MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, July 12, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Monroe (Chair), Jon Kvistad (Vice Chair) and Susan McLain

Members Absent:

Also Present:    Bill Atherton, David Bragdon and Rod Park

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 22, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 00-869A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE 2000 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96-647C AND ORDINANCE NO. 97-715B.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2969A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE 2000 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS THE FEDERAL METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager, suggested the department describe a new item that had been developed plus three other discussion items, identified by TPAC (Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee), that would be considered by JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) tomorrow. The department wanted the committee to understand those items and be able to provide input for JPACT.

Councilor McLain asked if the discussion items would include the issue the committee talked about earlier informally.

Mr. Hoglund no because it developed today.

Councilor McLain requested that Mr. Hoglund add the issue to the end of his list of items to be discussed.

Mr. Hoglund said yes. If the issue was discussed at MPAC (Metro Policy Advisory Committee) tonight (as he assumed it would) it would probably be discussed at JPACT tomorrow.

Tom Kloster, Transportation Program Supervisor, mentioned the JPACT process and said they were TPAC’s recommended discussion items. The JPACT could add whatever items they wanted. The issue was probably the first item they would add. He referred to the handout TPAC Recommendations on RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) Public Comments. (A copy of this document was included in the record.)

Mr. Hoglund said the department meet with ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) this morning to discuss the work performed to develop findings to expand the study area for the Interstate 5 and 99W connector. The ODOT had money allocated by the legislature to examine feasible alternatives in the corridor. They were ready to start that process. Andy Cotugno, Dave Williams and Jeff Keyser, ODOT Environmental Manager, attended. The emphasis of the discussion was how the department and ODOT would evaluate urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions (where to add urban land) in the area, relative to the location of the alternatives. The general approach would be a two pronged effort. The first decision is to identify two or three viable 400-foot corridors where there might be a connector and then use that information as part of the determination of the need for urban land in the area and identification of the parcels of land that might be included. There would be information regarding where the road would most likely be in two or three locations so they could piece together and calculate the acreage that would be necessary to meet the Senate Bill requirements for 20-year growth. Then the public outreach process on both the best corridor location for the road and the urban reserve additions would be completed in conjunction as one.

Councilor McLain discussed the connection. Within Metro there was a productivity study of exception lands. So when he mentioned combining or integrating he was referring to that study. There was some coordination already between the department and the people who started that process.

Mr. Hoglund agreed that it was integrated with the Metro productivity study.

Mr. Kloster said in that particular area all the department modeled was a simple connection that started south of Tualatin on I-5 and south of Sherwood on 99/W. That corridor between Wilsonville and Taulatin was approximately one mile wide (the area between the UGB areas). On the Sherwood side the foot of Parrot Mountain was steep south of Sherwood and the UGB, and was approximately a half-mile wide. So it was about as wide a practical area in terms of a corridor that the department had identified in their findings. However, it was not defined enough to discuss parcel specific UGB additions without a more detailed alignment because it was a big piece of land.

Councilor Kvistad asked if the handout contained the additional changes the committee/Metro Council wanted to include in the RTP. He asked who Tom Authenthie was.

Mr. Kloster said he was a resident of Sherwood who served on a Metro Council committee in Sherwood that analyzed both UGB expansion and the alignment of the connector.

Councilor Kvistad said he would not support TPAC Recommendation on Comment 1 at the JPACT meeting tomorrow.

Chair Monroe said the last time he talked to the mayor of Sherwood regarding the issue the mayor seemed to favor the southern alignment that extended past Sherwood to the south and the Day Road prison site and connected to north Wilsonville. He asked if that was still a viable route.

Mr. Kloster said it was within the area that the department planned to make exceptions findings on in the RTP adoption. They planned to make findings that say it was necessary for the department to examine that corridor. From a transportation standpoint, the concern was that if Metro expanded the UGB and it developed quickly, it could preclude getting the connection through the area with less disruption than the current route that extended through the existing city. That was the main issue. By connecting the two, Metro could conceivably use it as a hard edge, but there were many unanswered questions about that plan. There were railroads that extended south to farm areas that would have to be connected to the urban system. The main point was the corridor itself was currently wide. Therefore, it was not defined enough to be used as a line. It was more of an area instead.

