Portland State University PDXScholar Joint Policy Advisory Commiee on Transportation Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library 10-11-1990 Meeting Notes 1990-10-11 Joint Policy Advisory Commiee on Transportation Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Follow this and additional works at: hp://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact is Minutes is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Joint Policy Advisory Commiee on Transportation by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Joint Policy Advisory Commiee on Transportation, "Meeting Notes 1990-10-11 " (1990). Joint Policy Advisory Commiee on Transportation. Paper 136. hp://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact/136
Transcript
Portland State UniversityPDXScholar
Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library
10-11-1990
Meeting Notes 1990-10-11Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact
This Minutes is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation by anauthorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationJoint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, "Meeting Notes 1990-10-11 " (1990). Joint Policy Advisory Committee onTransportation. Paper 136.http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact/136
METRO2000 S.W. First AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5398503/221-1646
Agenda
Meeting: JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Date: October 11, 1990
Day: Thursday
Time: 7:15 a.m.
Place: Metro, Conference Room 440
1. MEETING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 - APPROVAL REQUESTED
2. RESOLUTION NO. 90-1326 - AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO ANINTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING COORDINATION OFDECISION-MAKING FOR THE WESTSIDE CORRIDOR AND HILLSBOROPROJECTS - APPROVAL REQUESTED - G.B. Arrington.
3. REGIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
. OVERVIEW - Ethan Seltzer
. PRELIMINARY JPACT COMMENTS - DISCUSSION - Mike Hoglund
*Material enclosed.
PLEASE NOTE: Overflow parking is available at the CityCenter parking locations on the attached map,and may be validated at the meeting. Parkingon Metro premises in any space other than thosemarked "Visitors" will result in towing ofvehicle.
NEXT JPACT MEETING: NOVEMBER 8, 1990, 7:15 A.M.
MEETING REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:
GROUP/SUBJECT:
PERSONS ATTENDING:
MEDIA:
SUMMARY:
September 13, 1990
Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transpor-tation (JPACT)
Members: Chair George Van Bergen, RichardDevlin and David Knowles, Metro Council; BobBothman, ODOT; Gary Demich, WSDOT; Les White(alt.), C-TRAN; Jim Cowen, Tri-Met; CliffordClark, Cities of Washington County; Ed Lind-quist, Clackamas County; Craig Lomnicki(alt,), Cities of Clackamas County; FredHansen, DEQ; Bonnie Hays, Washington County;Marjorie Schmunk, Cities of Multnomah County;Robert Woodell; and Pauline Anderson, Mult-nomah County
Guests: Walt Peck and Dennis Mulvihill,Washington County; G.B. Arrington, Tri-Met;Keith Ahola, WSDOT (JPACT alt.); FeliciaTrader, Steve Dotterrer and Grace Crunican,City of Portland; Howard Harris, DEQ; DonAdams (JPACT alt.) and Ted Spence, ODOT; TomVanderZanden and Rod Sandoz, ClackamasCounty; Raye Woolbright, Citizen; MollyO'Reilly, Citizen; Bebe Rucker, Port ofPortland; Ray Polani and Jim Howell, Citizensfor Better Transit; Susie Lahsene, MultnomahCounty; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; DennisMulvihill, Washington County; and FrankGearhart, CIIBRI
Staff: Andrew Cotugno, Keith Lawton, RichardBrandman, Casey Short, Mike Hoglund, and LoisKaplan, Secretary
Jim Mayer, The Oregonian; and RobertGoldfield, The Daily Journal of Commerce
The meeting was called to order and a quorum declared by ChairGeorge Van Bergen. He announced that Bob Liddell, Mayor of WestLinn, has been selected as the representative from the cities ofClackamas County with Craig Lomnicki continuing as alternate.
MEETING REPORT
Metro Councilor Gardner had asked that the July 12 JPACT minutesbe amended on page 4 under "Action Taken" to read as follows:
JPACTSeptember 13, 1990Page 2
"Action Taken: The motion to refer the draft resolution to theMetro Council at its July 12 meeting PASSED unanimouGly.Inasmuch as Councilor Gardner was not present at this point inthe meeting, he wanted the record to reflect that he did notparticipate in the vote."
