Planning Commission Packet - 11/22/1977 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
44. November 22, 1977 - 7:30 p.m.
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room
10865 S.W. Walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon
1. Call to Order:
2. Roll Call :
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Communications:
5. Public Hearings:
5 . 1 Proposed Urban Growth Management Plan for Tigard-Metzger-
Bull Mountain area, including (a) 1985 Immediate Growth
Boundary; (b) Year 2000 Future Urban Boundary; and (c)
implementing policies
6 . Other Business :
7. Adjournment.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
(
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 1977 - 7:30 P.M.
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room
10865 S.W• Walnut Street - Tigard,Oregon
5. Public Hearings
5.1 Proposed Urban Growth Management Plan for Tigard-
Metzger-Bull Mountain area, including a) 1985
Immediate Growth Boundary, b) year 2000 Future
Urban Boundary, and c) implementing policies
All persons having an interest in the hearing matter are in-
vited to appear and submit oral and written testimony or
submit written testimony in advance of the meeting. 1
(Publish TT 11/9/77 and 11/16/77)
N O v ' .2 },_!s:a
}
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tigard Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Proposed Growth Management Plan
DATE: November 17, 1977
Enclosed are copies of maps which should prove useful to the
commission in its deliberations on a wide variety of issues and
proposals in addition to growth management. The maps available
for your continuing use are:
Existing Land Use
Topography
Floodplain and Wetlands
Existing Vegetation
Also enclosed are: 1) Minutes of the November 3 joint hearing
on a Growth Management Plan, 2) a letter from King City regard-
ing the proposed Growth Management Plan, letter from property
owner in Area 8 and 4) the Proposed Bull Mountain Interim
Development Policies. Some copies of the Washington County
Comprehensive Framework Plan (on loan from the county) are
available at Tigard City Hall.
In view of apparent differences between the Tigard Planning
Commission and Washington County Planning Department on certain
elements of a Tigard Growth Management Plan, and also in considera-
tion of additional hearings required before adoption of such a
plan, the city planning commission is meeting separately to
recommend a plan to the City Council and County Planning Com-
mission. At previous meetings of the Planning Commission on
this subject (October 25 study session and November 3 joint
hearing) , several major points of concern were raised. The
following remarks about the citizen committee recommendation
address these issues. Staff recommends adoption of the proposed
Growth Management Plan with changes enumerated later below.
A. The weight of opinion expressed at the November 3 hear-
ing called for moving the 1985 and year 2000 boundaries to allow
earlier development of parcels farther out. However, the strong
consensus of the Citizen Advisory Committee was, if anything, in
favor of even more stringent controls on growth to the point of
page 2 0
requesting staff to investigate such possibilities. Staff is
convinced that the Citizen Committee, especially selected from
all segments of the community, was much more closely representative '°
of the general public's feeling about growth management than
were those speaking at the hearing. The probable discrepancy
between views of the overall community and those vociferously
opposed to the Citizen Committee proposal is a -well understood
aspect of pluralistic democracy. The opinions of those tes-
tifying at the hearing certainly require careful consideration,
but the very real existence of a "silent majority" should also
be acknowledged.
B. Staff was requested by a county commissioner to conduct
a study of the amount of land actually available by owners for
development. Such an investigation is not within the resources
of the staff to accomplish and, moreover, the very act of doing
the study would be likely to invalidate the findings. It has
been staff' s experience that a property owner's statement that
his land will not be developed in the near future is not a reli-
able guide to his future action. For example, one landowner who
testified on November 3 in opposition to excluding his land from
the Immediate Growth Area testified only six months before in
opposition to allowing development in the same area. The
question of what proportion of smaller parcels of usable land
will actually be available for development is an important one
on which little serious research has been done. However, the
1985 boundary (and year 2000 population capacity figure) rep-
omnended by the Citizen Committee should provide a more than
sufficient surplus of land required to house the expected pop-
ulation. The area proposed for inclusion within the 1985
boundary could house 2i times the new population expected to
settle here, and the year 2000 boundary could house an extra
2/3 more than is expected after 1985 even if all the 1985 capacity
is already used up. The substantial excess for the 1985 boundary
is due to the convoluted pattern of existing development in the
Tigard area.
C. Encouragement of excessive growth may be a more valid
cause for concern than lack of sufficient space for expected
growth. As pointed out previously by staff, a likely consequence
of adopting growth boundaries with excessive land (relative
to the rest of the county) will be faster than expected,.growth.
This result would be directly contrary to the general community's
feelings about growth.
D. landowners whose county framework plan designations
would be "downzoned" have objected to the decline in the value
of their property. As with any other investment, however, an
investment in land entails a risk affected by vicissitudes of
the market as well as changes in government policies and is a
private decision requiring awareness that the world is always
in a state of flux. The 1973 county framework plan was not cast
in concrete. There have been dramatic and substantial changes
in the factors affecting the value of land on the urban fringe
•
Page 3
of cities around the country as well as in Portland since the
enactment of the framework plan. The gathering energy crisis
is one of the most important. The 1973 framework plan, in
retrospect, can be understood as a very broad brush document.
The current, more detailed, analysis of the framework plan
designations for the Tigard area is permitting a more accurate
estimate of the amount of urban land needed. by the year 2000 •
than was possible several years ago. Effective "downzoning"
of parcels, it should also be realized, will result in lower tax
assessments and, in the case of area removed from the Urban
Growth Boundary (2000) , removal from the Unified Sewerage
Agency service area and its tax obligations.
E. Some testimony at the November 3 hearing argued that
certain parcels were excluded from earlier development despite
roughly similar location to areas included, and that small
parcels were not economically suited for agricultural use.
In an urban fringe area it should be clear that the specific
geographic position of land is of fundamental significance to
its value for urban uses and costs of servicing. The
gradients that should govern suitability for development in
Tigard run east-west on Bull Mountain and north-south in
NPO #6. All other things being equal, parcels to the west and
south of currently developed areas should have less potential
for development. With regard to smaller lots (1-5 acres) not
being suitable for farming, it is obvious that they are .not, as
profitable, as larger acreages, but when they are still producing
crops (grain, orchards, etc. ) or are being grazed, they are
generating some net income and are producing a product that would
otherwise have to come from other land. They are in fact ag-
ricultural lands with low profitability, but agricultural all
the same. Moreover, lands receiving an agricultural tax deferral
are intended to remain in agriculture, since legal tax avoidance
is not the purpose of the program: that is, owners of parcels
with tax deferrals should be taken at their word.
F. The policy in the proposed plan which calls for a
two-year review cycle was disparaged at the hearing by reference
to the county framework plan's inclusion of a similar guarantee
which has never been. realized. The framework plan does not,
in fact, require a review every two years, but merely includes
a "strategy" calling for an evaluation procedure whose purpose
would be rezoning every two years. The policy (Immediate
Growth Policy B) in the proposed Growth Management Plan would,
by contrast, have authority to compel periodic re-evaluation.
a
1
Page 4
Staff Recommendation:
A. 1985' Immediate Growth Boundary - Staff advises adoption
of the Citizen Committee recommendation contained in the staff
report dated November 3, 1977 with the following changes:
1. Area 8 should remain outside the 1985 Immediate
Growth Boundary (as recommended in the staff
report) because:
a. The land is not needed to house the expected
increase in population to 1985 since consider-
able excess land (225%) already has been
bypassed by urban development, is closer to
the center of the metropolitan region, and
should be provided with urban services first.
Population capacity of this area is greater
than 2800.
b. A considerable part of the area is currently
in agricultural production despite the lower
profitability of farm operations adjacent to
the urban area. Several parcels currently
receive tax deferrals intended to permit con-
tinued farming. The area has almost entirely
Class II soils (with Classes I-IV defined as
prime for agriculture) .
c. There are 6 undeveloped parcels in excess .0 10
acres (4 in excess of 20 acres, ) totaling
109.75 acres. There are more than 18 parcels
of 3-10 acres in size, aggregating more than
85 acres. Some of this acreage includes s flood
plain and most of these lots have homes for
which i acre would need to be subtracted as
unavailable for development. Total buildable
vacant land is 198 acres (see p. 13 of staff
report).
d. Existing residential development consists
mainly of widely spaced homes on multi-acre
lots except for the more concentrated develop- .
ments of Royal Mobile Villa, south side of
Graven Street, south end of 108th, and south
end of 113th.. Aerial photographs show this
pattern well.
e. Sewer service is now available only on Graven
Street and for Royal Mobile Villa. The Lower
Tualatin Interceptor will probably be con-
structed in 1978 or 1979 (it is currently
awaiting federal funding) but will not divert
existing flows. Construction of sewer trunks
through the area will depend on development
north of Durham Road and, development potential },
within Area 8. ` -�
•
' Page 5
f. Improvement of Durham Road is not dependent on
development in Area 8 since a half street
improvement is not expected.
