MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, August 3, 1999

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), David Bragdon (Vice Chair), Rod Park

Members Absent:  None

Also Present:    Bill Atherton, Rod Monroe, Ed Washington

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:35 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 20, 1999, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

No action.

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 99-812, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT MAP IN ORDINANCE 95-625A IN URBAN RESERVE AREA 65 IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

Chair McLain said the committee had heard a staff presentation on Ordinance No. 99-812 at its last meeting.

Chair McLain opened a public hearing.

Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton, read into the record a letter supporting Ordinance No. 99-812. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting record. He also delivered a letter from the Washington County Board of County Commissioners in support of Ordinance No. 99-812, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Councilor Bragdon said Mayor Drake had spoken in the past about the need for more housing in his area for people working at lower-income positions in companies such as Intel and Nike. He noted that the plan for Urban Reserve 65 included a provision that 20 percent of the housing would address that market niche. He asked Mayor Drake to comment on his community’s needs.

Mayor Drake said the City of Beaverton has supported achieving a jobs/housing balance and therefore supports Urban Reserve 65. He said that his interest in Metro’s Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC) was sincere, and that he had asked to serve on H-TAC both to represent the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and to make sure that the City of Beaverton was involved in H-TAC’s work. He said that he believed the plan for Urban Reserve 65 was a start in the right direction and that allocating 20 percent for affordable housing made sense.

Don Guthrie, Ryland Homes, spoke on the master plan, the developer, and the process. He said the plan for Urban Reserve 65 was not just another parcel approach to building homes in Portland. He said the master plan from the beginning adhered to the design principle that the livability of the land plan was as important as the homes being built. He said that has not always been the case for other projects in Portland, but it has been the case for his. He said the master plan offers planners the opportunity to see the larger view of the community’s livability . Mr. Guthrie submitted for the record a list of communities he had master-planned and developed in Portland, six of which received numerous awards. A copy of his testimony is included in the meeting record.

Mr. Guthrie said Ryland Homes had followed Metro’s guidelines and held numerous public hearings. He said the 2040 Growth Concept process should be applauded: it was tough but fair. He noted that Ryland Homes had submitted a complete concept plan for Urban Reserve 65 in December 1998. A copy of the concept plan is included in the 1998 Urban Reserve Boundary Amendment (URBA) Decision Record (record number CORR98/899). He said Ryland Homes’ work was thorough, and had received multiple endorsements. He said the site was unique in that it had many services and utilities nearby, including bus and light rail service. He noted that the Bethany area has led the Portland metro region in home sales for the past two or three years. He urged the committee to approve Ordinance No. 99-812.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon, testified in opposition to Ordinance No. 99-812. She submitted a letter that includes the information in her presentation. (The letter has been attached to the meeting record.) She requested that all of Metro’s supporting staff reports and information related to the Urban Growth Report be made part of the record, including the 1999 Residential Refill Study, 1999 Employment Density Study, capacity analysis of environmentally constrained lands, assessment of future street assumptions, vacant lands analysis, and all other relevant reports and data.

Councilor Monroe said he understood that the Metro Council had appealed the entire Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision. He asked legal counsel whether that was correct or whether it was as Ms. McCurdy had testified--that no party had appealed Urban Reserve Area 65.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, said that a reading of the 150-page LUBA decision and the 20 or 30 briefs filed in the Court of Appeals yield different opinions as to how much of which issues were covered. In Metro’s opinion, the LUBA decision erroneously remanded the entire Council action, including sections unrelated to the designation of urban reserves. He said the entire LUBA decision has been appealed, with more emphasis on some issues than others. However, the principles governing treatment of special lands were a core part of the appeal. Further, many of those issues had been raised by 1000 Friends of Oregon, because LUBA had agreed with Metro on many of the principles governing how to deal with specific land needs.

Mr. Shaw said there was an urban growth boundary (UGB) decision that went beyond the urban reserve appeal. He said it was an over-simplification to say that state law required land to be an urban reserve before it could come inside a UGB. The state statute actually said that urban reserves were a first priority, but if there was a specific land need in the words of the statute, rather than the specific, identified land need in the words of the urban reserve rule, then that showing could be made for a UGB amendment as well, and land that was not an urban reserve could be brought inside the UGB. In this case, he anticipated that the applicant would argue that this case represented a specific identified land need for the Beaverton regional center area, just as the St. Mary’s was a specific identified land need for the Hillsboro regional center area.

Councilor Monroe asked if Urban Reserve Area 65, still had urban reserve status.

