c WASHINGTON, THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND OREGON LAND USE C_ PLANNING GOALS APPLY ONLY TO THE OREGON SIDE. SLIDE 39 . EXPANSION OF THE BOUNDARY TO THE EAST ALONG THE COLUMBIA RIVER DOES NOT APPEAR LIKELY, BECAUSE OF THE NEW COLUMBIA GORGE c LEGISLATION... C C SLIDE 40 THE AREA SOUTH OF LAKE OSWEGO WHICH TRAVERSES I-205 IS C EXPERIENCING SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH PRESSURES... C SLIDE 41 C_ AND FINALLY, THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE BOUNDARY HAS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE LAND. 44 z 1 SLIDE 42 THE MAIN REASON TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARY IS THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE FINANCIAL ABILITIES OF CITIES, COUNTIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS TO FUND EXISTING AND FUTURE SERVICES SLIDE 43 AND THE NEED TO CONSERVE FARM AND FOREST LAND AS WELL AS NATURAL AREAS. SLIDE 44 FINALLY, WE COME TO THE IMPORTANT ISSUES OF GROWTH. SLIDE 45 ` 12 GROWTH ISSUE CATEGORIES WERE INITIALLY DEVELOPED AFTER MEETINGS OF THE URBAN GROWTH TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND MODIFIED AND REVISED AFTER A SERIES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS. THE Y FIRST FOUR ARE RELATED TO ECONOMIC CONCERNS, INCLUDING HOUSING, PUBLIC SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION, AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY... 4 SLIDE 46 - THE SECOND FOUR CATEGORIES CONCERN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INCLUDING CLEAN WATER, AIR, URBAN NATURAL AREAS & OPEN SPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST LANDS... SLIDE 47 THE NEXT TWO DEAL WITH URBAN FORM, AND THE LAST WERE ADDED AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS. SLIDE 48 FIRST IS HOUSING. ADEQUATE HOUSING IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF GROWTH. SLIDE 49 ONE VITAL CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER IT WILL CONTINUE TO REMAIN AFFORDABLE..... SLIDE 50 AND HOW EXISTING AREAS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAN BE MADE MORE LIVABLE WITHOUT DISPLACING THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE? SLIDE 51 ANOTHER ISSUE IS WHETHER THE LOCATION OF HOUSING SHOULD BE BALANCED WITH THE LOCATION OF JOBS ON A SUBAREA BASIS, OR WHETHER A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE, IS MORE DESIRABLE. SLIDE 52 AS THIS PHOTO OF MAX IN THE HOLLYWOOD DISTRICT SHOWS, LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION CAN SUPPORT EACH OTHER. SLIDE 53 "PUBLIC SERVICES" INCLUDES OUR DRINKING WATER SYSTEM, SANITARY 45 SEWERS, STORMWATER DRAINAGE, PARK, FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION; SCHOOLS, AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. SLIDE 54 IN SOME AREAS OF THE REGION, OUR SCHOOLS ARE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME KEEPING UP WITH THE GROWTH IN POPULATION. SLIDE 55 ADEQUATE FINANCING FOR MAJOR FACILITIES, SUCH AS THIS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, IS OFTEN DIFFICULT. SLIDE 56 . AN ASSOCIATED ISSUE IS THE INCREASING REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATING FACILITIES, SUCH AS SEWERS. ONE REASON FOR RISING COSTS ARE MORE STRINGENT ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. SLIDE 57 CRITICAL TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, AS WELL TO HOW WE ACCOMMODATE C GROWTH, IS OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. c C SLIDE 5$ C SEVERAL TRANSPORTATION CHOICES ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE REGION. C MAX, OUR LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM, IS ONE MODE. TO GENERATE SUFFICIENT USAGE, MAX IS DEPENDENT UPON HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND INTENSIVE RETAIL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE TRANSIT STATIONS. c C SLIDE 59 THIS SHOWS RECOMMENDED EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR EXISTING c TRANSIT SYSTEM. c SLIDE 60 AUTOMOBILES, BOTH OUR PASSION AND FRUSTRATION, REMAIN OUR MOST POPULAR MEANS OF GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE. IN CONTRAST TO LIGHT RAIL, THEY DON'T NEED CENTRALIZED EMPLOYMENT CENTERS OR HIGHER DENSITIES. HOWEVER, THE ROAD SYSTEM FOR A DISPERSED LAND 'USE PATTERN IS VERY COSTLY. 1. t SLIDE 61 THIS MAP SHOWS RECOMMENDED HIGHWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE FORECASTED DEMAND, BY THE YEAR 2000. SLIDE 62 OUR OTHER MAJOR MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION ARE BUSES. THE BUS SYSTEM IS ALSO DEPENDENT ON HOUSING DENSITIES AND CENTRALIZED EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE AS HIGH DENSITIES AS LIGHT RAIL, AND IT IS MORE FLEXIBLE, AS ROUTES CAN BE CHANGED TO ACCOMMODATE DEMANDS. SLIDE 63 AS MENTIONED EARLIER, JOBS DRIVE GROWTH. WE'RE ALSO STARTING TO REALIZE THAT A HIGH QUALITY OF LIVEABILITY, GOOD SCHOOLS AND t t 46 r t AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALSO INFLUENCE GROWTH. ' SLIDE 64 WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE JOBS CREATED AND THE WAGES THAT THEY PAY ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT FAMILIES...... SLIDE 65 ..AND THAT WE HAVE A CONTINUING DIVERSITY OF JOB TYPES TO HELP INSURE A STABLE ECONOMY. SLIDE 66 FINALLY, WE SHOULD MAKE SURE OUR WORK FORCE HAS THE SKILLS THAT EMPLOYERS NEED. SLIDE 67 OUR ENVIRONMENT IS ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT GROWTH CONCERN.... SLIDE 68 OUR DRINKING WATER MUST BE SAFE AND PURE... SLIDE 69 WE MUST PROPERLY MANAGE OUR SURFACE WATER AND UNDERGROUND SUPPLIES.... SLIDE 70 EVEN IN OREGON, THE QUANTITY OF WATER AVAILABLE FOR OUR NEEDS IS LIMITED. AN INCREASE IN OUR WATER SUPPLY WILL BE NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE EXPECTED GROWTH. SLIDE 71 ANOTHER PRECIOUS RESOURCE IS CLEAN AIR.... SLIDE 72 OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES WE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION. CERTAINLY SOME INDUSTRIES STILL CONTRIBUTE TO A LESSENING OF OUR AIR QUALITY. SLIDE 73 HOWEVER, AUTOMOBILES AND TRUCKS ACCOUNT FOR THE MAJORITY OF AIR POLLUTION IN OUR REGION. SLIDE 74 IMPORTANT TO OUR SENSE OF PLACE, OUR PRIDE IN OUR BEAUTIFUL REGION, IS OUR ABILITY TO SEE MOUNT HOOD. IN FACT, THE MOUNTAIN ALSO HELPS US PREDICT THE WEATHER. HERE'S HOW IT WORKS. IF YOU CAN'T SEE MT HOOD, IT'S RAINING. IF YOU CAN SEE IT, IT'S GOING TO RAIN. SLIDE 75 CLEARLY, OUR NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACES ARE VITAL TO OUR REGION. 47 SLIDE 76 MANY OF OUR NATURAL AREAS ARE PRIVATELY OWNED. SOME OF THEM ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ZONING l_ ( SLIDE 77 ( SOME NATURAL AREAS, SUCH AS THIS WETLAND, ARE ONLY NOW BEING RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR IMPORTANCE TO OUR WATER QUALITY. STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO IDENTIFY AND PROTECT SUCH SIGNIFICANT AREAS. C_ SLIDE 78 THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF WILDLIFE AND ITS BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY C IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE. ( SLIDE 79 C_ SUFFICIENT PLACES FOR RECREATION THROUGHOUT THE REGION ALSO ARE IMPORTANT TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. C C.. SLIDE 80 A PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF OUR LAND USE LAWS IS TO CONSERVE AND { PROTECT FARM AND FOREST LANDS. c i SLIDE 81 AGRICULTURE AS A BUSINESS CONTRIBUTES SUBSTANTIALLY TO OUR LOCAL ( ECONOMY. FOR EXAMPLE, DESPITE URBANIZATION IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, C. TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY SALES INCREASED BY 31 PERCENT C BETWEEN 1980 AND 1988. THIS IS AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR INFLATION. C SLIDE 82 AS GROWTH OCCURS, THERE WILL BE INCREASED PRESSURE TO DEVELOP FARM AND FOREST LANDS. WHERE, HOW, WHEN AND WHY ARE ALL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. i. SLIDE 83 URBAN EDGE REFERS TO THE SHAPE OF OUR REGION AS IT GROWS, PARTICULARLY AT THE FRINGE OR NEAR THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. SLIDE 84 THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATIONS SHOW 3 DIFFERENT PATTERNS OF URBAN GROWTH. AS THIS SLIDE ILLUSTRATES, A RADIAL FORM CONCENTRATES DEVELOPMENT ALONG TRANSPORTATION ROUTES... ( SLIDE 85 SATELLITE CITIES, WHICH DIRECT GROWTH TOWARDS AND AROUND EXISTING CITIES IS ANOTHER POSSIBLE CHOICE... c SLIDE 86 ( AND A MORE DISPERSED PATTERN IS LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ( SCATTERED EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. { THERE IS ALSO A FOURTH OPTION, NOT SHOWN HERE, IN WHICH INCREASED C 48 L DEVELOPMENT IS ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE EXISTING BOUNDARY. `a SLIDE 87 THERE ARE OTHER URBAN FORM ISSUES AS WELL. THIS PICTURE SHOWS THE PRESENT URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY WHERE A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN URBAN AND FARM LAND USES CAN BE SEEN. THE BOUNDARY COULD BE MOVED MORE EASILY HERE THAN IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE ADJACENT LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE IS NO CLEAR POLICY THAT SPECIFIES t~• HOW THE TRANSITION BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL SHOULD OCCUR. OBVIOUSLY, ANY BOUNDARY CHANGE WOULD NEED TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES. SLIDE 88 URBAN GROWTH ALSO HAS AN IMPACT ON THE CENTER, OR OLDER, MORE DEVELOPED AREAS. SLIDE 89 IF ALL INVESTMENT GOES TO THE FRINGES, DETERIORATION AT THE CORE WILL OCCUR..... SLIDE 90 ON THE OTHER HAND, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE NEW ROUSE PROJECT IN DOWNTOWN PORTLAND, INVESTMENT, iN THE CORE AREA CAN BENEFIT THE WHOLE REGION. THERE ARE IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE URBAN CENTERS AND THE URBAN EDGE. SLIDE 91 AS A RESULT OF THE SERIES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD LAST MONTH, AN ADDITIONAL CATEGORY CALLED "PLANNING PROCESS" WAS ADDED TO OUR LIST OF IMPORTANT GROWTH ISSUES. THIS REFERS TO HOW LAND USE PLANNING IN OUR REGION CAN REMAIN ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE. SLIDE 92 THIS AFTERNOON WE'LL BE WORKING IN SMALL GROUPS TO DECIDE WHICH ISSUES ARE MOST IMPORTANT AND DISCUSSING STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH THEM..... SLIDE 93 AS WE GO ABOUT OUR WORK TODAY, LET'S REMEMBER WE'RE STEWARDS OF A VERY BEAUTIFUL AND EXCEPTIONALLY LIVABLE PART OF THE COUNTY. OUR PAST SUCCESSES HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF HARD WORK AND DEDICATION. I KNOW WE'LL FACE THE TOUGH CHOICES AHEAD, AND BUILD AN EVEN MORE LIVABLE FUTURE. THANK YOU. ,E 49 i; c PANEL PRESENTATIONS < ED WHELAN: ( My name is Ed Whelan. I will be the moderator for this portion ( of the program. The first speaker you'll hear from is Mike ( Ragsdale. Mike is the presiding officer of the Metro Council. He is Vice President, Senior Marketing Consultant for Grubb and Ellis, a national commercial real estate company. He represented ( Washington County in the Oregon House of Representatives and Senate from 1972 to 1980. He was the founding member of the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Commission. He serves on the board of the Oregon Tourism Alliance and chairs JPACT in the region. One of the accomplishments that Mike had while a member of the ` Oregon Legislature was as one of the real leaders in a bipartisan effort that led to the adoption of the enabling legislation for the creation later of Metro, by vote of the people in this i_ region. At this time I would like to introduce Mike Ragsdale. MIKE RAGSDALE: l Thank you. My responsibility today is to visit the issue that is L before us from the perspective of the private sector. I have a ( number of items I want to talk about. I think that as I am L talking I will probably mix my perceptions as it relates to an L elected official serving on the Metro Council. It is impossible C for me to separate those entirely. As I contemplated what my remarks would be, I recalled the sometimes acrimonious debate that occurred around Senate Bill 100 and the sometimes confusing and acrimonious debates that have occurred a number of times before the voters since 1973 about the question of land use. I listened to John DeGrove talk about building consensus, and I recognize that achieving consensus has been tough in land use and c growth management issues. I think about a perspective from the private sector about whether or not the system worked. There are still those who say that land use planning, and comprehensive C planning, and urban growth management, and all those sorts of things are a communist conspiracy, and it is really a negative for the private sector. I would like to represent that as an active participant in the private sector relative to issues ( affected by those statutes, those laws, those ordinances, those c 50 f c ~k plans, that the system has worked very well. To start my little presentation here, I would like to give you an example of that. I had the pleasure of representing Standard Insurance Company in a real estate transaction when they sold a site to Epson. I will share with you that, in the site selection process, we were competing with the other western United States and, by the time they came down to their cut list, there were 12 sites that were involved in the decision-making process and Oregon uniquely had two of the 12 sites. Both of those sites were in the Sunset Corridor. The No. 1 site was in the Sunset Corridor; the No. 2 site was in San Diego; and the No. 3 site was in the Sunset Corridor. So, we _ kind of bracketed San Diego as it related to the decision for Epson to come to this particular area. As you know, we were successful in that competition. We had a little meeting of the players that had participated in that decision, including some of the senior executives from Epson. At a luncheon I was seated next to one of the Japanese individuals who spoke enough English for me to be able to converse with him without going through an interpreter, and I asked him why they had selected Oregon. The answer was the livability. Well, I'm not quite sure I understand what livability is when it relates to the real estate siting decision. So, I followed on " the question and I asked more specifically what he meant by livability. He talked about the things that we put into our brochures, and he talked about the scenery and how that is very consistent with the sort of feeling that they like in Japan. He gave kind of a chamber of commerce response and I liked that somehow. I did not have from his answer quite what I wanted or what I thought was a pragmatic siting decision so I probed a little further; and as we moved him past the mountains, and the greenery, and the water, and the recreational opportunities, and those aspects of livability, he acknowledged to me that one of the most important criteria in their decision was certainty, certainty of land use. He indicated - and it's almost a direct quote of what he said - "in San Diego, we don't know who our neighbor would be. In Oregon, we know what is going to be going on for at least five miles in all directions," and that was very important to that Epson decision. It was also very important that in Washington County, at the time, they had adopted their growth management ordinances and Epson could know that the infrastructure required for urban services was going to be provided in the area. While it is not a pure Florida concurrency strategy that Washington County adopted, it is very close to that kind of strategy. That facility site selector knew that when he sited there, he not only knew what the 51 environment was going to be like around him as it related to future development, he knew that the services were going to be in place to provide for that development. That was a confirmation C on a transaction that our land use process works in Oregon. L As a matter of fact, it created the final key in their ( decision-making, in our beating San Diego in that site decision. And that was extremely solid confirmation for me and I have used t that example as I have talked to private sector audiences many times. And I could go on, as most of you could, citing examples of how this system works. r_ Rather than do that, because we're going to get a lot of that from ourselves as we pat ourselves on the back about being one of the pioneers in growth management, let me talk to you about my perceptions of some things that aren't working quite so well and ( share with you some things I think that we might be addressing as t, we develop what I would call our second generation of dealing with our land use questions: updates, revisions, and modifications. And I picked, by the way, the phrase "second generation" intentionally. I have attended as a speaker a number of growth management presentations around the country and I have been on panels with people from other states, and I have found that those in states like Vermont, New Jersey, and Florida call Oregon a first generation land use state. And the ones that are currently being developed are second generation because they have looked at t our model and they have made modifications. So as we move into our second generation strategies to implement what we already ( have in place, I would call to attention - and I will use some L examples - some of the things that I am concerned about. L Within our planning process, there is a great deal of confusion about the issue that John DeGrove mentioned, and that is the question about what the neighbor is doing. In Washington County, as an example, I had a client, individuals who owned a residence that they had lived in for 35 years and, as growth had occurred around their particular residence, it became very urbanized and ( that property transitioned from a residential setting of a rural nature to a house in the middle of significant commercial development. They were in the process of getting their land uses clarified and they were at a point that they were either going to be annexed to the City of Beaverton or to the City of Hillsboro. And it became very significant to that client which city they were in simply L because of the difference in the text of the zoning ordinances from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. One jurisdiction had t_ significantly more flexible language as it related to what could ( be done with that commercial parcel and it was distinctly to that client's advantage to be in one jurisdiction versus the other w ( ( 52 C 1. L. jurisdiction. It was a situation neighbor to neighbor having inconsistent language that made a significant difference in the use of that particular land. I would reference this as the private property rights question. I agree that we have an obligation and a right to deal with the private uses of property through our zoning ordinances but I also think that it is a responsibility regionwide to try to address the inconsistencies between zoning so that we don't have that kind of situation as developed on the Fishback's property. I'll take it a little further. As a real estate broker I deal only in land transactions. My clients are generally individuals that have land to sell and are very frequently not developers. Very frequently those individuals have had their property change in zone designation, as I just represented with the Fishbacks. My buyer is usually a developer. And what I have found working in the marketplace is that, because of the discrepancy between language and because of the discrepancy between processes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, we have seen a significant flow of commercial activity into jurisdictions that have cleaner processes. I would recommend that we, as a region, in order to even the flow so that we get distribution that is intended by our comprehensive planning process, that we address the question of this disparity between jurisdictions. I totally agree with the Florida approach and the Florida concept of trying to get - trying to pay more attention than we in Oregon have, from my vantage point, to what the neighbor is doing. I think that's a significant point. I concur that one of the major considerations that we must look at as we revise and as we develop a maturing process, is the interrelationship of transportation and land use designations. We do a fair amount of that today. And my experience, as I have made presentations around the country, is that our process in this region is the most advanced in the country as it relates to correlating transportation planning, land use, and growth management strategies. But we can do more and we must do more. And that would be another issue that I would charge us with as we move forward in our development of our next generation of development strategies. One concern that I have that's very much in the forefront of my mind representing the private sector are some problems in the area of housing. And let me cite an example that's very close to me. My stepson, David, is a single parent who has a three-year-old son in his custody. He is working in Washington County. He has a reasonably good job, in fact, he has a good job. But he also has $320 a month child care costs. 53 f' As a result of that and other considerations for this young, single parent, he cannot afford to live in the apartments that are being built in Washington County that are near his job. He is forced economically to be a reluctant commuter. That's personal to me. I am very aware of David's problem. By the time he is done with his rental cost, and with his child care cost, David can qualify to be classified as working poor. And the C working poor can no longer afford the high-end apartments that C are being built in Washington County. C. C As a matter of fact, as I watch the development in this region L from my perspective of a real estate broker, I recognize that C most of the housing inventory that is being built in this region is out of reach of the working poor. Now, I'm not talking about someone who is on welfare. I am talking about someone who has a job that is a good job, and he is a diligent worker, and he is making a good income, and he is managing his finances well, but C he can't afford most of the inventory that's being constructed in this region today. t And that is a problem that's here now. It's not a theoretical t problem that we're going to have to deal with in the future. s It's something that we must start addressing today and that's affordable housing, located near where the jobs are. We cannot zone an area for commercial development or industrial and say, "Oh, by the way, you've got to provide a certain level of wages in that particular zone so the worker can afford to live in the contiguous environs." We have got to develop and deliver on a strategy that provides affordable housing near the workplace. t c And let's just for a moment touch on the transportation impacts L of what happens if we don't do that. As a matter of fact, I ( think we just touched on it because you all thought about that for a moment. When we force David to be a long distance commuter, what have we done to the transportation system? And t_ that is not transportation planning as it relates to land use Q planning, that's housing planning as it relates to land use C planning. We have got to deal with that. r I had a call the other day from an out of state developer who has been very successful around the country developing what would be called high-end golf course residential tracts. This developer develops a tournament level golf course, 36 holes, and builds near that executive housing. Now that's not going to deal with t David's problem but that's a product we would like to have in our l region. This particular developer, in my estimation, is one of the top developers in the country; probably in the top five in the world as it relates to the quality of the product this C developer builds. C, C` 54 / f 1 1 1 1 This developer asked me to identify five or six options to try 1 and assemble and build his product. He operates with a minimum ! of 1,000 acres and would prefer to have 2,000 acres. One of the requirements is to be able to buy some of that property at farm 1 or basically farm values because you are dealing with a 20-year 1 absorption program, or even a 15-year absorption program. If you have got to pay the current asking price for residential land, 1 you can't afford to carry. The project just doesn't pencil and 1 the developer would then go to a different community to do his ! project. Maybe I missed something but I believe that, within the Portland metropolitan urban growth boundary, I could not meet that ! prospect's needs. The prospect is coming to town next month. I will be showing the prospect some alternatives and, believe me, the interesting thing to be able to meet the need requested by that prospect may require down-zoning. And I don't think we could make that work, because to be able to buy the raw land at industrial or commercial value, down-zone it for residential uses, we can't get the economics to work. I believe that I or you will have to tell that developer that we cannot accommodate their project in the Portland metropolitan area. Now you say that may be okay. It may be all right that we don't have large scale development. And that could be a policy decision that we choose to make. But what I would ask us to do, as the people who will be making the decisions on how we operate , in the future, that we make that as a policy decision. If, in fact, we are choosing to tell that world class developer that we're not open for his business, then let's make that as a policy decision. Let's not back into it as a result of other decisions that we have made in the process. And I would use that as an example to tell you about some of the problems that are going on out on the street. Let me give you another example. I have a client that is in the business of developing retail. This client is a builder of retail product. The client builds larger than the neighborhood strip center, the small 7-11-dry-cleaners-anchored project. The client builds the larger projects that typically would be anchored by a large food store and maybe a large drug store and the scale of the project that this client builds would be 85,000 to 100,000 square feet or larger. When we were developing the comprehensive plans in this region, the communities didn't really understand a product called retail. We weren't really aware of planning for retail. What we did is we believed that retail was a blight on the land and we used some formulas that said we will allow a certain amount - we will allow reluctantly a certain amount of retail if the surrounding area has a certain amount of density. And we developed density 55 ° equations for how many square feet or acres of retail we were going to designate. We also set up criteria as it related to the transportation system so that it would be on arterials because retails are a ( heavy traffic generator. Although we adopted some pretty sophisticated strategies for the placement of retail in our comprehensive plans we really didn't like retail. And I can tell you in this region we have drastically underzoned retail. I ( cannot deliver a choice of 11-acre sites in number - in enough ( number that there is competition - that there is a competitive pricing circumstance in this region for that prospect. Now, I'm not saying that I can't deliver to that prospect some I1-acre r sites to look at, I can. But frequently those sites are placed in such a way that, by the time he has done his demographic and ( traffic analysis, the site won't pencil. i Now, this developer works all over the western United States and ( will likely choose to do his future development outside the r Portland region simply because our land use processes do not allow a free market choice to be able to make the pricing competitive. We hear in this region about our low land cost but r- let me tell you that low land cost relative to other parts of the i.r western United States for this retail developer is not relevant. r t i Low land cost - his land cost has to be relative to his competitor down the street. It doesn't matter what the unit cost ( of that item is in Seattle, or San Diego, or San Francisco, or l_ anywhere else. It matters very much what the competitor is down the street. If he, because of the artificial constraint that the t political system has composed on his product, must pay a higher ( price, his project can't pencil and he does not need to be in r Portland. Is that good? I don't know. But I do know we did not arrive at r the decision to have that circumstance exist in this region as a policy decision. We inadvertently backed into it with some of r the strategies we used for the placement of a product called r retail. It's a kind of a thing that I think we need to correct. r Now, I am using these examples as illustrations of what I think is a problem that we must look at. We must now adopt a 1990 attitude about the product we are going to have in the region and revisit our mixes, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and regionally to see if the 1970s and 1980s concepts that we had about those products were adequate. Q Let me cite another example. I believe, as one who makes his C living dealing in the sale of land, that we have inappropriately zoned industrial. We did get away from the idea that industrial r 56 r i must be on railroad tracks. That's in the 70's when we started this process and a number of jurisdictions actually started a long way down this road before the marketplace told them railroad tracks aren't particularly relevant to industrial; and we started zoning campus industrial and other activities. But the flexibility in industrial does not exist that I think the i marketplace needs. It's an observation that I would be happy to draw out with planning commission members or planners. I don't want to dwell on it here. I just cite it as another example of the circumstance that I believe we developed in the region on the street. Housing problems - neighborhood to neighborhood, neighboring community, disparities in language problems. Supply problems in housing. A number of problems exist in the actual working implementation of our process. So I would challenge us as we think of the big picture that we also constantly think about the practical day-to-day implications on the land in the transactions as it relates to the pattern. / 1 Let me go back to the retail developer if I might. This 1 developer is a quality developer, sensitive to the things that 1 we're concerned about such as landscaping, amenities, 1 appearances, the impacts on the community. This developer is sophisticated to know that, if the developer builds a product 1 that looks good, feels good, the retailer in that property will 1 do better than if they build one that doesn't have those amenities. So they will voluntarily landscape more than most of 1 our codes require. It's the kind of developer - this company 1 is - that we want in our region. 