Chair Monroe said the acquisition of the right of way for the agreed upon corridor would be less expensive if the area was not yet included in the UGB.

Mr. Kloster said that was part of the issue. Another part was that now the growth concept was a line that followed just slightly inside the UGB. The department calculated the number of buildings that would have to be removed to install the new facility. It was unreasonable. There was juxtaposition between trying to keep it inside the urban area versus putting it outside the UGB. The department also calculated the number of acquisition sites Metro had from the park bonds measure and also the National Wildlife Refuge. There was a lot of environmental impact potential out there. It involved balancing the two issues. The main issue the department experienced was the corridor itself was very wide on the I-5 end. The region could connect anywhere between Tualatin and Wilsonville (a mile of I-5). It did not allow the department to analyze expanding the UGB there with much knowledge of where the alignment currently is. They would have to take the next step to pick what would be considered a reasonable spot for the alignment. That was what ODOT said they could offer: some conceptual alignments that at least would be more than what the department currently had.

Mr. Hoglund said it was less expensive for the right of way, which was a positive coincidence. The department could not use that as a finding of fact for the goal exception. It would have to be written according to the fact that there was not a feasible alternative inside the urban area. The department had not categorically done enough work to make that determination yet. Therefore, it was expanding the corridor. When ODOT did their alternatives analysis they would still be examining how to find an alternative inside the UGB to avoid impacts from outside the UGB. However, outside the UGB Mr. Kloster raised some issues. The mapping completed showed that the alignment would not hit the wildlife refuge or the Tonkin scablands, which was good news. There was one piece of EFU land next to the UGB that could affect the alignment, which would be the big hurdle.

Mr. Hoglund described Comment 2 in the TPAC recommendations handout.

Chair McLain asked if the four issues were new ideas or subject areas, or were they things the committee/Metro Council had done either in part. The five-year process certainly did not refuse to analyze all the issues. She asked if the department was talking about an update, putting an edge on it, products that would be created to build a certain level of infrastructure for the 2040 Plan or some type of combined, updated report on the economic status of the region due to the condition of the roads. He was also discussing moving forward with the RTP in its present state on schedule.

Mr. Hoglund said the department proposed to move forward with adoption of the RTP with the understanding that they engage the business community and others to address the four points.

Mr. Kloster said the issue was discussed at TPAC for almost an hour. The concern was that the TPAC members would shut down the Washington County representative that was present. Instead, they had a healthy discussion. The issues were also discussed at MTAC. The main concern they had from a technical level was the plan was so fluid and how to discuss items that were not concrete. They also cited the fact it was updated regularly. The main reaction was to adopt the RTP because the region had to stop moving before it could have a meaningful discussion about how to handle the transportation issues.

Mr. Hoglund said the hard part tomorrow morning would be to explain how the region would finesse the issue. He talked to Washington County staff today. The coordinating committee said it would retain its recommendation to delay adoption of the RTP for six months. They reached the decision, in part, because they had not had an opportunity to provide feedback to the business group with the position they might want to follow. Therefore, the staff did not feel comfortable enough to change their recommendation, at this point. There was a contingent that

planned to meet with them that included the Metro Executive Officer and possibly the Presiding Officer on July 25, 2000. That was an opportunity for further discussion of the issue.

Councilor Kvistad said he addressed Roy Rogers and the other Washington County representatives regarding their position. The representatives were fairly adamant about retaining their current recommendation. He would find out tomorrow how they felt about the issue. He hoped they would be willing to consider the compromise, which he favored. However, it depended on how flexible Mr. Rogers would be. He asked the status of the Highway 217 study for Washington County. That might determine if Mr. Rogers would help.