Mr. Shaw said yes, until appeals were done.

Ms. McCurdy said that Mr. Shaw had referred to information he expected from the applicant regarding justification on jobs/housing balance; however, this was the last public hearing before the committee. She said she would have liked to see the applicant’s new information. Further, her testimony cited the page number in the LUBA opinion in which the justification for the farm land portion of Urban Reserve 65 was thrown out. That specific legal argument had not been appealed, had not been mentioned, and had not been referred to by any party before the Court of Appeals. She agreed with Mr. Shaw that everything was in limbo until the Court of Appeals made its ruling, but it had nothing on which to rule regarding the legal justification LUBA made for throwing it out. She said when this comes back to Metro after the Court of Appeals remand to LUBA and to Metro, there will be no urban reserve designation for the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) portion of Urban Reserve 65. She said 1000 Friends of Oregon had never challenged the rest of Urban Reserve 65.

Mr. Shaw disagreed. He said there had been an appeal of the LUBA decision at the Court of Appeals, and all the issues in the LUBA opinion, in one way or another, were covered by 30 briefs. Metro was waiting for the Court of Appeals.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Shaw about Ms. McCurdy’s statement that the urban reserve area, in its entirety, was intended to be planned, and a concept evaluated. According to Ms. McCurdy, to take a portion of the urban reserve would destroy the utility of the concept of planning for a larger area. He asked if there was anything in Metro’s rules stating that an urban reserve must be brought into the UGB in its entirety.

Mr. Shaw said no.

Councilor Park referred to a letter from Meg Fernekees, Portland Metro Area Regional Representative, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), regarding DLCD’s opposition of Ordinance No. 99-812. A copy of Ms. Fernekees’s letter is included in the meeting record. Councilor Park asked Mr. Shaw about Ms. Fernekees’s statement that Ordinance No. 99-812 was contrary to and inconsistent with the LUBA’s Urban Reserve decision.

Mr. Shaw said both he and Ms. McCurdy agreed with Ms. Fernekees’s statement. It was true that the 100 acres of land zoned EFU would be inconsistent with LUBA’s decision. He said he and Ms. McCurdy disagreed on what it meant that LUBA had made a decision. He said in his opinion, the LUBA decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the LUBA decision would not be in effect until the Court of Appeals had ruled. He said both he and Ms. McCurdy expect a remand by the Court of Appeals to LUBA for significant reworking of its decision.

Jeff Bachrach, Ryland Homes, said he was surprised by the letter from Ms. Fernekees. He said Ryland Homes recently met with Dick Benner, DLCD Director, who said DLCD would not oppose Ordinance No. 99-812. Mr. Bachrach responded to some of the questions raised by Ms. McCurdy about the urban reserves. He agreed with Mr. Shaw that all of the urban reserves were before the Court of Appeals, and it was not necessary to file a thirty-first legal brief. He said one of Metro’s key arguments to the Court of Appeals was that all of the urban reserve decisions should be affirmed.

Mr. Bachrach contested Ms. McCurdy’s statement that no legal analysis was provided. He quoted from the findings adopted by the Metro Council in December 1998, which stated that Metro found that “the findings demonstrate that the area 65 property proposed for the UGB expansion complies with all applicable state and Metro criteria for a legislative amendment of the boundary. The subject property has been considered for inclusion in the UGB, in part because it was previously designated as an urban reserve area. Nevertheless, as a precautionary matter, in order to assure compliance with all state law, these findings address all approval criteria that would be applicable, even if the subject property had not previously been designated as an urban reserve.” He concluded that Metro’s Office of General Counsel assured that the legal analysis and legal findings met UGB criteria in the absence of an urban reserve.

Mr. Bachrach responded to the statement that not all of UR 65 was in this UGB amendment. He repeated Mr. Shaw’s statement that nothing in Metro’s code prohibited Ryland Homes from coming forward with a portion of UR 65. What is more important, before Ryland Homes began this project a year ago with the city and the county, they had held many meetings with Metro staff, legal counsel, and Council members to make sure that everyone was comfortable with the first-phase approach. In closing, he said Ryland Homes’s project met Metro’s current code, and the code said UR 65 should have priority.