1 If we're driving that developer away from the region, we're driving that developer's competition away from the region. What 1 we have left is a class of developer that will be able to make it work by cutting corners. We then would tend, without a policy discussion on it, to be making a decision that that class of development within this region will be low, low class. It's not a policy decision that I think we would make intentionally. But it's a policy decision that I do believe from my experience on the street that we're making inadvertently. I would ask us, therefore, as we are going into the next , iteration of our land use planning policies and our growth management policies, not only to deal with the larger issues that we are going to hear so much about today from the other presenters that we have already heard but also let us really be careful to focus on the minute, practical applications of those particular issues. I think we have not done enough of that. And I would challenge the governments in this audience to revisit your Goal 9. I can't relate specifically, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, on what has happened in the last few years as it _ 57 as relates to the revisions of Goal 9 in the comprehensive plan. I am aware of some of the efforts in the region. I will tell you that, in my opinion, the Goal 9 components of the comprehensive plan are absolutely inadequate. C. Goal 9, as you will recall, was not an emphasized goal and, when the comprehensive plans were approved, we were focusing on preservation goals. We were really very careful to make sure that we were reserving farm and forest land. It is a fact that, ( in the original round of approvals, we did not focus as a priority on Goal 9. It was there and I believe a lot of planners were able to borrow the word processing work from other jurisdictions and just stick t something in to get it done. I know in some jurisdictions that happened because the elected officials and the staff have t admitted to me that was what the process was and they admit it ( without embarrassment. I do believe, however, as we are moving forward into a sustained growth period, that we must cogently review our economic development strategies and that's Goal 9, the economic goal. And we must make policy decisions that we have avoided heretofore as we have been dealing with more pressing or more publicly sexy Cr components of the comprehensive planning process. So my challenge, my request, is that we think very carefully through our general decisions to the daily on-the-street implications of those decisions and recognize that the daily on-the-street applications of those decisions should be part of < our articulated policy decisions and can easily be overlooked. L And I would ask that we look at it very carefully. I would ask that we revisit our Goal 9 efforts. ( I would endorse that we continue to get more sophisticated, continue to lead the nation in strategies to integrate f- transportation and land use policies. Thank you. ED WHELAN: Thank you, Mike. The next speaker on this panel is Henry t Richmond. Henry is the Executive Director of 1,000 Friends of ` Oregon, a public service group that has been working since 1975 to realize Oregon's land use laws at the state and local level. s Prior to 1,000 Friends, Mr. Richmond was a staff attorney for the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group, and was a law clerk for the late U.S. District Court judge Gus Solomon. He is a member of the Oregon State Bar and has received honors including the Rockefeller Public Service Award, the Honor Award C from the Izaak Walton League of America, and a Distinguished Service Award from the University of Oregon. Henry... C 58 i HENRY RICHMOND: I think it's great that Metro brought this diverse and large group together to talk about - as Mike and other speakers have previously mentioned - sort of the second generation of planning in Oregon. It's a success story that, hopefully, is moving into further successes. I have seven points to make with respect to issues that I think ` need to be addressed. The first one is, will the urban growth boundary process continue to be managed in a professional and honest way? I think that we, and Chairman Ragsdale and his staff and Rena Cusma, can be very proud of what Metro has done with Goal 14 in the Portland metro area. Their conclusions about land supply, about policy adjustments, have been based on calls on the numbers. They have been based on good staff and council work in our estimation, and we think that that quality of administration is not only to be complimented but it's maintenance, its continuation, is in itself an issue as we move into this transition period. I think they have done a first rate job. We have an analytical tool in Oregon that lifts land use decision-making at the urban fringe above and from random individual decisions on a given Tuesday night at various municipalities around the area to a process that asks what are . the communities' urban land use needs? Where should they be? When should they be? And how much acreage is required to satisfy them? The shift to the public interest perspective in land use policy has meant that until lands are found to be needed for urban purposes the policy will be to restrict them to rural uses. That is a policy construct, a procedure that's established in law, that no other metropolitan area in the United States has. Some are groping for it, some are simply dreaming about it. Florida is working toward what they call urban service areas. The New Jersey system has what they call a tier approach, which is somewhat more complicated than urban growth boundaries but it boils down to the same thing. The 1988 Vermont Legislature used what the statute calls the traditional settlement pattern of villages and open spaces between villages, not urban growth boundaries, but as a way of marking where urban development will go in the villages and in lands moving just beyond those villages, protecting the unneeded rural lands from urban uses in the meantime. So I think we have a success story on that and it isn't just policy, it isn't procedure, but it's how this agency, as I said earlier, made its decisions based on the numbers. I think we need to think about urban growth boundaries in a slightly different way. We have convened a group of statewide conservation organizations, about 17 of them, to think about 59 z planning and to have them share their experiences. We have had two meetings. At our second meeting in November, we invited a senior planner of the Council for the Protection of Rural England C. from London to speak to us about greenbelts. We were all a little surprised about the way he characterized the purposes of greenbelts, not to save farmlands, not to avoid a negative of sprawl, but the primary purpose of the greenbelt was to help cities by redirecting investment towards desired uses in the city areas. I think a shift in our thinking and a supplement of policy to enhance that kind of conclusion will be desirable in Oregon. The second point, and it's similar I am pleased to say to the first one, is that how do you extend the plus of success? How do we realize and retain the advantage of a major asset for this region that's been created by the planning and growth management process? What I mean is the vacant land base for affordable housing. No other metro area in the United States has had such a dramatic and substantial rezoning to affordable housing densities as has occurred in the Portland metropolitan area in 1978-79 to about 1983. Here are the numbers which are simply a compilation of local government data. In 1978, the average single family lot size on vacant residentially zoned land was 12,800 square feet. At that time, notwithstanding the fact that 50 percent of the building permit demand was multifamily, only 7 percent of the vacant residential land was zoned multifamily. The land base could hold about 129,000 units. In 1982-83, when almost all of the acknowledgement plan revision work had been done by the 24 cities in the urban portions of the three counties, the average lot size had gone from 12,800 to 8,500 square feet. The amount of multifamily had gone from 7 percent to 28 percent and the number of housing units that could be built on almost the same vacant land base size increased from 129,000 units to 305,000 units. Now, I think it's instructive that, during that same time period, an almost identical land use policy was in place in New Jersey; as John DeGrove mentioned, a product of the 1975 New Jersey State Supreme Court decision. If you read the holding of that case and you look at LCDC's Goal 10, they say almost the same thing but, because of the lack of an acknowledgement review apparatus in that state and the lack of an agency like Metro, which was really i given the job of implementing that policy in the Portland area, t not much happened in New Jersey. About 200 acres were rezoned in that 10-year period. < At the time that New Jersey finally made the decision to create C an LCDC-type agency to administer state land use policy in the same way that you administer health policy, and tax policy, and speed limits, and other things - you need some administrative 60 capability there - there were 65 lawsuits pending against municipalities in the State of New Jersey. Now they will, hopefully, be making some progress. My point is that tremendous progress has been made in this region. It is not well recognized. It's the envy of other metropolitan areas who are facing much higher residential price escalations than we're experiencing. And my point is we need to make sure we get the advantage, the livability, just the family advantage, the economic development advantage of the zoning, the affordability benefit of the zoning for that residential land. The questions would be what are the build-out densities? Are the densities permitted by the zone being realized by the market? If they are not, why not? What should be done? Another question would be, does the Metropolitan Housing Rule 6-8-10 formula for allocating affordable housing densities around the region need to be revisited in light of the price appreciation, which probably wasn't anticipated? In light of Oregon being somewhat poor? I shouldn't say somewhat, distinctly poor. We have a lot of very good macro numbers, but people are not only looking at higher housing costs - they are not as rich as they were a decade ago when these plans were put in place. Listen to the difference between where the State of Oregon is on an average per capita income basis. In 1979 to 1988, a 10-year period - these are U.S. Bank figures and I'll just give you the difference; I won't state the absolute numbers - but, in 1979, we were $143 above the national average per capita income. And here's what happened over the next 10 years. We went this way -$53, -$508, -$899, -$826; then it's a steady drop, $1,058, $1,267, $1,460, $1566, -$1,604. That's a state with great macro numbers but a state that is getting poorer because largely of what is happening to our forest products industry. Talk about the interrelation of urban and rural land use issues. But we are losing jobs, high paying jobs in the forest products industry. It's driving down the standard of living for the whole state. That has an impact on housing affordability. I won't go into my speech about growing trees on nonindustrial private forest land but there is a connection to the forest products industry and the housing affordability issue. John DeGrove and other speakers, and Arnold's slide show mentioned the problem of the exception areas, Point No. 3. There are some 120,000 acres in the three metro counties alone in these exception areas. That's a big chunk of acreage. We need to get a hold on that issue. I frankly don't know what the answer is. Some people say bring them inside the urban growth boundary. Some people say that's the kiss of death. But it's a policy question that has to be moved to the front burner at LCDC and in the metro area where a big part of the problem is, and we need to 51 resolve it. No. 4, what is the quality of life going to be like inside the urban growth boundary if you have these higher densities? Are f. there enough parks and open space? Are we making careful decisions about wetlands and shore lines and natural areas? What's the quality of project design? And then points about are we keeping up with infrastructure? Are we figuring out ways of funding infrastructure that doesn't dump the cost on the new residents but instead extends the burden of paying for infrastructure on the general community? I think that's a basic t policy issue that needs to be addressed and not just handled by impact fees and system development charges. Governor Kunen of Vermont in September gave a speech about funding infrastructure in the context of their new land use program. And she said we want to fund infrastructure to protect the environment, not to support development solely. If we can't c put the pipes in the ground in the area where we want the development to happen, we can't save this area out here. And that speech has had quite an impact in the State of Vermont. And it's my understanding that it is moving somewhat positively ` through the Vermont Legislature at this time. That's a new way of thinking about infrastructure. It's not just support for development. It undergirds the whole planning process. c . No. 5. Just quickly, the planning process for transportation facilities, particularly highways, is based on the existing plans. Highways have much longer time frames than 5 years or 10 years which would be a periodic review time frame. We can't i think of local plans as being sacrosanct and not be able to change when we are thinking about transportation policy. That would be one point that I would make as sort of a subpoint to Mike's emphasis about connecting land use and transportation policy. Metro has extensive authority to be the lead planning entity in the Portland area for transportation. They have the t. authority given to them by the legislature. We need a vision for the region and the transportation decision should be ways of accomplishing that vision. I think that Metro has got to assume that responsibility. With respect to specific projects, I think we want to spend our transportation money in a way that encourages and supports development and not get in a situation where we are spending a couple of hundred million dollars and then asking the land use program to discourage development along the route of a proposed transportation corridor. To me that's not rational. C C We should be putting transportation investments where we want development to happen because that's what we want. And then the land use process should support development in those locations. 62 c But we shouldn't get into a situation where we're going to say, well, we'll put this freeway out here and then we'll do everything we can with the land use process to stifle development because it is farm or forest land. To me that doesn't make sense. There has got to be a way of changing funding for - transportation facilities. Most of you in the room know more about this than I do but we have about a billion dollar price tag for light rail, and a very faint path to realizing those dollars, and about a $600 million price tag for numerous highway projects around the region, with the money for those things pretty much assured. Funding for these types of projects has got to be on an equal footing or we're not going to get the transportation products we want. I think one message would be we have good policy. Let's not change Goal 12. Let's put Metro in the driver's seat to implement Goal 12 on a regional basis. No. 6 would be - and this is easy for someone who doesn't have to write the checks to say - but I think it's important for the State of Oregon to assume participation in infrastructure funding as well as to set direction for policy. A major thrust of Oregon's land use policy, however implicit it may be, is density in urban areas. I think the state has got to help provide the funding to make the density not only possible from a financial point of view but acceptable from a political point of view. The density is not simply important to accomplish land use goals, but there is a reluctance to accept density because some people don't like the results of it. If you can establish a system that rewards cities that accept densities that the plan policies contemplate with money for streets, for parks, for police patrols, or injections into local school systems on a targeted basis, the density that is desired by the state planning goals might go down a little easier. It seems to me, particularly with the state sitting on a surplus, that some attention could be given to making funds available for that purpose. I would suggest that LCDC not take over the role of dispensing those funds. That would be too big of a tug-of-war to propose. But it should at least be a significant player in that process by certifying to the agencies that do dispense those funds that certain densities have actually been realized in certain communities and they are eligible for those special state grants. Finally, I think there needs to be a change in the approach of citizen involvement in the land use process to track, you might say, the change in the approach to land use decision-making that Senate Bill 100 and urban growth boundaries have established. We - are moving away, in this state and other states are, too, from ad hoc decision making where Project X is voted up and down based on 63 ~R how many people come into a crowded room. We are making decisions on the basis of policy, on the basis of data, and comprehensive plans and that's a plus. i_ But the citizen involvement in that process has not changed. It is still very typically people coming forward for the first time, objecting to something across the fence, taking a crash course in land use policy and procedure - nothing really effective results C from that self-education process - coming before a local body, C making somewhat emotional statements, not having any particular t stake and credibility because they're not going to be there next month or next year, and inappropriately waving the public interest or environmental banner in opposition to a project that has been approved by policies established by a fair and reasonable process, hopefully. t We think it's important - it's one of our top priorities as an organization - to build capacity at the county level, at the local grassroots level, organizational capacity so that people can participate in the land use process in their local communities and engage on a continuing basis matters of policy and the questions of what's in the comprehensive plan and the t kinds of questions that have been raised by the participants in C. this conference, and to get away from or at least put in the back seat an approach to citizen involvement which focuses on Subdivision X or Electronics Plant Y. t' Instead we should talk about policy in a way where folks are { players who have a stake and credibility, are going to have t ongoing dealings with local officials, local media, local C legislators, local builders, and so forth and make the tone something other than the rather nasty negative tone that it is today. This is not an antilocal government strategy. The person that we have hired to direct this project is a former mayor of Lake Oswego, Bill Young. I am going to take the liberty to ask him to stand. He is going to be running this project in a constructive fashion with local governments. We think this is an extremely important undertaking and you will be hearing more about in the months to come. Thank you very much. t. ED WHELAN: Thank you Henry. Our next speaker is Portland City Commissioner Earl Blumenauer. He was elected to the Portland City Council in 1986. His responsibilities include the Department of Transportation, Planning Bureau, and Bureau of Environmental Services. He supervised completion and approval of the Central City Plan and is currently responsible for its implementation. He previously served on the Multnomah County Board of 64 L f j~ C Commissioners and was a State Representative from Southeast Portland. He was also formerly the assistant to the President of Portland State University. City Commissioner Earl Blumenauer. EARL BLUMENAUER: Thanks, Ed. My purpose in being here this morning is to provide some raw meat. As I look around this room I don't think there is anybody here that I recognize that I haven't voted against in the last couple or three years on issues ranging from radio towers to rowhouse development to traffic circles. You name it and we've been involved in it at the City of Portland, usually trying to follow the dictates of sound policy, at least what people on our staff, and the Planning Commission, and the Hearings Officer, and others suggest is sound policy. It gets me in a lot of trouble. And I guess that is the point of departure that I'd like to use in my presentation, a speech that I would have liked to give in other settings but I never quite had the courage. Having established that I am here among friends, I'd like to give my perspective of what we are attempting to do with the planning process. I want to take as my theme a phrase that I picked up from a friend of mine who I see is here, Chet Orloff, and who has been kind enough to consent to a series of "therapy sessions" with me over the years. Normal people when they get frustrated talk to -therapists, they talk to psychologists, and what not. I talk to historians. Maybe some of you would suggest that I ought to talk to the other therapists, but Chet, in the course of a recent conversation with me - he may not remember it - used the phrase that perhaps the decade of the 190's was going to be the decade of candor. I hope that might be the case and so perhaps you will forgive me as I use that as my point of departure and making the assertion that really we are talking about the land use structure in the State of Oregon. And like Matt ...oopsl My good friend Mike Ragsdale - you remember, we both served together in the legislature - Mike and I were there in 1973 when Senate Bill 100 was passed. But it is only in this decade that it is really going to be put to the test. We have never really been squeezed. Think about it for a moment. We had the recession that just knocked the stuffing out of us and, when these great land use plans started to come in they were never really put to the test in the 180's because there wasn't that much development going on. People were scrapping around the edges. We were able to avoid the issues of financing transportation 65 ~e infrastructure because we were busy cashing in interstate freeways and spending that money - thanks to the City of Portland - throughout the metropolitan area. We got our share of some of the transportation infrastructure, but we only spent 43% of it in Portland. The Mt. Hood "Chucky Cheese" Freeway is being enjoyed by people in Washington and Clackamas counties, and in cities throughout the region. It helped us to avoid the hard questions about the allocation of transportation dollars, questions that are now surfacing and we are having to deal with. i. We had, frankly, a larger urban growth boundary than many of the experts, and a lot of people who weren't experts but who had strong feelings, felt that was necessary. There was a lot of fierce controversy, and I am not going to go back and revisit those issues, in terms of how much we were squeezed at the time. I think there are a lot of experts here who can argue that we i. really put off the day of reckoning by, when in doubt, tossing it L into the boundary. And finally - it has been alluded to as leakage - the leakage that occurred earlier because of the things that were grandpersoned in, just leakage that has occurred by things that t. maybe some people can explain to me so that I may get out of government and go into business and make some money on it. But we have never really been squeezed... freeway resources being spent elsewhere avoiding the question, the recession, the leakage, the large boundary. Well, now we can't avoid it any longer. ( t_ Lets just state from the outset that we have the tools. That's t one thing that sets us apart, I think, from other parts of the L country. And I have had the chance, like Mike, to give this speech in Phoenix, and Denver, in the research triangle of North Carolina, in Boston, San Diego; talking about - with pride - the mechanisms that we have. C But by and large I am talking about tools, things like the parking lid, the urban growth boundary, vehicle inspection, the start of a light rail system - which is by no means a lot to crow about until we make it into a system - and the Metropolitan L Service District. Metro is a tool but I think even those most intimately involved with it will agree that it is yet to realize t its full potential. We have in this community - although they drive me nuts at times - the news media and a number of folks who feel strongly about the system and take elected officials to task when they don't live up to at least their vision of vision. There is an C infrastructure, in part represented here in this room, of dedicated professionals who understand what's going on and who have dedicated years of their professional careers to making the t system work. These are the tools and the resources that we have 66 c l l available to us. I would be prepared to argue at some length, although due to Ed's kind reminder I will truncate that somewhat, that really the question for us is whether we have the courage, the political will, and the stamina to actually use the tools. Now "what" to do is rather clear, and I'm not going to flog the issues of protecting farm and forest and wetland and open space ...that we go beyond the tree-huggers. We are really talking about preserving the quality of life in the urban area. The economics of service extension where too often the hidden costs of sewer, water, transportation, electrical utilities are passed off. Instead we are driven by what pencils out for developers coming in and moving forward with things for the 190 s, or for 1990. Well, I have a little difficulty using that as our planning horizon. It should instead be, and I take as the conference banner implies, that where we should be focusing, is on what we want this community to look like in the year 2010 or 2025, not what we are being driven to do in 1990 because it sells in Seattle or San Diego or Denver. There may be things that don't pencil out, and we must be prepared to accept the fact that maybe we don't want them to pencil out badly enough to screw up the system. Infill is something that those of you in the room are going to have to work with people like me to figure out, if we are serious about it. First of all, I think that even before the earthquake, that half a million increase (in population over the next 20 years in the region) is probably too low. And think about the implications of allocating less than 3% of that growth to the central city. Fifteen thousand people out of 500,000 are going to be in the City of Portland and the areas yet to be annexed. Well, if I stay on the City Council for a few years, I hope that we only have to deal with 15,000 and I'd rather you deal with the other 485,000. But I'll tell you, if I were thinking about making a career in some of the suburban cities and counties, or if my home was in those suburban areas, I'd take a hard look at those projections and wonder if we can afford to allow them to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we're going to use this notion of the "decade of candor," growth is not a positive unless it is well managed and it accomplishes what we, as a community, want it to accomplish. And that comes back to infill and whether or not we can truly extend services willy-nilly throughout the metropolitan area, or to even rationally talk about extending the urban growth boundary, when it would seem that, for all of us, it makes a lot more sense to look at serious infill. And it's not just infill in the City of Portland. I'm talking 67 about the established cities that we have: Gresham, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Lake Oswego. Some of you are already having a lot of € fun with traffic congestion. It's going to get worse and, unless we have a uniform concept of what infill means and a joint resolve to make it work, it's going to be very, very unpleasant in this next century. { I think the question is how to accomplish it. I have a few suggestions. First, I'm not worried about financing transportation capital as much as I am transportation operations over time, and having support for education and local government that is responsive to growth. We have a property tax structure that is not expanding to accommodate growth. We have a fixed property tax base and we have too much dependence on the property tax as it exists now. I make a prediction that sometime in the 21st century - and I hope for our sakes sooner rather than later - that we actually have a sales tax and are able to reduce the reliance on the property tax and the distortions that it produces: the uncertainty in education and local government service, the burden on certain types of businesses that are penalized because of our heavy reliance on the property tax, not the least to say the t homeowner. I think we are all going to see that sales tax as a growth management tool. Second is the development