2. Portions of Area 9 should be included within the
1985 boundary as follows:
a. A small area of incorporated territory was in-
advertently omitted (on p. 21 of the staff
report). south of Bull Mountain Road at Pacific
Highway.
b. A parcel west of Pacific Highway and north of
Beef Bend Road (lot 3900) should be included.
The Tigard City Council has recommended an-
nexation of this parcel. The lot is adjacent
to both the City of Tigard and King City and
can be serviced to city sewer.
c. On the eastern slope north of Bull Mountain
Road, the Edwards and Ames subdivisions and
surrounding smaller lots in Section 10 (lots
1300 1400, 1500, 1501, 1502, 1600, 1700, •
1701) should be designated Immediate Growth
(within 1985 boundary) . The two largest parcels
have already been approved for development,
so that restricting development on the six
smaller parcels until 1985 would not be equitable.
d. The portion of Area 9 south of Bull Mountain
Road should remain outside the 1985 boundary
as recommended in the staff report. The land
is not needed to house the population increase;
half the area is in agricultural production; the
largest lot has an agricultural tax deferral;
soils are Class III and IV; and a sewer connection
to the Lower Tualatin Interceptor is not ex-
pected for several years.
e. The northwest part of Area 9 should remain
outside the 1985 boundary as recommended in
the staff report. The land is not needed to
house the population increase; all of the largest
parcels, comprising most of the area, are in
farm use and are receiving tax deferrals;
soils are predominantly Class III and IV, with
perhaps 1/3 in Class VI; and parcel sizes are
large, with almost all of the acreage in 9
parcels of 8-40 acres each. Sewer service
could be provided by extension of City lines. •
•
Page 6 A
B. Year 2000 Urban Growth Boundary - Staff advises adoption
of the Citizen Committee recommendation for a population capacity
figure (11,128) to be applied once the land use designations for
• Bull Mountain are adopted. Staff believes the land use issue
is being confused with the phased development issue of growth
management. The county staff has greater expertise and is more
involved with the Bull Mountain land use issue. Close city
involvement with specific land use controversies on Bull Mountain
would unnecessarily delay city consideration and action on a
growth management plan for the entire community. However, the
city does have an interest in the outcome of the county
decision-making process on Bull Mountain land use designations.
To provide city input to that process the following additional
Future Urbanizable Area Policy is recommended:
Policy F. The year 2000 Urban Growth Boundary, to be
determined upon resolution of land use designations on
Bull Mountain, shall be based on a population capacity limit
of 11,128#within the Future Urbanizable Area, and shall be
located so as to preserve the maximum amount of agricultural
land that is feasible.
C. The question of the potential effects of septic tank
developments on Bull Mountain is not one on which the staff can
provide answers, and in fact may not be answerable short of
actual experience in the future. The county staff, which is
more familiar with this issue, is recommending a 40,000 sq. " ft.
minimum (see staff report p. 20) . City staff would prefer
that no developments be allowed until after 1985, since a special
Bull Mountain policy is a loophole exception which raises greater
questions about the equitability of the growth management plan.
The county staff' s recommended policy would lessen the threat
of future water quality problems and would also help reduce
the size of the loophole. Larger lot minimums would also permit
later redevelopment at higher densities if that is desirable.
Staff therefore recommends approval of the county staff' s
special policy for Bull Mountain.
D. Staff recommends that the General Urban Area Policy F
be strengthened through the following changes:
1. Add "Within the Tigard Growth Management Study ,.
Area, " before "The county -. . . ."
2. Add "shall enact" in place of "will pursue the ,
enactment of . . . ."
* The population capacity figure comes from the Bull Mountain
Interim Development Policy citizen recommendation for land uses. ',
It is also based on the assumption that Areas 8 and 9c will be
outside the 1985 boundary: Adding parts of these two areas to
the Immediate Growth Area (as recommended in this memo) will;
reduce this 1985-2000 capacity figure accordingly.
yt[y
b;.
.
•
•
• TIGARD URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY . •
ADDENDUM
Draft Alternative Boundaries
Analysis of More Stringent Growth Controls
October 18, 1977
•
I
TIGARD URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT ALTERNATIVE 1985 IMMEDIATE GROWTH BOUNDARIES
September 12, 1977
Selection of alternative 1985 Immediate Growth boundaries for
public discussion was based on:
1 . Conformance with LCDC goals and CRAG policies, goals, and
objectives.
2. Conformance with the goals, policies, and strategies of the
Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan.
3. Conformance with the goals and policies of the Tigard Com-
prehensive Plan and NPO plans.
4. Conformance with adopted objectives of this study and its
priorities for delineation of boundaries.
5. Tentative policy directions provided by elected officials re-
garding these boundaries.
The range of population capacities* represented by the boundary
alternatives is considerable. The lowest capacity alternative ("A")
was chosen so as to provide the minimal contingency reserve capacity
necessary to assure continued operation of the housing market (study
objective #1 ) . In other words, the intended effect of this alternative
is to include only as much land as is necessary to permit the housing
market to accommodate the projected population growth. The other al-
ternative boundaries would provide enough land so that somewhat greater
amounts of growth could take place and would also include some areas
already developed or provided with some urban services.
3
Actual growth in the Tigard area will depend on the location of
the growth boundary, actual growth of the Portland region, actual
growth pressures in Tigard, and strength of the growth management plans
adopted elsewhere in the metropolitan area.
* The estimates of population capacity are sensitive to the as-
sumptions used by different_ inventory methods. In determining
precise boundary locations, the first capacity figures should be used, ; . , I
but for the purpose of comparing capacity estimates in the Tigard
area with other areas of the county, the figures in parenthesis
are most appropriate.
. l
2
x'
1985 IMMEDIATE GROWTH BOUNDARIES
•
•.• --- ;1 Iii. r r /. %y�///i�Y/►, ',/•/.. 4j,,/�/ / '+ftAJ —, -1-1-41",-.. • TWPIh .'•°r a O E�■
rrrf!,r. Cy t! R/��C ��/l / i�y•,- // y .��, ' '.:x.:.%., e/ 1
Yo
NEM+NEF A EAR R I/i� , , I, %,,,,,, 'D ? "5„, r•/ r /�`, • /j f `� r 71,::$3:::s :::::::::74::::
�.�
,or LW.,p� / ././. /i:,,/ / / ` tar ` i” ..a',':' ti~
■ _,ete1R ' RO m• . 4f i v) / 4 .✓✓.n min rrr',a, 'SW ,..,, ljy
+ T U D A •'r-iv,% 'Y�,y,' /, ` •.; • r�' tip a nC.'4�tr 1 •• wry
U I L, _ e yc,44::::::4":::.••.%.,*-p...-
r r , s8t ,'
4 10%14,0 0.
N YZ ` i .5.4. 1 _d,1S,�ic ti. ',^" " {M QPG'SAQ A-.2100,,,...-,..•• IX.11 : t r.1
o I m1 a' a`a IW ":":" 'es,',./.:Z+?'' 7 ti G •k,}"', ` .•� :L •;
1 '`4 4,"off` .. a • , $ tp '``.-
1 ,, i " �• Leh v�} �4
f ::: ,$ ,ljj:"` \•s1/4‹,:x,',',,,M S`4`' . %
1985 IMMEDIATE GROWTH BOUNDARIES
IALTERNA77VE : IBJ
: LJB
•
- __ __.' 1 — ./;>-;.,:;
///'. ' , '. // ,//%��/ / Mtn,,,,, 'y, 1 " r7f J.GARDEN
/ / f1 - Y; e, • . � n, HOME
1 - __R— ;'— P y, !f•//r7 ''•. • / '' 1 • • 1\° S KCr.
v . 1 �• • I,_•
•6/' / � 5W4 �
,/•/i/! i 7 / " .I/ e ili!11.7 IBPO—
/ // / 27 D f
A n ER 4,' �, r /M
I r, t• // /r/ /
•:•:•:•:•:•.'4•:••
/ r ,, / � •
a/ kri/ , u "il / r aS•i, v '9:"Y"'''''4''9:"Y"'9:"Y"'''''4')"5'
1 v ° 'N
D 0� . . � �y ' g.