Greg Malinowski, Malinowski Farms, 13450 Northwest Springville Road, Portland, submitted for the record a number of photographs of current agricultural practices in UR 65. The photographs have been attached to the Council meeting record. He said that Fishback Nurseries had recently relocated, but it had become a million dollar business at its original location in UR 65. He gave examples of agricultural practices in UR 65 that did not generally require irrigation, such as clover seed, rye grass, and oak. He said there was EFU land several hundred acres to the west and to the north of Ryland Homes’s site, and he failed to see how those land would be protected if Metro cut off the wedge of agricultural land leading to them. He said there was room in UR 65 for agriculture to continue. He said that recently the City of Hillsboro chose not to rezone some of its industrial land for residential use along Cornelius Pass Road, so obviously Hillsboro did not believe there was a jobs/housing imbalance. He urged the committee to vote no on Ordinance No. 99-812.

Keith Fishback, 14605 Northwest Springville Road, Portland, said he recently relocated his nursery, because it used to lie inside the UGB. As the land around it developed, he was no longer able access it with large farm machinery. He noted that EFU designation did not mean high-level farm land, especially without the option of irrigation.

Mark Ellerbrook, West Oregon Nursery, 14515 Northwest Springville Road, Portland, said it was not practical for him to switch crops as Mr. Malinowski had suggested, because of the cost of new equipment. He said he had been forced out of his previous location, which had sufficient water. He said right now at his current location, he only had six more days of irrigation and backup supplies were extremely limited. He said his sales were 50 to 60 percent less than those at his previous location, because he could not support the same level of inventory due to the water shortage. He said if he could relocate to an area with sufficient water he would.

Councilor Park asked why Mr. Ellerbrook was not able to obtain more water in his area.

Mr. Ellerbrook said the ground water in the area was depleted. He had requested emergency water from the Tualatin Valley Water District and was waiting for a response. He said Tualatin Valley Water District was unlikely to grant his request because he was outside its district.

Councilor Bragdon asked Mr. Ellerbrook to elaborate on his comment that he was forced out of his former location.

Mr. Ellerbrook said he had been located on Saltzman Road until developments were built around him on three sides. He said common nursery practices, such as spraying herbicides, were not compatible with the increased traffic and the nearby school.

Chair McLain closed the public hearing.

Councilor Bragdon asked to discuss further Ms. Fernekees’s letter.

Chair McLain said Ms. Fernekees’s letter arrived at 1:00 that afternoon, and seemed to say that DLCD would like Metro to delay action on UR 65 until September, after the need assessment had been updated.

Mr. Shaw said he had no additional comments.

Councilor Bragdon said the legal aspects of the decision would be worked out eventually. In the meantime, however, he did not think the concept plan was irrelevant. He said the concept plan did represent the type of community that Metro wanted, such as inclusion of affordable housing, setting aside land for schools, and providing sewer hookups. He said he hoped the concept plan would translate into a benefit to the residents in the development and not just a bothersome exercise to please Metro. He said if the UGB were to be amended, which was not a given, this appeared to be an acceptable way. He said that the expansion of the UGB was still questionable. First, new analysis of future need would be coming to the Council in September, and Ordinance No. 99-812 seemed to be making an ad hoc decision without numerical support. However, the new numbers included a place-holder for environmentally constrained lands, and the apparent surplus could disappear. Second, although the concept plan addresses the treatment of natural resources, he was concerned that the surrounding jurisdictions might not share those sentiments. He recommended delaying consideration of Ordinance No. 99-812 until the Council received the new estimated need numbers and until it could see how the jurisdictions were going to deal with water quality and stream protection measures.

Councilor Park said he shared Councilor Bragdon’s sentiments. He said there was no perfect solution, as all around the UGB some people wanted to be brought inside, while others wanted to remain outside. He said he was looking at the question in terms of a credible, defensible process, and one of his concerns was treating people equally. He noted that the Urban Growth Report was still upcoming, and the Council still needed to hold a philosophical discussion about the relationship between the Metro jurisdictional boundary and the UGB, as to when to move the two boundaries. He said the jobs/housing balance was mentioned in relationship to Beaverton; he asked if staff had provided information on a sub-regional basis on that topic.

Chair McLain said the Ryland Homes’s concept plan included that information.

Councilor Park said Councilor Bragdon’s concerns about Title 3 and Goal 5 work were appropriate, because Metro did not yet know how the land would be protected. In conclusion, looking at the various areas on a sub-regional basis, he had not seen a willingness of the parties in those areas to agree on a workable way to balance jobs and housing. There had been a lot of discussion, but no agreement. He said he was not willing to move on Ordinance No. 99-812 today.