of our regional rail program, not line by line but the whole system. I have been thinking about building it in 150 months. I think that should be our goal. It's never going to be cheaper to build the light rail system, t and all of the metropolitan area needs it. We shouldn't be pitting one rail line versus another. We should work together as L a community on a strategy to build them all. Third, we have to deal with the environment as an economic L development strategy - environmentalism. We ought not to accept new industry in Oregon and, in particular, in the metropolitan area that doesn't meet our environmental standards. We can't afford to become a dumping ground. Indeed, we ought to market aggressively the fact that we have an image nationally for protecting the environment. And I think there is a whole host of businesses that can spring up yet in this century that can have a tremendous value to cleaning and protecting the environment and l enhancing it. Environment in Oregon and environment in Portland can go together like Florida orange juice and it can actually add market value to business and to products. Fourth, we have to concentrate growth and our support of growth ` to existing businesses, existing people who live here, and for people who will meet our tests of growth that will be compatible t, with our community. Remember Henry's numbers. We dropped from being above the national average to below. We are in danger of i 68 being a two-tiered community in terms of economics. And we have to make that a part of our land use processes to make the growth that we want. I couldn't agree with Henry more about citizen involvement. As someone who sits hours every week and gets yelled at by people who come in and complain about notice and this and that and the other thing. They are all well intentioned folks, but I am pleased that I have lived long enough in public office to hear the same people who at one point were complaining about increasing the density on their property that they want to keep in large lots and all that stuff, to come back when the kids have left and they wanted to change the zoning so that they could subdivide the homestead and not have to mow it themselves. And maybe Junior was in college and they could pocket a few bucks. Citizen involvement means helping them understand why we have got these pieces in place and, because we are in it for the long term, some of these aren't going to "pay off" for 5, 10, 20 years. It means that we have got to come up with better tools to educate and promote and prompt the right types of citizen involvement. Finally, Henry made a reference to the state. I agree, but I think that the real area of unscrambling governmental priorities and refocusing them is on the national level. And if we can make part of everything we do this decade to demand that our government on the federal level take what is truly a peace dividend, that we capture and invest it in education, in sewers, in rail, in roads, in housing, in the social service fabric, - we're going to make a great difference. And I think it ought to - be at the top of our strategies for the 21st century. Thank you very much. ED WHELAN: Earl, I am so amazed that, with maturity, you've become so timid. EARL BLUMENAUER: Just mellowing. ti 69 REMARKS OF NEAL PEIRCE l-. ADELE NEWTON: Good afternoon. My name is Adele Newton and I am the president of a regionwide network called the Columbia Region Interleague Organization of the League of Women Voters. I am pleased that i the league is a co-sponsor of today's conference on growth strategies and regional planning. On the state level, the League of Women Voters not only supported but fought for land use legislation that would provide communities with more effective planning tools. t. In 1981, the individual leagues in the Portland area organized i the Columbia Region Interleague Organization in order to monitor t and speak to the newly formed government, called Metro. We have i studied and continued to support the concept of regional government. That is why I am so happy to be here today and to see the outpouring of interest in planning for the 21st century. i Before I introduce our luncheon speaker, I would like to introduce some of the people at the head table. We have Henry Richmond from 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Jim Gardner, Metro Counselor, and vocational rehabilitation specialist with the Veterans Administration. Neal Peirce, our speaker, who will be formally introduced in a minute. John DeGrove, Director of the Florida Atlantic University/Florida International University's Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. Mike Ragsdale, Metro Counselor, and Vice President of Grubb and Ellis, C commercial real estate company. Rich Carson, Director of Metro's Planning and Development Department, and Dave Fredrikson of Portland General Electric. I would like to mention we have with us today a number of i dignitaries, mayors, city council members, county commissioners, state legislators, and Metro counselors. Thanks to you and to everyone here for taking the time today to focus on the future of our beautiful region. i And now I am honored to introduce our luncheon speaker. After graduating from Princeton University, he began his career as political editor of the Congressional Quarterly, and founded the National Journal in Washington, DC. He became interested in cities and states and wrote a series of books, culminating in the Book of America, Inside Fifty States Today. 70 i t His nationally syndicated column on state and local government now appears in more than 150 newspapers nationwide. He lectures before government, business, and academic groups, and has appeared on such television programs as Meet the Press, the Today Show, and the McNeill-Lehrer Report. He is the winner of the 1986 Carey McWilliams award for political reporting of the American Political Science Association. In the last two years, he has written Peirce reports on the compelling growth issues of the Phoenix and Seattle regions. Today, he will compare growth issues in the Puget Sound area with those in the Portland metropolitan region. Please help me welcome our luncheon speaker, Neal Peirce. NEAL PEIRCE: Thank you, very much. I am delighted to be with you. I managed to arrive in Oregon and not in the midst of a rainstorm. Do you know that your rainstorms have been on the national news in the last several days? Some of my friends said I shouldn't come. There is a puzzle that policy junkies and journalists have a tough time untangling and it's this. Are today's Americans so homogenized, so mobile, so exposed no matter where they live to mass communications that state and regional political cultures are really the same? Or does each of the 50 states even now remain a unique blend of history, and peoples, and economy, and politics, and natural environment unduplicated anywhere else? Will Oregonians then react to a question in politics or policy in a discernably different way than Floridians, or Californians, or Indianans, or Arizonians? Well, I have been making a fairly decent living selling the latter case that everybody is different and you've got to go visit the 50 states, or if you don't have time at least read one of these book chapters I have written to explain to you how they are different. But several million words after I started, and despite having built a newspaper column based on that very idea, I have to confess to a certain gnawing uncertainty, especially on the question of growth policy and bag and baggage that seem to come with it: questions of auto-mobility, and traffic gridlock, and the importance or unimportance of open space, malls versus traditional downtowns, or strip commercial versus real life nature out there with the trees and the meadows, or communality versus solo living. As I have dug into deeply on two metropolitan areas, Phoenix first and then Seattle, I found that once my observations got printed and distributed, people from all over the country wrote in commenting, "I read what you wrote about Phoenix or what you 71 wrote about Seattle. Things are just the same here. We have the y same kind of questions, the same attitudes. It sounds as if you had written it for our city, if I could only substitute the name." In other places around America, people like John DeGrove and I hold up the example of Oregon. Its keen environmental ( consciousness, its pioneering land use law of 1973, its 1,000 Friends as a model for other states had they only enough moxie and courage to follow through. t Yet as I prepared these remarks, I received a letter from Metro's Land Use Coordinator, Ethan Seltzer, saying: ( "Although we have a different regulatory framework in this t state than in most, our consumers are behaving in much the same way as those in other places. Jobs are being located throughout the suburbs and away from radial transportation t routes, auto travel is up, the trade-up housing market is t strong, and most folks seeking new housing want to live like the Cleavers while expecting those Californians or anyone next door or across the street to live like the Bunkers". t And as if that weren't destructive enough of the image that the rest of us have been trying to build up of this ecotopia by the Pacific, Mr. Seltzer continued to write that: t "A trip through any of our furniture stores these days means encountering a whole new class of furniture designed to hold the household's 'home entertainment center': huge TVs, VCRs, stereos, etc. As in other places," he went on," it seems that folks aspire to or are going home, turning on the t phone machine, heating up food in the microwave, climbing t aboard their exercise bike, and watching movies on enormous TV screens. The call of not in my backyard' has taken on t- new dimensions." t_ Well, of course, Brother Seltzer could have written me about the many Oregonians on any given day, who, at the same moment that others are on their exercise bikes or in front of their home entertainment center, are out mountain gazing, river rafting, seashore walking, little league baseballing, maybe even plunging into some new civic cause. But I compared his description of the social setting here to spread-out, antigovernment, antiregulation Phoenix, Arizona, and I found some parallels. Let me now, in fact, take up a few of the findings that I culled from Phoenix in a rather long reportorial trip that I made C- there - for me long - two weeks in 1987. I might parenthetically explain how it came about. That year, I received an invitation from my friend, Pat Murphy, publisher of the two newspapers, the Phoenix Gazette and Arizona Republic, to come to his city, C 72 C ( conduct lots of interviews, and analyze what was going right and wrong especially since the governments in the Valley of the Sun, as they call it, seemed chronically unable to get their act together. It was quite an opportunity, especially since the interviews could be postponed until December. He had written in July. And the door was open for us to speak to anyone we liked in Arizona and spend time doing that, and part of my terms were to stay at the Arizona Biltmore which is a great place. It was fun. I say "us" because even a cocky journalist like myself knows that this would have been too big an assignment to bite off alone. So I arranged for a couple of real experts to come along. One was Curtis Johnson who is head of the Citizens' League of Minnesota's twin cities - to my mind one of the smartest civic analysts in America. Another was Chris Gates, now Vice President of the National Civic League, who is one of the people who has been helping with the civic index activity here. And we were joined by John Hall, a political scientist, who is a top regional expert at Arizona State University. We spent a week or 10 days with in-depth interviews of 60 or so Arizona leaders, all parties, all camps, business, neighborhoods, social groups, and so on. We wrote up our findings in articles that the papers published as special supplements. At that point in 1987, Phoenix had not yet hit the slump that it has had more recently in 188 and 189. It was, in fact, the prime example if there ever was one, of the city in the region that had grown and grown and grown and thought it might never have to stop. It had mushroomed three times over from 630,000 people in 1950 to 1.8 million in 1987. Americans from the East and Midwest and South joined in the lemming-like rush to the sun, creating a fusion of posh vacation resorts and lower wage manufacturing that, indeed, give Phoenix the most spectacular growth rate among American cities except for Las Vegas which usually seems to be first - an indication of our true values. You could see new developments marching out across the valley floor, sweeping the cactuses, and alfalfa fields, and orchards before them. Boasts of a growth rate that virtually no one else could equal and would never stop. One cocky local bank ' economist, after giving me a long lecture in free market economics, explained that the factors were so favorable that this would never change until far into the next century. It did the 1 next year. You learn as a reporter not to believe everything you are told. d It is necessary. Keep a little bit of skepticism. We found all of that was great except there were some problems being raised. The Arizona Republic editors wrote, using their own words to / summarize the several thousand words of the so-called 'Peirce i 73 J Report' (which they named it to my amazement I guess I have had worse things happen to me (1) Metropolitan Phoenix is riding a boom that may not last unless its leaders stop placing all of their faith in pelf mell, hell-for-leather growth. { (2) Real estate developers have a strangle hold on the Valley of the Sun, bullying taxpayers into underwriting < quick buck projects. At the same time, too much power lies t with the state legislators and city bureaucrats rather than local, elected officials. To restrain developers' excesses { and deal with other regional issues, metropolitan Phoenix needs county home rule and to reorganize more powerful county government. L (3) The valley's economy faces many threats, the C greatest being a shabby school system which is unable to turn out well-educated workers. Business and government leaders must give education an explosive push to avoid economic decay. t- (4) Valley residents isolate themselves, draining energy from civic life and politics. Neighborhood life is shallow. A huge share of the people of the Valley of the Sun, by the way, were new arrivals, oftentimes coming in search of escape from some personal or professional problem back home, but not always with success. Somehow those personal and professional problems, once they get hold of you in your life, come and re-perch on your shoulder even ( when you think you are free. You take a look at Phoenix and you find it has America's highest rates of divorce, alcoholism, mental instability, crime, and suicide, while its state and local spending on social projects is among the lowest in the country. (5) The next point, as the Republic viewed what we wrote, was that selfishness, both public and private, was crippling the valley's cultural life and social services. The arts go begging along with the poor because officials are cheap with their own cash. And new leaders are needed to stimulate giving and to set community goals. (6) Finally, Phoenix and other valley cities spend too much time and energy fighting each other. They have to learn to cooperate and share the wealth of the area. I guess what we were saying in a negative way was that the Phoenix region was great for sun worshipers and for some people C who were making a bundle, but that it was immersed in hedonism, socially indifferent, and environmentally calloused. The most graphic picture the papers printed with our report - I don't know 74 how they managed to get the shot but it was wonderful - was of a bikini-clad chick stretched out beside a desert swimming pool with a drink in her hand and, a few yards away, a young man also dressed for sun and swim and equipped with his drink. And the only problem was that there were two pools, not one, and a big subdivision fence right down between them. Our central recommendation, after the obvious points of the need of home rule for Maricopa County, which is massive and is truly the whole metropolitan area, was that Phoenix concentrate on improving the quality of its civic life. The people had to recognize that it was their community, that they ought to determine its future, and resist letting private development interests design all of it for them. Philanthropy, and neighborhood contact, and civic activity, and good communications, and inclusion of minorities, and a healthy downtown, and a city center that works, all had to be part of the picture. Several of these became, in fact, checkpoints as we in the National Civic League began in the following couple of years to sort of codify what the national civic index was to be about. Was there any reaction to the report? You have to believe we were braced for something negative. In fact, we got some criticism. There were some caustic comments from the soon-to-be-impeached governor, Evan Meacham. I got asked about him at a dinner and I likened him to the Audi-5000, a vehicle that lurches forward and backward without much control. He didn't appreciate that. I probably shouldn't have said that; I did. Some right-wing forces in the Valley of the Sun considered that _ we were part of an advance phalanx of a communist socialist plot to undo civilization. But, in general, government, and business, and citizen leaders came to say that we had been reasonably candid and tough and said some true things, even if they did not subscribe to all of the findings and suggestions. It was thought that the report would spark debate and, in fact, this phrase, 'the Peirce Report', became something of a point of reference in policy discussions around Phoenix. It did seem that the report motivated the Phoenix Forty and other leadership groups to see if they couldn't gin up the level of philanthropy among themselves. There were even one or two sort of revival sessions among the rich guys to get themselves to pledge more so they could get the common citizenry to give more, too. 75 A Valley Citizens League was founded, with 300 or 400 members ~ along with major task forces involving broad groups of citizen leaders on major problems. And fresh interest was sparked but no action so far on home rule for Maricopa County. But if you think Phoenicians have curbed their developers or adopted an Oregon-style set of controls on growth, think again. What slowed the development bandwagon has been this pretty severe real estate and general business slump which hit in 188 and p got worse in 189. In the meantime, Phoenix has gotten a lot more serious than ever before about strategic planning, and the citizen visioning processes, and has approved an historic bond issue for general improvements. Multiple projects are starting to build up the downtown, which is beginning to look less like an empty warehouse t than it once did. You can sense a quickening, I think, of the civic pulse which I am sure is related in at least a small way to our report. But the voters, last spring, had an opportunity to approve a big, long-term transit plan, including rapid rail transit, for the area and they said "no" to that. After Phoenix, we wondered if any other city would want to have L this experience, to subject itself to us again, and, for a while, it seemed that was the case. But then, last spring, The Seattle Times called. They asked if I'd be interested in undertaking something like this in the Puget Sound region. Well, I agreed to it. Curtis Johnson came along again from Minneapolis. We got Betty Jane Narver from the Policy Management Center of the L University of Washington to be our local collaborator. This whole business, however, of looking at cities is sort of fun. You can tell I am enjoying it. It does give you a new appreciation of what you can see out of helicopter windows. When we arrived in Phoenix, we took an hour's ride up over the region and recognized instantly that the downtown was so vacant that there wasn't even enough demand for parking lots to fill the empty space. And also that the leapfrog form of settlement, sixty miles or more east to west across the settlement pattern of the Valley of the Sun, suggested that it was a developer's dream of cheap land acquisition come true. You just go way out there and out there t_ and buy the land. Then the public has to go and fill in all of the infrastructure to get people there. But from the developers' real estate point of view, not bad. But the gaunt peaks and the desert landscape of the Valley of the t Sun don't grip you emotionally, or not me, the way that Puget Sound and its environs do. On our helicopter tour around the Seattle region on a brilliant June afternoon last year, it became t compellingly clear to us - especially as we flew out past 76 t c Seattle, that great port - and passed Bellevue, out to the territory toward the Cascades, that we weren't looking down on some normal set of American suburbs, some run of the mill scrubby forest land waiting for the bulldozer and saw to bring its future. To the contrary, the evergreen valleys and emerald streams and mountain and waterscapes that surround Seattle constitute one of the most stunning natural treasures that one would ever find close to a great metropolis any place on the earth. From a helicopter level, there are suddenly views of Mt. Rainier emerging in crystalline perfection from behind the ridges as you go around that area. All of this just a few miles from the city centers of Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, Seattle. We glanced down among the evergreens and saw a few peaceful older villages and lots of careful, tasteful real estate development, but also we saw scarred hilltops and raw cuts into the land, bulldozed progress wrongly cited and wrongly executed - most of it very recent. Development is stepping far too heavily onto those treasured lands. So far, the damage when you look at the whole is relatively isolated. Unchecked though, we concluded it could become an ecologic and aesthetic tragedy within the 1990s. In our interviews with 50 - 55 leaders and expert observers from King, and Snohomish, and Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, we found profound concern among all of them particularly about the implications of misguided and uncontrolled growth. It is, in fact, astounding how rapidly and intensely the Seattle region - which as you know is an area of historic boom and bust but in the economic doldrums as recently as the 1980s - how suddenly it has become one of America's hottest development locations. Jobless rates around Puget Sound are dropping to around 4-1/2 percent. Boeing is sitting on years of backorders from all over the world. Demographers say that King County could expand in population by as much as 31 percent in the next decade. Puget Sound cities are struggling with increasingly severe problems of air quality, water quality - yes, water quality and supply. Battles over incinerators and land sales exacerbate as everyone looks for a place to dump the solid waste that gets churned out by the prosperity machine. Seattle area traffic congestion, by one study, is already the sixth worst in the United States. Californians moving in, their wallets padded with massive prices they got for selling their California houses, are considered around the Puget Sound as some sort of pariah by everyone except the property owner who can sell out his old Seattle bungalow for half a million dollars. 77 The message of our series was direct enough. The Puget Sound region is in peril of becoming Paradise Lost. The area is so physically expansive that it used to be able to swallow big waves of expansion decade after decade and you barely saw it. But, as we put it in our lead article, the new prosperity is breathtaking with new prospects for improved careers, or housing, or recreation, but it's also a ticking environmental clock. Time is running out on critical conservation decisions. Radical reform of the Puget Sound's tangled and ineffective regional governments, is 20 years overdue. A thousand delayed decisions C are starting to take their toll. The buffer of time and space, C the elasticity of nature, and the patience of the citizenry are { wearing thin. Time's up. What, some of you here this afternoon may ask, of Seattle's C celebrated antigrowth movement? The CAP votes last spring saying C "stop more high rise building" at least. What about efforts that C have taken place to put a lid on growth in Bellevue? Isn't the ( Seattle area reacting to growth with the same knee-jerk "stop me s before I kill again" spasms of antigrowth referenda that California has been experiencing since the 1980s? Aren't the C next years around Seattle bound to be filled with sound and fury C and conflict but most likely very little constructive resolution C: when one considers how many slow growth candidates, vociferously opposed to the current development trends, were victorious in Cl last fall's city and King County elections and in the other county elections around the Puget Sound? Well that may be the case. C My colleagues and I decided that the way you talk to a region convulsed by growth and antigrowth sentiment, which always comes C with heavy growth, is to focus on constructive alternatives. How to reshape the regional government so that it copes more effectively. Transportation policies that might make mass transit more feasible and actually get instituted. Ways to L accommodate growth that is sure to occur in any event. Making some of the critical connections between land use and questions of low income housing, and poor people's access to new job opportunities. Giving people a sense that they can control in larger part their collective destiny and not simply be acted upon. c._ With our journalistic license to say whatever we thought, we barged into our first article with a set of blunt recommendations. For example, we said that the region should: o Focus future growth on four vibrant, lead cities of the region: Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, and Tacoma. They are strategically placed north to south. They are gritty, and cultured, and historic, and combative, and they have what it takes to handle growth. They also have, we noted, most of { 78 r the region's fast-rising stream of minorities and immigrants which is a reservoir of untapped human potential which will be critical to the entire metropolitan area's success in the 21st Century. o Go for compact development. Forbid, we suggested, ` virtually all new building and development permits in the unincorporated territory of Ring County. If you're not in a city, you can't build. Channel growth into established communities from neighborhoods in the big four cities to the established and growing suburbs, like Renton, Kirkland, and Bothell. o Establish a land use authority for the entire region. Stop ecologically destructive growth on the exurban edges. o Adopt a strategy for new development that respects the Northwest's unique environment. Even a city-centered strategy won't accommodate the growth pressures that a region like Seattle is living with now. So we suggested a Puget Sound land trust with bonding power, maybe one or two billion dollars, to buy large tracts of land in the path of development and hold those lands for public benefit. Most of the land trust acquisitions would be held, of course, forever inviolate in meadows, forest, and hills. But some 25 to 30 percent would be used to accommodate some of the population growth that is coming and could be resold or leased to private developers. As a matter of fact, one would announce in advance that that is what the plan would be. But the condition to the developers would be to build compact, pedestrian-scaled European-style villages; settlements from which one could look out on the physical magnificence but not fill it up with standard one- and two-acre lots. Our suggestion, I might add, was that the land trust would buy the land at a fairly low prespeculative price - there are some problems there - but as cheap as you can, hopefully, as often as possible, before roads are built or zoning permits issued. The portion of the land sold to the developers for the new villages would likely demand such a premium price that the trust could pay off its bonds for all of the land it has purchased through the proceeds and thus be self-financing. The developers would be relieved of hostile environmental suits and citizen efforts to block them. Provision for low income housing and mass transit could be made an obligatory part of the plans from the start. 