The minutes were approved as amended.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-1315 - ADOPTING THE FY 1991 TO POST 1994 TRANS-PORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND THE FY 1991 ANNUAL ELEMENT
Andy Cotugno explained that the annual update of the TIP consoli-dates all past funding actions, identifies funding sources forthose projects, and sets the program for FY 1991, thereby estab-lishing our regional transportation priorities. It also incor-porates the Six-Year Program that was adopted by the OregonTransportation Commission in August.
Action Taken: It was moved and seconded to recommend approval ofResolution No. 90-1315, adopting the FY 91 to post '94 Transpor-tation Improvement Program and the FY 91 Annual Element. MotionPASSED unanimously.
PRELIMINARY DESIGNATION OF HIGHWAYS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
For illustrative purposes, a system of Highways of NationalSignificance (HNS) has been proposed for inclusion in the nextSurface Transportation Act (STA) update. Andy reviewed TPAC'scomments on the proposed network (for submittal to FHWA), whichincluded the following comments and concerns:
. That urban mobility should be recognized as the primary ob-jective in urban areas — not building national highways.
. That the HNS system be consistent with local comprehensiveplans and the Regional Transportation Plan.
. That consideration be given in the STA to alternative modes/improvements if shown to be more cost-effective.
. That the level of funding provided each urban area have suffi-cient flexibility to implement the transportation system mostappropriate for the area.
. That the Portland region HNS system be fully designated withouta reserve and that consideration be given for the addition offuture routes deemed necessary through the EIS process.
JPACTSeptember 13, 1990Page 3
. That the following routes under consideration — Mt. HoodParkway (from 1-84 to U.S. 26), the Sunrise Corridor (from1-205 to Highway 224 in the vicinity of SE 135th Avenue) andthe Western Bypass (between 1-5 and the Sunset Highway) — beadded to the HNS system if ultimately approved.
Andy noted that one of the issues in question is how big thesystem will be nationwide. Concerns about how a metro area makesdecisions and funds projects related to the HNS system and otherfederally-mandated service standards and the lack of programflexibility were discussed at the TPAC meeting. Information hasnot been provided about the transit side of the STA proposal.
Andy noted that TPAC was also supportive of the requirement thatstates develop a Congestion Management Plan based on a level-of-service standard.
Andy then highlighted the memo from Citizens for Better Transitand their concerns relating to a highway bias of the proposal.In that regard, Les White reported a recent UMTA recommendationon the new STA for a 60 percent share on transit improvements.
Bob Bothman reported that submittal of the HNS map must be madeby the state to FHWA by September 14, stating that the big issueis how much money comes to Oregon out of that process (based onthe split between category and turn-back — vehicle milestraveled as opposed to fuel consumption). Some states are notsubmitting a map at all due to similar concerns.
Commissioner Hays indicated the Washington County TransportationCoordinating Committee (WCTCC) endorsed the TPAC position butdirected staff to continue its analysis before the November 30state deadline on state routes.
Fred Hansen felt we are recommending a broader base with direc-tion about urban mobility, but cited the need to expand theconcept of urban mobility to include the concerns of air quality.He suggested taking a comprehensive approach to an urban area andexpanding the concept into how it affects urban growth and landuse and its interrelationship to the land use plan.
Action Taken: It was moved and seconded to recommend approval ofthe Highways of National Significance (HNS) endorsement, as pro-posed by TPAC, with comments to be expanded as noted at the meet-ing (relating to air quality, urban growth and land use). MotionPASSED unanimously.
JPACTSeptember 13, 1990Page 4
DRAFT STATE HIGHWAY PLAN
Andy reported that ODOT has circulated a draft State Highway Planand is in the process of holding public hearings on the document.
JPACT is being asked to endorse the comments on the State HighwayPlan for forwarding to Bob Bothman. Andy noted that concernshave been raised and principles identified that advance the planin some right directions (such as access management and multi-modal programs) but their impact on the highway system is un-known. The plan presents a needs analysis, funding recommenda-tion and a policy framework on the operation of ODOT and thequestion remains of how big a system should be pursued. Betteridentification of policy implications, more specific details ofthe highway system, and the need for better justification of thedefined needs are being requested.