Chair McLain said the other committee members had raised three important points. First, Ryland Homes had followed the long, tedious process and done it right. She made a commitment as committee chair that the ordinance would not be sidelined; it would be brought forward and concluded in an appropriate way. She said the committee wished to wait to take action until September, when it would receive the final Urban Growth Report numbers. She said she would hold Ordinance No. 99-812 over until the next Growth Management Committee meeting in September, with possible committee action on September 21. Second, there had been questions about need assessment and the place-holder for environmentally sensitive lands. These should be considered in conjunction with Resolution No. 99-2820, which affirms Metro’s desire to protect streams inside the UGB. Third, there were many outstanding legal issues. She asked Mr. Shaw to elaborate on the difference between the urban reserve decision and the process for including acreage in the UGB, and to explain how Metro could expand the UGB before the Court of Appeals has acted on the urban reserve decision.

Mr. Shaw said there were two separate legal sources of Metro’s responsibilities. The urban reserve rule required Metro and others in the state to do 30 to 50 year planning for urban reserves. Since Metro was the first to complete its work and face appeal, it was a test case of the highest magnitude. Thus, the Court of Appeals had granted itself an unlimited extension from the statutory deadlines for finishing an opinion. There was a separate statutory duty, apart from the urban reserve requirement, for Metro to keep a 20-year supply of land inside the UGB. In 1998, 3,527 acres were brought into the UGB by ordinance, regardless of whether those lands are ultimately determined to be urban reserves in the Urban Reserve appeal.

Councilor Monroe said that this had been a long, frustrating process for many people. He thanked Mr. Guthrie and Ryland Homes, and said they had done everything the Council had asked of them. He said the plan they presented for UR 65 exceeded expectations in terms of meeting Metro’s 2040 guidelines. He said he respected the Growth Management Committee and the work it had done. He said he understood the Urban Growth Report would be available on September 7, and although he was ready to move forward on the ordinance, he understood that the committee preferred to wait until September. He said he expected final committee action no later than September 23, with Council action on September 30. He said because the delay would likely result in a stronger vote at Council, he preferred to wait.

Chair McLain held over Ordinance No. 98-812 until September for committee action.

Councilor Park said he was willing to move ahead to the September meetings but noted that he was not tied to the September 21 date if new issues arose.

Chair McLain said the committee would move the item to September, and then continue the committee process as appropriate. She said she would aim to meet Councilor Monroe’s request.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Shaw if the Council would be required under the special needs law to consider an expansion of the UGB if the overall need numbers from the Urban Growth Report were to show a surplus.

Mr. Shaw said the surplus in the numbers for the draft Urban Growth Report to date was merely a step in the process. If a number was given to the place-holder, then the place-holder plus the surplus led to a slight need number. The question for the Council was whether it was comfortable with the calculation of that place-holder, or whether it should wait for a better calculation to determine the net need. He said Councilor Park had asked if there had been a separate consideration of specific land need. He said there had been, in both the urban reserve decision and the urban growth boundary amendment decision. Even if the Council were to decide to use the place-holder and to leave the general need on hold until completion of the Goal 5 work, the Council could still consider whether there would be specific identified land need in areas with a jobs/housing imbalance.

Councilor Park said he was not certain how need could be established, given that some of lands in the place-holder might or might not ultimately be considered buildable.

Chair McLain said state law makes a provision for exceptions in the case of special need. Those cases would be reviewed as they come up. She said Metro code provides for locational adjustments to address individual cases that might be exceptions. She said that indicates to her it is possible to do a general need assessment with the understanding that special needs might need individual treatment. She said that comes up in discussions of regional and local industrial sanctuaries.

Councilor Bragdon agreed with Chair McLain’s proposal. He said his main interest was in fairness. He said he did not believe that having this drag on was fair to any parties. His other concern was for fairness to the Councilors who do not sit on the Growth Management Committee. He saw the committee’s role as not pre-empting the opportunity for other Councilors to vote on this issue. With respect to the need number, Councilor Bragdon said that amounted to a simple calculation. The need number was not the main issue; the main issue centered around whether Metro was moving to implement Goal 5 and Title 3. Those who are not moving in that direction are cause for concern. He said that did not apply to this applicant, who had done the right thing.

Chair McLain said Ordinance 99-812 would be back onto the agenda on September 7 and 21, 1999, with the expectation that Council would take action by the end of the month. She asked told those who might want more information to give Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, their names and phone numbers.

Mr. Shaw asked the Chair if she wished to extend the deadline for public comment.

Chair McLain said that although the requirement for two public hearings had been fulfilled, she would extend the deadline for written testimony to September 7, 1999.