4. ;. . ` ..*:„..,-4;..:::::::;:::**..c, .. sr 061
O I N D ANRY 4 p Q
1. �r Q `iii ¢°}P� a' r .,,.e °'�,�• tx `�. +'(`CL_
4 N` i .1k,25,-'4.. y•• 1,ai$4. ♦i, 7 • 1 -, .' �5,� r. J
f ./ O ( r ..wMC 1"-• ..,1. °� 1,,r" /,,, `I .4.`.L ,,' , -'� �'+°•' 1` i.R ��,JA(,^
r. avw ........ P 9 •
e .• k tQV ¢ :V4 'X,; �..d' H... ;,.•:: S. , �C■ a 'R ' �,'• , ' ;
O`U` 1� 1 Y ° �c�7,..+.•3 x i , �.fyi'o• a f ,e ''','Y•
I e.n " +9• 4 4.+y.. ice, fit, •°*° y'" ,d? i're`. ■r `CZi. ..•
t. .. h % �• Bv� ' '7:p/+e \+• 4 =r• . d' .. ',.e . .„r i ,,2,> ,,�„•
n - —---'''s. I TO Ir .i�e1 t 'AO!'�` M :.A v4,.�v �¢�°° ti. , j�f 1 n:•MEI
• ;. • 4 Z,0•4,,•5 v i .'a fy�w S � I; 2 "r " =I 11I I111t11 I 1 > I ! _Lam- it..:.
x.�V x6v } P+GP� t k, `�/r�r ti y 1*r 'f'
� ••- GP
°..
(•`.
1 1 r
( t V IJA 9 r \ . .%� x.J •:e. _ NN` Y �I °
� " M : 4N f.} 1.ti' '..Y.—$c� r C s W . Kh 0 1 •
... ' BI ;� .r ...:;0:••• ROI
`SS 1 16 ) rT , 1 .'1.. ,� I.. / 1§ ( I 41'.;d .• i; AN -.4,\ i Alp; .IE/1,1
I .✓�� t N 1 a..�' .% N RD P 10„,;"'.\,„0.,• 6 r ,. � \ o ..,ct.
• /r I , ate° S
t 1 `
.r., '1 .\ 1. '",1 — —_.—. 7 uALA7W . RDA r y '�% //, r .c F H..4 .r�OS}:
I
ALTERNATIVE B
Encloses areas 1 7, 9a - 9c, and 10.
P
Additional Population Capacity - 24, 590 or 214% of projected
(143% of projected using alternative method for determining '''
capacity, or 39% more than has been recommended for Hillsboro.)
4
1985 IMMEDIATE GROWTH BOUNDARIES
[ALTERNAT/VE • cii
,•.50. l� ` r✓ e� t•`It —
/ v \ . :. }
i
•. •�\fi•
}..'". : Y / • / >g,r;,- ,"%." I� , / 4 J .s,,T t • wt CY
. 4
:4 � 8 •�S • e //A l,: /% Jf Aii121 1111:1M•-•
n' ' p 1: ,//..'/ r�/R LARD R • I . , j, ,, / D \t 6�•
ti .i , fa�r r j A ,l . / / f :.?..5.60 " , • ✓ 0.44.:0:4::$4 .
orE` r /•I/ //d/f}M YL1 I Rp 1iV ' i ! • /•' ' N O, /• , ■ '..v: i.1cZ.. • .)00 r • r•
$TU D AREA, ',.e / - „,� �, . ,. z� ,•
I
BO U ND/Mki • a' ' ..•e.• '1 • • . ▪ x'_
,l al Ia • %•:::•.• rr•�y.''"\ .�Y r! .... ✓O. r, /
Nr •.. . , • .'Y"P•
:.., 1 --�t�r �I,- 011::'. }.r ••4.44"0-.r''- tw' •,k ;'j+`*1 ¢`, Fit Yx ti• —
1 E._ ^.•
-� mod'.J'rftr• �r` „ ''.' j fr a^ ✓'t �+yR,�r,k tit
./ 165 • . •."•. ,,Vy:... s ve,..• '.b•b• '. •"0• :C.n?' 41s.•
f4Na ` G.W.„ ,p•♦ B .�, •” •.. yr e akh• .�f� t r f
pq,tMV.Y ' 'b0:°° 'r "` St+5 ,� e ••••'Aa4 d .`, i,.. Y.f,^'iv,,.. ,�
_.. R0.. i p•!�A. - r= a ,y�.iS�,� *t/. �, ^f_.....•O•e 'p/,`.5N. '\"ti t4'`4'�^J11 ,
4, !. B 15 P.� r . •r f-4 ,d'�j•. •. , :4�..•.-.,c on � ,.,.'., .
Q _ .�• P_4p r_`r r_ ;G ToN t `f.:,r W. .... 4. •v''Ct. :•t x' 'r'',.� ▪ 3r
_ ill, fir'!o,� .'
l� t-Z ice. c• y. • J4 a �..,I�yy-.��fi^ i
B ' a pt.g�yh�t .
aw▪ e
i 7 0 = a ). l ' i 9 — I ..•• tj•:::::. •:;:40.1;•••,.:L. `.?...'" A, ....--; .4.., 4 ,...., „_.0.
Y. t. • 4: = I .0.\ . ';` •`�: +1'kti i r ilaSPPo �Yf h �•,.b
I g{f r.•:•:•:•:.
C
,'A+ C ' ✓ BRIG,
......, .i \ ...,4.:44...:.:.:.:* ..................x...i. _' ...-LII,LIJ� ; . O. ' {��\,\\\"r:•:•>:•:•:•:••••••••. • 1 �,J b• .4 iii.. • Na � ` f C
G I Ro a R." !° 4 ! ;:1%' \ra . i 'y'l/,*:,
Iq
•
ALTERNATIVE C
Encloses areas 1 - lla.
Additional Population Capacity - 29,131 or 253% of projected (174% of ' ''
projected using alternative method for determining capacity, or
69% more than has been recommended for Hillsboro. )
5
ALTERNATIVES FOR YEAR 2000 URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY
The attached maps depict four alternatives for the Year 2000 Urban
Service that the staff has prepared for your review and comment.
When reviewing ;the attached maps- one should 'keep 'in mind the - -
following assumptions that were used in developing the alternatives:
1. That all the land to the east is assumed to be committed
to urban uses prior to the area now being considered;
2. That within the suburban areas the densities- used to
figure the additional population capacity are based upon
the maximum density established by the Interim
Development Policies for Bull Mountain (1.8 units per acre);
3. That the suburban area will be sewered in addition to all
other urban services;
4. That the LCDC Goal #3 for agricultural land was applied
in those areas where existing conditions and lotting
patterns indicated agricultural uses;
5. That the USA boundary and the Urban Service Boundary
would be coterminous.
•
•
.:
6
•
.----- , . -
. . .. . ,
URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY I •
. •
.
ALTERNATIVE NO. I . • .. , .' ' -I' '
.
• A' - . ma-I( •
:S:**::•.:::4 URBAN . -,„, •.....,„,
'• • .. " s' ' •
V •- •
•if A
4s. 1 . " 4 it 4044i
0 0 0 0 0 SUBURBAN .. ,„-,•:•;,:.'.. -/ . •/ //
•-, 4.2-/..,,,,,..• 4" • ,;• u• - .1, '.1r. 4,i i iliiii i-
0 %;..., -- , , 1._ .-. 1.. ,i :1. . .
,,, a %':/s*'./%.% --•• // // " • .° .• I
•f 5104.PRIM P
* FaigM RURAL .
....• , ".1./://,'<;.- ,•••...; .,, . .,/,
.:-
).
-•• /;•• ,./ ••. , /..,-• ,
_ •-......-
. • • , •••:.,..„.. ..: ,..;, .1- ., 2 % 4' .',
/- :..,-.-. ' .• it //1 ....
• .. 1 \ .....-"T6.4 •• '0, ,•/.•./ /*/•,./...54• //0. • ■
11'1.6 •Y' •• '''''/4'I ' ////// '‘.. t•
Abtu/ 1 Fe° 4- ,'''.- %" :'4' :tn l• •' ' ' '' • •1, -- ..• 191 . . n• ■-0C at '
i .%-0'47 t 7;• •1% ,akor k \ l'il#14"" • t . -t:vti.--J,ii,..; Ft .=
., •• 0 .. i t ■Qt. Avirtf
I TUDY AREJ/■ - `-'. f/ .1/'' tf 1. - • •-e,-, • Pip - -- •insaditisva." i..,,•0`
• , • ,z, . , . f A 1 '''...•',;:0:!:k,'".'' I 11
I ' i
W
tii,.