Andy also highlighted concerns about the "Functional Classifica-tion" category and the omission of Highway 26 (from 1-405 to U.S.101) and Highway 217 from "routes of statewide significance."
The need for a broader set of standards relating to access tojobs, shopping and urban mobility (peak hour and non-peak hour)was discussed. It was felt that travel within urban areas shouldbe recognized and defined.
Bob Bothman stated that he would abstain from the vote but waspleased to see this kind of response. He indicated that thestate has already dealt with a majority of the points raised overthe last 18 months and that they are substantive issues. It rep-resents a balance between an aggressive funding program and try-ing to set priorities, and he applauded staff for their effortsand communicating well on this plan.
Ray Polani, representing Citizens for Better Transit, noted CBT'sconcern over the 20-year plan and the feeling that it is unrea-listic. He cited California's provision of $5 billion fortransit funding and high-speed rail provisions throughout Europe.He pointed out that his vote on TPAC reflected support of thecomments being submitted, not approval of the highway plan. Hefelt that the plan is out of step with the incoming administra-tion and spoke on the alternative proposal offered by Citizensfor Better Transit.
Action Taken: It was moved and seconded to recommend endorsementof the letter and comments for transmittal to the state.
JPACTSeptember 13, 1990Page 5
A discussion followed on the meaning of the term "minimum toler-able condition standards" because the state has set a higherlevel-of-service standard and design for the facilities than theRegional Transportation Plan. Bob Bothman pointed out that thisis a draft and that no approval has been given regarding level-of-service D or E. It was noted that there may be more airpollution with E than D in addition to the level of congestion.Bob spoke of metering the freeways in order to alleviate thecongestion. He indicated that ramp metering takes care of 90percent of the rural highways while meeting 23 percent of urbanmobility needs.
There was consensus that the following statement be incorporatedunder "2c" relating to finance policies for the Modernizationprogram. It is our understanding that this plan meets 90 percentof the intercity highway needs while meeting only 23 percent ofurban mobility needs. We feel that this is not an equitablebalance between urban and rural needs.
Jim Howell, representing Citizens for Better Transit, questionedwhether we have a proposed 1990 Railroad Plan. Bob Bothmanresponded that it is being updated, its last publication being1985.
In calling for the question, the motion PASSED for endorsement ofthe letter and comments (with inclusion of comments on the 90-23%issue) for transmittal to the state. Bob Bothman abstained.
COMMENTS ON TRI-MET/METRO MERGER
On July 12, the Metro Council adopted a resolution for the pur-pose of undertaking a Tri-Met/Metro Merger study. Resolution No.90-1293A included a request that JPACT study the implications ofsuch a merger on transportation planning and transit service andreport back to the Council Intergovernmental Relations Committeeno later than October 31, 1990.
A JPACT subcommittee, chaired by Commissioner Blumenauer, wasformed to consider these issues and develop an overall positionpaper. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 19,at 7:30 a.m. The subcommittee has agreed to have JPACT concludeits consideration of their recommendations at its November 8meeting. All jurisdictional letters commenting on the proposedmerger will be forwarded to the subcommittee.
Commissioner Hays, after reviewing the comments received to date,felt there were common concerns regarding 1) the timeliness ofthe issue coming up before the November LRT bond measure; and
JPACTSeptember 13, 1990Page 6
2) the possibility of jeopardizing the Full-Funding Agreement inSeptember 1991. She noted that the WCTCC had discussed theappropriateness of such a merger as well as the timing issue.Chairman Van Bergen felt that a firm recommendation will be madeby the subcommittee and that those concerns will be conveyed tothe committee. Bonnie Hays proposed a recommendation to postponethe study at this time but Chairman Van Bergen did not feel itwas appropriate prior to subcommittee meetings.
Councilor Devlin, as a member of the Tri-Met/Metro Merger Commit-tee, noted the fact that JPACT was placed in the planning processof this study and that the committee will make changes in thework plan. He promised that no public hearings would be heldprior to the November election and emphasized that the committeeis trying to keep this in a study mode rather than make it acontroversial issue before the election.