Mr. Hoglund said it would happen soon and the department wanted to partner with Washington County.

Councilor Kvistad said Metro should receive cooperation tomorrow at the JPACT meeting.

Councilor McLain commended TPAC for a job well done. They did not discount anything Washington County said. They indicated that Metro had to have a non-moving target before the agency could address some of the questions they wanted answered. She supported that.

Councilor Kvistad said there were several levels to what Washington County wanted. Many of them were visible on the surface but others were not. The issues that were not were tough to address.

Councilor McLain said some of the issues were cloaked. She mentioned as part of the issue Comment 2, and the 2040 Growth Plan and the inability to afford the infrastructure to achieve that goal. It was a very important question. She agreed with Mr. Hoglund that the agency’s productivity and analysis of the exception lands, etc., had to be integrated with the questions and the process. They had not backed away from that. They had tried to get representatives to commit to the goal. She believed the representatives wanted Metro to reassess the goal. That was fine. The TPAC and others needed to handle the reassessment and identify an alternative.

Councilor Kvistad said TPAC was more advisory and technical. The fighting tomorrow would be over the policy issues. The question was what the policy makers would support and what exactly Washington County wanted. Washington County wanted to accomplish more than just a delay. He could not get them to tell him exactly what they wanted. The representatives where not willing to say. This concerned him because achieving a balance would be tough without understanding everyone’s agenda. However, he planned to find out tomorrow.

Councilor McLain agreed. For her, the issue was the connection between the RTP and the review of UGB issues. That was the nexus in terms of do-ability for either system. Either the land-use system or the transportation system, it had to be a combined review effort. Her point was that Metro would be re-engaging the policy makers at MPAC, etc. on the 2040 Growth Plan working and the alternatives. They were doing that with the reconnection to 2040 as a growth concept without urban reserves and with new revised and reviewed study areas. That was how the region would connect, integrate and negotiate with business interests, which was very important. She supported staff and the report they provided, and said it was thorough for TPAC. She said Councilor Kvistad and the Metro Council had a role to play and should provide leadership and balance out the JPACT process. It was not just what Washington County wanted. Instead, it was what was good for Washington County and the rest of the region.

Mr. Kloster said TPAC specifically asked that the four bullets be quoted from the letter Metro received from the Westside Alliance. The MTAC rebutted some of the points. The MTAC feedback will be available to MPAC tonight. The TPAC started to do the same but realized it would take all day to agree. He agreed with Councilor Kvistad that Washington County’s concerns included more than transportation issues.

Councilor Bragdon shared the confusion but cited it as a reason to support the TPAC recommendation to continue the conversation. They were concerned about the financing but also advocated not asking for more money. He cited the 2040 question and the inability to afford the necessary infrastructure. There were alternatives to 2040. He asked if the department had records of the infrastructure costs associated with the alternatives to 2040.

Mr. Hoglund said the information could be located but it might not include costs. They examined performance indicators. He remembered the need to add more lane miles of highway and arterioles, and the resulting vehicle hours of delay and congestion were greater for the alternatives to 2040. The level of service did include costs. In order to maintain level of service D (1964 at the end of the interstate highway system building period) in 1996 dollars was $13 billion. Now it would be $14 billion or $15 billion. The 2040 concept was $7 billion.

Councilor Bragdon said the implication of Comment 2, Point 2 was that the region could not afford to achieve 2040 so instead the region should achieve “X,” which probably costs more.

Mr. Hoglund said the representatives agree with the plan individually. But they may not be familiar with Cedar Mill or other plans. They wanted more time to gather and distribute materials to bolster their understanding of the process. He agreed the department should be providing more of those materials. The head representatives may understand the process, but lower-level planners, activists, community residents and employees may not.

Councilor Kvistad said it was the first step by Washington County to opt out of being a regional partner in transportation issues. They would not say it. But their actions were a clear signal with this issue. They had signaled clearly and personally to him, Councilor McLain and others that they were done. They wanted a delay because Metro was not doing what Washington County wanted and they had problems with some of the redevelopment centers. Washington County approached the business community and said they could do the transportation planning themselves. He said the agency would see what happened during the next few months. There would be a discussion of Washington County opting out of regionalism.