,41131 BO ILI NIDPkRi . ., •.,es k..;.',. -•-:,..;,:a.;.011,00:::10 ,,,,,, ,.. .f.o.
iv • %,.,...,x.:,:::•:•••••.%:::.•-p••:::::::,5:::.,.,,g--.4 : ch; -; t :,, '0•rint.i. ego
r f. • , -- .-
NalAiii':-Ir'xr. ,.z_7---6T --L4 '4' ,114`.".'41 I .n' 2.4 . -4, ./.•
, J
.4 • , ,, .' .7( Mir'', :'.ki0.:.... ". '-,1;qpiik - - .e.,to 4,..'.A. •
' i4:::49" ••' .„i,....lr!' , ...,..,!i,I ne,,Z.4 -.... !"1:: .',•- ,- ",02,,,•:1.::...:;'•f, •
I • -!:- •••9• • .:.0.0.-.-::.::-'-'-'"-...1r,•- ..L. '....... . V,".,,, ,,'.4.1 ......'' -,
,.::::::,.. ..x.• . ..
• ••••• •••• 0,
......, ..... lin?;:i''.1,''':•:.C:•'iliiii:.. :'.•,:e:........ 7 ' • ,:t-:Cf:":...$■.,.-..
'•;45'•Vi:. 1 • '----
1 I ..:••::::■:.:.''':1::: e.:0;•.• ..:" .,* •*.,‘nr..-•4.4:;' ,'- ••.,'"...4:,••,..4'''''''-• -•±7.,7„.•••4•!.. ....,,,.1:Wiii,' >:. '•::k. I 11111:4 U L
I , . „.....::::::::::::::::::::.....:,:,24:, .4.0, .„,,,.,..,,,, ..,..„. ti:„:- ....4;:, ;v5,....,•:ii:r:••••7"W• :.,r:• .....,
"."." .. 7.-.- • No. ., , ,.A". „•„;•W •,....:•: t"'',,••'.K 0," ;."-:it„,:::„..,:,..,.,„..•V.:44,
_ i - •- ..::::::::::::::::i::: ::::::::::::::;*::::::. e „.;:mg.?..,,,-,::1,,,,-,,,A, s 4.r•X't, w.,'•:: ....
s .•••••Xs:':',::::::::::::::::::=4:, •4,:.?4,00.., ....O..;Ri:•,;:cr jai ...,;-••' •:4.Z:if,* %,.,
\ • /... , .. 4g:1,v%* A./,, .
• :::;:wioi.• :...:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::,,..e. 7,01K::::. s .X1-iiv
. ,..:::,.... .........x.:::::::::::::*:::::::::::::i.•.• ,• .7„,.••%. . A d AL lif A ...a--1.1c, .•qi..,„ 4....,?;!'?:40j'.W::.0 W'';'•',A0'4:•.f..::::'. . ..'"•••1%••;V
.I ■• •..:„,'::::,:iii1,4::W.MA;11Elig:73°Ceo°0°0.0C7 6 ' %'**.d. '....4.W '.....14•taAk. ......:14/4.
. t ...Tom*-0,,,,ii.00000..:*igiiii:::.. cop...)00.0.00...... 1.11141-i •N ...7.;.:'`'''lv.•;.:."'..:°''*:'.. :'ftAiiWri it;VV1,.4.l'.
• • Q ""L'iiill?:W::-..';°°09O°O-9;°•:;'eo 0%%%°cPoo°00No: m.`10, $ /4/AV.;.:.:.:Vi fr p• - --'4::•.*:;..,W-'le.":..r,.s:::;; .
• 1-. "ct........:...:.: • o 0 0 ocpc000.o0 0
• v - - • 1■04:::;:::::.::::::.•004*°0 0 0 0 o o o 0• - • . ./..*:::.;..1e41. *..k . r . -",- •.k. •••::..',.. .--..•. .• "c
. o
- • 1.6%iliNi:iiii,::.?c,o 00oo o° 0°00 Vo.. 1 - ;,,,Ir: :1:.„.0. . 64%. . ,:.°' '•0.AA,.;,>,,,::.i:,;•;,J4.
1 • re4..W::::::::-,.?"oZot'agol'og, o cl,',.. ,0 . i.':*4'..''''.;„„;'':' :::%:$' ,, .•• h!I'C,.24_,.. .1.
a • 1 - ' , .!'. 00y00°00°00°00 0 " 'WoL'0W00 .A .• a..;.I'. 1.. 9, ,... ,
1 • `.' ..,..7•.4 0: .0.0.0000000o 0000kot,400oon .
„,„0.W.•••(:.9.0.•,6 ., ,...•0_ 0 o 00 e-- b000 ,.0. p i 70 •cx r..--. .. - ..., :,r.,,,.." ,,-.-.7.F.::,t A.
,„ 4•10."„... , ,. ,.,i ;:k% , ...,,,, ..•*•621,e,,•••,:"....,,i , •
,....0 .•:•zW:.0,24 ,,••rt•.. ., ••Neilft •:• '1.
•-•-. ja__ s.. . . . v •0 .:,, ,,, .,,, .
!•••;:.0....:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•••••••••••••••••■• % 9 o o 0 0°0°0°. ,,. ,..„ J./ F . •::",!'•:''' :•''.,'"
)*(3% °9° 't Ftp,;,..._ , :i ,.':.: ., c -1!...•.: ...fr,'..': ..A.r.o , :I.:- .VY. . s!)•
7 :. . ' °°°°0_° • - i ■ - ' .-" '. 1 r: '''..,,,,V4f"W' .. • • '...tr.,;:'''•• NI.V.
01 wor.;:.:iii.:::::i:i,•:,•i:•,:•;:•::•::•::•::•::•::4...11.:,..::.::.::.::.:...:i.4..,c, 0000 0000000000,000000000000000600$000. . , 17 , ,.,.01..vt lt,.;.:..:........ .. .... a .1,..:., ai,:,. ,.... v.
WI EHHIHMIIIID..00 000000000000000000000000 00 ,Nik,...,, ..,,, ,, , , .....4 c.,
: ,,,,,-- 0 •. .:,,,,,P„, `4Secedfeardfc.°X.°°,:■:* '.....:!„.:,,,,...,,r.... r_;;;X;.."'.*::.:1;::: . 2 ::ti':n':::,`C•
2 =P. :1000:::5:05S0 00:4goodO*040K,,•■N,.., svati"..,;:,,;.';.:(!.4.., .:7,,,,,4..:..°.n•„:11. 41;4;ot../,A.F::::.77. !il,;:: ::*':.:•:• „
'',...,, 1 • k'
00 00 0 I % ,,,, 4:. 7; t; t 1 ;HAfii'• e,•*:-
• w. , ....... - ..'"."...x.IA
, •' '. !. *•c. ... - 2
. • \,s,...... :Al.:.•..c ,,,,„, .-,•.';:::::..":-1,,
t4i:0 4„,,,,,,,,,:*
• - -----■. 09 1..\• °V.t...' '., ...4,,....-•
i 1, :::;:::/i: . ,,,, . , ;giAisz.• "JE$
("8 •
!----7 -- 1-•••.1 1.,: 'G•t4.:11A1.• ."
•••, 5- t %-kg,kriri .
• N-----.1 ..., .II---..••••••.- ' \..; x
- •. k VI .
) • - -- ''' ii° • , e7:\-
, ,.., ,.. . „.., ,,,...:,.,,..,..„ ,... ,,. ,
4.„..._;,..,
_.,....,„._,.. . ..
1 r
I ihALAT)N . RD: I . , •,/,;; r /"y/ ;,./. 64.c s; • ,,,,t, 4`--r,ir c:,/j
. . .
. . .
• •. , , ,, !::1,.144...: ..)' •t ■.,. ,'''. t..'.''.''. , - .
- ..
.. •
, • .
Alternative #1- Interim DevelopMent Policies (Sta. f Recommendation)
, .
- . Rural - vacant buildable land approximately 534 acres/at . one .unit , •
per five acres = 106 units/three persons per unit = 320 persons.
• I
Urban Intermidiate - vacant buildable land approximately 217 acres/at
;0 percent Residential/at 4.6 units per acre = 598 units/at three
persons per unit = 1797 persons.
Suburban - vacant buildable land approximately 1051 acres/at 60 percent
Residential/at a maximum of 1.8 units per acre = 1135 units/at three ;
persons per unit = 3405 persons.