Councilor Bragdon said the letter from the DLCD had just been received that day. He said Mr. Bachrach had alluded to the fact that perhaps the DLCD had a position different from what the letter states. He said the confusion should be resolved, as the DLCD’s position seemed clear.

Chair McLain said the Council would have a hearing on September 9, 1999. She said a September 7, deadline for written testimony would make that testimony available for the September 9, hearing.

Mr. Shaw said that if a public hearing was scheduled for September 9, then September 9, rather that September 7, should be the deadline for all testimony.

Councilor Monroe said a public hearing at the Council would most likely be held on September 30.

Chair McLain asked about the public notice.

Mr. Shaw suggested leaving the period for public testimony open until the Council holds its public hearing and takes action.

Chair McLain agreed and suggested a September 30 deadline.

Councilor Monroe said because the public notice stated a public hearing would be held on the September 9, it would be. Another hearing might also be held later.

[Editor’s Note: the deadline for receiving written testimony was not clear.]

3.  TUALATIN-VALLEY HIGHWAY AND URBAN RESERVE NO. 55; TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

Mr. Shaw said the purpose of this work session was to discuss a detailed report being prepared for Washington County updating and reviewing the transportation analysis done for the South Hillsboro Urban Reserve Plan. He said the study was still in progress and might be available for review on September 21. He said today’s discussion would summarize what has been done to date and focus on two concepts fundamental to the TV Highway.

He presented the contents of his memo to Chair McLain, dated July 22, 1999, regarding TV Highway (included in the agenda packet that is part of the meeting record.) He explained the reason for differences between the earlier (1998) Kittleson study and the more recent (1999) DKS study, of transportation issues the South Hillsboro Urban Reserve Plan.

He said Mr. Larrance’s appeal with LUBA was currently in formal mediation, and he explained that mediation has a specific meaning in this case. It does not mean hiring an outside mediator, but rather that discussions were underway to settle differences. He said the mediation was expected to take 90 days, but progress would be evaluated then to see if it should continue.

Mr. Shaw said the purpose of presenting the next two items was to provide background, especially for new Councilors. One item was Title 6, table 3. He said this was a key concept. He explained the transportation planning rule as being the LCDC’s interpretation of goals 11, 12, and 14, to better coordinate land use and transportation statewide. Fundamental to the transportation planning rule was to require transportation systems plans, which led to principles that have been made applicable during the past decade. The principle that most affects the 2040 Growth Concept is the one that calls for balancing land use and transportation. The 2040 Growth Concept requires local governments to increase density--to grow up rather than out. Metro had anticipated, when it wrote the functional plan in 1996, that some jurisdictions might use transportation issues as a means of avoiding density. Table 3 offers options to address that situation by using the concept of Levels of Service (LOS), graded A through F. This implies that if the transportation plan would hinder higher density in areas designated for that, then the LOS expectation can be adjusted downward to accept more congestion. Mr. Shaw said he understood how this might be an issue for people living in the area, but it provided a legal way of dealing with the conflict.

Chair McLain said MPAC and JPACT had discussed this issue in detail when the functional plan was being passed.

Mr. Shaw said he was explaining this for the benefit of the new Councilors, who had not heard those discussions. He added that when this passed, the legislature had not been through two sessions without funding transportation needs. He said Mike Hoglund was there to explain this further, because this concept would be part of the discussions about TV Highway and other hot spots in the RTP.

Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager, Transportation Department, addressed the concept of LOS and its connection with land use and transportation and explained why Metro offered different grades for LOS. He noted Mr. Larrance had referred to this as “dumbing down” the LOS.

Mr. Hoglund said LOS was not unique to Metro, but has been used by planners throughout the country since the 1960s. Back then, capacity exceeded demand, and planners worked to provide free flow of traffic at all times. Since then vehicles miles traveled (VMTs) have increased dramatically for many reasons, and highway building has not kept up. This has resulted in congestion. He said the original LOS standard would not be a practical goal today, it would cost too much and demand trade-offs from people they most likely would not be willing to make.

Mr. Hoglund said that at workshops, citizens had indicated a willingness to accept the current LOS, which is lower that LOS “D.” From this staff concluded that level of service “D” is higher than what people generally expect. Also, LOS has been oriented toward one hour of the day. Across the country planners have understood they need to spread the traffic out for more than an hour a day or use the available capacity in than an hour. Metro’s LOS uses a two-hour peak. Finally, the old LOS were the same for every place, whether in a suburb or central city. He said that did not make sense, given that people figure their travel differently depending on where they are and what other modes of transportation are available.