79 1 We sort of liked that one because it turns the American land use game on its head. Normally, private land owners sell to people who are speculators who, in turn, sell to people who are developers, who then come to the local government and C= say, "Hey, we want to build, why can't we?" This approach, on the other hand, says we go to the local government or some forum of the local governments which, collectively, t, buys the land and then decides which pieces are the right ones from an environmental and aesthetic point of view to have development on. C t Then you can have some control through deeds and covenants i_ over what that development would be like in the future. It { is, however, revolutionary to the degree that it is a different way of doing things, not as much initially through the free enterprise route, although free enterprise ends up t building, and having a lot of choices in building, the actual type of city that emerges. o Seattleites should use the growth-generated prosperity to build a great transportation system. A top class transit service, we said, is a part of the quality of life of any great city of the world. Puget Sound's hourglass geography is perfectly suited. Some people, we noted, said that rail Z; is too expensive. But query, if the Seattle region can spend $3.6 billion each year on new automobiles, each year, why can't it at one time spend a billion dollars or so to build a new rail system. Then we needled the Seattleites by suggesting that getting busy on rail was one way that they could "start catching up with Portland". o The Puget Sound region should share to gain. We said that the counties around the Puget Sound, brimming over on growth and short on labor and land, stand to benefit immensely by channeling some of the employment they are generating to economically depressed areas of inland Washington. Example, when Boeing puts up a plant at C Spokane, everybody wins. There is less pressure on the Puget Sound area. There is employment where it is needed in an inland city. A magnanimous Puget Sound is a smart one. It would also make more friends in the state legislature. We also spent some time talking about how a lot of modern back office work or manufacturing work that becomes a bit routinized can be moved into rural towns. With telecommunications and transit the way they are these days, you can do a lot more in smaller towns with less need for people to move into the cities. Even tougher, we noted, but just as critical is getting agreement to share the prosperity within the region. We i said that would mean a sophisticated system of tax base 80 sharing between the communities as new properties get added to the tax rolls. o We had a modest, little list of governmental proposals. We said tame the counties. Put the Puget Sound Council of Government out of its misery. Leave city work to the cities. Abolish the Seattle Area Metro, which once looked like a promising regionwide agency starting with transit, but which has acquired too many battle scars to deal with the breadth of the problems the region has today. With the decks cleared, we suggested, the time would be right for a new regionwide Puget Sound Council, starting with King County and then expanding regionwide. And that kind of body, we suggested, would be a solution worthy of the governance quandary of the area. Elected, accountable, responsible for tackling those issues that cry out for strong and visionary management on a regional basis. Topping that problem list are major land use planning, air and water quality, mass transit, sewage, and solid waste systems. Our point was that not a single one of the existing cities or counties of that region was in a position to handle those critical issues on a regionwide basis. There is a lot more to be said about this question of regionalism. Frankly, I think that the real need in a regionwide authority is to have control over those decisions which conflict and interlock, while leaving as much as possible either with the individual municipalities or with single-purpose agencies. The single-purpose agency, like transit, has to be coordinated with land use, and so on. o Finally, and this is a connection I feel strongly about, we suggested that the region make human capital the centerpiece of the region's futures planning. The cities and the regions that prepare their people well for the next century's economy will have a critical advantage. And those that don't leave themselves open to social unrest, labor shortages, and heavy taxation to pay for dependency. On the growth issue, we reflected some of the ideas perfected by San Francisco's Green Belt Alliance about the nonsustainability over the long haul of totally decentralized growth patterns. Open space about our region - the farms, and parks, and watersheds, and forests getting whittled back and paved over. One town merging into the next and community identity lost. People getting separated by class and race as corporations move the new jobs farther and farther from the center city, in fact, away from the people who are in the most desperate need of new employment. 81 It's America's new apartheid, this pattern of growth that brings us degraded air, mass transit being made impractical, eventually no more land to exploit except at totally unmanageable distances, social tensions mounting, infrastructure costs that are amplified by the spread pattern, going beyond the public's willingness to pay. I think that argument has to be brought home to the public, the unsustainability of continued spread growth, even to those folks who are perched on their exercise bikes in front of their home video entertainment centers. MCI Also, the idea that existing cities need to encourage in-town C residential development, up the income scales and down the income E scales. Seattle has had some heated arguments about new housing t in established neighborhoods. There have been efforts to down-zone. A lot of resentment about some of the ugly apartment buildings that got in, and quite quickly, in the 1980s. C Our report suggested that there are compromise routes on that C issue. You require each neighborhood to take some share of new housing. There could be guarantees of neighborhood design review, for example. C But not all of the new in-city housing need go to the heart of C established residential neighborhoods. There is plenty of reclaimable land. Old warehouse sections or unused railroad yards, for example, that lie around almost any inner city and often as good chunks of suburban land. ( Regions ought to look at their existing low-quality strip aovelopments, too. Sometimes within a block of quality °Asidential streets, you will find a line-up of tawdry hamburger stancts, and used car lots, and video outlets; the kind of strip ( development we have all got to know and usually to hate. But all ( of that is developable land when you look at it from another way, for a higher purpose. It's there. California yields some interesting examples along Santa Clara's once famed and now run down E1 Camino Real. On selected blocks, i in place of low grade commercial clutter, there are now mixed use projects that reflect very good modern architecture and landscape design. Shops and restaurants line the street front. And then above and extending a block behind the street front, in a setting of garden courtyards, come hundreds of apartment units. It looks good. Beauty and density can go hand-in-hand. John DeGrove and I were talking this morning about the need to popularize the models of good looking, more compact development in this country. Also, that kind of development, as I mentioned along the strips, often has mass transit service in place. We suggested what seemed to us an absolutely simple way also for the t Puget Sound to house more of today's small families: allow every tsingle family structure in a city or suburb to be a duplex. Just i 82 t i ( / 1 / / 1 / one stroke of the pen. Within a few years, hundreds of thousands } of mother-in-law and accessory apartments would materialize. } They may materialize anyway even if the law forbids it. This is 1 a way to permit it and encourage it. As I see it there has never been and never will be an easy 1 solution for the growth dilemma. If you think Seattle- or } Phoenix-like pressures may be coming in your direction, you will } need the whole panoply of policy initiatives and constant public } information to make clear for everyone the vital stakes for your } region. I was fascinated to read when I was here last November of the Land Use Board of Appeals ruling on the Metropolitan Service } District's powers relating to a west side bypass road that would 1 plow through farm and forest outside your urban growth boundary. } "Did court make Metro a Maxi-County?", read the headline on Jerry Tippin's column in The Oregonian. Very interesting issue, one I 1 understand will go to your Court of Appeals and eventually to the 1 legislature. 1 Aside from the legal issues, the fascinating question is whether 1 the stakes in the great American growth game are now high enough 1 that the citizens of the region and the state legislature, where } there are many camps represented, are willing to go to the true metropolitan scale of approach and attention to problems. That, of course, is precisely the issue that the Puget Sound will have ) to face, grappling with the idea of a true regionwide authority 1 to handle critical issues, land use included, and the others that are legitimately areawide. 1 The same issue emerges in home rule for Maricopa County, which is 1 the logical entity there to have this kind of regional authority. 1 The same issue that citizen groups, such as L.A. 2000 and the 1 newly formed San Francisco Bay Vision 20/20 are now trying to 1 introduce into the broader political and popular dialog with interesting alliances of environmentalists and business leaders. 1 1 I am convinced it is critically important - this issue of 1 metropolitanism - to the future of cities and regions across our ) country. The challenge is to get folks to climb down off those 1 bikes, out of their tape-decked and phone-equipped autos, away a 1 few minutes from their home entertainment centers, to consider these minor, little questions of the form of our regions and the 1 appearance of our civilization, how we live, which is really the P future of our civilization and what we and our children will get 1 to live in. 1 I heard this morning from Earl Blumenauer and others that your 1 land use law, your capacity to act decisively on a 1 metropolitanwide scale, will be put to a very tough, the first ) really tough test, in the 1990s. Outsiders counsel: don't 83 1 f 1 1 I falter. I have to believe Oregon ought to be, and is by its history and its culture naturally a lead state, and yours a lead C region, to keep pioneering down these roads. C C I would like you to do that not just to undergird my old C, assumption that state cultures differ, though it would certainly C help my case, but rather to continue and build upon Oregon's C historic record of innovation and excellence amok.; states, and Portland's among regions. The test being whether the states and regions care sufficiently about their future so the people take control of what that future will be. JIM GARDNER Thank you, Neal. Thank you for those insights and for those kind words about our area. All of those words by the way without a C doubt are absolutely true. We can recognize that, being as unbiased and objective as we are. And also thank you for your C advice about how we can keep doing things right. Now it's time for all of us to do a little bit of work and, L. hopefully, to have some fun, too. We need to move as quickly as possible back downstairs to the same room we were in this morning. Now I know that, in the process of doing that, many of ( you are going to want to dawdle a bit, make a phone call or two, or visit the rest room for awhile, please don't. Well, do that, but try to keep it as short as possible. We do have a tight schedule for this afternoon and a lot to accomplish. C. C One other little word of advice, when you enter the room downstairs, please say goodbye to whomever you came with today or anyone you might work with, and try to take a seat at a table ( with the strangest looking people you can find. The whole C process this afternoon will go a lot better and will be a lot more interesting if we have a mix of interests at every table. C Thank you. C C C C C. C. C C C C C 84 l_ t i Workshop Report r .z~ QS r r~ r f~ i 1990 REGIONAL GROWTH CONFERENCE WORKSHOP REPORT C. ( Introduction i One of the central goals for the conference was to give attendees an opportunity to participate. More than simply an educational session, the conference was envisioned as part of the data gathering process. Therefore, a portion of the agenda needed to be specifically designed to elicit the views of attendees in a form that would be useful to the Urban Growth Management Plan Policy and Technical Advisory Committees. The morning session of the conference was primarily educational. Speakers were selected to comment on national growth management trends and efforts, regional growth trends and issues, and finally visions for the future. A common set of issues were used to structure all of the presentations, with the focus on the trade-offs and range of choices to be made. Following this morning session, attendees began afternoon t. session with a common set of assumptions. The afternoon was devoted to a workshop session taking place in the form of small t` facilitated group discussions. The goals for the discussions L' were : L 1) To prioritize the issues identified through the scoping L workshops process. i_ 2) To develop a number of alternative scenarios or ( "visions" for the future growth and development of the region. 3) To identify, where possible, specific strategies for achieving the vision(s) identified. r As in the morning session, the Regional Growth Issues Framework provided the structure for the exercise. Thirty round tables, each seating 10 - 12, were set up in the same room used for the morning session. Each table discussion was led by a facilitator recruited from the Policy or Technical Advisory Committee or the C. League of Women Voters. ( Two training sessions were offered to facilitators prior to the conference. Facilitators were furnished with a packet containing forms for recording the discussion,additional background material, and evaluation forms. Each conference attendee received primary background material in the conference factbook handed out at registration. 85 e 9 t a Participants were encouraged to sit at tables with people that they didn't know. Originally, the intention was to assign people to tables to assure good representation of views in all of the discussion. However, the logistics of seating large numbers of attendees made that impossible. Once seated, the entire format for the workshop was reviewed with the group, so that each table received the same set of instructions at the outset. To simplify the job of facilitation, and to avoid 30 discussions of process rather than 30 discussions of the issues, the goals for the workshop were distilled into three structured tasks: Task 1: Each attendee was given a survey form to individually prioritize the growth issues framework. Group members were asked to rank the issues based on how they view the challenge of accommodating additional urban growth in the region, and where the greatest threats to maintaining or enhancing urban quality-of-life might lie. Participants were allowed to add important issues that they didn't find covered in the ones that were listed. However, participants were instructed not to list any additional issues as "Other" unless they intend to rank them among the top three. Product: a 250-person "survey" of issue priorities. Materials: issue survey forms. Facilitator Role: pass out survey forms, answer questions. Task 2: The purpose of this task was to arrive at a working agreement, within the group, as to the top three issue priorities. Whereas Task 1 was an individual ranking, Task 2 was intended to be a group identification of priorities using the sum of the individual rankings as a starting point for discussion. Each member of the group was asked to report their ranking of the issues, and why. After all members of the group had reported their ranking of the issues, the facilitator was asked to review the tally sheet to identify obvious priorities for those present. _ 86 4 Facilitators were instructed to be aware of issues with widely varying scores where a final numerical C score may not have reflected the range of opinion. E In the event that no consensus on priority seemed evident, several techniques for reaching a working s C agreement among group members were suggested. Finally, groups were given the option of ; C_ disregarding the results of the tallying exercise C. if, after discussion of why group members prioritized things the way they did, the group wanted to proceed with a different ranking. Product: documentation of what and why people believe one to three issues to be most important. The product of Task 2 will be compared with the product of Task 1 in the c_ conference proceedings. Materials: survey tally sheet (with room for l changing ranking based on group discussion), sheets for listing reasons for ranking issues t- the way they were ranked. C_ L Facilitator Role: collect and tally surveys, facilitate discussion of ranking, record t reasons stated for ranking (or appoint group recorder to do same t_ restate ranking should it change in discussion. L L Task 3: Each group was asked to brainstorm a vision for j L the future growth and change of the region that best addresses the priority issues, one at a time C in priority order. The brainstorming was structured using the growth issues framework. For C example, if the top priority issue for a group is C the preservation of open space, then they were C asked to brainstorm how growth should occur so C that the resolution of each of the other issues (housing, jobs, transportation, clean water, etc.) maximizes the preservation of open space. In addition, each group was asked to suggest C strategies to achieve the vision. Groups could focus on one vision or scenario for the entire t period, or work through the entire list. Product: a vision for urban growth and C strategies for achieving the vision for at C. least the top priority issue for group C members, ideally for the top three issues, t and potentially for as many as the group has time to discuss. C- 87 C C C. Materials: worksheets for brainstorming vision by issue Facilitator Role: timekeeper, recorder Each participant was asked to complete an evaluation form and leave it with the facilitator. Neal Peirce and John DeGrove, who had been observing the workshop session during the afternoon, were asked to briefly reflect on what they saw and heard to conclude the conference. Three hours were allocated for the entire process. Facilitators were given suggestions for allocating the time available. Refreshments were available throughout the afternoon and groups were encouraged to work at their own pace. Following the workshop, a reception sponsored by the Metro Council took place in an adjoining room. Results - Task 1 A total of 234 survey forms were returned from 26 groups with the following results: ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE STD. DEV. CRANKING IT 1,2,OR 3 HOUSING 4.5 2.5 43% PUBLIC FACS. 4.7 2.7 41% TRANSPORT. 3.2 2.2 66% ECO. OPP. 6.2 3.4 26% WATER QUAL. 6.4 2.8 18% AIR QUALITY 7.0 2.7 12% OS/NAT. RES. 6.4 3.0 21% AG/FOR PRES. 7.5 2.9 13% URBAN EDGE 7.0 3.1 17% URBAN CENTER 7.0 3.1 16% PLANNING PRO. 6.5 3.6 22% OTHER 11.1 2.8 6% AVERAGE SCORE: Participants ranked the issues from 1 to 12, with 1 being most important and 12 being least important. Therefore, the lower the average score, the higher the priority. STANDARD DEVIATION: This is a measure of the reliability of the average score. Hence, the lower the standard deviation, the higher the likelihood that the average score reflects the way that the entire group feels about the ranking of the issue. Graphs of the distribution of the scores for each issue are included below. % RANKING THE ISSUE 1, 2, OR 3: This column reports the percentage of all participants that ranked the issue either first, second, or third in L 88 . E' overall importance. It is a rough approximation of the importance of the issue to the group, and it compliments the meaning of the average score. C. Based on the data presented above, the following C observations can be made: C. 1) Transportation is clearly the highest priority issue G for those in attendance. It has the lowest average C score, the lowest standard deviation, and was selected as the top first, second, or third priority issue by C_ 66% of the participants. No other issue comes close to the apparent depth of concern regarding transportation. 2) Housing and Public Facilities and Services cluster next as issues of concern. Though less strongly selected y. C_ than transportation, nonetheless there appears to be a C, clear break between these two issues and the remaining issues on the list. 3) Economic Opportunity and Planning Process are issues t that have middle-of-the-pack scores, but which participants either intensely "loved" or else were C. indifferent to. Along with Open Space and Natural f~ Resources, these issues seem to form a third cluster in C terms of importance. C 4) Air Quality, Water Quality, Urban Edge, Urban Center, C and Preservation of Agricultural and Forest Resource C. Lands rounded out the bottom of the scale, although C comments received seem to indicate that many took C protection of environmental quality to be a given as they approached the ranking. C IL C C C. C i= 89 C. C. C s_ r t HOUSING i No. of Cases 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 Rank PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES No. of Cases 60 50 40 30 20 NO/z// 10 0 E IAIII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rank TATAON 'POR I R.A ~o. of Cases ' 60 50 . . . 40 . 30 20 ~ 12 10 9 10 11 7 $ 5 0 1 2 3 4 b Rank F,CONOMIC No. of Cases . 60 50 40 { 30 20 11 12 10 9 10 b 5 0 1 2 3 ~ Rank f t,i r ~ 0 lee f WATER QUALITY 60 No. of Cases r r 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rank -vim V I3a of Cases 60 50 . . 40 30 20 11 12 10 8 ~ 10 6 ~ 4 5 0 1 2 3 Rank. c. t i l r^ ~ J t i t i r A T sOUR"S AT i J RA` RFpim OPEN SPACE /N No. of Cases 60 50 . . . . 40 30 20 10 12 $ 9 10 11 p 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? Rank { 1 ` ""soli CE LANDS C,~LTA3RA' AGPI No. of Cases 60 50 40 30 20 10 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 & Rank r ~ r I t No, of cases 60 50 40 30 . 10 12 9 10 11 6 ~ 8 5 0 1 2 3 Rank cfNrVE'R ii-R N1, No. of Cases ~ 64 . - 50 40 30 20 10 l0 11 12 8 9 6 ~ 4 1 2 3 5 4 -Rank t C 1 1 I I ING PRO%ES S PL~.NN No. of Cases 60 50 40 . . 30 20 10 i 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 $ Rank i i i OTHER No. of Cases 250 200 . 150 100 . 50 6 7 8 q 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rank g Results - Task 2 Task 2 involved the group ranking of the top three priorities. If anything, the choices of the groups, following t discussion of the issues, reinforced the findings of the survey t in Task 1. The following rankings were reported from the 26 t groups: t ISSUE TIMES RANKED: 1ST 2ND 3RD TOTAL HOUSING 1 7 7 15 PUB. FACS. 1 6 3 10 r TRANSPORTATION 19 4 1 24 ECO. OPP. 0 1 4 5 WATER QUALITY 1 1 0 2 AIR QUALITY 0 0 3 3 OS/NAT. RES. 0 0 2 2 AG/FOR. PRES. 1 0 0 1 URBAN EDGE 1 0 1 2 t.. URBAN CENTER 0 2 0 2 PLAN. PROCESS 2 2 1 5 i. (Note: not all of the columns sum to the same total because not all groups ranked three issues) 1 (.Clearly, with 24 of 26 groups ranking Transportation as i either the first, second, or third most important issue, and 19 of 26 or 73% ranking it number one, it was of primary importance to participants in the workshop. As in Task 1, Housing and Public Facilities and Services formed the next cluster below transportation. ( As the groups discussed the issues they were asked to record their reasons for prioritizing the issues the way that they did. The overwhelming focus on transportation has resulted in a uniquely common set of concerns in this part of Task 2. In total, these concerns constitute a statement of the "transportation issue" in the region as perceived by the groups. Why "Transportation"? The immediate effects of growth in the region were felt to be most visible in terms of changes in the function of the transportation system. Although participants remarked on congestion and the consequent loss of time as particularly evident, no group drew a distinction between congestion due to L growth and congestion due to increasing numbers of trips made by existing residents of the region or personally. Nonetheless, this concern regarding time and travel carried over into more than just the "journey to work" with transportation issues linked to the loss of family time and inflicting what were referred to L as "hidden personal costs". 102 Shortcomings in the transportation system were identified as a current and not prospective problem. Participants identified existing unmet needs for maintenance as well as system development in their prioritization of this issue. The lack of secure funding to tackle these issues was a critical issue to the ` groups, and securing funds for transportation improvements was regarded as perhaps the most difficult public funding task of all. Mass transit funding and service was felt to be inadequate, with the result that the transportation system lacked balance. Concern was expressed that the emerging development pattern was forcing even greater reliance on automobiles, and that the development of transportation infrastructure to meet the needs of automobile trips was locking in a future of sprawl. All levels of government were identified as having a stake in the transportation system, and a role in its management, but their actions were felt to need better coordination. Additional results of this perceived lack of balance and coordination, in addition to congestion, were identified as a decrease in environmental quality, greater than necessary consumption of energy and other resources, and an overall decrease in the quality-of-life. Although transportation issues were seen to be hotly contested at all levels of government, some groups felt that there seems to be a lack of citizen involvement in decision-making. Transportation issues were viewed as linking all others and affecting everyone in the region. The management and development of the transportation system was viewed by the groups as leading land use planning rather than being led by land use planning. This characterization of the transportation issue leads to two general observations. First, there is a great deal of familiarity with "transportation". Everyone, on a daily basis, comes into contact with the transportation system either as a driver, rider, pedestrian, or casual observer. Changes in the functioning of that system are immediately apparent, and people check their assumptions about "how things are going" with each trip out their front door. No other issue strikes such a broad cross-section of people in the same "daily" way. No other issue is apparently of sufficient magnitude at this time to elicit the same consistency of response. Further, changes in mobility and access, more than others, were seen to have direct bearing on personal and household needs and choices. Second, it is unclear whether there is any differentiation between change, generally, and change due to growth. observed increases in the numbers of trips are not totally due to growth 103 _ j ~ s in the number of drivers on the road. Changes in behavior of existing residents is reflected in changes in the functioning of the transportation system, but is lumped in with the effects of having new residents and jobs in the region as well. Hence, the characterization of the "transportation issue" as stated above C should be read as an observation of the nature of change in the C region rather than strictly as a statement of the affects of growth. C._ Results - Task 3 t_ Each group, having prioritized the issues and arrived at a working consensus regarding the top three, was then asked to brainstorm a vision of the future for the top priority issue. The group was then asked to comment on how each of the other issues in the Regional Growth Issues Framework should be resolved to assist with achieving that vision. Since most groups only dealt with their top priority in this fashion, and since transportation was the clear favorite, the following discussion focuses on the future of the transportation system in this region. A Vision for Transportation Several major themes emerge. First, the future urban area should be compact, growing along well-defined transportation corridors but within the urban growth boundary. There should be C.. strict land use controls to prevent sprawl. Jobs and housing should be located in close proximity to each other in nodes that C include relevant commercial activity as well. There should be a C conscious effort to minimize trip lengths, with one group going C so far as to suggest that 1130 minutes to work = quality-of-life". C Incentives should be made available for infill as well as for C development at comprehensive plan densities. Maintaining and enhancing environmental quality should be important objectives C. for both land use and transportation planning. C. Second, the transportation system should be truly multi- modal within nodes, within counties, and throughout the region, and not just radially into the center. Roads should serve as connectors between nodes. Rail transit should make few but major stops, whereas bus routes should be designed to make many stops. Bikes should be a part of the overall picture with adequate r support in the form of lockers, showers, and bike storage. Planning should be coordinated to enable transit to carry an c increasing share of the region's commuters. Third, transportation system planning and development should ` serve land use plans. The groups saw the transportation system C as a vehicle for reinforcing land use policy. Further, it was i c_ 104 c C y suggested that providing a greater range of transit options would ' actually provide a wider range of options for tackling other issues associated with urban growth. The groups saw the linkage of transportation system planning, particularly with regard to transit, with planning and development of other infrastructure as a critical step. Objectives for transit needed to be reflected in how and where infrastructure is provided, and with efforts to promote redevelopment. Fourth, funding priorities need to be redirected to send a greater share of transportation dollars to transit. This should include a concerted effort to free-up federal dollars. Maximum use should be made of existing facilities prior to the construction of new ones, and techniques for demand management should be applied regionwide. One group suggested that transit should be free. Almost all groups saw taxes on fuel, automotive equipment, auto use, and especially suburban parking as potential funding sources. Transit needs to operate on a very frequent schedule, and the cost to riders should be subsidized. Finally, transportation was identified as the "challenge of the '90s". Planning needs to begin immediately for the next generation of transportation system development. Citizens should be involved, but that involvement ought to be oriented within legislative planning processes rather than towards appeals. Housing - Density is critical. It must be located carefully