Commissioner Hays questioned whether the committee has givenconsideration to the September 1991 deadline of the Full-FundingAgreement. Councilor Devlin responded that the comments arerelative to the Full-Funding Agreement and getting the legisla-ture to keep its commitment on local match. He also indicatedthat Metro Council is trying to avoid a conflict with JPACT andfelt that a motion to postpone might create that situation.
Commissioner Lindguist spoke of the legislative committee heworked on regarding this issue and wished to endorse the effortsof Blumenauer's committee rather than passing a resolution atthis time. Rather than taking a position today, he proposedletting the subcommittee deal with this issue. He pointed outthat the subcommittee meetings are open.
Jim Cowen appreciated Councilor Devlin's continents on behalf ofthe Metro Council, trying to prevent a stressful situation be-tween JPACT and the Council. He did not, however, feel it was anappropriate time to bring up the issue. Commissioner Hays alsospoke of her frustration.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
REPORT WRITTEN BY: Lois Kaplan
COPIES TO: Rena CusmaDick EngstromJPACT Members
STAFF REPORT
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-1326 FOR THE PURPOSEOF AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREE-MENT REGARDING COORDINATION OF DECISION-MAKING FOR THEWESTSIDE CORRIDOR PROJECT AND HILLSBORO PROJECT
Date: September 17, 1990 Presented by: Andrew Cotugno
PROPOSED ACTION
Authorizing entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Portland, Beaver-ton, Hillsboro, Washington County and Multnomah County regardingdecision-making for approvals of the Westside Corridor ProjectPreferred Alternative.
TPAC has reviewed the proposed agreement and recommends approval ofResolution No. 90-1326.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Final approval of the preferred transit and highway alternative forthe Westside Corridor Project will involve eight different juris-dictions at several different points in the process. Each decisionprobably represents a land use decision appealable by individualsand groups not satisfied with the selected alternative. Thisagreement identifies these decision points, the basis for appealand procedures to ensure a proper process is followed in approvingeach decision. Generally, the following major decisions have beenidentified:
A. Approval of Preferred Alternative Report. This is the keydecision by all eight jurisdictions approving a common pre-ferred alternative for the full length of the project.Findings of consistency with the statewide land use goals aswell as findings of consistency with each comprehensive planwill be developed and adopted.
B. Plan Amendments. Following approval of the preferred alterna-tive, each jurisdiction may be required to amend their compre-hensive plans (or the Regional Transportation Plan [RTP]) toreflect the selected preferred alternative.
C. Design Review. Later in the process, various local approvalswill be required for specific design features of the project.
The approval of the Preferred Alternative is the key decision pointgoverning whether or not the project will be built and which optionwill be built. It is likely to be identified by the courts as the
policy decision to build the described project for land use pur-poses, even though a final construction decision is subject tofurther review under federal procedure. Individual comprehensiveplan amendments will simply be follow-up actions to implement thepreferred alternative approval if the project is not fundamentallychanged. Design review approvals will be limited to questionsregarding how the project will be built and will not be an oppor-tunity to question whether the project is built.
The intergovernmental agreement also deals with jurisdictionalresponsibilities for preparation of findings and legal defense.The findings of consistency with the statewide goals will be theresponsibility of the project with Metro's coordination. Findingsfor each comprehensive plan will be the responsibility of thatjurisdiction. Similarly, any appeal of the preferred alternativeapproval will involve intervention by all eight jurisdictions onbehalf of any jurisdiction whose decision was appealed. Con-versely, appeals of later decisions will be the responsibility ofthat jurisdiction.
Approval of this intergovernmental agreement is proposed now toensure that these procedures are properly defined before projectapprovals begin later this year.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
The Executive Officer recommends approval of Resolution No. 90-1326.
BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THEMETROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING ) RESOLUTION NO. 90-1326ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERN- )MENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING CO- ) Introduced byORDINATION OF DECISION-MAKING ) George Van Bergen, ChairFOR THE WESTSIDE CORRIDOR PROJECT ) Joint Policy AdvisoryAND HILLSBORO PROJECT ) Committee on Transportation
WHEREAS, The Westside Corridor Project and Hillsboro
Project are evaluating alternatives for light rail transit and
highway improvements between Portland and Washington County; and
WHEREAS, Approval of the Preferred Alternative for these
projects must be consistent with Oregon land use law; and
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Service District, Tri-Met,
Oregon Department of Transportation, Portland, Beaverton, Hills-
boro, Washington County and Multnomah County will be parties to
approving the Preferred Alternative; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED,
That the Council of the Metropolitan Service District
authorizes entering into the Westside Transit Corridor Planning
Coordination Agreement regarding coordination of decision-making
for the Westside Corridor Project and Hillsboro Project in substan-
tially the form contained in Exhibit A.