Mr. Hoglund summarized how those considerations were used to make the table. He said other parts of the country have begun using a system similar to this as a practical way of adjusting to modern realities and in light of what has been learned about commuter behavior--i.e., that if capacity is added, people will take advantage of it and quickly fill it up.

Chair McLain emphasized that the main purpose of the transportation system is to move people. The object is not to give up on that goal, but to use a number of different strategies to achieve it. One strategy is to build 10 freeway lanes and the other is to add less capacity but more alternatives. She said she wanted to make it clear that accepting a lower LOS did not mean giving up reasonable service; it meant not choosing the most expensive freeway option.

Mr. Hoglund said the plan, which is based on this group of 2040 options and land use concepts, would offer better accessibility. He said that although trips would be more congested, they would also be shorter, with more services available closer by more direct routes.

Chair McLain said she thought it was important to make it clear to people that although a lower LOS would produce more congestion over two hours, people would not be in their cars for two hours. Their individual trips would likely be much shorter.

Councilor Bragdon offered two critiques of the older LOS methodology. First, he said the old LOS measured only volume and speed of automobiles; it did not calculate sprawl and pollution. Second, in building to achieve a higher LOS, human behavior adjusts to drive the LOS back down. As capacity is created, it fills up as people take advantage of the added capacity. With regard to TV Highway, he asked whether limiting access to businesses along that route, similar to what has been on Powell Boulevard and on 99W in Sherwood, would address some of the issues.

Mr. Hoglund said he recognized that Mr. Larrance has spent a lot of time working on transportation issues in the TV Highway area and knew a lot about its history and issues.

Chair McLain said today’s workshop was not intended to be a debate; rather it was to be a forum for presenting the report so the new Councilors could review it.

Mr. Hoglund said regarding LOS, Title 6 addresses this issue by stating the goal of obtaining a better balance between land uses and LOS for automobiles. He said other modes are not ignored. There is an acceptable, preferred, and an ideal level. He said that if a jurisdiction opts for a higher LOS, it must consider the trade-offs in the system--i.e., what improvements done to one part of the system would do to other parts of the system. The object is to have decisions made in light of the balance and goals of the overall system.

Mr. Hoglund said the other item related to TV Highway has been discussed at JPACT and MPAC. He said RTP scenarios have been created for the entire region. Early on, when auto and strategic highway networks were being considered and auto travel was emphasized over other modes, TV Highway was assigned five lanes, with improvements on Highway 26 out to 185th. TV Highway broke down in that scenario. It was obvious that something needed to be done. It still loaded up when seven lanes were added in a model, with driveway access and speed limits adding to the problem. In the last round of modeling, access was limited similar to the way it has been on Highway 224 in Milwaukie. That indicated adequate performance, at least in the segment between Brookwood and Murray. However, in discussing this with Washington County, it seemed doubtful that this approach could be done. The current round of discussions with TPAC and JPACT suggested a compromise, with some access management. This would be accomplished as land uses change along the corridor. He said that relates somewhat to what Mr. Larrance envisioned.

Mr. Hoglund said TV Highway would have these problems regardless of what happened with Urban Reserve 55. He said the trips the Urban Reserve would add would be incidental to the traffic problems expected to accompany growth in that part of Washington County.

Larry Derr, Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth (CAIG), 53 Southwest Yamhill Street, Portland, thanked the committee for the opportunity to discuss the TV Highway. He said he agreed with Mr. Hoglund that LOS expectations appropriate for the 1960s would not necessarily be appropriate for today. However, he said there would be a point at which the public would not find the LOS acceptable. He said, for example, the LOS table does not show a level lower than “F.” Mr. Hoglund had indicated that level “F” did not mean gridlock. But he said there is no level “G,”. That means that “F” could mean gridlock as well as any other unacceptable level. He also said that historically and as recently as in the 1995 RTP, TV Highway has been shown as a through route from Forest Grove to Highway 217. He said the Framework Plan shows it as a through route, but designates it a “regional street” rather than a highway. The proposal now is to make it into a connector from Beaverton to Hillsboro only. He asked how people would be able to get through Beaverton and Hillsboro. He said TV Highway is all there is. He said the Westside Bypass, which would have taken pressure off the north/south traffic, was never built, and the Sunset Highway does not connect through those cities. He said he did not have any answers, but he questioned whether keeping traffic moving only between those two cities would solve the problem of regional movement.