to facilitate the development of the transportation system. Jurisdictions should be rewarded for achieving density objectives. Minimum densities should be specified. Together, this suggests a more careful approach to design and to locating housing with respect to jobs, infrastructure, including parks and open space, and public services. Mixed use should be a guiding concept, particularly in the development of pedestrian oriented communities. Stable neighborhoods should be promoted, and affordability should be addressed directly through such means as land banking, incentives, and subsidies. Subregional housing goals should be explored. Public Facilities and Services - The development of public facilities and services should proceed on a "pay as you grow" basis. It should also be linked to density objectives, and incentives in the form of funding for infrastructure should be provided to jurisdictions meeting their density objectives. Major public investment should be coordinated with the location of transit facilities, particularly for such facilities as a domed stadium. Public facilities and services should not be provided to rural areas, or at least not in such a way as to encourage density 105 defeating sprawl, either inside or outside of the urban growth boundary. A long-term, 50-year planning horizon should be used to efficiently develop services and ( facilities, and right-of-way or other lands that will be needed for parks, schools, etc. in the future should be L purchased now in anticipation of growth rather than after the fact. Nonresidents of the urban area should be taxed, particularly nonresident workers, and the funding potential of a regional impact fee should be explored. Economic Opportunity - Planning should be done to "put the jobs where the people are" or, at a minimum, locate jobs and housing together. In addition, attention should be paid to locating jobs and educational opportunities together as well. The center or centers of the region should be maintained as economic hubs, and new employment development should occur in conjunction with transit. Incentives should be offered to bring transit and jobs together, and the development of the entire transportation system should i, consciously attempt to spur infill and redevelopment. The concept of regional tax base sharing, as in the Minneapolis- St. Paul area, needs to be investigated in recognition of the fact that all jurisdictions may not receive equal amounts of job growth in the future. f Water Quality - Development of the transportation system should take place away from waterways, and stormwater management should be included in transportation impact fees. Parking structures should replace surface parking lots in order to better control surface water runoff and to decrease total impervious surface area. River taxis should be included in the total transportation picture, especially in ( conjunction with transit development between Oregon and ( Washington. Water quality was identified as the "sleeper issue of the 190s". C. Air Quality - Vehicles could be taxed for their emissions, and the funds generated should go into air quality management efforts including the development of transit. Pedestrian oriented design needs to be incorporated in suburban locations. The region should advocate tougher federal air quality standards to reflect the true cost of vehicle emissions to health and other aspects of regional t. development. Open Space and Natural Resources - In general, the preservation of urban open space and natural resources needs to be a higher priority. Once those resources are gone, it's virtually impossible to bring them back. Efforts should be made to incorporate linear parks as part of the transportation system. Density cannot improve quality-of- life nor will it be accepted without the provision of ( 106 C adequate parks and open space. Standards need to be developed so that all communities share the responsibility for providing parks and open space. As one group commented, "This is the Northwest. We need trees and hills in the urban area." The gas tax should be made available to buy open space in conjunction with transportation projects. Agricultural and Forest Resource Land Preservation - The question of whether the urban growth boundary is fixed or flexible in all places needs to be dealt with directly. Compact urban development, focused to the center, is critical, and transportation system development needs to be used to encourage development in the right places. If at all possible, urban transportation corridors should be contained within the urban growth boundary. Urban Edge - Urban edge refers to the relationship between urban and rural lands based on a long-term vision. It should include planning for areas outside the urban growth boundary, and the use of greenbelts to create a permanent edge should be considered. Infill should be encouraged and subsidized before the urban growth boundary receives any major expansions, and transit and other transportation system developments should occur to make a clear edge more likely. Urban Center - Densities need to be maintained or increased in urban centers. However, this needs to be done in conjunction with efforts to maintain the identity of urban centers through recognition of history and culture, and through efforts to maintain the attractiveness and overall quality of life of those places. Public safety, good schools, good environmental quality and good parks are all part of the mix that will make higher density in urban centers more acceptable. The employment land base in urban centers needs to be modernized, and more "fareless squares" need to be created. Planning Process - There needs to.be a sense of mission underlying all planning efforts and implementing actions. Predictability, coordination, and certainty should be among the major goals of the program. Some effort should be made to look at the far future as well as more traditional 5 and 20-year planning horizons. Land use planning should ultimately set the agenda for transportation system development, and the quality of the data used for land use planning should be considerably improved. The land use impacts of development decisions should be made explicit, and the relationship of Clark County development to the region needs to be incorporated into planning. Finally, a new definition of and approach to citizen participation needs to be developed. Public education needs to occur on 107 C. C: an ongoing basis, and the emphasis needs to be taken off of involving people through the appeals process. Results - Concluding Observations C The principles developed by the groups seem to be calling for a fairly traditional planning ideals o planning precedes development; L o planning is based on an overall vision of what we want to achieve through that development; o planning coordinates public actions so as to leverage r the most from those efforts to achieve agreed on goals; and o planning involves citizens and communities in meaningful ways. Conversely, the experiences that participants are currently having with the function, planning, and development of the transportation system seems to suggest that this ideal is not t being realized. However, it is also clear that the participants in the workshop connect their perception of the critical state of the transportation system with a broader sense that things are changing in this region, and maybe not for the better. Growth is ` easy to identify as the driver of the change, though less visible dynamics associated with, for example, changes in the structure of the region's economy are perhaps just as or more powerful. Nonetheless, the groups perceive some discontinuity between what they believed the land use plans would accomplish towards achieving the planning ideal outlined above, and what is actually happening. To many, it is not apparent that the land use plans are managing and leading growth, though this is certainly a primary expectation for their performance. This seems, apparently to many, to be compounded by not enough strategic implementation of plans to meet plan goals. The challenge for planners now is to better understand how things are changing as growth occurs, why the change is occurring, how households are responding, and how planning and public sector actions can strategically take place to make the general planning ideal a ( reality. t C C `i c_ 10 8 c L i 1990 REGIONAL GROWTH CONFERENCE CONFERENCE EVALUATIONS Over 160 evaluation forms were returned by conference attendees. Overall, the evaluations were highly complimentary, with participants extremely satisfied with the entire scope of the event. Many commented on the desirability of retaining the format for subsequent conferences, with plenary background sessions in the morning and the opportunity to participate in the afternoon. For some the speakers were the highpoint, for others it was the workshop. People attended for a variety of reasons. For some it was job related. However, for most it was an interest in the issues of regional growth and change, recognition that things were changing in this region, and the need to begin a public discussion of where we all go next. The simple opportunity to meet and discuss these issues affecting all of us now and in the future was keenly appreciated. Attendees would have appreciated more opportunity for discussion among the speakers, and possibly for questions from the audience. There was concern that the base of attendees be as broad as possible. However, there was enough diversity among attendees so that no single constituency was-universally identified as missing. The one notable exception to this were comments regarding the lack of women speakers on the conference agenda. Those returning evaluations were excited about the event, and looking forward to next year. They want the format to be retained, and the speakers and workshop to focus on specific issues. There was recognition of the tremendous "energy" generated by the event, and a deep desire to see it maintained between conferences. In general, the conference was identified as a big step for Metro and for the region, and should be the start of something important. Finally, on a logistical note, the lack of coffee in the morning, advertised on the conference agenda, was broadly lamented. The suggestion was made by more than one person to distribute the background material prior to the conference, though the conference factbook was widely appreciated. In conclusion, the conference met Metro's goals. Metro will sponsor another conference next year. The results of the workshop will be used directly by the Urban Growth Management Plan Policy and Technical Advisory Committees as they begin the process of developing regional urban growth goals and objectives. All those who attended will be asked to continue their involvement in this process. 109 Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives August, 1990 - Review Draft Planning and Development Department t METRO Urban Growth Urban Growth Metro Staff Management Management Plan w Development Plan Policy Advisory Plan Technical Advisory Committee Members Committee Members Jim Gardner, Metro Council, chair Richard Cancan, Director, Planning Rich Carson, Director and Development Department, Metro, Pat Lee Bonnie Hays, Chair, Washington Chair Ethan Seltzer County Commission, representing Marie Turpel Multnomah County Lorna Stickel, Planning Director, Gladys McCoy, Chair, Multnomah Multnomah County County Commission, representing Norm Scott, Planning Department, Multnomah County Clackamas County Darlene Hooley, Chair, Clackamas Brent Curtis, Planning Director, County Commission, representing Washington County Clackamas County Bob Stacey, Planning Director, Earl Blumenauer, Commissioner, City of Portland City of Portland, representing the City of Portland Scott Cline, Planning Director, City of Troutdale Larry Cole, Mayor, City of Beaverton, representing Washington County cities Sandra Korbelik, Planning Department, Guwie McRobert, Mayor, City of City of Lake Oswego Gresham, representing Multnomah Denyse McGriff, Planning Department, County cities City of Oregon City Alice Schlenker, Mayor, City of Lake Jon Allred, Planning Department, Oswego representing Clackamas City of Forest Grove County cities Wink Brooks, Planning Director, Lawrence Bauer, Metro Councilor, City of Hillsboro representing the Metro Council Jim Sitzman, regional representative, Tom Dejardin, Metro Councilor, Oregon Department of Land representing the Metro Council Conservationand Development Richard Devlin, Metro Councilor Terry Wilson, Grubb and Ellis representing the Metro Council Mary Doman, Dorman, White Mike Nelson, President, GSL Homes, Company representing land development interests Jacqueline Tonmas, Clackamas Charlie Hales, Home Builders County CPOs Association of Metropolitan Portland, representing land development interests John Miller, Multnomah County CPOs Henry Richmond, Executive Director, Pat Kliewer, Washington County CPO& 1000 Friends of Oregon, representing land conservation interests Button Weser, Executive Director, Special Districts Associations of Ken Bush, representing land Oregon conservation interests Mary Weber, Project Manager, Don McClave, President, Portland Tualatin Valley Economic Chamber of Commerce, representing Development Corporation, Inc. business interests Paul Ketcham, Senior Planner, Linda Peters, representing citizen 1000 Friends of Oregon interests Andy Cotugrto, Director, Transportation Department, Metro REGIONAL URBAN GR®WTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Table of Contents Page Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives Introduction 1 Guiding Principles 2 Principles 3 Goal I Built Environment of the Region 4 Objective 1 Housing 4 Objective 2 Public Facilities and Services 5 Objective 3 Transportation 6 Objective 4 Economic Opportunity 7 Goal II Natural Environment of the Region 9 Objective 5 Water Resources 9 Objective 6 Clean Air 9 Objective 7 Natural Areas 10 Objective 8 Protection of Agricultural and Forest Resource Lands 11 Goal III Urban Form 12 Objective 9 Urban/Rural Boundary 12 Objective 10 Developed Urban Land 13 Objective 11 Urban Growth Boundary 14 Objective 12 Urban Design 14 Goal IV Planning Process 16 Objective 13 Citizen Participation 16 Objective 14 Notification 16 Objective 15 Amendments to the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives 16 Glossary 17 r i REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Introduction The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives are the result of a planning process initiated by Metro in early 1989. Metro identified the need fora policy framework for guiding its regional planning program and management of the region's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), something that the legislature intended Metro to develop upon its formation in 1979. The legislature directed Metro to develop a set of land use planning goals and objectives, themselves consistent with the statewide planning goals, for purposes of planning coordination in the region (ORS 268.380). A final set of regional urban growth goals and objectives will be adopted by the Metro Council and will be binding on all Metro planning activities including the management of the region's UGB and the development of the Regional Transportation Plan. In addition, they may affect the comprehensive plans of local jurisdictions as local and regional plans are inter-related in the future. Metro began the policy development process that has yielded this draft with the formation of Policy and Technical Advisory Committees. The first task was the identification of the issues accompanying urban growth. These issues were identified using data derived from this region as well as from the experience of other major metropolitan areas in North America. These issues were then reviewed through a series of 16 public workshops in the fall of 1989, and further refined at the first annual Regional Growth Conference, sponsored by Metro, Portland General Electric, and the League of Women Voters and held in January, 1990. With a full slate of issues in hand, the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees developed this proposal for regional urban growth goals and objectives beginning in February of 1990 and concluding in early July. This document will now be reviewed through another series of public workshops, reviewed by the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees in light of the comments received, and presented to the Metro Council for adoption in late 1990. For further information, please contact Ethan Seltzer or Mark Turpel at 221-1646. 2 Gun)iNG PRINCIPLES The development of the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives occurred through hours of discussion among members of the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees. The goals and objectives reflect a major consensus between business, government environmentalist and the region's citizens. Clearly there are more details to be worked out and will undoubtedly be the subject of spirited debate in the next several years. Emerging from this review draft are a number of core principles that express the hopes and desires of the many participants in the planning process for the future of the region. The 16 guiding principles are the building-blocks for the development of a metropolitan vision. The next step, to occur following the adoption of a final set of Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, will be the translation of the guiding principles and the goals and objectives into actual physical plans for the long-term evolution of this metropolitan region. 3 GumiNG PRINCIPLES General Concepts 9) Linkage - This is: thoughtful region, • where considerable effort will be made to 1) Quality - The Portland metropolitan area ensure the quality of relationships between will be known internationally for the effort urban and rural, urban center and made and achievements by its people to suburban fringe, and citizens and the city. maintain and enhance urban quality of life. This is a healthy, good place to live, one 10) Natural Areas - The identity of the urban that sustains as well as inspires. region in the future will be strongly tied to the presence of natural areas linked by 2) Different - This urban region is different functional wildlife and recreation than any other in North America, and its corridors. ability to remain that way will be credited to the foresight, creativity, and action of 11) Major Urban Centers - Rather than a its people. region with one center and multiple suburbs, this region in the future will have 3) Diversity - The urban region will be even several mixed use, high density, pedestrian more diverse physically, culturally, and oriented economic activity centers, economically in the future, and the accessible by transit and exemplifying the planning and development of the region highest standards of urban design. will anticipate and embrace this trend. 12) Conservation - We will be careful with 4) Opportunity, Equity, and Fairness - our natural and cultural heritage, mindful This will be a region of opportunity, of what we have inherited and equally shaped by the people who live and work mindful of what we will contribute to the here and, in turn, offering a place within future. j which individual effort is supported and encouraged. Further, in this region we Implementation care about each other, as individuals as well as jurisdictions, and are committed to 13) Workable - Both the vision for the future sharing the prosperity we envision so that of the region as well as the development no segment of our community and no occurring here will be models for the ways community is denied access to present and in which metropolitan areas can manage future opportunities. their growth in practical and cost-effective 5) Character - This will be a region with a ways. sense of place, one whose identity is 14) Continuity and Vision - This region is clearly apparent and consciously committed to choosing and seeking its embraced. future through participatory long-term planning, and can remain focused on its Growth and Change long-term objectives while addressing the demands of the day. 6) Growth - This will be a growing region where jobs, affordable housing, and public 15) Coordination - This is a region of services are available and capable of complex but critical inter-relationships. meeting the needs of the evolving urban Our ability and resolve to functionally population. inter-relate jobs, housing, and services, as well as the plans of cities, counties, 7) Accessible - This will be an accessible special districts, regions and states, will be region, where mobility is planned for and the true test of our aspirations for provided through an efficient, balanced maintaining and enhancing metropolitan transportation system. quality-of-life. 8) Compact - Urban planning will foster a 16) Roles - Successful management of urban compact development form, favoring growth will require the cooperation and efforts to use all existing urban land as coordination of state, regional, city, and { efficiently as possible in order to avoid county governments and special districts. future sprawl. 4 ]REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOAL I: BUILT ENVIRONMENT A provide for the sharing of regional housing supply responsibilities by OF THE REGION ensuring the presence of single and multiple family zoning in every Development in the region shall occur in a jurisdiction; and coordinated and balanced fashion as evidenced, at a minimum, by the provision ® plan for local residential housing of infrastructure and critical public densities that support net residential services concurrent with the pace of urban housing density assumptions growth; the meshing of local underlying the regional urban comprehensive plans with public growth boundary. investment decisionmaking at all levels; the continued evolution of regional However, it is now time to develop a new economic opportunity; and the location of regional housing policy that directly jobs, housing, supporting commercial addresses the following issues: activity, parks, and open space in relation to each other in order to decrease the ® Diverse Housing Needs - It shall number and length of automobile trips be the policy of the region to required to support a household. address the diverse housing needs of the present and projected population of the region, and to correlate those needs with the OBJECTIVE 1. available and prospective housing HOUSING supply. Upon identification of unmet housing needs, a regionwide There shall be a strategy shall be developed which range of housing takes into account subregional types available opportunities and constraints, and inside the UGB, the relationship of market dynamics for rent or to the management of the overall purchase at costs supply of housing. in balance with the range of household incomes in the region. Housing should be w Housing Affordability - located in proximity to major activity Affordability shall be defined as centers and the regional transportation the availability of housing such that system. no more than 30% (an index derived from federal, state, and Policy 1.1 Metropolitan Housing Rule - local housing agencies) of the The Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR monthly income of the household 660, Division 7) has effectively resulted in need be spent on shelter. Public the preparation of local comprehensive policy shall be designed to assure plans in the urban region that: an adequate supply of housing for rent and/or sale at prices in line with the median household income Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro .5 in the region. If, following a planning area for the provision of all housing needs analysis, certain urban services. income groups in the region are found to not have affordable Policy 2.2 Efficiency - Public facilities housing available to them, it shall and services should be planned so that the be the policy of the region to focus provision of the service leads to the land use policy and public and greatest efficiency and cost effectiveness. private investment towards meeting Where consolidation of service providers that need. leads to greater efficiency and cost effectiveness, it shall be the policy of the ® Blousing Location - Public policy region to seek that consolidation. and investment shall encourage the Jurisdictions choosing to avoid such development of housing in locations consolidation when it is demonstrated to near or adjacent to employment lead to greater efficiency and cost that is affordable to employees in effectiveness will be required to those enterprises, or in other demonstrate that their decision will have locations consistent with adopted no adverse impacts on service delivery public policy for the development systems and the ability to meet service of th_ regional transportation needs elsewhere in the region. system. Policy 2.3 Environmental Quality - Public facility and service development shall maintain and enhance environmental OBJECTIVE 2. quality, individually and collectively, PUBLIC across political boundaries. It shall be the SERVICES AND policy of the region to pursue the FACILITIES development of public facilities and services which meet federal and state Public services and /R I standards for environmental quality, are facilities (such as energy efficient, and promote the efficient public safety, use and conservation of resources. water and sewerage systems, parks, schools, Policy 2.4 Forecast Need - Public libraries, the solid waste management service and facility development shall be system, stormwater management facilities) planned to accommodate the rate of urban shall be planned and developed so as to: growth forecast in the adopted regional minimize cost; maximize service growth forecast for the forecast period. efficiencies and coordination; and result in Contingency plans shall be developed to net improvements in environmental accelerate system development should 5- quality; keep pace with growth, without year growth rates exceed forecast any loss of existing service levels and expectations. desired service levels are ultimately achieved. Policy 2.5 Facility Sizing - Public service and facility plans shall be sized to Policy 2.1 Planning Area - The regional accommodate the planned density of urban growth goal, objectives, and policies adopted comprehensive plans. Public for Urban Form shall be used as the basis service and facility plans shall integrate for identifying the long-term geographical planning for key services and facilities, Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro ouaN saAii*afgo pug siao[) °sglll Iruoi8ag ljesQ •ajnlonjisgj;ui walsXs jeaoj gniM iualsisuOO ~4lllgoW ;o SIOAal uopeuodsumu Mau Suidolanap alenbape sopTAoid .10 swalsxs Supsixa jo fmoedeo aql goigM padojanap Suipugdxo `uosaj isel E sr `pinp • aq Ilegs walsf-s uonWods= Pue IguoiSaj v W anilsuoo wolsSs uopeuodsuejM Mau aimbai iou op igIP shm ATOLL ul sean asogl jo spaou fa!llgow ;ill P,,o -VyxOCISl~RL Maaw 01 gu ~AILMSO IjOM j(jaAnoe `pu0oas A !sleog failtgow paldope AlWuoiSaj slaaiu imp Xiioedeo iualsr s uonmiodsuuA SuiAEq *Xouarlnouoo sgaje ui g1MojS guiSejnooua `isjg . 