ADOPTED by the Council of the Metropolitan Service Dis-
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ______ day of1990, by the Metropolitan Service District (Metro),
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Tri-CountyMetropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met),Washington and Multnomah counties, political subdivisions of theState of Oregon, and the cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro andPortland, incorporated municipalities of the state of Oregon.
WHEREAS, ORS chapter 190 authorizes units of local government andstate agencies to enter into agreements for the performance ofany or all functions and activities that a party to theagreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Facilities Planning), ORS197.190, ORS 268.385, and OAR 660-11-015(2) require that city andcounty public facility plans and actions related totransportation facilities shall be coordinated with each otherand state and federal providers of public facilities; and
WHEREAS, ORS 197.185 and OAR 660-11-015(3) require specialdistricts to assist in the development of public facility plansfor those facilities they provide, and to enter intointergovernmental cooperative agreements with affectedjurisdictions or Metro to coordinate the plans and programs ofthe District affecting land use; and
WHEREAS, The Westside Corridor Project Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) was completed in 1982; and
WHEREAS, The Westside light rail transit was the recommendedcorridor and mode of transportation in the 1983 PreferredAlternative Report for the Westside Corridor from DowntownPortland to S.W. 185th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Tri-Met prepared a DEIS Evaluation Report in January1989 which identified changed circumstances and changes to theproposed action which would result in significant environmentalimpacts not addressed in the DEIS, and recommended supplementingthe 198 2 DEIS; and
WHEREAS, A Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement(SDEIS) is being prepared by Tri-Met and ODOT, with theconcurrence of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration(UMTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to evaluateimpacts of changed circumstances since 1982; evaluate the impactsof LRT alignment option and highway improvement refinements tothe 198 3 Preferred Alternative; and evaluate a No-Build
alternative as required by the National Environmental Policy Act,a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative as requiredby UMTA, and short termini options also required by UMTA; and
WHEREAS, A Preferred Alternative Report recommending analternative is anticipated after hearings on the SDEIS technicalfindings; and
WHEREAS, Metro has initiated, with the concurrence of UMTA, anAlternative Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement(AA/DEIS) for the Hillsboro Corridor west of 185th Avenueterminus of the Westside Corridor Project; and
WHEREAS, The Hillsboro AA/Draft EIS will evaluate an LRTextension, a TSM alternative, and a No-Build Alternative west of185th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, A Preferred Alternative Report recommending analternative is anticipated in the spring of 1991 after hearingson the AA/DEIS; and
WHEREAS, The Westside Corridor Project and Hillsboro ProjectPreferred Alternative adoption will be independent decisions; and
WHEREAS, State, regional, and local governments seek tocoordinate facility planning for this major regionaltransportation corridor from the time a project configuration mayfirst be adopted;
NOW, THEREFORE, METRO, ODOT, TRI-MET, MULTNOMAH COUNTY,WASHINGTON COUNTY, AND THE CITIES OF BEAVERTON, HILLSBORO ANDPORTLAND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Plan and Zoning Review: Metro, Counties and Citieshereby agree to initiate staff review of existingregional functional plan, comprehensive plan, andPublic Facility Plan and land use regulation provisionsrelating to transportation in the Westside Corridor.These parties shall identify amendments to regionalfunctional plans, and to local comprehensive planpolicies, Public Facility Plan elements, and land useregulations and other adopted comprehensive planimplementation measures that are required if a "build"option is selected in the Preferred AlternativeReports, and to identify local plan and land useregulation requirements for which findings ofconsistency will be necessary.
A. All parties hereby agree to consider and takeaction on the Preferred Alternative Reports asfollows:
1. Metro shall consider any appropriateamendments to its Regional TransportationPlan at the time it considers adoption of thePreferred Alternative Reports recommendationof a project alternative for the WestsideCorridor and Hillsboro Project by Resolution.