Steve Larrance, CAIG, 20660 Southwest Kinnman Road, Aloha, said three minutes would not be enough time to discuss all the issues that needed to be discussed. He requested an appointment with each member of the committee to talk more at length.

Chair McLain said the purpose of this informational presentation was to bring Councilors up to speed who had not been present when those parts of the Regional Framework Plan or the Functional Plan were implemented. She offered to make time for more lengthy discussions; however, she thought because Mr. Larrance and Metro were still in mediation, it might be best to wait until after that. She said this would not be the only opportunity he would have to express his views. She invited him to continue, and because she had interrupted him, asked that the clock be re-started at zero.

Mr. Larrance said he thought it was most important to find solutions that are doable. He said the DKS study is highly technical, but he expected it would show that Metro was adding a large chunk of new urbanization in an area that is currently under-served. He thought that was key. He asked if regional planning has really existed if it has led to those types of decisions. He said that in the 20 years of regional planning, the planner’s toolbox has grown. He wondered why it had not been opened to find out where to expand the boundary. He said that was what the DKS study would show. He said he knew TV Highway and other nearby roads would fail with or without the project. But he asked why add more in an area that is already under-served. He said the RTP updates put forth wish lists, whereas the DKS study talks about existing resources. He reiterated that the staff proposal to put an expressway “from nowhere to nowhere,” between Brookwood and Murray, shows that capacity exists at the site but with nowhere to go. He said it would be six-mile-long expressway, with traffic moving so slowly at the end it might as well be a wreck. He thought TV Highway should continue as a through route. He said the expressway would not transport people to Highway 217. He recalled that when the Westside Bypass was done away with, the reasoning was that people could get to Highway 217 via TV Highway. Under the proposed scenario, once people get to Murray, they cannot get to Highway 217. He closed by saying that back in 1984 when the access management plan was worked out, hundreds of access points were removed or consolidated. He said access has been limited for 17 years, so that option did not exist anymore. He said less drastic options would not do the job.

Chair McLain said the issues were still being discussed, so Mr. Larrance’s comments would still be important. She said that just as people would not be willing to accept a particularly low LOS, they also would not be willing to accept a lot more lanes.

Mr. Hoglund said the TV Highway would be difficult. He said that models show problems at the end, as Mr. Larrance had pointed out. He said a detailed corridor study would be needed to determine what to do at the end of the corridor.

Chair McLain said that the Urban Reserve is a 30-year land use plan, which would allow time to do some of the needed studies.

6.  METRO CODE UPDATE

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, said another draft has been released to the working group on the status of the Metro Code regarding provisions for the urban growth boundary and Urban Reserve planning. The final edits on the draft should be done soon. He asked the Chair’s permission to go ahead and put the draft into ordinance format so it could go to the Council for a first reading and so the DLCD could be given its 45-day notice, as part of the process for moving the Urban Growth Boundary. The ordinance would then go to MPAC and back to the committee for public hearings. He said the ordinance would not be done, but it would be close.

Chair McLain agreed to the process. She pointed out to Councilors Park and Bragdon that it would be important to have the Metro Code completed or nearly completed before the Urban Growth Boundary amendment process begins. She said she thought this could be on the MPAC agenda for August 25, 1999.

Councilor Park asked for clarification of the timeline. Chair McLain said the clock would begin its 45-day countdown upon notification.

Mr. Cooper said state law requires DLCD to have a minimum of 45 days’ notice of the earliest possible adoption date of the ordinance. Notice by the end of this week would mean Council could not take action until the middle of September. Action need not necessarily be taken then, but that would be the earliest it could be.

Councilor Park said he was concerned because he would not be at Council on September 23, although he could attend by telephone.

Chair McLain told Mr. Cooper the committee was formally requesting that he proceed with preparation of the ordinance.

4.  URBAN GROWTH REPORT

Chair McLain said that no action would be taken on this. She said the committee and the Presiding Officer would like to receive the report on September 7, 1999. She asked if Mr. Turpel had any comments at this time. Mr. Turpel said no.

Chair McLain told the committee and the staff that there are two reports on industrial activities--the Industrial Land Study, which would be presented by the Port of Portland at the World Trade Center, and a study by the Westside Economic Alliance. She said the Port’s study would be taken to MPAC and brought back to the committee. She said from what she had seen, that report agrees with much of Metro’s information. She said Betty Atteberry had been reviewing the Westside Economic Alliance’s report. That report should be released at the end of August and ready for public hearing in September. Ms. Atteberry has been asked bring relevant parts of that report before this committee and before Council for public testimony.