3o anpoafgo lleaano agn laaw o1 Xmsaoau spun; otp ajnoas :f(q pap!Aoid on sannd algisuodsaj alp jo goea aq Ipm Xitltgow alenbape `sialuao ATAnoe algeuo of sonbiugoM p>m sloos • oiwouooo polguSisap 3o apisino uof 2aj Toads ue agn 3o suoiuod ul - SijP.goLOt Z'£ ~oRod •snoulsip ig. p `sapunoo `sailio `uolgaj aqi `;Mils alp •sueld uopeuodsuen IeuotSw ul lm `luawdolanap Supsixa `Muauidolanap pug `aSjeq `digs `jiej Aq spoog*pue Mau Suowe Xouaunou0o anaigoe aldOad JO luawanow IguoiSaj-jalui 01 papaou saowm pug sanijioe3 2q1 ioj saioilod pue sueld $uipnloui 9 oilgnd io3 Sui,(gd io3 f4!ligisu6dsm suonjc;dde goigA% elnuuo3 d • pug :sueld uopeuodsumn alms pue `IeuotSai `Iml ul :Mjojja sigl ij1iM `uo lMuowoldwi ueld io; Aj jv!oodsa paloadxa an sljnsaj oMZ ouajjnouoo `solo] leuoilnlpsui Sui4uej3 ® anaigoe Ol scusiuggoaw $uipun3 Maas of ;pew aq Ileiis uo;;a anissaiSSg .suejd uopeljOdsuejM uv •Igopuo si suisiugg3ow gutpun3 IguoiSaj ut sluawanojdwi wols,(s SuidojanaQ 'ggnoua lou si `huaunowo uojieuodsugjl signs Pug `IguotSaj Suumboi pue `Xouaunouo~ jo3 Suiuugld `Iml uooAmaq digsuonelai pug •IE!3uuug si luawdolanap uegxn Mau gniM sluawaAwdwi walsAs uomwodsut4 nuaunouoo saowas pue sarniji3e3 oijgnd lml jo3 ajoj alp Suif4nuapi a 3o a$uw ap!m a $uipinojd jo3 oloensgo Xnwud aql `janaMOj; -tpmoa uecun :,Cq uoiSaj aql ut Suiuugld lp!m luaunouoo saoiAjas pue saiMqTae3 uoneuodsueA Suneuipjooo ioj swsiuegoow oiIgnd jo asum apiM e 3o uoisinojd Supsixa uo pling- uoileuip ioo3 aqn jaas Oi uoTgoi aql 3o Aoilod agn aq uoileljodsai$i1, i•£ ,(;god Rees 1I - Suipun3;uamnauo:) 9'Z S9god •2oueualu!etu pue `suongjado `luawdolanap •sanijioej -To saoiAjas 3o jaquinu e waMsAs 3o slogdwi jeluawuojinua jo auo jo; sluauiniuiwoa jeiouewj wnwpdo agl saziwiuiw pue :sium4suoo lgioueug uegl ssal annbaj few aA1l3a332-lsO3 1SOw smuSooaj `.sueld pue smoilod jeuoi$aj ag1 si goigM 92"md f4!j"joVj Pue aoiAJOS PUB algns pile sueld anisuagajdwoo oilgnd Imm a anaigoe of Meij1 SutziuSooaj 9 f Policy 3.3 System Priorities - In neighborhood streets which results developing new regional transportation from congestion on adjacent system infrastructure, the highest priority facilities. will be meeting the mobility needs of designated economic activity centers. • minimize negative impacts on Such needs, associated with ensuring parks, public open space, wetlands, access to jobs, housing, and shopping and negative effects on within and among those centers, will be communities and neighborhoods assessed and met through a combination of arising from noise, visual impacts, intensifying land uses and increasing and physical segmentation. transportation system capacity so as to minimize negative impacts on Policy 3.7 Transportation Balance - environmental quality, urban form, and Planning for increased use of transit shall urban design. address a broad range of requirements for making transit competitive with the private automobile. Policy 3.4 Barriers - Structural barriers to mobility for transportation disadvantaged populations will be assessed in the current and planned regional transportation system and will be OBJECTIVE 4. addressed through a comprehensive ECONOMIC program of transportation and non- OPPORTUNM transportation system based actions. Public Policy 3.5 Transport of Goods - The encour geitheshall needs for movement of goods via trucks, development of a rail, and barge will be assessed and diverse and addressed through a coordinated program sufficient supply of transportation system improvements and of jobs, especially family wage jobs, in actions to affect the location of trip economic activity centers and other generating activities. appropriate locations throughout the region; and, seek the full utilization of the Policy 3.6 Environmental labor force in the region through ongoing Considerations The regional efforts to provide education and training transportation system shall be planned to: linked to the needs of present and • minimize, as much as practical, the prospective employers. region's transportation-related energy consumption through Policy 4.1 Economic Coordination - improved auto efficiencies and Enhance coordination among economic increased use of transit, carpools, development groups by: . vanpools, bicycles and walking; • completing and maintaining a • maintain the region's air quality regional and subregional economic (see clean air objective); analysis, identifying specific impediments to and opportunities • remove through-traffic from for the retention, recruitment, and Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro start-up of private and nonprofit employment or commercial purposes in y sector organizations with jobs that locations consistent with regional urban pay family wage levels or better; growth goals and objectives for housing, public facilities and services, ® identifying as a priority for transportation, and urban form. recruitment, retention, and expansion those basic industries that would further broaden and diversify the region's economic base while maintaining or enhancing the region's average wage/average housing cost ratio; and ® complementing and linking job development efforts with an active and comprehensive program of training and education to improve the overall quality of the region's labor force. In particular, public efforts to provide labor training and education shall focus on the needs of economically disadvantaged, minority, and elderly populations. Policy 4.2 Economic Analysis - Regional and subregional economic opportunities analyses, as described in Statewide Planning Goal 9 (Economic Development), shall be conducted to assess the adequacy and, if necessary, modify the supply of vacant and redevelopable land inventories designated for a broad range of employment activities. Target industries will be identified through a regional "economic opportunity analysis". Economic subregions will be developed which reflect a functional relationship between locational characteristics and the locational requirements of target industries. Policy 4.3 Employment Locations - Public policy shall encourage the development of employment and any , rezoning of existing urban land or the zoning of new or future urban land for Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro 9 GOAL H: NATURAL • Collectively reexamine standards - ENVIRONMENT OF THE REGION Beneficial use standards will be Preservation, use, and modification of the examined in light of apparent water resources trends, projected growth natural environment of the region shall in the region, and livability occur so as to maintain and enhance expectations of residents; environmental quality while striving for the wise use and preservation of a broad • Assess the cost of water resource range of natural resources. management scenarios; and • Coordinate water resource management responsibilities shall be coordinated among affected OBJECTIVE S. institutions and agencies to satisfy WATER the beneficial uses identified RESOURCES through this process. Planning and management of water resources shall be coordinated in order to maintain the OBJECTIVE 6. quality and ensure sufficient quantity of CLEAN AIR surface and groundwater in and available to the region. Air quality shall MAE& Policy 5.1 Formulate Strategy - A long- be protected and enhanced so that term strategy is needed to identify and growth can occur, satisfy the beneficial water uses of the human health is region while accommodating growth. unimpaired, and the visibility of the Towards that end, a coordinated planning Cascades and the Coast Range from within program for water resources management the region is maintained. shall be instituted to: • Identify the future resource needs policy 6.1 Action Program - An air quality management plan shall be of the region for municipal and developed for the regional airshed industrial water supply, irrigation, outlining existing and forecast air quality fisheries, recreation, wildlife, problems, identifying prudent strategies, environmental standards and and recommending an action program aesthetic amenities; which includes consolidation of Oregon • Monitor water quality and quantity and Clark County Air Quality Management Areas. trends vis-a-vis beneficial use standards adopted by federal, state, Policy 6.2 Monitoring - Air quality will regional, and local governments for be actively monitored to achieve the specific water resources important following air quality goals: to the region; Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro 10 Policy 7.1 Open Space Assessment - Quantifiable targets will be established to • Hydrocarbon emissions from all set aside certain amounts and types of sources should not exceed Federal open space neighborhood, community ozone standard of .12 ppm (parts and regional parks, as well as other types per million). (current policy from of open space for passive recreational activities in order to meet local needs while sharing responsibility for meeting • Areas with concentrations of metropolitan open space demands. This carbon monoxide emissions from effort will begin with an inventory of transportation-related sources existing open space set asides and should not exceed the Federal opportunities in order to determine areas standard of 9 ppm. (current policy within the region where open space from RTP) deficiencies exist now or likely will given adopted land use plans and growth trends. • All transportation plans and local An assessment of current and prospective comprehensive plans, when taken active recreational needs shall be made, in aggregate should be consistent employing both locally generated and with the State Implementation Plan national standards for park land provision. (SIP) for air quality. (current Multi jurisdictional tools for planning and policy from RTP) financing the protection and maintenance of open space resources will be developed. • Standards for visibility, adopted through the planning process Policy 7.2 Corridor Systems - The referenced in Policy 1, which development of interconnected recreational meets the general objective of and wildlife corridor systems within the ensuring that views of the metropolitan region will be coordinated to: mountains are not impeded by air pollution as growth occurs. • develop a system of trails, capable of functioning as a unit within the region through the use of OBJECTIVE 7. compatible standards and use NATURAL. objectives, to link public and AREAS, PARKS private open space resources within AND WILDLIFE and between jurisdictions; HABITAT communities with each other; and communities with significant open Sufficient open space and wildlife habitat. space in the urban shall be • develop a system of wildlife region acquired, or otherwise protected, and corridors capable of linking managed to provide reasonable and significant wildlife habitat in order convenient access to sites for passive and to sustain and enhance populations active recreation; and a system of of native wildlife in the urban area. regionally significant interconnected habitat capable of supporting the continued • implement the Willamette River Greenway plan by presence of native wildlife in the urban the turn of the area and the region. century. Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro it Policy 7.3 - Wildlife Inventory - A detailed biological field inventory of the Policy 8.2 Urban Expansion - For rural region will be maintained to establish an lands that are available for future accurate baseline of native wildlife urbanization the following hierarchy populations. Target population goals for should be used for identifying priority native species will be established through sites for urban expansion to meet a public process which will include an demonstrated needs for urban land: analysis of amounts of habitat necessary to sustain native populations at target goal • First, propose such expansions on levels. After target native wildlife rural lands excepted from Statewide population goals have been adopted, Planning goals 3 and 4 in adopted necessary habitat will be identified, and acknowledged county protected, and in some cases created. The comprehensive plans. This planning process will emphasize habitat recognizes that small amounts of corridors and sites which play a significant rural resource land adjacent to or role in sustaining baseline native wildlife surrounded by those "exception populations. lands" may be necessary for inclusion in the proposal to Policy 7.4 Land Bank - A land-banking improve the efficiency of the program both within and outside the urban boundary amendment. area will be used to ensure that preservation needs and options are not O Second, consider secondary forest precluded by future urban development or resource lands, or equivalent, as resource lands management/production defined by the state. programs. Open space preservation will be incorporated in planning and regulatory • Third, consider secondary programs. agricultural resource lands, or equivalent, as defined by the state. OBJECTIVE 8. • Fourth, consider primary forest PROTECTION resource lands, or equivalent, as OF defined by the state. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST ! Finally, when all other options are RESOURCE exhausted, consider primary LANDS agricultural lands, or equivalent, as defined by the state. Agricultural and forest resource land outside the urban Policy 8.3 Resource Economy -Included growth boundary shall be identified and in a regional economic opportunities protected from urbanization, and analysis carried out as directed by Policy accounted for in regional economic and 4.2, shall be a consideration of the development plans. agricultural and forest products economy associated with lands adjacent to or near Policy 8.1 Urban Limits - Outside and the urban area. adjacent to the urban growth boundary are rural resource lands that should never be urbanized. l Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro 12 GOAL III: URBAN FORM efficiency with which the proposed reserve can be provided with urban services in the The management of the urban land supply future, the unique land needs of specific urban activities assessed from a regional shall occur from a regional perspective, be perspective, and the regional urban growth directed to achieve a compact urban goals and objectives. growth form, contribute to creating a clear distinction between urban and rural lands, No expansion of the urban growth and reflect the inter-relationship between boundary shall occur outside of urban development of vacant land and reserves. Where urban land is adjacent to redevelopment objectives in all parts of rural lands outside of an urban reserve, the urban region. Metro will work with affected cities and counties to ensure that urban uses do not negatively affect the use or condition of the rural land. Where urban land is adjacent to lands within an urban reserve OBJECTIVE 9. that may someday be included within the URBAN/RURAL urban growth boundary, Metro will work BOUNDARY with affected cities and counties to ensure that rural development does not create The pattern of obstacles to efficient urbanization in the development future. providing the Ll I k?] transition between Policy 9.3 Sense of Place - Features of urban and rural the natural and built regional landscape lands shall be planned and developed in a historic, cultural, topographic, and manner that makes best use of the natural biological found both inside and outside and built landscape, efficiently connects to of the urban growth boundary, which existing and planned public service and contribute significantly to this region's facility systems, and recognizes the likely identity and "sense of place", shall be long-term prospects for regional urban identified. Management of the total urban growth. land supply shall occur in a manner that supports the preservation of those features Policy 9.1 Boundary Features - The as growth occurs. Metro urban growth boundary shall, where feasible, be located using natural or built Policy 9.4 Planned Public Services - geographic features, such as roads, Upon identification of urban reserves drainage divides, floodplains, and adjacent to the urban growth boundary, powerlines. ultimate providers of urban services within those areas will be designated and charged Policy 9.2 Urban Reserves - Fifty-year with incorporating the reserve area(s) in "urban reserves", adopted for purposes of their public facility plans in conjunction coordinating planning and delineating with the next periodic review. Changes in areas for future urban expansion, shall be the location of the urban growth boundary identified and reviewed every 15 years shall occur so as to ensure the presence of based on the regional urban growth goals, planned key public facilities and services objectives, and policies. Establishment of concurrent. with development on the newly urban reserves will take into account the annexed lands. Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro 13 Policy 9.5 Relationship to Other Urban development densities for all Areas - The prospect of creating parcels as a first step towards transportation and other links between the determining the efficiency with urban economy within the Metro Urban which urban land is being used. In Growth Boundary and other urban areas in this case, efficiency is a function of the state will be investigated as a means land development densities for better utilizing Oregon's urban land incorporated in local and human resources. comprehensive plans. Metro will then work with jurisdictions in the region to determine the extent to OBJECTIVE 10. which redevelopment and infill can be DEVELOPED relied on to meet the identified need for URBAN LAND additional urban land. After this analysis and review, Metro will consider an Opportunities for amendment of the urban growth boundary and obstacles to to meet that portion of the identified need the continued for land not met through commitments for development and redevelopment and infill. redevelopment of existing urban land shall be identified and Policy 10.2 Financial Incentives - actively addressed through a combination Financial incentives to encourage of regulations and incentives so that the redevelopment and infill consistent with prospect of living, working, and doing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive business in those locations remains plans will be pursued to make attractive to a wide range of households redevelopment and infill attractive to and employers. investors and buyers. One possible mechanism might be an "urban expansion Policy 10.1 Redevelopment & Infiill - market impact fee", assessed per acre on The potential for redevelopment and infill lands added to the Metro urban growth on existing urban land will be included as boundary, and deposited in a trust fund an element when calculating the buildable used to address issues which hinder land supply in the region. When Metro redevelopment. makes a finding of need for additional urban land within the urban growth Policy 10.3 Economic Activity Centers - boundary, it will assess redevelopment and The region shall identify and reinforce a infill potential in the region by utilizing, at limited number of emerging economic a minimum, the following kinds of activity centers. An "economic activity analyses: center" is a mixed use node of relatively high density, supportive of non-auto based • An inventory of parcels where the transportation modes, and supported by assessed value of improvements is sufficient parks, open space, and other less than the assessed value of the urban amenities. State, regional, and local land. policy and investment shall be coordinated to achieve development objectives for • An analysis of the difference economic activity centers, and minimum between comprehensive plan targets for transit:highway mode split, development densities and actual jobs:housing balance, and minimum l Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro 14 housing density may be associated with judged on the basis of an assessment of all those public commitments. land within the boundary, taking into account any special and unique conditions New economic activity centers shall be or circumstances associated only with sited with respect to a system of such particular portions of the urban area. centers in the region, and shall not significantly affect regional goals for Policy 11.3 Amendment Criteria - existing centers, the transportation system, Criteria for amending the urban growth and other public services and facilities. boundary shall be derived from statewide Tools will be developed to address planning goals 2 and 14 and relevant regional economic equity issues stemming portions of the regional urban growth from the fact that not all jurisdictions will goals and objectives. serve as a site for an economic activity center. Such tools may include off-site Policy 11.4 Major Amendments - linkage programs to meet housing or other Proposals for major amendment of the needs or a program of tax base sharing for UGB shall be made primarily through a the increment of new tax base created by legislative process in conjunction with the public investment in economic activity development and adoption of regional centers. forecasts for population and employment growth. The amendment process will be initiated by a Metro fording of need, and OBJECTIVE 11. involve local governments, special URBAN districts, citizens, and other interests. GROWTH BOUNDARY ® Policy 11.5 Locational Adjustments - Locational adjustments of the UGB shall The regional urban be brought to Metro by cities and counties growth boundary based on public facility plans in adopted shall separate and acknowledged comprehensive plans. urbanizable from rural land, be based in aggregate on the OBJECTIVE 12. region's 20-year projected need for urban URBAN DESIGN land, and be located consistent with statewide planning goals and regional The identity and urban growth goals and objectives. integral functioning of Policy 11.1 Expansion into Urban communities in the Reserves - Upon demonstrating a need for region shall be additional urban land, urban growth supported through boundary amendments shall only occur the recognition and protection of critical within urban reserves unless it can be topographic and open space features in the demonstrated that Statewide Planning Goal region; public policies which encourage 14 cannot be met for the urban region diversity in the design and development of through use of urban reserve lands. settlement patterns, landscapes, and structures; and ensuring that incentives Policy 11.2 Adequacy of Land Supply - and regulations guiding the development The adequacy of the supply of urban land and redevelopment of the urban area within the urban growth boundary shall be promote a settlement pattern which: Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro 15 e is pedestrian "friendly" and reduces ® Building orientation standards, auto dependence; including blank wall, setback, height, and parking components, o encourages transit use; among others, which encourage transit and pedestrian use. s reinforces nodal, mixed use, neighborhood oriented design; ® Light Rail Transit stops, bus stops, transit routes, and transit centers s includes concentrated, high density, leading to and within economic mixed use economic activity activity centers shall be planned to centers developed in relation to the encourage pedestrian use and the region's transit system; creation of mixed use, high density residential development. • is attractive and reflects a "Northwest Style of Life"; and ! Mixed use housing developed in nonresidential zones and allowed e is responsive to needs for both by right shall be included in privacy and community in an urban housing inventories compiled for setting. purposes of showing compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Policy 12.1 Landscape Analysis - A Rule. regional landscape analysis shall be undertaken to inventory and analyze the • A broad spectrum of house and lot relationship between the built and natural types (zero-lot line, common wall, environments and to identify key open z-lot, etc.) will be offered to space, topographic, natural resource, broaden the range of options cultural, and architectural features which available to neighborhoods, should be protected as urban growth jurisdictions, and builders as they occurs. attempt to incorporate change in their communities while meeting Policy 12.2 Tools for Change - Model the evolving housing needs of the guidelines and standards will be developed public. which expand the range of tools available to jurisdictions for accommodating change ® Increased opportunities, incentives, in ways compatible with neighborhoods and requirements for mixed use and communities while addressing this projects and districts in the region objective. will be developed to facilitate the emergence of economic activity Policy 12.3 Pedestrian, Transit Support centers. -Pedestrian friendly and transit supportive building patterns will be encouraged in order to minimize the need for auto trips and to create a development pattern conducive to face-to-face community interaction. Efforts towards this end include: Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro 16 GOAL IV: METRO PLANNING PROCESS OBJECTIVE 15. Land use planning in the urban region AMENDMENTS shall be accessible to and understandable TO THE by a wide range of interests and shall REGIONAL ob :cti contribute generally to the creation of URBAN certainty about the results of the planning GROWTH process. GOALS ALS AND OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE 13. Metro shall ensure that the Regional CITIZEN Urban Growth Goals and Objectives are PARTICIPA- ® reviewed at regular intervals, that any TION review involves a broad cross-section of citizen and jurisdictional interests, and any Metro shall proposals for amendments receive broad develop and public review prior to Metro Council implement an action. ongoing program for citizen participation in all aspects of its regional planning program, including both legislative and quasi-judicial processes. Such a program will be coordinated with local programs for recognizing and supporting organizations intended to further citizen involvement in planning processes, and will not duplicate those programs. OBJECTIVE 14. NOTIFICATION Metro shall develop programs for public notification, especially for (but not limited to) proposed legislative actions, that ensure a high level of awareness of the potential consequences and of opportunities for involvement on the part of affected citizens, both within and outside of its district boundaries. Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro 17 Glossary BeneQirial Use Standards - Under Oregon law, specific uses of water within a drainage basin deemed to be important to the ecology of that basin as well as to the needs of local communities are designated as "beneficial uses". Hence, "beneficial use standards" are adopted to preserve water quality or quantity necessary to sustain the identified beneficial uses. Economic Activity Center - An 'economic activity center" is a designated location for a mix of relatively high density office space, commercial activity, residential uses, and supporting parks and public places. There will be a limited number of these centers designated in the region, and they will be characterized by design elements which work to minimize the need to make trips by automobile either to or within a center. State, regional, and local policy and investment will be coordinated to achieve development and functional objectives for these centers. Economic Opportunities Analysis - An "economic opportunities analysis" is a strategr1 assessment of the likely trends for growth of local economies in the state. Such an analysis is critical for economic planning and for ensuring that the land supply in an urban area will meet long-term employment growth needs. Exception - An "exception" is taken for land when either commitments for use, current uses, or other reasons make it impossible to meet the requirements of one or a number of the statewide planning goals. Hence, lands "excepted" from statewide planning goals 3 (Agricultural Lands) and 4 (Forest Lands) have been determined to be unable to comply with the strict resource protection requirements of those goals, and are thereby able to be used for other than rural resource production purposes. Lands not excepted from statewide planning goals 3 and 4 are to be used for agricultural or forest product purposes, and other, adjacent uses must support their continued resource productivity. f Infrastructure - Roads, water systems, sewage systems, systems for stormdrainage, bridges, and other facilities developed to support the functioning of the developed portions of the environment. Key or Critical Public Facilities and Services - Basic facilities that are primarily,planned for by local government but which also may be provided by private enterprise and are essential to the support of more intensive development, including public schools, transportation, water supply, sewage, and solid waste disposal. Local Comprehensive Plan - A generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a city or county that inter-relates all functional and natural systems and activities related to the use of land, consistent with state law. Metropolitan Blousing Rule - A rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission to assure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary. This rule establishes minimum overall net residential densities for all cities and counties within the urban growth boundary, and specifies that 50% of the land set aside for new residential development be zoned for multifamily housing. State Implementation Plan - A plan for ensuring that all parts of Oregon remain in compliance with Federal air quality standards. Urban Growth Boundary - A boundary which identifies urbanizable lands to be planned and serviced to support urban development densities, and which separates urbanizable lands from rural lands. MOWN 0 i ~hP ? 1BTN HW O Yn~~ - z c s w h` NTH Q H'M~ho 3 ~ ~ 8arnr ~ ` Cpo 7. ~'"s ' NTH Pik 3 Island ~ H,n 1sT 5T !,r 0Z Van oU tIr PLAIN aLYO t z it 3~ ' y~y' ' LfWrS a SiTH Galna asooU9 CtARX 6 ~ 1AA'RIN~ NYI .1 Cwh ~.~.--i N tnwlA P rn^Nnt I°4ne , 4 i Cptt/M to t p r0,`. tpMBARD ST 1+C7T anxa ~ • sA Hs h10nn H U N ♦ KLLL INGSWORTN Silt Tro 1 HWY plain ty L -t z y0 a c d° ge C pPt' i 0y HA Y nvSTAHa T r = SuN pUmon AGS Z Ship RNSIDE° T ° tine v w ' s n z z x„ ti z ~ T ~ res a c = !rr L ottland = SS IYI 1 N _ °a o tfu { P 8 w fpwE e i i votpoA W RHELL RD ~ L`h z rfN a w ~ eAP •y n _ z y ill OTO BASELI RD m 9i IF - 0 hui 9>t• WOOD T Jn nu+n rA - MU O love 1 ruAtA T1N Y HWY BEAYERIpH Hu S HWY 2 AltAta P PD ave ~'f °a ~t s`OaHaPPY ~ u+o t0 D~ p2' 1 •r KIND RD valley p O 2 RO PT1 m ~ y~5 i1WaUkle RD t et+p R,wr h 2 fh T c 8t MD ' v~ Hpr Mt Su D'tWE 1oa a , ~ J,a TdiMA O I C C n ~ ~ t W Sj9at a Lake o HWY ri Cam' BaAa~W1e fM^" a°n 0 ee Qswu-j I Jon son Y Ir Do" ki fERR M~ C1. Rp a~ v5 S~ Z uhf PO S Hay in9 main @ ~ o m dsto ToRSYTTtE z f.Wa pn ily a c~ BALD UALAtA, ive/ e i D au ,n R . , . ' i (U81811n Z 4 O m WeI Linn T Y EQLANa FIT ti' f Nltt Pp SpR,~Q~ L y~MNlll a e s vt N o "s r a ° o hem 4~ti~ t Pr + ~ y EBIaG ' { V• 9 n ~i 01 ville 503) 221_1640" > 4 cnl W lT;uer 5348, t 20005.W•@irstl~Ye•~I'oTtland,OR4~01-• . 1 Boundarg ran METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT 2000 SW First Avenue Portland, OR 97201-5395 503/221-1646 Executive Officer Rena Cusma Councilors District 1 David Saucy District 2 Lawrence Bauer District 3 Jim Gardner District 4 Richard Devlin District 5 Tom Dejardin District 6 George Van Bergen District 7 J. Ruth McFarland District 8 Judy Wyers District 9 Tanya Collier District 10 Roger Buchanan District 11 David Knowles District 12 Gary Hansen fi REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1) DO THESE DRAFT REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS_ AND OBJECTIVES RESPOND TO THE GROWTH ISSUES IN YOUR COMMUNITY? 2) HOW COULD THE APPROACH TAKEN BY THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES TO ADDRESSING THE KEY ISSUES OF GROWTH IN YOU COMMUNITY BE MADE BETTER? 3) ARE THERE URBAN GROWTH ISSUES IN YOUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES? IF SO, WHAT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE DRAFT TO MARE IT MORE COMPLETE? 4) WHAT ROLES SHOULD BE PLAYED BY CITIES, COUNTIES, METRO, THE STATE, AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES? C rn_ ~ r j 1 t ` or forestry, where average-lot development is al- lowed subject to a variety of siting and other re- "IT.