. ;
Total additional capacity = 5522 persons.
k'416.w
124% of year 2000 projection (or 18% more than has been recommended
for Hillsboro. )
— - ,
°II.'11
. URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY )
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
A ',. • —'A----... .__.._ • -- •...._ . ..,........
,
,
/ .tipn
URBAN fil Op •,t, -. "/
/ . s. _ . ,
t=4111 SUBURBAN V -,' ' Mire ,a.. •
. . ....e., :1'1?• ;nil I–T
2 *i:iIrd RURAL .,_, _, . 1 1.■I.it-
, z' P '' - . 1 illait -'4
, r . i.;
'11 r I 4
FP(t ,t 21 NATURAL RESOURCE /// ,
/./7,,, / -; • ')
r
V'•-••:‘•••-M7 'N. 4
AI ; .,> .•v% i.
• ., ,, ,..
\ --117•74".,'0. .
.- . • i NDAU
21‘1 • .... 7, ../1 • •/*/ (/ . . ! • . ' -• Loco-ir .
_ 41_______..1. ' Itant..-1 RD Y.*. ;0,11) i 47 1' -— adiiiii.-60 • IS
froo"/ /—/;'lielrrili , ', so, re..wo r t 11111Z2M, 4._
I . • Tuoy AREA. 4t. / .,,..‘ ,/,st , .
1 . • .1. ,--. i ft ti i . •..•••••k:,• , .1. iiil,"
. 4 .%. , .....::. :',i.44M:::••,', 1 'it... '11111.
"
• I ' 'ti 1.30UNTaPski •. . .,...,...;:-'!:.• m..:::::::::%:::,., ,,,,,,„::, ..,.J. • ks. ...„ ; 0„„,, 1 ,1 gli .„ •. .. , ,
. ..,
....„.,,,,,,:. ...„.. 4K•7. .1%1" , •., --a.1747,I '. 'N' _ ..1!.. ,,,,
'41 al $1 4 .,..S.. • )/
i -
i • w I •• 4N ; e ,4•:• . Ariii•IA„s44...'-'''"i"::%,.6.0...;:i -'• ...-- . ......ir. ..1G: , .72......v,/...-/_"WO . .%I .. •
•••:::*•:••/ • - - • .•'
•0. .... ..4:;:itii;:::' :::, ..+Fur;pir.'"'014 '
• 1 . 4.• „.4',.'4..%:;..°;.•4 :::....:•?..".;:fh. Zi'; - ." ..... N. .• •Liu4P14
4 ''gs „•010:14V ... .rz,soz,44- 'V:::::rit',''
1 — - :::":. ot :•::::::: St* 1.:.....* . . •"''' *:*:' ,7, "r:'•' Y4•49.- 4„
I 1
—.— **"..... .. .....- . .• ' :.::".::::;;;;:::::':i.:"*":::::.:i.:'.:":''' '..**0:::. 7:•it14..../4:$1,41";:!..%.•`4,1::#4:' lt. :*..,,, '' f/..1/140:::!..k?;'••.:::'•:;.'' 6.h4. 7 ' L A °
i ..,:i.,,," :i:i:::::i::::::::k: _....::w...ki,;..14„,,,ft,,„: ..,, .-:/:,;,,,,,,,,. ,.,..,?.... ..1::: ,.,<::::....„...; .a., il
• d:OM''''• :*i:I'gii4'. ••••••:*•• •••:"•314:. A.O.1.r4;,'' . s; • 00; ..■::',•IP .7,,: *, .*` -1.4*.t: :it,.. .-; II ^
\ .., 4 .7.., :tis:::.:.:...'...., :::::.::::::::::::::.LA4 ";;W.,.,,,,"' s• .gpseJ1 ^. ..:::::'6'z0::'':.:,,i.:i-Vgi"W *Top,)1r:
A .• '. ' , p, ,:%?" .4',41.4 ;,/;!,;),': ,..;.,a...:.,:..0. ,v.
I 00. ' ' . ^:'•; ;:;:;:;:iiii;iiiii;:g:•;".,-.,•/•!-. ;4 A LI . srl' .;•*,!/>': 0%,'", '*03,74::::' '0, 0 .
, . ..,....,• . .. . . ".... ...,,-. -. 1.7vv.,•,...;:iiiiiiiiiligiii,iiii ..1,,,,,..... ;....,...:v„g.:..., ..:..1„.;:46.,m,(0.0.,,i..,,,,.......,.,,,,,z,,,..... 4,,,. ;1...,.1,1, .•
. ....- ..„...... . •„,,:iimiiiiiim.,,pcpc,00%,,,A.. -14,- .. ,...:y.:—.0.- C.;."' • , -P. 'q.:.;;;;s1WW!**,,;';'';2,.5,61k:,,,, .,,,,...: (.::: 4
•
M i •.....=......p. •,`.4t),;iim:::tim:.6.0.0.0.0.0.00.0.0%... m.-0 $ :.;.N .0,;;;;,-1,,...:.,:,.::/,.,•.:;;;;,,,, -i,.p- - , - .1.:,:);:.,:".nr.i7 : :.,,... :
,-
....... ,..', 41; ---..-0..
:ctic.,, zi;::;:::::::::::x . ..5 c.) .,.... ::p 1 • , „ .4.•:.....43.,....,.:- . 4. ,, ,
1 .... .,f. ..•._ ..„..,‘,:::::::::::::::; :o:oc.),.........L ..., , ..,.. • all',i4 •.',.y/.0.7'... :. ;,;; ." it'0,4_
0 • 14.2%.....:::i:744'47r:iiiniMiiiifiiii;iiiii:::•..tl.r`.V0°00;0;0;0;0: ', A .• . w......... -. .II..
z 1 -_—;• :;:z::::::::::::?..,KA.00.0 .....0 0 0 ....i .;:*,,16.`....? ■k",..sy• ' "' 'e•
.6.11: '''' 0•:i:■::,• .............''''': :::::::■::.•.. .PO°0°*4•V,'6°0°0. ',0, .
• '.:* .::;a::.:.:.:..::::::::::::::■:,,,,...•••;:.;.e!"..v:.9•S..0.0°0°O. N .,.T.!.'F. .s •• •Z.1 ...7%zs":41:t.:4:.,4K.:,.!... .t.r..". ."':' ,'':■.tiFF.
,..,:„:.:,.,,,..4.- :rt • .4,,,,,,,,..„ ..,,......,,4, 1,..,, ,,..:41......
•.,....: ,
1 R D
-
=iiii::::4:::::::::::::::g:::=::::::::::, ::iil'::°'"0°0°.°.'0'$•°..0%.°..I . • 4 ti'KI: c iC... 4,44.W.V,.0 pf,.. '.1,,r:,.-r," ,,,i,'
1...;;::::::;::*;:;:i:;:::::::::::::::::*:::*::::::::: '::::i::;, .c'c'oc)0%,„%%„'n?-.`',.: .%-.. .-; ---- - •-•"''). '''''' ' ::1' '".'''''''''"?4".. '73
...
• 7 ::::::::0:::* el ....,06Dvi I.:-....,,„...,,-.1i..*4.: ....„.'•;..• , . , :•..,:?::: •-- .e.
'''' ..;:t••■ c3"
01 "...::::;:::;:::i::::::::::::::::::::•:•:FK:•:•:•:•:!;•%•A:ili•r.00-0000000 00
0°0°0°0 0 0,00,0,- ',.: 14 ...4 " am...) = MI;,,,,..4 . 1.!: to,A.,:■ -
CV "A11111111111111jai*iii::..0„0„0 00,0.0 00 0_0 00
0 0 0°0°0 0-. •■1 ,444
I 1:;:i*.ii;:..‘Xso,.,d;:o,,o,„9,0_,4,90o0o000,... ,... r4. . c.„„•.• ,,,,,/.•/..,..... , ,:t'. '1.• t•
. .
0 ..,....N•,:m,„,,,...,,,,K0,0,50-0.00,0,00.,,,,c§.0„.0 , •-
,:, -4t..svy • A..."" .::::::,,::, ; .
■ 2
9000ov000°00o000000.047, \....,:■ .11‘0,t4.•<,i.K..;"%,'..y?.? ...•,,..4%..:1:"..r.,: .p,,.;f1:
/..:k 1----1):
- ‘r -
tt. .., • .kz...... ' !•2,s.......„.„....,' ..: t .1"..4)... o %.,....„1",t:0;•:•i.
tki.:::;:;i4:••.45c1t;°''?..;%. • ..4".... 'I...-- ?..r i V3r;;" ' fl' 1'4'•
1 . .