2. Each County and City shall consider either(a) a Resolution adopting the PreferredAlternative Reports if the recommendedproject is consistent with its comprehensiveplan, or (b) a Resolution of Intent approvingthe recommended alternative subject to reviewof any comprehensive plan or land useregulation amendments needed to adopt thePreferred Alternative Reports.
3. Tri-Met shall consider adoption of thePreferred Alternative Reports after Metro,Counties, and Cities have consideredResolutions under this section.
4. ODOT will take such actions as may berequired on the Preferred Alternative Reportsin the manner to be set forth in a stateagency coordination program to be certifiedby the Land Conservation and DevelopmentCommission in the fall of 1990.
If adopted by any party the PreferredAlternative Reports shall be supported byfindings of consistency with applicablestatewide goals and specific comprehensiveplan provisions and other land useregulations of individual jurisdictions.
B. All parties hereby agree to provide staffparticipation in the development of land usefindings for applicable statewide planning goalsfor any project configuration in the PreferredAlternative Reports considered for adoption by allaffected jurisdictions. The Westside CorridorProject and the Hillsboro Project shall beresponsible for the development of Project Goal
Findings with the participation and assistance ofall parties coordinated by Metro.
C. If the Reports are adopted, each party shallprepare any appropriate amendments to itscomprehensive plan based upon these project goalfindings needed to be consistent with thePreferred Alternative Reports. Each party takessuch action in accordance with the adoptionprocedures established for the party as indicatedin III. below. If any County or City adopts aResolution of Intent, it shall immediatelyauthorize staff to notify the Director of theDepartment of Land Conservation and Development ofany proposed comprehensive plan or land useregulation amendments and schedule the finalhearing to consider adoption of the proposedamendments.
III. Specific Plan Findings; Each County and City whichadopts a Resolution of Intent requiring considerationof comprehensive plan policy or map amendments, publicfacility plan amendments, amendments to land useregulations, amendments to other adopted comprehensiveplan implementation measures, or additional goalfindings consistent with incorporation of an adoptedPreferred Alternative Reports for the Westside CorridorProject or Hillsboro Project shall be responsible forpreparing findings particular to its plan to supplementProject Goal Findings. Any such amendments, supportedby specific plan and goal findings, shall be preparedfor consideration at the time the Preferred AlternativeReports recommendation with project goal findings isconsidered, to the extent possible. If comprehensiveplan, or public facility plan, or other changes are notrequired, each County and City shall prepare forconsideration any findings required to demonstrateconsistency of the Preferred Alternative Reports withits adopted comprehensive plan and land use regulationsat the time the Preferred Alternative Reports areconsidered for adoption.
IV. Local Implementation: Implementation of comprehensiveplan provisions for any Westside Corridor Project orHillsboro Project will require detailed project designand mitigation specifications. These details arebeyond the scope of a Preferred Alternative Reportsproject recommendation. Such design specificationdecisions shall be accomplished at design review orpermit approval by each city or county consistent withits comprehensive plan, public facility plan, and
zoning ordinance for that portion of the WestsideCorridor or Hillsboro facility within its jurisdiction.
Specifically, in the City of Portland additional designspecification decisions may include, but are notlimited to the following actions: design reviewapproval; land use approval for tracks, transitstations, electrical substations, and/or park-and-ridefacility, if required by the underlying zone; theapproval of easements, street use permits and/orsubsurface leases pertaining to City rights-of-way;City Engineer order requiring relocation of existingfacilities to accommodate construction; City Foresterreview under the proposed Scenic Resources ProtectionPlan, if adopted; review and selection of E zonemitigation measures, if applicable; and condemnation ofproperty to accommodate construction, if necessary.
In Washington and Multnomah counties, public utilityspecial use permits may be required for any park-and-ride facilities, transit centers, and relocation ofpublic utilities. Facilities permits may be requiredfor LRT crossings of county roads, drainage pipes orother structures.