Mr. Turpel said the draft memo contained an error. He said under the “Time Horizon,” it should say“...one MTAC member asked why the calculations were not done on the basis of the years 1999 to 2019.”

Councilor Park asked about the impact of voter-approved annexation. He asked if this would effectively reduce the amount of land considered available. He asked what the difference would be between a large block of land an individual could choose to develop versus the same size block that the voters could decide whether or not to annex.

Mr. Turpel said once a piece has been brought inside the boundary, it is urbanizable. It might not be ready for immediately development if services were not available. The question was, how much of the total 20-year land inventory lies inside the boundary but has no services available. If all of the land is urbanizable but not serviceable, there is a problem. Mr. Turpel said that is not necessarily a problem, but it could be and should serve as a caution.

Mr. Shaw said the issue is whether the land is serviceable by a city. The annexation issue implies a presumption in favor of having services provided by a full-service city. However, having urbanizable land blocked by the voters of a city does not mean that the land could not be developed in some other way; it just would not be in the presumed favored way. He said that situation had not arisen in any of the situations that have been voted on so far, but it could.

Councilor Park asked whether most of the annexation votes had been in the affirmative.

Mr. Shaw said in the smaller towns they had been. In the larger ones they had not necessarily been. He was not certain how that worked out in terms of acreage.

Councilor Park said this appeared to be a state problem beyond Metro’s control and asked by it was being addressed here.

Mr. Shaw said it anticipated addressing the 20-year land supply in terms of whether the potentially urbanizable land was actually urbanizable, or whether city voters might deny services through denying annexation.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Shaw about the time horizon in the Growth Report. In term of the unfunded mandate provisions of state law, he asked if there was a time definition where the state would need to reimburse Metro for its work. He asked if there was any time limit when the state mandate would come into play.

Mr. Shaw said that so far, no way had been found to make that law applicable. He said it had not been tested with regard to this issue, but he expected it would meet the same result.

5.  PERFORMANCE MEASURES UPDATE

Mr. Turpel said both state law and Metro code require development of performance measures. He presented the four main conclusions reached by MTAC and concurred with by MPAC. (These conclusions can be found in the agenda packet, which is part of the meeting record.)

Chair McLain called attention to the agenda packet, which contains more details. She said performance measurements are academic and it is difficult to establish them. She asked the committee to provide staff with direction on what to do next and to help determine how much the budget can stand to fund.

Mr. Turpel said the staff would emulate the federal reserve in trying to identify and utilize key indicators. He said if he committee was comfortable with the basic four points, then a resolution could be drafted to take to Council based on those four points.

Councilor Atherton asked if roadway noise and air quality standards had been considered. Mr. Turpel said most of the discussions had focused on land. One recommendation was to broaden out to considerations to include those such as noise. He said that could be discussed in a workshop setting.

Chair McLain said Mr. Turpel had the committee’s approval to proceed with legislation for consideration around the end of September.

7.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Park said he had discussed the budget with the Department of Agriculture, and it had said it would like to make a presentation to either this committee or the full Council on the economic value of agriculture in the Portland region.

Chair McLain suggested Councilor Park work with Mr. Morrissey and the Presiding Officer to find a Council date at which public testimony could be taken.

Councilor Atherton brought up an issue in the Urban Growth Report on future streets. He said 18.5% was devoted to streets, which would undoubtedly be in impervious surfaces. He asked how that fit with recent studies that have been done in the Puget Sound area that suggest that when impervious surface area exceeds 10%, the water runoff flashes and injures fish. He asked what plan Metro had to reconcile that.

Mr. Turpel said the 18.5% measurement was of all single-family residential subdivisions during 1997-1998. It is the most recent data of what has actually happened. He said the measurement included the entire right of way, all of which might not be impervious. For example, it might include the parking strip. He said other types of areas--e.g., industrial and office areas, had not been studied. He said some anecdotal evidence suggests that the actual amount might be less than 18.5%. The measurement was too small to be statistically significant. Hillsboro, for example, had only 9% for one small area. He said more analysis would be needed to determine the true figure. He said the ESA listings might require further actions of Metro and local jurisdictions with regard to reducing impervious surface area.

Councilor Park said Councilor Atherton’s concern might be being addressed by current development standards that require storm-water holding ponds to control the velocity of water release.

Mr. Turpel agreed.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:55 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\grwthmgt\08039gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1999

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