Mr. Kloster described Comment 3 in the TPAC recommendations handout. He referred to the handout TPAC Recommendations for Revisions to the Draft RTP, Proposed Discussion Items. (A copy of this document was included in the record.)

Mr. Hoglund described Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Draft Amendment, Titles 2 and 10. (A copy of this document was included in the record.) (There was an informal discussion of this topic in the council chamber before the committee meeting.)

Councilor McLain was not concerned that counting should be easier for the department or that ratios worked for a 10 percent cut of overall parking to meet the state rule. Instead, she was concerned about how it affected Metro regarding their other documents, goals and ways they planned to use the work. She was still unconvinced and considered it ridiculous. The local cities and counties had to report to Metro regarding a number elements of the functional plan, not just Goal 1, Title 1, Title 2 or Title 3. They had to report regarding how they managed to satisfy the Functional Plan. She did not think it would tip the scale on having to count parking spaces. There were many ways to make that happen easily with a permit and development process that included discussions with people regarding ratios, etc. She did not understand how reporting one little detail to Metro would tip the scale. That was the first issue. The second issue was she did not improved Metro’s work or inventory. She cited the Title 3 issue where Washington County and USA were performing a very thorough inventory of their streams, which was expensive and time consuming. But the only way to achieve flexibility from Metro in those programs in the Functional Plan was to know what they had. They understood that theory and were doing the inventory in that and other areas. She asked why parking space counting was so different from a stream inventory. She said parking space counting was much easier than moving water. The

third issue was that she wanted Larry Shaw to have as much information as possible to demonstrate how Metro was doing a better job of using land within the UGB based on

spectacular findings. An inventory of parking spaces would be much better than a ratio of parking spaces. It would be a more precise tool (a specific number and inventory). A ratio might be easy but it would not provide the necessary information.

Mr. Hoglund mentioned the analogy to streams and said stream quality and protecting endangered species was much more important.

Councilor McLain asked where he lived.

Mr. Hoglund said in Irvington, a culvert area in Northeast Portland. He said it was never an issue that was debated that the local governments were concerned about or would sacrifice for. He agreed with Councilor McLain that the information was in a database and calculating the total number of parking spaces was fairly easy. Whether or not the jurisdictions would care he was not sure. The city of Portland suggested doing just the ratios and not worrying about all the data and information. Instead, they wanted to use the time and money more efficiently doing other things. Therefore, it was a matter of resources and tracking in determining whether or not it was necessary to know every parking space or, instead, know the general trend was going up or down. They considered there might be other county strategies (sampling, sample monitoring, performance measures to track spaces in Title 9, etc.), but the issue just surfaced. Therefore, the department had not determined the single best strategy.

Councilor McLain said the only other issue was the language would be strengthened with maximum and minimum numbers, not just ratios. Metro talked to MPAC for at least a year regarding the issue and the scenario produced from minimums and how it differed from what resulted from maximums. She said both of the numbers were very important for dealing with both the state transportation planning rule and better use of land within the UGB. It was a controversial issue at that level, at that time at MPAC. They discussed all the issues Mr. Hoglund mentioned and the issue passed review. She did not understand how the issue reached the point of a staff recommendation concerning something that was very important. Without the reporting, the emphasis on maximums and minimums is reduced to a ratio, which would change the entire context.

Mr. Hoglund said the Title 2 table that calls for maximums for the various types of land uses was still included in the plan. Plus those maximums had to be included in the code and the final occupancy permits local governments provided to developers would have to demonstrate they did not exceed those ratios. It was all part of the development process.

Councilor McLain said talk about ratios and averages diluted the message of a need for maximum and minimum numbers for parking spaces.

Mr. Hoglund said it was more than a staff recommendation. The language and approach was adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) with Gussie McRobert on that commission. The previous council provided a letter of comment on that issue as well.