In the City of Beaverton, additional designspecification decisions may be made following anynecessary amendments to the General Plan andDevelopment Code resulting from the adoption of apreferred alignment by one or more of the followingactions: review by the Facilities Review Committee,which may include review of easements, street usepermits, utilities, electric substations, and relatedtechnical issues; design review approval; floodplainalternation approval, land use approval for tracks,park-and-ride lots, and/or stations and relatedfacilities; and the condemnation of property necessaryto accommodate construction of the selected preferredalternative.
In the City of Hillsboro, additional designspecification decisions may include, but are notlimited to the following actions: Development Reviewapproval; floodplain alteration approval, culturalresource alteration approval, land use approval fortransit stations, electrical substations, and/or park-and-ride facilities, if required by the underlyingzone; the approval of easements, street use permitsand/or subsurface leases pertaining to City rights-of-way; relocation of existing facilities to accommodate
construction; and condemnation of property toaccommodate construction, if necessary.
V. Joint Defense of Appeals; All parties hereby agreethat the appeal of any party's action to LUBA or thecourts based on the regional goal findings in II.above, shall cause the remaining parties who haveadopted the Preferred Alternative Reports or aResolution of Intent to intervene as parties to theappeal with coordinated participation andrepresentation in defense of the recommendationdecision. An appeal based on additional plan or landuse regulation amendments and findings in III., above,or an implementation action under IV., above, shall bethe responsibility of the affected jurisdiction withthe cooperation of all remaining parties, asappropriate.
VI. Coordination of Planning and Implementation Actions:
A. Definitions
1. Regional Transportation Plan means the regionalfunctional plan for transportation adopted byMetro pursuant to ORS 268.390(2) containingtransportation project recommendations andrequirements identified as necessary for orderlyand responsible development of the metropolitanarea.
2. Comprehensive Plan shall have the meaning setforth in ORS 197.015(5).
3. Land Use Regulation shall have the meaning setforth in ORS 197.015(11).
4. Supplemental Draft EIS is the document beingprepared by Tri-Met and ODOT with the concurrenceof UMTA and FHWA to comply with the requirementsof NEPA.
5. Preferred Alternative Report is the report beingprepared to define the preferred alternative oflight rail transit and any needed highways for theWestside Corridor Project.
6. Westside Corridor Project is the transit andhighway project from downtown Portland to 185thAvenue.
7. Hillsboro Project is the project from 185th Avenueto the Hillsboro Transit Center.
B. Metro, Counties and Cities shall provide all partieswith the appropriate opportunity to participate, reviewand comment on proposed amendments to or adoption ofthe regional transportation plan, comprehensive plans,or implementing regulations relating to a WestsideCorridor project. The following procedures shall beused by these parties to notify and involve all partiesin the process to amend or adopt a regionaltransportation plan, comprehensive plan, orimplementing regulation relating to a Westside Corridorproject:
1. The party with jurisdiction over a proposedamendment, hereinafter the originating party,shall notify the other parties, hereinafterresponding parties, of the proposed action at thetime such planning efforts are initiated, but inno case less than forty-five (45) days prior tothe final hearing on adoption. The specificmethod and level of involvement may be finalizedby "Memorandums of Understanding" negotiated andsigned by the planning directors or otherappropriate staff of the respective parties."Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearlyoutline the process by which the responding partyshall participate in the adoption process.
2. The originating party shall transmit draftrecommendations on any proposed actions to theresponding parties for review and comment beforefinalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a"Memorandum of Understanding," responding partiesshall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draftto submit comments orally or in writing. Lack ofresponse shall be considered "no objection" to thedraft.
3. The originating party shall respond to thecomments made by the responding party either by a)revising the final recommendations, or b) byletter to the responding party explaining why thecomments cannot be addressed in the final draft.
4. Comments from the responding parties shall begiven consideration as a part of the public recordon the proposed action. If after suchconsideration, the originating party acts contraryto the position of a responding party, the
responding party may seek appeal of the actionthrough the appropriate appeals body andprocedures.
5. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by theoriginating party, it shall transmit the adoptingordinance to the responding party as soon aspublicly available, or if not adopted byordinance, whatever other written documentation isavailable to properly inform the responding partyof the final actions taken.