• ,.:605
Ze:41 Of'. ...—,,
6 .. • ! • ?; ••(•‘ ,_*.'" ..
...• r
r;___. I j i •1 I "Cg• •. —
*AO ...• •
,C.L :N ..
1 -6 IRO• ••■■•:11
%) 4) ••5
(WI
\ r •I'
.4S •"" e4 Vf 4 4-4,....-4••••,
I • ( -1 /5.- ..! . ri
• ) I \ .4 - • / 1
; 1,, tt:4 '4\•• •.4,471- .." •:.' • '
. ...,, . • . .)411,4-7. __ .._. ...\,......._„...v.i I. me:jet.11. . mot , , .1,,,. :,,, ...'",. 4 . , 1 ar
/(_ I "" ,/h// ' \-..: a.•,/ • .. e-se
. ''.'7 ',.':'%'' 4 y • .,t'-A.\s\v. 41$'',
/"• il
• „', / 0
k .14.1AgAl IN . RD- 1 • . tr ., . ,..!..o.. ,
1
. -
Alternative #2 - Interim'Development Policies East of BPA/Urban Growth
Boundary at Power Lines _
. •
•
.- •
Natural Resource - vacant buildable land 249. .acres/at one unit per text -
TZTTS1.7571EITF/at three persons per unit = 75 persons. .
Rural - vacant buildable 651 acres/at one unit per five acres = 130
units/at three persons per unit = 390 persons.
Suburban - vacant buildable 683 acres/at 60 percent Residential/at a
maximum of 1.8 units per acre = 738 units/at three persons per unit =
2212 persons.
Urban Intermediate - vacant buildable 217 acres/at 60 percent Residential/
( lt 4.6 units per acre = 598 units/at three persons per unit = 1797.
Total additional capacity 4474 persons.
122% of year 2000 projection (or 16% more than has been recommended for •
Hillsboro. )
8
URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY ) .
•
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
, . . ,Stet
ta4ti . URBAN .- ' luis, Of.: ,4,40 , . ,,,...., .....-11../4.1._.1.04atr......
EBBEN
RURAL //
•• 1' ii"il'illfi
en NATURAL RESOURCE / // '" . ,
'. . 1.1011.Ps 4
., ';,,' 5P4P: . , ... to ,....
• :7.'4''''' I.
i! .... ,..- 2 ,,p .... -
• c • IIE .-. ',mu,
I . l'it---AJo." t ,.. • ••:••••,• - • / ,/, %
4,1(.1., k• .', ,,./ I .,,///4. ‘ . ...7.4,.,■0 „ ,,, i, ,,, .
,..- ',i..NDM.,
I R0 ,. !,.,• 7. - •• / s ,t,
'17. ' '',./.."1.7.41) i . ■ -, .V, ".'''''' ....47.1■11 . ‘ .i LCICY-Ar '
.,.
. ,..• ,...,..., , F•41
1 ' • 01, / / ,. • . '• .
stuoy ARE.A. ' ,t1 / ,-,,,., ,// 11, - .,.., Jo
1 • -1.... .- , 1, t . . .,..*......., '4411111,
la % , . .../ :. -.......,:irlii]:C;Ii. • ',I!
Pio(
I w •ESO P t`i.. DN:ky. . ... li.
..,.3,
MtliM•tli.c•-• •••••-•- .A -7 AT •,.. 4:1p.. ..,.. 1 .!., , i,- ,,r-- ' -•• •
s i , .• • 4 ,govige,•-•;er•-•, ,_. ,,„. ..'..4' ..' 1- I '".14. - 1 •
,
. i , ..:....:.:.:.......i::1 : , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,i4, „..r.4,..,....,,,*,.., t.,...;,..,/„..,,,,....:.,.......-ors r•.'''...,:i?..;.e:.: . ,
••%'.--:e.lill .•
--f.k::::*:::: :. ',:o4r• :,..V.- ..• -::.::•-.•:%,e.-i:
I : t. 4.:411;:::.I. :v., :;,:.W",;*•,-'''''•Mg:',.:••-••7,:..77-...7:-- ... #: ."'A '; . ... i i. .44" .//i
.....riiiiilliiiiiiii:-p • .e,..v.....t.,...-.:,,e,'00- r.,,AZ,..„,... 4.i.V.:4*.i',t •'•,.,e• 1'N al.."' li I..
11 .lartiallip:::ii:: ••:•8 .g.',4::?!...-,4•.;:g".U. ''','...,4;.'''....' ..' '..,-,r 4W",..... '''*;i::::g'• ... ..:1`,.". '.::::;:::::: ••"w••••:; ,....,
!„,:iiiiliiia441;;::::- A.. :...„..,,...- ...,.... , Ak, ,: .,,.4 . • . ; ,;,.• : /•:. •':.,x, '',.''.. . t M t* ' L.A '
....-.... I .P.............. ...... : :: ":• • :::::: 4• ,pfe:••,•. •,. fz,i ;Eipr.,,,A •:::f..,..,.. .*.:4&t,t io. .,: .e...,;,i,x,..4.3i...‘.•.„0. .. .t...,
.:- , , thin:4y. ,. ,.::::::a•oe".....4,..0 .,/...4.: - ,:yst.,::::-,v.:.....,si.,;4.3,:A.-•..itv...,,.::..'...•.4 ..,:* -f....,, . *- -
....b I.". g ... . . ,=.,,.,„N-I:.4.,i...t,„,.,.,,-;.:.-..:.,r.,:,s,te.7.7..•i.;.....'e,,.i.,'tiAe)i,1.•..4.•..t•„•,-.-r;p,. s•.,.',.,."i.. n:...:1.::.::i.::u::i:.81.::g:::.m::i:..:il,i::..-a.:il..:i:..::l:.:i.::n:l::m::.:i::::.i:::m::.i:.:::i.i i-,;i,..-,&t o....'...tA,...;;.s.-•.:,-..1A...:'.r•;;;,:-40....-,.e1,;,.1,.,',•.'..,/ A,,,,4Y,•.„0,,5.,,..,'"r A'4.
e.1.'r•..•Y••:we.'4-r:.-,'-.:...W..J r:e•!r:”.•i.i,:":"-..4'i•i.:':%,/,':,:1..;:,.;.'tp:'''.r A c•,:.:.'..w..„e. M-:.•:%•.:::.:;:.:r:',,,”.6.:;.•.,'•:...,::•:•:•:":::j•;,,:.•4,kp•*.e,,44,.:,•:c:::::4.4,:-t..:.:g.7,÷P•i4i.4•Ae ;
ALer A .1Qai , P114
$ - 11 " 4a"
.; i ,/.,•.•,.•.•k-(:...4._•?
, r l51 to 0 - . ' 1 ,,,:,.:,'.:tri o•-4
-.'-''','I.•,s'.;'',•'-:.$a.-•'7•'•L-x'-e••-t'.''-..'
'
. -•,
•
..
....(-3,•,,..:::::•••:..,feiWnii;:::::::::: e•• ,447-,,:+•:-:.,,: -Aii,, • ,•.I. tr./ •4:4:e,• :4!*„,.• •••:'• i. ••••::..:fr:',.- .et'i,
01 /. =.01..-4.47:7-%;t4:-,r..1,4:7::::::::: :::114,1tfitaiiii::::.. • ../.../.::::.i .sz.,, Aff.. .7,ir . - - , :::,,i:,9,.:,.,r. .7.0-0,,,-y,-;-4, •
•
3. .4.*e.,...yx7,-,7pttiliilinii.::::::i:::::::::::::::::: i ,. 40. ..:... :44. . 6, I- `v°'' '4./5",•.:::,:::"'4,:10:k:.. .• .'::1,;
. .
1 ...iv,.,,-,6,17,c...,-;...,::liv:iiii: ,:ii,,,Amor.,.,ili. 4:::„:,:::,.......::::: .:.:,,i:.$,:;,.;,..;,. . .,. ,,,,,,.,.....;,,,... 6.1....' .' .T•h•z...:.'•:•;;:.;.,:•:.:•,.:.,.iA: . '
•- LI -. - - ..1'. --• :: •:: Mr.• ° WI:::: Iff...rar ' ° 70.!%; i. ',.. .. t.- y'PIM*0/7 4,4,1t.'•!$:44*t:.
Cm - ..... ...................••• ................... .4
. „. ..". ......... .. ...................' k
I .. saa................ : .................1 - • ,,, .A.,.,. . , "",„.1 N;;.--.?.,::::-.,-.....oe'.ek,: .:-..o.i.n...1q4e,. .