* l~j strictions aimed at preventing conflicts with nearby farming or forestry. PLANNING TRAILS Within the UGBs. Oregon gained 168,000 new resi- dents between 1980 and 1989, more than 90 percent Il'ol~T OREGON of whom live inside UGBs, with most of the balance in exception areas. Population in exclusive resource use areas has remained constant (or fallen slightly), Arthur C. Nelson according to the 1987 U.S. Census of Agriculture. This containment of growth has occurred without driving up housing prices, which in the early 1970s Oregon is 17 years into its aggressive statewide was a feared effect of the program's restrictions on land use planning program, which has enjoyed great the supply of land for housing. A 1982 study of the notoriety and endured considerable controversy. In housing price effects of UGBs by Russ Beaton, a its essentials, it has done what it set out to do, but Willamette University economics professor, found not completely and at some cost. Oregon's pioneer- that house prices in Oregon during the late 1970s ing law faces more challenges in the future, while it rose in tandem with house prices around the nation. serves as an object lesson for other states thinking of One reason for this performance is that a forest in- adopting statewide mandatory land use planning dustry recession has dampened growth in Oregon laws with teeth. since the late 1970s. The industry has now regained In 1973, the Oregon legislature put into effect a strength, and recent forecasts indicate the state will sweeping program to regulate land use on a statewide attract nearly 500,000 more residents by 2010, most level. The new law created the Land Conservation within the Portland area. Although this will increase and Development Commission (LCDC), which re- pressures on housing prices, few observers expect quired all cities and counties to adopt plans comply.. them to rise by much more than the national aver- ing with at least 14 basic goals. The two cornerstones age. Enough undeveloped land to sustain develop- of the program were the preservation of resource ment into the next century remains available within lands and the containment of urban development UGBs, especially in the Portland, Salem, and Eugene within urban growth boundaries. areas. Infill and redevelopment opportunities and se- By 1985, all cities and counties had plans "acknowl- lected expansion of the UGBs will provide additional edged" by LCDC as being consistent with state plan- land to accommodate development. Moreover, the ning policies. But the process had been slow and price of housing will be held in check by the lower painful, marked by bitter disputes among land own- costs of development implicit in UGBs-they make ers, local governments, and the state; much litigation; investments in urban facilities and services more pre- conflicts between LCDC (an unelected body) and lo- dictable and thus streamline the overall development cally elected public officials; and nasty confrontations process. between environmental and property rights inter- With LCDC's rejection of the low-density housing ests. Through it all, the idea. of state involvement in provisions of many local plans, development densi- local land use planning survived three statewide bal- ties increased from about four units per gross build- lot measures, albeit with declining margins. able acre to six or more units in most urban areas. Charles Hales of the Home Builders Association of Successes Metropolitan Portland says: 'The 1960s' and 1970s' trend to lower and lower residential densities in sub- -On the surface, the principal objectives of the pro- urban areas was checked. As local governments re- gram have been achieved. All urban areas, some vised zoning to comply with state policy, residential made up of several cities and counties, are contained zoning shifted back toward traditional, more afford- within urban growth boundaries (UGBs). Rural land able densities." has been put into one of three major use classes: One promise of the statewide planning process • exclusive farmland or exclusive forestland-two was faster permitting, since once planning had been classes of land on which subdivision, homebuild- completed the uncertainties about appropriate land ing, and other "nonrural" uses are generally pro- uses were removed. To make good on this promise, hibited; and the state requires all local governments to process • exception land-a special category created for permits within 120 days of their submittal. Hales ob- thousands of acres not appropriate for inclusion serves that Portland area developers can move a sub- in UGBs but also of marginal quality for farming division "from a mere gleam in the builder's eye to 32 August 90 / l 0 4 b o ads v 4 yttn. mwu~ <»~.rm • ~ i Q o Ponland as ' p Gb*~ 90 _ 0 A _ i/ dv X71; Ln~~ oQ o o ~D nunuu.,aw.,-rr P^ r a d' U 9 A.. 4 4 d?ea I 1 ° © a~ ® urban Cro"rh Boundaries rrnaro~muvrv 0 Eccq;on l.nd, o 0 1W rorlCOOUNrY G / Salem ° p 7 p • •~ti'-•, y o P t'b O •,YJ_J 6 a { e• 0 • ~9 A Yl ~ 9.. a t . Q O ~ P I 4 u0 e j arxrw+C°VMY s C n Euge[!C I V u~•c ootnvrr t fl r ro t ~ M Q urw °our<rv 4 a f V The map of UGBs and exception lands in Oregon's Willamette Valley, home to 80 percent of the state's population, is called the "Map of Shame" by 1000 Friends of Oregon, an advocate of tightly drawn UGBs and very limited authorization of exception lands. This map is reproduced by permission of 1000 Friends of Oregon. Cartography by Sam Lowry. ground breaking" within 180 days, and average ap- and specific traffic patterns. The predictability of proval time has fallen to less than four months. this approach saves valuable permit processing time- Local governments' use of discretionary standards and prevents legal costs for appeals. to "hedge" development reviews-their ability to deny To keep the system working, the state Land Use or sharply modify development proposals in the in- Board of Appeals (LUBA) sits-like a tax court to terest of a subjective goal like "fostering a high qual- review only land use cases. Unlike state court judges ity of life =is virtually outlawed under Oregon's pro- in most states, LUBA judges understand the intrica- gram. They must provide written guidelines that cies of land use law. Decisions on appeals, moreover, translate "quality of life" into meaningful criteria such must be made within three months. Appeals from as site planning standards, noise generation standards, LUBA go to the state court of appeals and the state t z August 90 33 supreme court, both of which are noted for rapid urban development gives residents there the bene- decisions. fits of nearby urban amenities and large-lot exclusive- Out on the Farms. Agriculture and forestry are ness. The battles waged by the increasingly affluent Oregon's leading economic sectors. The statewide "exception communities" just outside the UGBs over land use planning program has been effective in pro- UGB expansions have set important legal prece- tecting these industries. Large blocks of rural land dents that will be difficult to overcome. have been preserved for resource use, and resource Displacement is a third unwanted consequence of productivity appears to be increasing. The Willam- limiting urban sprawl. Infill and redevelopment are ette Valley, for example, home to 80 percent of the burgeoning businesses in Portland. The trouble is state's 2.8 million residents, produces 40 percent of that redevelopment and infill in residential areas the state's agricultural products. Between 1982 and cause the displacement of households that cannot af- 1987, farms in the valley increased.in average size ford new housing. In reaction, a small underground and productivity per acre. Farming in the valley un- movement is sabotaging redevelopment projects by doubtedly owes its survival to the planning program. damaging construction equipment and even resort- ing to arson. The residents of established neighbor- Unintended Consequences hoods also often oppose, although less militantly, proposals to densify their communities that would Despite its successes, the program has engendered bring in different people and create more traffic. several troubling, unintended consequences that will The fourth consequence-and so far only a fear, challenge the continued viability of the land use not a reality---is the program's threat to the market's planning system. ability to continue producing affordable housing, es- Expansion of UGBs has been difficult and time- peciallyin the face of anti-urban attitudes. Many de- consuming, because of the actions of interest groups velopers find that their projects receive more favorable organized for the'sole purpose of opposing bound- treatment by local governments if they are designed ary changes. One such group, the Citizens Planning for lower than permitted densities. As long as the Organization of the Reedville area just outside the market sustains the higher prices of lower-density Portland UGB, has defeated five UGB expansion pro- housing, developers are happy to oblige-but housing .31 posals by local-developers. Although preventing affordability suffers. Urban areas everywhere encounter UGB expansion into resource lands may be desir- this problem. It must be said that Oregon's policies r able, minor boundary adjustments are often needed go further than most states, however, to encourage :I to round out UGBs or remedy mistakes in the origi- higher-density housing, equitably apportion regional - nal boundary settings. needs for affordable housing, speed reviews of lower- In 1986, LCDC adopted criteria for expedited "loco- cost housing projects, and remove regulatory restric- tional adjustments" to streamline the process. But tions. 4 these were of little avail in the -case of Dennis Derby's Oregon's program suffers from LCDC's failure to proposal for a 20-acre housing subdivision bounded set fundamental standards for mapping, record keep- on two sides by new subdivisions and on a third side ing, and terminology. "Low-density" residential zon- by a major road, and.lying only 200 yards from a ing can mean many different things; scales of base high school. The site met all of LCDC's criteria for a maps often differ, computerized land use maps are streamlined adjustment. But the adjustment: bitterly rare; and records on annexations, development in opposed by a local organization of hobby farmers exception lands, plan amendments, buildable land joined, surprisingly, by the 1000 Friends of Oregon, supply, or public facility capacities are incomplete. a citizens' watchdog organization-took two years of The resulting lack of consistent, reliable information hearings and a court case to accomplish. on what has been achieved makes it difficult to evalu- A second unintended consequence of Oregon's ate successes and failures. We do not know precisely program is that sometimes it is easier to develop out- how many acres of land are developed or remain side the UGB than within-it. Development on excep- available within UGBs, how many homes have been tion land is not subject to the kind of technical review built on exception land, or how commercial farmers requirements and development standards imposed in exclusive farm use areas have fared. (LCDC is just on urban developments within the UGB,.itr part be- now undertaking a cursory evaluation.) cause the land has been "written off" as neither farm Finally, two recent LUBA decisions have cast shad- nor urban land. ows on the vaunted predictability of Oregon's devel- 1000 Friends of Oregon has calculated that more opment approval process. In Dickasv Washington than 750,000 acres of land have been classified as ex County, the board expanded appealable actions to in- ception lands, and that more than 300,000 of these clude changes to projects already approved, such as acres lie within the Willamette Valley. Low-density minor site plan amendments, landscaping or minor 34 August 90 / l ' facade revisions, minor variances, and tree-cutting to lead to problems that will haunt planners for gen- iermits, opening the door to neighborhood-based erations. _ actions against projects approved for development. Infrastructure Needs. Major investments in infra- In a second case, the board accepted an assessment structure will be needed to sustain future develop- by neighbors that the schools had inadequate capac- ment. Transportation in the Portland area alone is ity to accommodate students generated by a develop- projected to require $3.5 billion of capital invest- ment, rather than the school board's claim that ca- ment over the next 20 years. The state has established pacity was or would be adequate, opening the door a nearly half billion dollar revolving loan fund to to a more restrictive application of adequate facility help local governments to provide needed infrastruc- requirements. Both decisions may be subject to "cor- ture, but more will be required to keep pace with rective" legislation action. growth. Open Space. Oregon's farmland preservation poli- Future Shock ties supposedly were adopted to sustain the agricul- tural economy, but behind them, many observers be- Oregon's basic planning policies face a number of lieve, was and is a desire to preserve farmland as challenges that will require rethinking of the state's open space for urban residents in perpetuity. Given commitment to preserving resource lands and forcing potential demand for enlarging UGBs, a more proac- compact urban development. tive program to acquire farmland development' After 2000. The intent of the program set up in rights might be appropriate. One is already under 1974 was to plan for the year 2000. Thereafter, the consideration in the Portland area. fate of the UGBs is questionable: will they "sunset," Oregon's vision of compact urban areas surrounded remain frozen in place, or-be selectively expanded? by farms, forests, and other open spaces promises to The forces opposing UGB expansions altogether are remain a strong focus for development policy. Whether becoming entrenched. Still, the likely scenario for or not it ultimately can be realized is an open ques- beyond 2000 is a combination of some expansions, tion. The state must intensify its efforts to make de- continuing emphasis on infill, and a densification of velopment more attractive inside rather than out- oudying small towns. side UGBs, by strengthening initiatives to achieve The Back Wave. Most developers have had few higher densities and stimulate infill and redevelop- •oblems finding reasonably priced sites, given the ment; by continuing to streamline permitting and `large amounts of buildable land still available within curbing arbitrary and discretionary standards; and N UGBs. Portland's UGB, for example, can supply de- by improving local financing options and increased velopment needs for a decade or more past the year state funding to improve infrastructure. Oregon 2000, according to Ethan Seltzer of the Portland should also consider exception lands as appropriate I Metropolitan Service District. But the day will come outlets for exurban residential demand and seek to I{ when most large, easily developed sites have been de- regularize that process. veloped. Then, developers will hunt for infill and re- The public and private price tag for planning the ..3i development sites, creating what Seltzer calls "the Oregon program probably has passed the $1 billion back wave." How this will affect the development pro- mark, when all expenditures of budget and time are ;ilk cess or housing prices is unknown. considered. Add to that the disappointment and fi- The "Market Factor." The Portland UGB has a • nancial difficulties experienced by the thousands of long-term supply of land because it adopted a 15.8 Oregonians who expected, whether realistically or percent "market factor"-that is, it set aside 15.8 per- not, to profit from land that now is subject to devel- 1 cent more developable land than the market required opment restrictions. Yet many citizens, planners, and to the year 2000 in order to prevent monopolistic developers think the program, so far, has been worth pricing practices by landowners. But LCDC prevented the price. As Hales says, in retrospect his home- ' most jurisdictions from adopting any market factor, builders would not return to the "old days of cancer- I ' meaning that by 2000, they will have no land left to tainty, time delays, and arbitrary decisions. We do develop, a rather threatening future for developers not believe Oregon's growth management system is unless these jurisdictions move to expand their perfect. But we prefer it over the old, unpredictable jj UGBs. system when builders had no real recourse from zon- The Exurban Preference. Probably 60 million ing policies hostile to housing."• Americans live in quasi-rural, low-density areas, and more would if they could afford it. The Oregon pro- gram ignores this demand except for allowing devel- Arthur C. Nelson is associate professor of public policy -ment on exception lands. And the state's lack of and city planning at the Georgia Institute of Technology policy for development on these lands is bound in Atlanta. ' 1T] / August 90 35 I i AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP September 10, 1990 1. INTRODUCTIONS (5:30 p.m.) Council and Planning Commission members, Metro Councilor, Metro staff, City staff and 'any visitors. 2. PRESENTATION ON DRAFT REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. Ethan Setlzer, Metro. Discussion of concepts, timeframe, implications and process for comment and involvement in the process. 3. WORKSHOP ISSUES (6:15 p.m.) A. Role issues Development review issues, such as: *subdivisions with variances *sign code exceptions *planned developments Long range planning and policy formulation, such as: *Bull Mountain development issues *Tigard Triangle Planning *Metzger area planning *Development Code amendments *Periodic review issues B. Process issues Planning Commission meetings *staff support and involvement *late nights/frequency of meetings *attendance and quorum issues Communications and meetings with the City Council, or other Boards and Commissions 3. PREPARATION FOR THE JOINT HEARING ON PRESIDENT'S PARKWAY (7:00 p.m.) Council Agenda Item No. s CITY OF TIGAM), C&2E7GCN 0OUNCIL AGENDA, IM4 SUMMARY AGENDA OF: SeotMAm r- 10. 1990 DATE SUEMC7W: September 5, 1990 ISSUE/AGENDA TI'IIE: AppMve Payment of PREVIOUS ACTICN: Mmlatin V 1 c Cmwmtic Qmxtgri-y tributi PREPARED BY: Patrick Rei_l]y DEPT HEAD Cat CITY AEKM R 'TED BY: POLL ISS[7E Should the City of Tigard continue to participate in the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation (TVEDC)? INFORMATION S[JNMARY Me attached statement fran TVEDC outlines the quarterly payment schedule through 4/1/91. AIMMULTIVES OONSIDII2ID 1. Authorize payment as outlined. 2. Decline participation and direct staff to notify TVEDc FISCAL II+D~ACr Total a=urrt for FY 90-91 is $4,463.25. This item was shown in the budget and was estimated to be $4,465. SEMESSTED ACi'ICN Approve quarterly payments as outlined. tvedc TUALATIN VALLEY Ecc>NC~MIC t)t:vta.c)h~n:~'r cc~ttt~<~ti,~'rtc1N rr t STATEMENT JUL w S July 17, 1990 Pat Reilly City Administrator City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 As agreed, the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation (TVEDC) will continue to provide economic development services to foster a positive economic climate and facilitate the development of job opportunities in the Tualatin Valley. The economic development services TVEDC will provide are outlined in the corporation's Mission Statement and 1990-91 Action Plan. The city of Tigard's contribution to fund the valley wide economic services is $4,463.25. This amount is based on $.165 per capita for the city's population as of July 1, 1989. QUARTERLY PAYMENT SCHEDULE July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 DATE AMOUNT July 1, 1990 $ 1,115.82 October 1, 1990 $ 1,115.81 January 2, 1991 $ 1,115.81 April 1, 1991 $ 1,115.81 10200 S.W. Nimbus Avrnuc • suitc 0-3 • Tigard. Orcgctti 9-223 • (503) 620-11.12 Council Agenda Item No. 3,a CITY OF TIGARD, ORDC~ON COdM= AQWNDA ITEM S AM=& OF: September 10, 1990 DATE S[7M'1'I°ED: 9@Vk@92Mr 5, 1990 ISSUE /AG'II~1DA T1fiLE: A,~ve payment of PREVIOUS ACTION: jggM of gpgggp Cities 1990-91 LXM PRWAHED BY: Patrick Reilly_ REQUESTED BY: DEPT HEAD O{ CITY ALMLTJ CK/ POLL ISSUE Should the City of Tigard renew league of Orman Cities (IOC) membexsh1p, and ca tytribute to time City Legal Assistance Fuld. IlNFIOMMON SLB94ARY Attached is a memorandum received from IAC regarding renewal of annual IOC dunes for 1990-91. Dick Townsend, league EKecutive Director, attended the August 27, 1990 Council meeting and outlined some of the benefits offered. Mr. Townsend noted that savings in medical insurance costs is a direct benefit which more than offsets the cost of league membership. AMFOULTIVES CONSIDER 1, Annove payment of 1990-91 league ch and legal fund contribution. 2. Approve payment of 1990-91 league dues only. 3. Decline IOC participation and direct staff to notify the League of this decision. FISCAL IN~A~l' Alternative No. 1: $9,426.50 (cost offset by medical benefits savings). Alternative No. 2: $8,926.50 Alternative No. 3: Line item for league dues would not be expended; additional expense would be anticipated for medical benefits. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve payment of 1990-91 league dunes and legal find contribution. loc League of Oregon Cities Local Government Center, 1201 Court St. N.E., PO Box 928, Salem 9730897elephone: (503) 588-6550, 1-800-452-0338 toll flee; FAX: 378-5859 June 14, 1990 TO: Mayors of Oregon Cities FROM: Emily Schue, President; Councilor, Eugene RE: Renewal of Annual LOC Dues This letter comes to you as a reminder to renew your membership with the League of Oregon Cities. An invoice and a copy of this letter has been mailed to your city manager or city recorder. The amount of dues is based on the most recent population figures certified for your city by the Center for Population Research and Census at Portland State University. The dues schedule is .33 cents per capita, and there is a minimum membership fee of $75. The League's mission is "to strengthen cities." To that end, LOC has successfully implemented strong legislative, communications and technical assistance programs. One such program is the recent development of a city data base called "LeagueBase." It compiles over 300 characteristics for each community and will allow cities and our lobby staff access to a tremendous source of information. In addition, conferences, training and insurance services have all become critically important to cities. Every city in Oregon receives the benefits of the many programs and activities of the League, and only three very small cities of the 242 incorporated cities in the state are not League members. If your city's population is over 500, you wilt note that your dues invoice also lists a request for voluntary contribution to the city legal assistance fund. These funds, coupled with the voluntary aid of individual city attorneys, are used to provide legal assistance in court cases which affect all cities in Oregon. Over the past few years, the League has been involved with seven cases to address unfavorable decisions by the court. Currently, LOC is represented before the Public Utilities Commission on telephone franchise fees, which were altered significantly during the 1989 legislative session. Your continued support for the League is an important investment for your city and is appreciated by the League's Board of Directors. In return for that support, the League's Board and staff pledge our energies to serve the needs of all Oregon cities in the most efficient fashion possible. We would ask that you fill out the enclosed questionnaire card and return it to the League so that we might be responsive to your opinions on various programs and services. Should you have any questions about the dues or League services, please feel free to contact me or League Executive Director Dick Townsend. We'd be pleased to respond to your questions or comments. In the meantime, we'll count on you to keep the cities' voice strong through continued membership and support of your League. ES:RCT:kab . Enclosure cc: City Manager/Reoorder OFFICERS: Emily Schue, Councilor, Eugene, President • Candace DIRECTORS: Larry Cole, Mayor, Beaverton • Larry Dalrymple, City Manager, Boardman • Jim Gilroy, Mayor, Cottage Grove • Pate Barlow, Mayor. Grants Pass, Vice-president • Joe McLaughlin, May% Harvey, City Manager, Lake Oswego a Edith Henningsgaard, Mayor. Astoria, Immedlals Past President • Glenn Koehrsen, Councilor. Pendleton, Treasurer • Richard Townsend, Executive DirWor. Albany • Mike Lindberg, Commissioner, Portland • Charles VMS, Mayor, Corvallis a Loran Wiese, Councilor, Coquille. LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES 1201 COURT ST. N.E. 588-6550 P.O. BOX 928 SALEM, OREGON 97308 0 RJOGFT STATF.MFNT CITY OF TIGARD P.O. BOX 23397 AT - t TIGARD, OR 97223 07/01/90 03/16/90 0100 1990-91 LEAGUE DUES 8926.50 POPULATION 27,050 Ca -33 PER CAPITA 19/90 0150 VOL. LEGAL. FUND CONTR. 500.00 BASED ON POPULATION l AMOUNT DUE, 9426."50 t r Council Agenda Item No. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA OF: September 10,1990 DATE SUBMITTED: 8/30/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bid Award for PREVIOUS ACTION: Greenbur Road Electrical Tele ho e Under roundin Pro ect PREPARED BY: Gary AlfsonL:YT DEPT HEAD OR CITY AD[IN OR REQUESTED BY: .~xxasa=ssa=a.. xssxsaasaa=oaa=s s=xasassaassxaasxsax=xasxxx=xxxassxssax=vss LICY ISSUE Award of construction contract for the Greenburg Road Electrical/Telephone Undergrounding Project as=saasxsasaxasaaaaamaaaaxxaxmsassmsssxm=xsxsassasas=xx=ss=axss=s=sxaxsaaxx=sss INFORMATION SUMMARY This project provides for the installation of underground electrical & telephone facilities from Pacific Highway to Cascade Blvd. This project is the second of three phases for the Greenburg Road Major Street Bond project. Four bids were received as follows: John Arnold Co., Oregon City $ 354,413.00 Copenhagen Utilities, Clackamas $ 463,497.92 Shaumburg Enterprises, Inc., Coburg $ 508,140.41 Standard Utility Contractors, Salem $ 617,222.00 The Consultant Engineer (Wilsey & Ham) estimate was $ 321,000.00. This second phase project exceeds the estimate by approximately $33,000. However, the first phase low bid for storm drainage work was below the estimate by $32,000. Overall, total projeact costs appear to be within the budget. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. amxxsxx=axasasxxssa=x=aaxssxssxa=xs=as=ssxasssx=xxxxs--------------s=sass=sx=ass FISCAL IMPACT This project is funded through the Major Streets Bond approved in November 1988. SUGGESTED ACTION That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with John Arnold Co. ga/GA:lcrbgrut.GA COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. -3,8J) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 10, 1990 AGENDA OF: DATE SUBMITTED: August 16, 1990 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Tigard/Metro PREVIOUS ACTION: None GIs Database Agreement 14 14 4al"'M A/1 I PREPARED BY: John Acker DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: POL CY ISSUE Should the City enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Metropolitan Service District that calls for Metro to provide to the City a digital database covering the Tigard area and to contribute to the cost of developing that database? The parcel level database is for use with the City's Geographic Information System (GIS). INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has an opportunity to save considerable time and money to work with a consultant who has been retained by Metro to develop a parcel level data base. This data base will be of sufficient accuracy to allow the City to utilize the Geographic Information System for a wide range of planning, mapping, and engineering tasks. Since the consultant has been retained by Metro, and Metro will be contributing approximately 14% of the project's total cost, it is necessary to enter into intergovernmental agreement to initiate this project. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Enter into an agreement with Metro for the production of a Tigard area database to the City's standards. 2. Continue to develop a Tigard area database to City standards in-house. 3. Rely on Metro's database; do not develop a database with a higher degree of accuracy FISCAL IMPACT o The cost of purchasing a database with increased accuracy from Metro is $21,375 with a citywide product usable in approximately 14 weeks. o The cost of developing a database to City standards in-house is estimated to be $160,000 with a citywide product usable in approximately 12 months. o There is no direct cost for accessing Metro's regional database, however usefulness of the City's GIS would be significantly reduced with a less accurate database. A citywide product would be usable no later than June 30, 1991, and maybe sooner. =c=o==e=a====s=c=========s===ss====s==c=s===c===cs==m====s====s=====c_coo====a= SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with Metro to produce a Tigard area database to the City's standards. C JA:Metro4.cc t S MEMORANDUM TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director DATE: August 1, 1990 RE: Opportunity for Geographic Information System (GIS) Cost Savings The City has an opportunity to save substantial funds through entering into an intergovernmental agreement with the Metropolitan Se:-vice District to create a detailed Tigard area GIS data base which can be used on the City's GIS system. Metro itself is not doing the actual work. They are contracting with David { Evans and Associates (DEA). There are two parts to the DEA/Metro contract. First Metro is paying (DEA) to develop a GIS data base at a level of detail E. which is sufficient for use as a regional planning tool. Secondly, the contract allows local governments the opportunity to purchase from DEA a data 4 base which is more accurate and usable for a wider range of urban planning tasks such as facilities planning, mapping, spatial analysis, some engineering tasks, etc. The City is paying the difference between Metro's cost for GIS data that is best suited for use at the regional level and data which can be better used at the community level. The savings to the City is in the form of personnel savings. If the City had to do this work itself, it would take several months at the minimum. DEA will be able to provide a usable data base 7. within 14 to 16 weeks. All of Tigards's Urban Growth Boundary and most of the Tigard Area of Interest will be included in this project shown as exhibit "A" in the attached agreement. The total cost to the City will be $21,375. Metro will contribute an additional $3,150. All of these funds are currently budgeted for GIS expenditures. It is necessary to enter into an intergovernmental Agreement with Metro to initiate this project. An agreement is attached for your consideration. It has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 4 n , THE CITE' OF TIGARD GI S P a r c e I Base \ Contract Areas Y,. (Exhibit A) Ilq I Tlt.,4 Iuul W, .nl...l \ \ \ a ............r .r nw•• to •,.u \ S y •ll.r 1..1.11.11•.. - 0i7il.I Jele ■el ■ Ci It nl f r. Ti[ul.liu . \ y .'"I t i.dri.l ll. 7 o 7e i ►t Ar[/LfY fly rd rylic a f. f.rn.li.. S7a.w (CIS) eertnr.. lel.rweliu prtrq.l 1[rr se7 le i.lu J.1 le 1• n.d eill , .ddilie.el t.th.i..l ..d/.r ieUr/r9tllir9 /tt9 a c,b r.