Mr. Hoglund added another point that concerned counting spaces. He was a former city of Portland planner who was responsible for the downtown parking inventory. The process was a lot harder than described by Councilor McLain. He cited gravel lots, other ad-hoc parking areas, and constant restriping and reconfiguring that existed throughout the city. Plus lawns and other areas often accommodated parking. All these elements made maintaining the denominator (the original number in the base case) of the inventory very difficult. He added that much of the inventory was typically taken from aerial photos. Therefore, the margin of error was approximately 10,000. It was hard to track the ratios.

Councilor Atherton mentioned 3.07.220 – Performance Standard D. He asked if Mr. Hoglund proposed that as a rule or was it a GIP (good idea, perhaps).

Mr. Hoglund said the language was specifically taken verbatim from the state Transportation Planning Rule.

Councilor Atherton said it was somewhat offensive. It was not the regional role to tell cities to do that. The neighborhoods could make that decision and they already had that power. Metro did not have to tell them they are required to provide for residential parking districts. They know how to do that for neighborhood protection. It had nothing to do with limiting parking spaces in commercial areas.

Mr. Hoglund believed it was one of the end-of-the-rule-making decisions by LCDC regarding parking districts. The LCDC created some language in the rule to allow for mitigation. It was now a requirement in the Metro and local TSPs. However, the issue could probably be revisited the next time they revisited the rule in approximately three years.

Mr. Kloster said there was an advantage to include it because it was in the rule and applied to cities, counties and metropolitan planning areas. If Metro left it out the local jurisdictions would have to contend with the issue. By putting it in the Metro plan, the agency could establish blanket consistency for all the local plans in the region regarding this requirement. Then it would be Metro’s burden, not a burden for the local regional governments. It was an odd requirement but a good idea. It did not require them to designate districts but to simply include a mechanism in their plan or code to allow a neighborhood to create them. The state did not have a definition, therefore the department created one (that was currently used in Goose Hollow).

Mr. Hoglund said it was a discussion for MPAC, Councilor McLain and JPACT members to consider. Andy Cotugno was aware this issue would be presented to MPAC. It was more an issue for the local governments if they agree philosophically and want to include it. At least one jurisdiction planned to discuss this issue.

Councilor McLain said someone mentioned to Mr. Hoglund it would be easier not to count parking spaces so he carried the message to the state government. He requested the state include the language to make the count easier. Therefore, he did care about the issue. She also cared about the issue.

Councilor Park asked if Mr. Hoglund had written any additional language that would change the compliance in Title 9.

Mr. Hoglund said no and mentioned performance measures that would be used to monitor several indicators of how well the Functional Plan was working.

Councilor Park asked if the language was deleted he planned to request that the issue be discussed by the Metro Growth Management Committee to examine the compliance piece that he suggested putting back in the plan.

Mr. Hoglund said the agency would still have to count the parking spaces. He was not sure sampling would work. It might.

Mr. Kloster said the planner who performed the work retired. The parking study performed a few years ago included a test sampling that in some ways was predictable and worked. The process was difficult in emerging parts of the region with a lot of vacant employment land that allowed all manner of commercial activity, which could skew the results. It was predictable when examining restriping and redevelopment. From the aerial photos it was not possible to see the lines of a lot of some of the parking lots. Most of the lots did not have lines, just approximations. The analysis

was difficult on older development. Therefore, it made more sense to consider sampling, instead, to compensate for lots that hadn’t been striped for years.

Mr. Hoglund suggested they might want to include it for now and if a better way to do things developed with different objectives they could eliminate it later. It would probably be more difficult to eliminate it now and add it later.