,
,....,::::::::,:,::::::::::::::::,,,:,:::::::::::::„::::::::::„.:,.. ............ ,:.-.....:., , . , .: • ,,,,.s...„.. .„,„..,..::,,,,,,„ ,....„...,.
....„2._.. . . ,..: . .
. „.E.,:, •,. ..„.
7 =:::::i:i*Miiii:i;i:i*I:::.:.i:i:ii:;:;:i:1:;:i,': :Iiiiiiii..ii ltdi:::21.1..:...;::,,,•ilinr:11,,°, ' A)
0 ...(::::.;i;i:..ii:i:i**,:i;i:ii:;:;;;;;;;:fti;i:iiii:;:;;;:r..ii:;:iil,:'l'an...::***::::***----.% --- ' * C4uvi —-.... " ... - '.?•',:N,:•'. <2.
,„.
W :2110111.1111111.11 )r:it iimmiiili:::::::liiiiim:. 4, , 4i'1 sAsose .• 1
.m., . . •...... .
r:::M ••::::::•••••••:::::::::::::. ' . L '' ''. '. ' '9.'',/:. TA .4'''''''''''''
E.I.Ii:::1.;;FitAi:::,1111111.#111711:1111.14.-"eNNV e°•;',:.,;::41%(:.'1,4•:•'-:''.•:Iii:l.‘:.; .1...;1.' '' ,•:.em,,:i! e...
. :
::'"',::,i'.:A• '
....)."4\s‘
2 i W
....:.............:i......,,, ...17..:::............. kx.„, .....„,s'.s. -... c....... ,.... . ... ...„,,it.....,:e..„:„,......,4 0
\
: l' • • • i - r .11::::::•:.:•:•:•:.: ,'. 44.•
10‘" ,0•:10-.
— L —
%, •.il >,, .. ,,,-,..-- - ,.,4,.......i., r,k: •■*; :"..41:').
%.0' , .•..'4
`.:'....t..1: :•...A",'..,.. \;:.:...1:t.. :.:'..' ._..
• 01 -
NI:4i z,. .,.....Ve•P.;:::'; gm
.:::-1:•;,..r.• • ,,,.....,.$:. :::•:••
1 _
. •i \\\\ p .
.."':::' :',%.:4;'? ..• NZ, 0,0.7 .'i: a If -JE•
?"'" j I. •i 1 , \,' ,..5.....„/"..... 1 tie ,,,.::::;,. iff.:::::.,•,' 4,.. \ ,...1 -,r....ti
,;_r___,.. •, •,c.1, .t.a„. ..•• • .....), N'' ,./r.. ••••• ° •
i_,...,_/ 16 1 / ---.......,........ •..-----.... 0 K Ro ••• i:WM:.P, •■•.4 s:. •\ ?„.0 ,- q„
• (-----,
) C...,
'' 71a 1 -.-.,"N ...,3"'I ... . . .i,,i .,,,,r_ . .4v-:....-0. eeer \ e b • r /7*
• ,e; -.... ., t,i .ct.-: ;_,;., ..,e,: .
.....„ ,p.t.s..
• .1..._.:.-0 .
11. •• :,1-. 4,..,;;:";•.,4 =4,‘, ,s i- . . , . -....,
TIC:-.11.11.-311111 . MS 7/, /,', • :, •, c,, '. '\....4 t •.••••
&.-.. .ari _ _ . . .. RD• ' •/";.•/ , / ;•,,,'": ',, 44 ••rl..
- :IN) N°•,;,...z.k.,.,,-.- --It' - I./ALAI/N.
7 I •,...,:?..', i - • f..-.•
_._...
• • - •
• • • . • . -
. .
.• .
• Alternative #3 - Existing Comprehensive Framework Plan with Unified
Sewerage Agency Boundary 'back to drainage divide on the north and south.
' • . , •
, . .
Natural Resource - vacant buildable 249 acres/at one unit per ten acres =
25 units/at tree persons per unit = 75 persons.
• ,
Rural - vacant buildable 201 acres/at one unit per five acres = 40
1.715TTF/at three persons per unit = 120 persons.
Urban Intermediate - vacant buildable 1350 acres/at 60 percent Residential/
i-ts. per acre . 3726 units/at three persons per unit = 11,178
Total additional capacity 11,373 persons. .....,,„
137% of year 2000 projection (or 30% more than has been recommended
for Hillsboro. )
/
)
- ,
URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY /
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 -
URBAN INTERMEDIATE
0,�
°p SUBURBAN ` „j a+at
�'. RURAL 1 0 e -: r° 1._ ( ll in,
1 - `
!ro t. Ri rc. .� °
I n:� e n p.
y ,cw� / a /��. II
III -_:Yt 1it III H✓, , . //,' ,��/j��/�/7(((i ` ' ... '1 •'L:ND J
I $ { UOy AREA. •''jWf Y/a;0�/// / e ;poi`s M.i�TC .af fin�1,.5YiM:.P �� F,p .�e, I
I ...U� u�LIN�/CRY •• .. ,,,�,`1 e.A..,.. t1 ` '.•. Jf '6 ,: 1 _ MTV( re
•
• •.EN: m(�,� , `� n •4�31
.r ' .. J ,..,`.:-Wcwt « 14 •\.+ r//Tr«i�, • 1•,, �•(t" •'°R••1 , ' ✓ ::.af,?Y « «w ....!`s,_ m3"1J ♦ i!� ! `1111[y UL
7.� r.� �i.:w ;t': i' *.,; ,.itf 7 s . YF,F. F
�R' `t ru�J� /r v. s r a
M 3 h / r/df 5 <t f .4 w'4
p
F� v,, wit «i j/ i/` "��' / i;a?��/ .}•�'� � � x Y/ 4. .4 � LA.•\, ,. .1,e . `-i , �/ ✓,.•,'�' / r ! ‹/�r• +• y >;.' { 7 1 ! . -
ks Y' , . y WEN d Y j F / �I
_. 3 ,«« •.0',../....441 ,
.�HC a Fes. e! r fJ ,� / f/���./
•� t_.O, 1UIIS e O0geg•, .rA� 3 Q f /•. `.,,, 00-I • % /4.f.,� � L ''...•' �415_��15[�1S{p!!°gg80C°pp w `oo oo ,o��.�1�ppS°oo
NO , o 8o000 0000°040 opo I .xi r fi .:" "i �wo'o, r a ( /,, 4
W _. I- yo-�o 0 000°°ogo o°QO�> °Opp �.' "io/(�„ .a,•3t' o Mf,c a- ak/i /"/ :
-' O •'`r2Oo°0p 000°o .. 0 000,8o°; •• '-4••, r _ q 0,16%;
>• ' eI S7 `°,OO 0OO gg u o°o,,p� ,0g,l,ge 0 add , wt 1,05'4.%.*
t� q11:6.•0p 4. 000.0 00.'06'(., °0p: .lt P'. •�• t f' /fF **A.
,go �ooOOpO, { °po.002,&L77,0,0°E; N t .°u ° rt .� ... �i° .. ' s .0"dv&',
sip°d 00p°00°00 Op*00 p:00 00p 0Up OOQ la'• I, +s...•. I cso 0 000 op0 000 op° o� p "o°OO ° °°°O. l F' '44,. ���r ,. '< t
�°°'OO °o °o Oo I°o ° o°op°o Opo o� AD• v. i'~i'3"nEy'''Rr' c _`.
o °o °o op oa o,' 0 0 op °o b' p]f'
O0000°Ooo o°Ooh go. O i °Oo° opo° y� ,o°�� _ r �y//��� tiigi a
a'' �iAI■iI1fI1fl1� .o° °�oo°OOOp°OOO°Ooo°•°opopoo �: ,A NooavvJ F. �f' , q c3••• ..L\
r.j,.o oi oo°oo°o0 000 000 o.!"� KAest /, ;'• � /'�,,,
/ .� T .a o0 ooO °oo°o oo°000 opo°o - :6�• .'/ �3.�'/c 2% l' :4
K.- o 0 0 0
'°Otl000 o°OO°DO°OO.. .v...21 /' % / iqp/ ,. , A ,�S I:•? ` f - - — - • qo 000 000,O°,30.°o ., .+!,. 2i." ,.•,�!, ..� M
1 c.....„ �c «/ a y;, >�� <i
� 1 1,, s4F,�.. —.s !S/r I ¢*,J /. .' �' k •.�.� , , "JEA
/,.---...��'–` 01 •-.�� o l «y. ....:. ...\Q\'•.'0 '35/"�
�'' \ • HRH 17 ,�. o
{ i s A11 Tef_ yr"'« u}� Ct• pdP Sri
C—)`, • "� I /� o- ` /•`
•
Alternative #4 ^ Interim Development Policies (Citizen Recommendation) !