•,.,,. 1•Lrni.eJ 17 ll. ti17 .f N O R T H r,i.rd. Yq er.tlel - 06/09120. (YICOUJtI~ JIL- l EXHIBIT "B" SCOPE OF WORK Tasks for: David Evans and Associates City of Tigard 1. Establish GPS points 2. Produce 1"=1000' orthophotos 3. Provide completed sections to David Evans and Associates 4. Develop street centerline file 5. Determine section corner coordinates 6. Convert Tax Assessors Maps 7. Digitize streets, parcels, and street centerlines 8. Convert to ARC/INFO coverage (DXFARC) 9. CLEAN and BUILD topology 10. Edit topology errors 11. Create and run utility to convert to Tigard coordinates 12. Create EXPORT files and archive to diskette (PKPACK) 13. Deliver to the City of Tigard in phases as outlined in the "Phase Schedule" (attached) 14. Unpack and IMPORT 15. Add street names 16. Add tax lot numbers 17. Check accuracy and completeness 18. EXPORT and PKPACK to diskette 19. Deliver to DEA 20. Unpack and IMPORT 21. Check label points and INFO files 22. Revise and edit as necessary 23. Export and pack 24. Deliver final digital files to Tigard and Metro 25. Deliver GPS survey and orthophoto data to Tigard PROJECT SCHEDULE Final products shall be delivered to the City of Tigard within 14 weeks of the initiation of the agreement. PAYMENT SCHEDULE ° The City of Tigard shall make payment to DNA within 30 days of receipt of an itemized bill. i s i Council Agenda Item No. 3.4 MEDER ANDaff CITY OF TICARD, OPEOW TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FRM: Cathy Wheatley, City Records DATE: September 5, 1990 S TBJBCT: Consent Agenda Item No. 3.4 The City Attorney will be reviewing this agenda item with the Cm=il during the Septsiber 10, 1990 meting. M-dz relates to the Dartmouth IM. cw 4 1 Council Agenda Item No. c~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: August 30, 1990 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: To change the plan PREVIOUS ACTION: On August 13, 1990 designation for that portion of the the Council adopted the Planning Com- President's Parkway Urban Renewal Dis- mission's recommendation to hold a trict which was designated Commercia public hearing to change the Plan Professional back to Residential Designation back to residential and to rescind the relevant Plan policies. PREPARED BY: Ron Bunch, Sr. Planner DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council redesignate that portion of the President's Parkway Urban Renewal District which was designated Commercial-Professional back to Low and Medium-Density Residential, and to rescind the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. INFORMATION SUMMARY To date several public meetings have been held with area NPO's and CPO's. The general consensus of these groups is to change the Plan for the area back to what it was previous to the President's Parkway proposal. In addition the Planning Commission was unanimous in a motion, "To recommend to the City Council to: (1) reverse the decision that amended the Comprehensive Plan Map and text which initiated the President's Parkway proposal, and (2) initiate a planning effort to develop an area plan using the Metzger-Progress Plan as the basis to evaluate future land use and development opportunities in the area." Sea First bank desires to build a branch in the area, and cannot do so because of the de-facto moratorium currently in place. The attached ordinance to redesignate the area contains an emergency clause to allow this development to take place as soon as possible. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Neighborhood Planning and Citizen Participation Organizations, and the Planning Commission in both a work session and public hearing evaluated the effects of not amending the plan as described above. This was determined undesirable because: 1) The Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations in the area currently do not match and property owners are subject to uncertainty as long as the they do not coincide. Furthermore, the current Plan text which applies to the area requires that development occur in accordance to a "master plan." The master plan does not exist, and cannot be prepared without substantial expenditure. As a consequence, the area is under a de-facto development moratorium. 2) There is inadequate time to evaluate a range of land use options and meet the 90 day timeline established by the Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.8.5 to "re-evaluate the policies.... and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment." 3) Tigard's voters said a definite no to the tax increment ballot measure. 4) Without tax increment financing, or a developer willing to invest in the area, there is no means to fund the necessary planning studies or infrastructure improvements to make the area available for more intense development. .t~. FISCAL IMPACT AMU There are no direct impacts on the City's current fiscal status. However, there may be long term impacts on the overall assessed value of the City. xxxxe=scxxx: ~xxa=axxmxxa=xxoxxaxxcxxmxxaxsxmxaccxo~axaxsxxa-sxxxcxvxxxsxxxxxxxx SUGGESTED ACTION To change the Comprehensive Plan Map and rescind the relevant Plan text amendments as described in the attached draft ordinance. 11- no 10111 ;Y f D GD ~ enda ~ ~i+y~,. w..R ~711~r1'~~Ililip 1111111 Ill~l~r 111U.i ~llllll ICI Iji 1"1 nl m ]11 Ill Ili I~T1 i I , Il I I I I I T. _ I I I I .r_ - ~1 I ~.1 I I I RI Ill II{ II III Ill III III III I,i I ~ ~ ~ P I ~ I I I III ~ I ~ 1 III ~ _ I I I t 1 L_~ I ~1. ~ f~_ I. I I_ I I I I I I I I.~' I' I I 11' I! . I , - ' NDTE: IF THIS MICRDFILMED - S_. - DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ~ - i~ ~ - THIS NDTICE;'IT IS DVE~ 10 THE QUALITY OF 7}E ORIGINAL ~ ..DRAWING. c t•--' - I' OE 6Z 8Z CZ 9Z SZ. bZ EZ ZZ ~IZ OZ 61 81 LI 91 Sf bl EI ZI II OI 6 8 L 9 S , b E Z Isar A' ~tll uglnli wilun uuluululllllllG]Rlnnluiilnnluuluuluu6ullunhlilluulwlluulunlmlllulnuhul~hidlu luullll nu fa~f(olugluu6iululllltnlludlullulllilu~lulunlunluulnnlnulnnblltl~iulluuluuluWuullWliulliWlpn, ~ ,,.u ,•-l ~~E~RU~ARY, . i _ _ . `afN ' _ - _ _ i t - METZGER-PROGRESS ~ ~ - ° ° THE RELATIONSHIP OF - ' COMMUNITY PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS wASlll\c,ronrouarr Mrn 'an~°',:I'" rr Ik1 m f°"~"~°~;taar<.ru.nr m u~le vrF^aln .adaN n,k° NOIIiII k Pb nl dk M~ rn, $G1N., mde k .~rlrr`^I emr°W mr.yl of nrrvum n„ ,,w..w nm , w. v ...r...,.r. xa"tlr;~ P~n.~n,^n ^F ~ war al r~^+rm , am . LAND USE DISTRICTS "°`;,;~~C M°d n,lar"oa,w:kehh,ll I TMa:N~^ "r.:n„~r"«~~,•' nxnwN I uneree pplkd ° u wr I lolxt u. (GENERAL OESCPIPTION) Gnw ;krl.e ~,nmt .mi wrmlr nl Ind, d X11 km I w :51'I• A❑ cn~n pan lnr Inns^~~`wl mr nr n,nr.ewnnww u wln.lr..rw na~ i^n~iu;~w,iu~`f,jAw~w w Ins .ea.w:.:.~+.., u,.. ~n,,,a. na. npllll ~,a"M~ i` Irnm npn PLAN\t\6\'G ARL1 IIOIAti.IAHY lamnlin ,M an , tM a CRY N.Wi unpinwcwl,lwmlr. mwllr Lad . I mnl Inmmutllm nl I~ deli oared a, of Spethl C^xem n.~iT.mW4~ ~~u ~I HICHT~01'-IVAI' NOT OPEN I9s _ ~JeA°"'~""°s'I°r' „knw onn,M/or elrbp w 'n iMy." ' P dal.-_ "w' 70 TR.IVEL ~u'a r M ~mm .imw,u ,rin,i`~Im . w ro canmtm n ma n w«lrr^*I"r'^m•:.w4 ` r I. .r;r9mn ".;.~mmc^t.,lk ""earl krcl e r m. w.ntlx..wLar.Nnr '1 ~hnm lm Jura ca a°I ~`Il~rwwlen xonarKilr`M oal -n^"'I=wwlrrH r:14,ln w•.,wrnlni""„d:a '1 L_ ^w wlw ~<a ua nm , ~+.4n r.am„w __.:I I- mwn,m~nr« N.nknrn o"wn+. mn mx~t':6n:~ar~I~.rai6:.~iS.n~r~r..un I nr,inl~ arom,rn"u,'.eernaaa tk r r• - I aq uwl~ 11 rl.n rro wrnn a pm 41 dextn nmivo aM/m wm, rnw ~ I ,nw a Ilm n. I nw to ~ I , mn , Iml I t mA roan. . I, r rt t> . - L bpd„m,n, m ehnr nl . In - \ T lr"I n. pan'rt 1k 11 I I nr ,ifrwn PE91x9x11AAN wn6r ER Atrt I ~ 1~ \ y,~ ( -I P nrn cnknnly m nl - PIAnnM Ikadamml n rr ni tin Ix Mre~t Ir~°nn "m¢x4d m rvpmde m~ ewn 9 `?ill • ".,'~..'",..r ,nlall¢e~ I m w"nernwr ,nnert eaean^IA,I- wra rr~~ wn _ , ^I`r'~ i I tv d uAle,e"rk dw oh '+~i,I."e Tt yam, I:~ J,~I-m+-, L. .-a ~~I <"nn~wa m.a°tn ,k r q,4n lkant loran m c~n,,,;.[~NG• ~ %~.y..v~w!.! ~.:m wT.~. m 10>'.~ ~'i ~ III ~ V'T -rAL. ~ttrowrNc nl k on rctm, u.,wn.arrQrrw. runlrn+ ,r«wn tool. vrn.. 1 ~iw.dARAina. s. Vii' ~,=,yt - Ir*- _ , pan, wrl~.dmp wwn~~;`i ar.wRTml n °"ul m., ni ~ipr ~l' nom- ~ ~ ~ ~I r " .1. t~ °le,~k rk In 1 dm - m anw I ~ _ r~ nrr11 ~ rn ~ r n rn~e rta.. mt ~ ° ~k""~,.~~ 2 m 1k m,m , w rm mt a°°' ' I I ° wwrn - - ~ ~ ~ ~ P _ 1 v ,m,arka Iwuw .e 4 a °y neend~ r n i Tjy'Tjj~':un I ~eY ^ r nl weatlnA clan rn t tk prond~- nttn nr - ;r ~yl '1~~'~. aim"r"B ~nan w°Iwll<nnmbeown, m~I gin, pan: r4a~In,mR mtro ~a`'~albr m °,.mr t ^w, pew„rlw r t wmwlmd a", ® iwlo ~r k dwlmnm~ n nn a t +mror rM k am er°. j' ~rtfY - yf ti I J~ rr~rrfj AG~tl~Axao . _ . A a"a ¢ nmta,r °,n knw kl rm.rn" t r `rd m • ,na,r . nmm,,.aw, m w IA h' rr.,. gg rrnw., in l ~11.II~~iT.ti-~~I...._ ~1 C>:, -S nl. m r~lmr nl lro ~wnw,v n„.re ` n, Y FlT1 . 711 Ji . ~ I f °r„,.e ana Imp emmtM k Ik e^nnn r n" u. amt. m ,wc ra rvw nrn ,ne nc w mm - to rrn° rml.,,,. an r I, e m 7 ^ wawnt ~ m cyxRxxllr 9x I- rxv an m• rmwnm mt Cotle, Ik iwnlnrl,tm Pn r ^ u rnw,rn,. ,ndrk DISTRIBUTION OF ~7a~ ~ I~~C ~ InlMmpmlboroxmmlMn. t,~ 'uu~f~7' (T~~J Y~~~~ r!I ~PxPxN9~ ~r •w Mm,~lnra PLANNED LAND USES crnnw YPaa ' Gousiltshl~...:~Jd~11~ 1~ ro Innm. n~,re rrmm, °I tk ml mraw,bn nl nn°wl ^~`wxe° ,ad".v na„ I mtwr I t1 R~ nr,M1 nA wn 4almrekw n• pan a nM [AaMm of tk E ~ ~~I ~r F ' 7. ' tl'!~ - n.m - I. m°a"k a.l ~ ,na n, r r.at.,"ol 'wr.h„°m / - / ~L ~C. ~~•7'I~S 9!110x9 ' kmrc ° aen^Ircance~e„µr led ntk Orerm -~J..4 r a ILunmtrln Adn'nia Auln aN Yanwde PlunFt rm I h J T~ T1 {~+1~~I"'4; I - Id7 r n,m fnolm5 r.nit"n1 n tk A 1 ~9}\. / L I,.~I N Bir ~ 11 1'~i I h I~I u,vwi...i..~...-..,~, a Ao+n ArNAkewy , wn of Il.ur ka n IR cmmw n n~ the _ ' u l !1¢I y 1 11 ; r'. I ; Ii l l l ~l-a~~~'~'•Tr a~~ r nN wnArmw ler~rnr rn; rim lr P,a. 1 aar ~ - em-n'r mt Gk° Ne N-: 0.-9 ~ll. /l}~,I i~t~ll~ I-i~LL~~ ,k I~n.aatw r. tl tk 1 ~ 4. r-i-, _ ilyl(-1~iN ~T~ 1wn,rnrutm P,n tk i«a "I tk r,'INi ~t`cni s,m", ~ZM ~',a re~~~ r. 1 _~D~~ wra~~ ~j Plan rPmrto n tk plulnF 4~, l- ~~:-,Il,. - TRANSPORTATION w r °'~akm~. ,M'n.;a~o",t^ .amllwtlrn aw¢mnrlwd wrl R psrA -R-Y m, mn a,~„ee:n'°;`i`"1'~° ~ ~ ~ i ~~,~.4..ry,.1 i~ _ _ e eu41e Ik e°wtv', p^Ikv r.x doe tlelaem uru, lu, been matlr M1aW m a R-SS ml +,rae rqR .I y~l: CLASSIFICATION ~kArw wohn"w 'Rlm a.rwr,e,o°.ra.ntM ~I~1 ~ .nn warmm~n.wl~IMe `xkolrvlrlymmrmnd, w 4 ,xwwr. dmmxwal n.nd;~a,n~rck 11 IJ ~ r aw II rro G.rn ek ,Iwrwn m t w~a wra re 9menilY-;nre4d u ~~ylp~_,~ Panr r,arA.~nrnlamn al Po PM wnmtP,n S✓1J pw-; [I}yladm i~ rea w. I w+l`rM,`xen krtMn k~ tti"ned Cayu ynk or"`nr ar Prr~iq e / r. _ j 1 6u4d a`uleu kd<larnt"`t IrM <aMla An h n m.'n„,wn nn m Ik ewnwe m wl wn,mnmt pan TI ~ 1 r e r n la kks la ro ,rca. I„An4 rncw , xN. wommml Pan wt ( ~ ~ 1 / wml c dire ton erMk pmllk, m eorrellm tk nunw olte MI ' F alkutk mwtu"`m .hM ~ '\I ~ vwl I ~ \ ~ ~ . ~ P„ Y Pl~s,`Iw aul ° wktk dal~entlare tk"s IxMA`c am "1" r t° a rrct un 'c krl'rn aM` ~ r r • ;A hnwrv I9 I + uA a +np nn t ¢ m m,. n° tk urr " ~t nn nl th r rAar +^U° 0 Ir4• MI rcer kn t \~r,1 ~ ~ xA Ae y ~ k Gmwreh Cmnn.x ~ ix^ cwlw , p ndu Culrmnl wmm CM `1Pyl ~~~i a b 1\ ) L , ewmemru nu k Me rl m of tik mde , ~ i V \ , na ad m v plm,, erclqud, nuwixq rllwd nl,in mvtl xex ° 9 3) and at tk J~el`ouwnm"~~ml";b tk BACKGROUND .M at~',kw,. rkn4n;~ ~ ~;Y ~ramrorA alx nrnan w~M mmaAmwlt poRCln' SUMMA PoA krmt. Ar Ina re.r lA-, ndA w~nvMe hnlgnx.u <wnrnl RY ikuPlelwq Area la tluuted m tk Iwur ~Nn rm4ul p I~ MII Po`unks tk neati"n of a u n nl ~I+wmp Nee aW mkJle rlge, of tk iualnln +drnuaMy°renM At Ikt Ilw, w FIAn+, kwwr t =ninkll k a ' n~.una, mlawM, rrinl.nb ~ rA.r r Rnwl nr sm rKt ,ene .a mmn nn rm- ma,^uklm am, ,moan k IwaIM m Owl .b Iw4M, nl ,4 iwutb won. waldmrA v twe mmm IAtn,,,vlam m e n,l~nl° r HIV ahm , mua, a.nw wu. rae 41n1°.m rko urkn wn trom Ponlaml'• cmtwl Mlne~tl~rliu'm x kdimmuJry Iowtlm, aM Ulunbl, Riw Omkxarnre < n r ukd IN br tk tqh~ m tlor my n~elq lantl ore, at nAWe, tvn tlbtina Arrmmnx4,, x. molt w my 1k PI Slope, Plano" rea. ' / IM aonn Y ewl. rcrt~ivwMns m awr m Ik e" M A m"I`tksewrm In• YIA a tkn kll a tlmen Aar J~~ r ~om'r area m`Yn It"CII~^ a °Mln three mrln x,wllwknu nlAn°ta0.vf114 rm Ale minA Rcmrnml Yr nmh r a. Fe ~mn'I urkn Rard, w t °I tk CI nl I4 II I ,rllu I' xeww ~ulk alw ~°`rharm"`xrwal A I rro mlelAn Illllr-Grdm rlame 1+111 ,de-COrnellm, WNWIn-pwtaw- and"r411 muleundrare`MltwtM Ae wn~lr . Ir °°I t ^ ,wi I Ik Iwwrk^rc<nm 1kN dew dry1elulkles define bIA wwrly I ,lnd env o Nrtlwtl. I deMgmrnt+ rc w M m Yryr°xnen r, bla m n ,k it f uA -,Mtwxnur urban Plano I.n SNltimu w~nl ° mmnlrm m,w I y puhlkrw e M a al m k+x*,h meS1're la !I. I Aa1xM ~IIIPml~rmpxru, eo o a,rlw~urmrtM1, or aw "M nwuC urpm a rap 11oww r w, I are tk pr wr rkn am,laerM. n^pu rlw of°~91 re,lernrr. ` n every In MetaeAnenrymsr an ' y ' A,A Cree r ugawln are tk ma °^na~°l~l"I~t krrAiua h•tw.n I t P ~ ~ cwmmnuv i, I m,n tl PR06flE33 OOWN8.:11_ I a r rt~t n.n .a xruaar-r urn wman ^d x I°r ~xl A a nuuuw ~I Ia'z ~°e Mlmrlr~ ^9^, . caxcmx fro ml m m Ina mwr I" xr vmureril.ne e~ rr. m n -C' owut:rrlwn rm urkn trrnl.e' rwAn Iwe•ee"w~e il~pi,~,, pdenn. rMM„,,,. pinlxwrr°el ~er .°r _ ®5 . c tkmt"e wmlw,ei .na mdae nl <in +ml rae enn,~ro >"ano a mmwur mm. gully mwn ai roi srrm. sn, mkr mae, m n_ . tllAre mp a mmkr xl ,WNt m pr4dit I ~ IJ; RW:iAMm9 - _ - na Gmnwlty Mmnht M nlm n rk ,rw. I C / I nrya v n, torn) Atn i e, Pr r ra P®n n Plmn x a r Cmm mma n 1 ooJ ~t +Mx tkir amrul. k,Y,=cw m Haag U WA[ ~N' 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 9veAA rwrn plmb¢ aru.n ~ A rrc Pyre ,t~k~ rive. 1n +n tM Plsiq Arn. tkre are mY kwr re m tk rmmun n a "HtlM 0 ~'h, (~+~-1 °A° ¢ I liM ar <wl, + °e wkr°1r~ x wr^dea , I Ilw k 1k 4n",Lrt mum ae A¢~rcY IUSAI. over . .'tl Fy 9 ~I91..~ J ~ q u prA~iP~LE IAe w mJ nlrrnrneml{n+lbn eol tk 4M umia llratM w 1fl"rnted a~e~a ue wt n a deu,grd ~rM J M. n _ , nr n A.$.C.~i ' + 4 nN a amlkd • y~wn/Pra al ,I.pp Ft w^ °na "I 4r+Yrt 141 e1 u a^ k wJly rwntttk i I e m-ler m r of M uxF,.re awnn u41 uwa ,rr ta. em, n r, e WASHINGTON _ ~®A•8.C:8 ~ -fL~1~ x.nn na Ik revel a r rm ann° "~i4 rpn rllr M , e ..r ".r. - I _ ~ ,wl ut t+ canon tY Plan, awryuud twtM aloq 411 mu ever,, Ybll, a,lvy rtrranr,r,re ATWru"t rorJM m a4uter- l! --1C_'" I"T - t P ,A nldl.kAan• pnxre rar a xr n,t t a ew-wlw v Im Pane ramwli r n,n w e I alaar. xrro ue4en 1k SQUARE l _ .-~l~ ~ .-I~i lv e.~lnu .maw antra r mix g i JI - J~, A ..:1~. ~ 33 i •t• rmkrtwbo pw 'r nkwwb a n rl tlk r ,mmm n au mkasel tk GuWer W tk Gnnmr Y 9 I nt Plan r t a IM n PrlnAl r wd ~ t ,re, 4and. korpe and I nr nmkn ,n d / ` ' Y dn- nd~lm e,M prcel olr4nd n tk ` ngrn, Ibma toll Ce r~tr.rcml ylnA le I,RttN t h m°ik mrrl year IooO V A S.C.3 I± ,I ~,~.Y p r <rm n P.n. u Yluel.u a I+ slmar tlrl ald 5wmka,t mr /r~ JA8T2C8A SCHOOI:: ) A~' ~I .7 / ~ rk u.. n wl nn. rage nmanr. , m«k,. Iv,r'i ¢ ¢Im~.vl. u I m°Iw.re, In.w, s~ am t . ,nn A r ll •~1Ll ~ J,,. nuNe.. nr -dunaae nl4n m¢ r ~ ASG 8 ~ :If' Alf 1'-.'... ur bra Irlk [1mmn Ymm n real IY lrn ramannu lnae ~•,UamwrlM at uimr Auer r,• rndv McMkdra nu~dlGn,a p, •.J I 1-.I, Ik Wemtwl lM mypetlr a,, tnoyn mm^tlwl ry, ne a r+al 2`\• ~ h.. t ~ 9W 1 LEA$~-METZ.6Efl~ mal MJx mph. the ewnnnl mr4r9° Anll um calla Y le~lle ~"Ilo-d4a+r ' Ijo~(1SC 7~ r 1 ~ u.m m °rt rwlWn mtv mrt am arrme lme. mr rd veal nl wor ~nm,`,r cl tn`x snnle>4 ymb`n <x.Arm~~e,Nm mmlrm 574',1 . I'I 1 II:. i'- I j. 1 ~ a of land Ma„I, eerM m mme' Ir ^r kl ka amel°i can HIM r_ . ' I ~~~i ~ ~ ~i. ~r- Raisuii L.~ 1" Bi P':.s~L _ - '9 SIGNIFICANT ~,~~rr°;a"r°ll ~r,i w~`:aer~ • ~ Ji Ir ) Ir gl.~ - NATURAL RESOURCES oa llrn wu .e;d m+ro mwaawl` ~ ~ t ,I I PI I sl:j:.w~~- r V r,. I ..~sa 1 I w,n.e.,tw4„mlpm,. _ ~ ~ A ;~j l A$ C 12~:I. I I I,] ~ ~ - ...T" i oven Ore l r ~ I '~r1 IRw IY8d1 /itf 7 _ {"7` _ 'd~ wlsn hxi~r, _ 'p 11 I J. ^rn~ ak°Mamh"A mkM1ra iS ~e r / ~r~ _ 16 ('',f 11~ - \~/r - ..A.. / I ..,~';.1, rlv rt^rn n Ir e~wn~~. ..a. ^ .wr.r aar ° ( .A// r re kr _r91t I n....~. I~ .14 / b 4.~-1..' `I / _ cin+A l~n°ow I ~¢R ' ~ I 1 i IDFAffLE,i 1` \ nw rrl a, I rtk 'riu.l, LJ I5 I .P .rn .~.-f- ~ il'y ~ J/ '~t~a,{~~'._t~ 1t.d kn~p verve Pnn.r lrM I 1 rT xrn .lll, m ' yyJ I J7R ,'H4rfm I F I L1 ~x^. •'9 _=u~ li.Y.. :ran rk romes'em ol'~aefmn klnrt IreM Ur 1 ~1- ®k, S I~ I I, harl lMUrrta Wma • r a Y x ~ a lw .er v. ~ P ' j r 1 I J '1,- " 1. ,i I Y¢n k.r„Pn 4,wnm"F~umt ° I, - ~ ,n _ r• .ro a a«rr , nwlar r n k~ I `p v IMt i 1 wlM.m I. ' % ,,r' i ~ I _.r ,n nurmM,re mI m w t nnh. l , tl ~ III , J yyq ,,r .r mr1 , h wlv Ild~l e ry In Ik IL _ Ip ~ ~J• / Q:- _ iT" ~ J 4rlnanaaJMalzal A ~ J J L _ J _ ~ ~ 1 wnmr+ 0.r r u nlm 'k hnreu I - . xnr Gkl Iwl~nrrl llr°Pn1 N n-IM I'' ~ VICINITY MAP ,m, 4c1u4 mrlkm wll ~nl m wr9 raP n J. • rkn In Ik arw. Art Nl~km ue r \ ar 1 Ilwr IA mAe rMlm Irw nbtme wrlr) ' vrn •Nan In tk 94nlliww NaturA ~l I D IVIRI II It nt1 IIII Ijl III III 131VIRyIPI l4~ IIIPIIUIDIIIIII III 111 ,I glVllli'lll 1111111 IIIINI III III 111111 VII 1111 IIIJ NI III III 1 II Or tut . . i I~ I I I I I I I ~ I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I( ( I I I I ~~'~'•-^--*xK,..,_¢.-~~ „ ' 9xltraluxb I 6 e T B D 0 N 12 ~ - Iwii¢;~ii °`wt rv Imii wurr9rm ai9xm ~ _ _ _ I mw - I oc ez Rz a oz ¢ be C2~ 2E IE Oi ~!I''-~'"0~1 tI YI 91 q cl al a al e Y l y s A t x r~,• ~ rlltAll~IIx619(lAnnIIIIbAdIlo6111~Ylllull6ulliuAl✓tlxrlulYldll{I~IULII~llu6ulll_~ImlxIR111tldro111tlduu19L11 ndnnhiohlllmllx~IllllulRllu~IwlulllAdAn111A~IIIdiuIIIx16W~IW~IU~I~III~IWIU~uII ' IIy , FEBRUARY 1.9 1991 ' _ - - - ~ ~ i CHANGES TO METZGER-PROGRESS COMMUNITY PLAN # CASEFILE DATE LOCATION ACTION 1. NA-map error 6.84 1 S1 26BC TL 1100 Should be CBD 2. 84-IMM B-22-84 See map below Annexed to Tigard 3. 84-490-M 10.25-84 See map below Annexed to Tigard 4. 85.85•M .6-12-85 . iSi 26DC TL 4900.5000 Changed from R•9 to OC 5. 85.113-M 6.1285 1S1 26M TL700(ptn.) Changed from R-9 to B-24 i 6. B.C. 2127 7-25435 Sae map below Annexed to Tigard 7. 8&25•M 1887 1 S1 26DC TL 900 Changed from R-24 to OC 8. 87-73-M 5.19487 Sae map below Annexed to Tigard 9. 87-75•M 5.5.87 See map below Annexed to Tigard 10. B.C. 2344 4-1787 See map below Annexed to Tigard 11. B.C. 2414x 8-26.87 See map below Annexed to Tigard 12. B.C. 2417x 8-26.87 See map below Annexed to Tigard 13. B.C. 2413 780.87 See map below Annexed to Tigard 14. B.C. 2424 9-2487 See map below Annexed to Beaverton 15. 884"A 5.11-88 1s1 26B TL 2100,2101 Changed from OC to CBD 2200, & 2400 16. ORD. 350 10-24-89 a. See attachment Application of Historic and Cultural Resource Overlay District b. See attachment Listing of Historic and Cultural Resources •'1 p ~ r-, ] i n 71 a O / Li. e I 1W U__ \ s ` _ ~ anon-w 1' s ors \ II WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 648-8761 ® ROGMSS ❑,,,.>m~TM~ Metzger-Progress i6b »~p To WIifCN'f F /L P AOPEE CUL'N~L /C Y J~ 14,S'ToRIC ANp Rc'F p{S TRjar 1S APP E t- 1 16a. ORD 350: Change title of resource map. "...amending the'Metzger-Progress Community Plan' (Volume Xlin as it pertains to Historic and Cultural Resources; first, by applying the _ 4istoric and Cultural Resource Overlay District designation as shown on the plan map titled 'Significant Natural Resources,' and second, by changing -he title of such plan map to'Significant Natural and Cultural Resources.*" 16b. ORD 350: listing of Historic and Cultural Resources Properties on the Metzger Progress Community Plan To Which the Historic And Cultural Resource Overlay District Is Applied Map Township Tax Lot No. Rance Section No. Resource Name 1. 1S1 26AD 2200 Fogelquist House 2. 1S1 26DC 2600 Wiggington Residence 3. 1S1 25CC 3300 Chrisman House l WASHINGTON COUNTY GENERALIZED SUMMARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND TR1 NSPORTATION OF PERMITTED USES ~ BY LAND USE DISTRICT (URBAN) ` LAND USE DISTRICT w w ,vv hti c h io .ate \aS `aE .,aS .Z `a6 s p: ti y 1 ti ♦ ~ \ ~ C ~ ~ TYPE OF USE Fc aro ~c ~°+s' O~ VVVV Vo detached dwelling unit ® ® ®1 Q j Q j ®Q 0 Q1 GA attached dwelling unit 0 O Oe Oi Os Q Q 0 0 mobile home park Q ® Use is permitted through a Type 1 Procedure (Administrative Review mobile home without notice). 2 subdivision c guest house tc DI® ® G Use is permitted through a Type 11 boarding house Procedure (Administrative Review rental with notice). in an caisting dwelling 0 Q ®1 e l e i e 0 ~ home occupation Q O O Q Q,Q Use is permitted through a Type tit - Procedure (Public Flearing). general retail IQ G) G) convenience retail ® Use is permitted through more than one type of procedure, depending on the personal service Q Q, Q type of use or specific standards. ^ w ~ eating and drinking W establishment Q Q6 Qi Use is permitted with specific professional office Dp Q I Q e restrictions. U service station ® Q ® A Use is permitted, but only as an hotel/motel 0 ® act: story to a permitted use. lard extensive cortsnercial < manufacturing Qy Q warehousing /C Q Z vholesale 6 school 0 0 0 S G park Q O Q QQ^ 'IQ ® 0 church 0 0 0!0!10} 0 0ofthe type Thins a s of uprovides us which ar hick are edper- public building mitted within each Land Use District. Z (h.e. govermnent1 0 0 010101 12.2 ® * it is a VERY general summary and not hospital 010 0 0 0 intended to identify every use.or very specific uses, which may be permitted. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q.1Q complete and detailed descriotion each special recreation use 1 the uses which are permitted tted in each s group care 01001000 Q 0 Land Use District is provided in the O Washington County Communftv day care 0 0 0 0 0 0 e, Q, Q 0 Development Code. Please refer to the Code for further information. 10181 S.W. Jefferson Avenue Tigard, OR 97223-6616 September 10, 1990 Tigard City Council and Tigard Planning Commission 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: File Title: Presidents Parkway File No.: CPA 90-0006 Members of the each respective board: I have stood before each of you separately during prior meetings concerning this same issue and asked for your support in changing the comprehensive map and text designations from your current Commercial/Professional designation back to the original Residential designations. Doing this would allow for my family and myself to get our lives, which you have put on indefinite hold due to your inaction on the Presidents Parkway plan, back on line. I mentioned your inaction on this issue because I have found it to be extremely interesting that you jumped on the Presidents Parkway bandwagon with such enthusiasm and with what to the public appeared to be very little thought. However, now that the people of Tigard have spoken, through their resounding "NO" vote ^ virtually every individual that has appeared before you since that time has asked you to give us, the people effected, the same consideration as you once gave Trammell Crow you continue to say, "We are really not sure what we should do with this area and maybe we need to think about it a little longer". I am here to tell you that enough is enough, you have had more than enough time to think and it is now time for action. According to the way I understand your comprehensive text to be written there is to be no new construction of any kind within the boundary of the proposed Presidents Parkway area unless it meets the guidelines of the study that was to be done with the passage of the Urban Renewal District. This could not and has not been done with the failure of the vote. However, at your August 13, 1990 city council meeting you approved bids for construction of both Lincoln Street and a Signal at the intersection of Locust and Greenburg Road and on September 7, 1990 1 witnessed work beginning on the Lincoln Street job. I am also aware of plans submitted to the city building department by Seafirst Bank for a new bank building at the northeast corner of Locust and Greenburg Road which technically are being held up due to the wording of your text. Not only are you hindering projects such as these but you also have put our lives on hold because we are not able to go forward with our individual plans for ourselves and our homes. As I have said before my family and myself are one family that believes that we live in a viable residential neighborhood worth saving and investing in. emu. ~ lc~ ~~s~► rn~w~ (~u(~o September 10, 1990 Mayor Edwards Members of the Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Edwards and Members of the Council: On August 16, 1990, the membership of CP03 - Raleigh Hills-Garden Home neighborhood association - voted unanimously to endorse the Executive Board's action to support the positions of both CPO 4 Metzger and Tigard's NPO 8 that the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the city of Tigard to implement the former President's Parkway development plan (CPA 90-0001) be reversed to return the Metzger School area to medium and low density residential comprehensive plan designations. The vote also supported the recommendation that Tigard adopt the Metzger Community Plan text as the comprehensive plan policies to be added to the Tigard comprehensive Plan accompanying the residential comprehensive plan designations. We testified before you in February of this year that a change in Tigard's comprehensive plan from residential uses to commercial professional uses in the Metzger School area was a mistake, and we are happy to be before you today to support the return to residential status of this very important area whose potential as a model suburban residential community should be encouraged by you. As your northern neighbors, we are committed to working with you over the next few years to assure that the change coming to our community occurs in a manner that respects the things we value and improves the urban residential qualities we share by living so near the existing Washington Square and Lincoln Center regional commercial centers. We strongly urge you to adopt the recommendations of your Planning Commission, made on July 24, 1990, to change the comprehensive plan map designations in the Metzger School Area from commercial professional to medium and low density residential and to adopt the text of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan relating to this area as comprehensive plan policies accompanying these plan designations. Sincerely, -J 0) dtz~ Will iam J. Moore Vice Chairman, CPO 3 8440 SW Godwin Ct., Garden Home, 97223 ~~h rn~l -eat Turn &shtbc(( SW 1/ NE 1/4 SECTION 33 T I S R I W WIVi. SEE MAP WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGOfd IS I 35AS I 1 1 SCALE I = 100 T S S.CY Vn"'" T r:... T :.'*usr~F•:4a,^;.~f'„•. oft 4 00 70. CM. 84 Ss:r 7! !al . o. ♦7Jz. 9• t2 E~ y to c boo C` S 3300 y 340x' 3500 .3700 = 3800 900 4000 o - .29 Ac- = .35 At .3! Ac 28 Ac. 3.58 Ac 25 AC38 Ac. , i o .tip ~ W `.`rte ; y9 N Me, n N N o s 13 V L V y by ti c 0 4~a' o / t• •s ' z 70 16 rte 7f.2 13S20 84 q{t 73.38 Q O / ` `V o ?ae 3600 \ „ 173.40 . /2 AC. yAy 17 cv` t N ! N a9° 2x* ! a7~.00 23-71- r B t 2.e9 cM. ~2. 190.74 l--~Q 764 CH• 72.3Si 1~, Gam' -.7, i:ti o 3203C9 N 03°45' k( F: i ~ I zxzs Q 4800 :i .23Ac;ool I } %0 ; i T r~ I f ` IM cs ° ( n 18 a u) N S = 1 O V ~ ~ ^ A I V ~ n ~4~ rF N n 1'n ' 1 20 I S'L~~'J/~1~Y/~Vl ~L E PAMEST CENTER, SUITES ]600-1950 VA/JLpJ~~I~/~~I,]~/~,lJSgry®~l~i1l IM SOLI TiWESTFWTHAVENUE•PORIIAND,OREGON97204-3785 v ! / i / i! 11 9. TELEPHONE: 503 222.9081 • FAX: 503 796-2900.1ELEX: 4837535 SWK UI ATTORNEYS AT LAW TI3R1W C..HAUCK DIRECT LINE: 503 796-2974 ( ' C Ep p 1990 11 September 10, 1990 t1; J HAND-DELIVERED City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Boulevard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Attention: Ms. Cathy Wheatley Re: City of Tigard File No. CPA-90-0006; Presidents Parkway Dear Ms. Wheatley: We represent Fringe Land Oreg., Ltd. Fringe Land Oreg., Ltd. desires to express its support for the above-referenced action. Our client desires that this letter, and its support for the proposal, be made an official part of the record and the file with respect to these proceedings. If you have any questions with respect to the foregoing, please contact me at the above telephone number. Very truly yours, ( 7-- /7 erry C Hauck TCH/ikw cc: Jack Reardon PORTLAND ■ SEATM • WASHINGI ON, D.C. Ar- August 27, 1990 COLUMBIA GROUP pU6 2 g 1990 Tigard City Council _ P.O. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Box 23397 Tigard, OR "97223 4 f Y Re: CPA-90-0006 t, Presidents Parkway Dear Council Members: As you are aware, the Columbia Group Sierra Club, the 4700 member' affiliate of the national Sierra Club, previously opposed the Presidents Parkway Urban Renewal District plan due to that plan's failure to address certain immediate issues involving transportation and wetlands preservation. Furthermore, the Club felt that the City had arrived at this point by failing to follow )i the process and goals set forth in Oregon's land use laws. The results of last Mav's election indicates that Tigard voters shared the Club's position. i The Club recommends that the City change the plan designation and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan text to the designations that were in place before the Presidents Parkway proposal. The Club would also urge the City to carry out the appropriate analysis, not only in terms of local needs and proposals but also in relation to regional structures and plans, before taking action on comprehensive plan modifications for this area or elsewhere within Tigard. Please make this letter part of the written record on this matter. If you have any questions regarding the Club's position on this particular issue or on it's views regarding land use, please feel free to call me at 452-2296. a:]o, " David A. Mazza "J Vice Chairman 1 C:\SIERRA\URBISSCO\PPP.LTR SIERRA CHUB 2637 S.W. Water Street- Portland, Oregon 97201