PUBLIC HEARING

Don Baack, 6495 SW Burlingame Pl., Portland, was very involved with trails and transportation issues in Southwest Portland. He chaired the Sweeney Transportation and Trails committees and was very involved in the Southwest Community Plan. He talked about the pedestrian and bicycle perspective from a regional point of view. He invited the committee to review the bicycle map of the region, which was not bad for people travelling around the region by bicycle. There were a few pieces that had problems but he agreed with the other 99 percent. He would give the map to visitor to Portland and they could find their way around the region with a few problems. However, the pedestrian trails were another issue. If he told his neighbors to travel to the McAdam from his residence without drawing them a map they could not get there. He cited a regional greenways map with dotted lines that represented pedestrian ways and greenways. Finally, he mentioned the regional pedestrian map in the RTP. He said nobody in Southwest Portland would use the pedestrian pathways (mainly the main streets) unless they had to. Therefore, he asked what Metro was trying to accomplish as transportation related to pedestrians and the greenways. He believed that the strategy was to protect funding so anything they called greenways they had to do within the greenways environment. He did not care whose money was involved. He wanted to be able to walk around the region and be able to give out-of-town visitors maps of segments of the region that would show them how to walk the region. His dream for the trails in Southwest Portland was to have maps produced by the local governments. He asked that Metro, in conjunction with Tri-Met and the local jurisdictions, produce a thinking approach to pedestrian trails to encourage more walking and use of transit throughout the region. He said people must have been contributing a lot of vehicle miles travelled just to go hiking. The forest service was considering funding trails in Portland to relieve pressure on the wilderness trails in the alpine area. It was a great idea. Many people would be just as likely to hike trails in the urban area as they would drive to the urban areas. It would save time and fuel. Metro could make it a very pleasant and safe experience without harming the wildlife. He said there were already some nice trails in the region. A map that identified these trails and tied them all together, that he could give to family, friends and relatives would be great.

Councilor Atherton outlined for the Willamette Shoreline Consortium a vision for a regional trunked system of bicycle and pedestrian trails. There was currently a great opportunity to implement the vision in the region. It could be considered a regional facility that would be purchased, maintained and operated by Metro. It would be separated from vehicle traffic, would have a park atmosphere, would have high capacity for bicycles and hikers, patrolled and the use would be controlled. It would be a two-tier system with highest priority for commute type facilities (along the Willamette Shore Trolley Way). Don Stark secured the funding agreement with Union Pacific to purchase the Portland Traction Line for a very nominal amount of money. Many of the pieces had been put together. The project would fit Mr. Baack’s vision for mapping some of the smaller areas.

Councilor Atherton asked if the current RTP adequately described the ability to put the concept together. If not, he asked if it could be changed. He also asked if there was any interest. Finally, he asked if it was too late.

Councilor Monroe said he supported every trail project that had been considered by Metro. He was interested in a trunked network of trails. He mentioned the addition of the Banfield bicycle

and pedestrian trail project to the RTP. He shared Councilor Atherton’s interest in the Lake Oswego riverfront trail proposal and hoped to see it happen under his watch.

Mr. Hoglund said the department’s maps were not designed that way. They were oriented more toward investing transportation priorities or pet projects. They were not very user friendly for determining how to travel the region as a pedestrian. They created the bicycle map in the mid-‘80s with a federal grant. Sales of the map supported the periodic updates. A bicycle and pedestrian map could be created with some seed money.

Councilor Atherton asked if it would be a regional policy to create maps. Instead, he suggested it would be a region policy to create and maintain a regional network facility with the mentioned characteristics. He read the language and believed it could accommodate his vision. But he wanted to know if there was any interest.

Mr. Baack said he spent four years creating their trails. He suggested Metro respond to the Forest Service idea. He saw a huge opportunity to create something unique with trails connected to transit.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2972B, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE WILSONVILLE TO BEAVERTON COMMUTER RAIL STUDY.

Chair Monroe postponed discussion of this item until the July 18, 2000 committee meeting.

5.  UPDATE – STATUS OF THE STATE MTIP/STIP PROCESS

Chair Monroe postponed discussion of this item until the July 18, 2000 committee meeting.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 5 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Planning Committee meeting of July 12, 2000

i:\minutes\2000\tranplan\71200tpm.doc