Rural - ' vacant buil.dable. land approximately 284 acres/at one unit
I
per 5 acres = 57 units/three persons per unit = 171 persons.
Urban Intermidiate - vacant buildable land approximately 217
acres/at 60 percent Residential/at 4.6 units per acre = 593/at I
three persons per unit = 1797 persons. f
Suburban - vacant buildable land approximately 1391 acres at 60
percent Residential/at a maximum density of 1.8 units per acre
1502 units/at three persons per unit = 4506.
Total additional capacity 6475 persons.
1264, of year 2000 projection (or 20% more than has been recommended
for Hillsboro. ) 1
10
6
DRAFT DISCUSSION
THE POSSIBILITY OF MORE STRINGENT CONTROLS ON GROWTH
The citizen advisory committee requested staff to look into the
question of whether expected growth w ou ld be desirable an d the leg al
,means of- reducing undesirable growth. The following general analysis.
was prepared: _
The best estimate of the expected population growth for the study
area envisions a doubling in the number of residents by the year 2000,
from 22,433 to 44,540. Approximately half of this increase (11,509) is
forecast to take place between 1975 and 1985, when the population will
have increased 50%, or about 5% per year. After 1985 the growth rate
1.5%odrin
will have declined to by 1 0 and then to less than l.� during
3% y 99 � � g
the last decade of the century. What will be the impact of such growth;
and if this rate of growth is undesirable, are there legal ways to
reduce it? This is the basic question that needs to be addressed in
fashioning an urban growth management plan.
GROWTH IMPACT
Residential growth has both positive and negative effects. On the
one hand, it provides new housing for an expanding regional population,
permits an increase .in the diversity, of goods and services available in . .
the community, and provides some local employment. However, it also
converts private open space (often in quasi-public use) from a semi-
natural condit_on into private structures and intensively used areas •
and puts increased demands on public facilities and- services, of which
streets and schools are especially noteworthy. To current .residents< -
of the area, residential growth often seems to have a generally negative
impact. They are usually most concerned about the over-use or over
crowding of public facilities and services. f
In order to assess the potential impact of future growth on the
Tigard area, a preliminary analysis was conducted focussing upon schools
and streets. These are the two public services/facilities where too
'11 ;''
rapid growth produces serious difficulties. Using CRAG population
. forecasts for this area (see above) and figures supplied by the Tigard
School District, it was estimated that each year until 1985 there would
be an additional 345 pupils (207 elementary and 138 junior high and
high school) or a total increase of 2763 by 1985 (1685 elementary, 1105
junior and senior high). To accommodate this increase will require the
. construction by 1985 of about 2-3 new elementary schools .(in addition
to that underway, now on Katherine Street), with a new senior high and
new junior high in advanced planning, under construction, or already
completed. This is within the range of what the Tigard School District
has already been expecting (for purposes of this analysis, boundary/
capacity problems between Tigard S.D. and Beaverton S.D. have been
ignored) .
Automobile traffic will also increase. Regional transportation
planning is being based on the same population forecasts as this
study, so that information is available on the expected traffic on major
streets. However, traffic on these routes consists of through traffic,
traffic to employment in the area, and other traffic besides that
generated by residents. Moreover, major facilities once planned for the
area will apparently not be built (eg. , Murray Blvd. extension) so that
the traffic forecasts need to be revised. Location of the adopted
1985 Immediate Growth Boundary will also effect traffic distribution.
A thorough study allowing for these and other factors would probably
require a computer analysis.
It is therefore not possible at this time to provide a detailed,
accurate projection of future traffic attributable to specific in-
creases in the number of residents. It is possible to say that at the
present time there are over 75,000 auto --trips in the study area every
weekday which are attributable to residents. Projected residential
growth will increase that figure another 35,000 by 1985. If population
growth between now and that year were exactly distributed within the
study area according to the amount of additional residential capacity
each portion contains, then residential traffic increases would vary
from less than 20% in Metzger and NPO #1 and NPO #2, to 33% in NPR? #3,
12
to 63% and 75% in NPO #6 and NPO #7, while more than doubling the cur-
rent amount• of residential traffic in NPO #5. This distribution prob-
ably, overstates the amount of increased residential traffic to be
expected in already developed parts of the study area, while under-
estimating future residential traffic in the more vacant parts (NPO's
3,5,6, and 7), since additional development is likely to proceed more .
quickly in- the latter. These estimates also, assume. that the .1985.
Immediate Growth toundary adopted by. the city and county would in-
elude the entire Tigard Detailed Plan area, when a "tighter" or very•
different boundary may be adopted.
OPTIMUM GROWTH
The city and county planning departments have assumed that the Tigard
area should be responsible for its "fair share" of the region' s ex-
pected growth, at least as a starting. point for development of a growth
management plan. The essence of state and regional policies in this
area seems to be that local planning cannot be allowed to severely
impact other communities. What this implies is that a growth manage-
ment plan which severely curtails otherwise expected growth is unaccept-
able to these larger-scale jurisdictions, unless other areas within the
region are willing to expand their growth rate correspondingly. In
other words, optimum growth for a particular community may be non-
optimal, or even detrimental, for the region as a whole.
Given an increase in regional population which public policy can
influence only slightly, additional:.housing capacity must be allocated
by either one of two basic approaches if a housing deficiency or
(conversely) urban, sprawl is to be avoided:
1.. Growth management plans of all communities accept their
"fair share" of housing; or
2. Divergence of each community's growth management plan
from its projected "fair share" is coordinated over the
entire region, so that the reductions in growth rate in
some areas is matched equally by expansion in the growth rate
elsewhere.
13
The county planning department is willing to coordinate matching
of "excess" and "deficient" growth plans for communities within the
county. However, such a balancing of community divergencies from ex-
pected growth should await analysis of growth rates and capacities for
every area as well as expressions of preferred rate of growth from
each of them. Completion of this work is still many months in the
future. .
The following staff analysis of the legal basis for growth controls
is subject to revision according to the opinion of an attorney, We have
been advised that an adequate legal analysis would .require . substantial re-
sources and time.
LEGAL MEANS OF REDUCING GROWTH
Legally successful methods of reducing residential growth have
previously been based upon elaborate rating systems gauging a development
proposal's impact on public facilities and services. In court challanges
these systems have been defended by reference to the intolerable burdens
on public facilities which would occur if "expected" growth rates were
._ allowed to prevail.
The preliminary analysis of expected growth impacts in Tigard in-
dicates that the degree of severity is probably within a reasonable
range of tolerance. If a court were to require a finding of intolerable .
burden on public facilities in order to justify a growth plan which
curtailed expected growth, then it would be difficult to make such a
finding at this time. In addition, the public facility- and trans-
.
portation planning for Tigard which is now underway will not be of
the scope or depth required to Support enactment of a Ramapo or
Petaluma type of growth control system. Local public investment in
such an analysis would probably be unrewarded: The conclusions are
unlikely to be• capable of legally sustaining a sophisticated growth
control system which reduces the growth rate significantly.
However, there may be a way of ensuring that the Tigard area does
not experience: more growth than its fair share. The draft growth
14
management plan as presented so far hinges on general policies and two
growth boundaries, one for 1985 and the other for the year 2000. In
the event that actual growth occurs at a faster rate than forecast, •
these boundaries and policies do not effectively deal with it, and may
in fact accommodate• it. If, for example, faster growth "consumes" '
available capacity by. 1981 instead of 1985', the tremendous pressure to
expand • the 1985 boundary will be difficult' for public officials to re-
sist. How can a relatively gradual pbpulation increase, only up to ,
the forecast total, be allowed up ?
we up to 1985.
A preliminary legal analysis suggests that a building permit quota
system geared to the "fair share" population forecast for the area
would be sustainable in court and would accomplish this objective. .
Major elements of the system would include:
1. Yearly quota issued monthly or quarterly.
2. Seasonal variations in the quota based on the typical con-
!' struction season.
3. Allowance for the cyclical nature of the housing industry
through carryover provisions for slow years and indexing
of the overall quotas to a regional barometer of the housing
market. .
4. Allowance for multi-family and moderate-cost units.
5. Emergency review and revision procedures.
6. Periodic review and revision procedures.
This quota system could also permit much more precise public
budgeting and programming --- ,planning for new school facilities, .
for example.
•
' 15
1