VII. Amendments to this Facilities Planning CoordinationAgreement
A. The following procedures shall be followed by allparties to amend the language of this agreement:
1. The party originating the proposal, shall submit aformal request for amendment to the respondingparties.
2. The formal request shall contain the following:
a. A statement describing the amendment.
b. A statement of findings indicating why theproposed amendment is necessary.
c. If the request is to amend a recommendationof the Preferred Alternative Report, a mapwhich clearly indicates the location of theproposed change and surrounding area.
3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from theoriginating party, responding parties shallschedule a review of the request before theappropriate governing bodies with forty-five (45)days of the date the request is received.
4. All parties shall make good faith efforts toresolve requests to amend this Agreement. Uponcompletion of the review, the reviewing body mayapprove the request, deny the request, or make adetermination that the proposed amendment warrantsadditional review. If it is determined thatadditional review is necessary, the followingprocedures shall be followed:
a. All parties shall agree to initiate a jointstudy. Such a study shall commence withinthirty (30) days of the date it is determined
that a proposed amendment creates adisagreement, and shall be completed withinninety (90) days of said date. Methodologiesand procedures regulating the conduct of thejoint study shall be mutually agreed upon byall parties prior to commencing the study.
b. Upon completion of the joint study, the studyand the recommendations drawn from it shallbe included within the record of the review.The party considering the proposed amendmentshall give careful consideration to the studyprior to making a final decision.
The parties will jointly review this Agreement everytwo (2) years to evaluate the effectiveness of theprocesses set forth herein and to make any amendments.The review process shall commence two (2) years fromthe date of execution and shall be completed withinsixty (60) days. All parties shall make a good faitheffort to resolve inconsistencies that may havedeveloped since the previous review. If, aftercompletion of the 60-day review period inconsistenciesstill remain, any party may terminate this Agreement.
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT OREGON DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
TRI-COUNTYMETROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATIONDISTRICT OF OREGON
Objective 13 Citizen ParticipationObjective 14 NotificationObjective 15 Amendments to the Regional Urban Growth Goals
and Objectives
Glossary
4567
99
1011
12
12131414
16
1616
16
17
REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Introduction
The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives are the result of a planning processinitiated by Metro in early 1989. Metro identified the need for a policy framework forguiding its regional planning program and management of the region's Urban GrowthBoundary (UGB), something that the legislature intended Metro to develop upon itsformation in 1979.
The legislature directed Metro to develop a set of land use planning goals and objectives,themselves consistent with the statewide planning goals, for purposes of planningcoordination in the region (ORS 268.380). A final set of regional urban growth goals andobjectives will be adopted by the Metro Council and will be binding on all Metro planningactivities including the management of the region's UGB and the development of theRegional Transportation Plan. In addition, they may affect the comprehensive plans of localjurisdictions as local and regional plans are inter-related in the future.
Metro began the policy development process that has yielded this draft with the formation ofPolicy and Technical Advisory Committees. The first task was the identification of theissues accompanying urban growth. These issues were identified using data derived fromthis region as well as from the experience of other major metropolitan areas in NorthAmerica. These issues were then reviewed through a series of 16 public workshops in thefall of 1989, and further refined at the first annual Regional Growth Conference, sponsoredby Metro, Portland General Electric, and the League of Women Voters and held in January,1990.
With a full slate of issues in hand, the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees developedthis proposal for regional urban growth goals and objectives beginning in February of 1990and concluding in early July. This document will now be reviewed through another seriesof public workshops, reviewed by the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees in light ofthe comments received, and presented to the Metro Council for adoption in late 1990.
For further information, please contact Ethan Seltzer or Mark Turpel at 221-1646.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The development of the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives occurred throughhours of discussion among members of the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees. Thegoals and objectives reflect a major consensus between business, governmentenvironmentalist and the region's citizens. Clearly there are more details to be worked outand will undoubtedly be the subject of spirited debate in the next several years.
Emerging from this review draft are a number of core principles that express the hopes anddesires of the many participants in the planning process for the future of the region. The 16guiding principles are the building-blocks for the development of a metropolitan vision. Thenext step, to occur following the adoption of a final set of Regional Urban Growth Goalsand Objectives, will be the translation of the guiding principles and the goals and objectivesinto actual physical plans for the long-term evolution of this metropolitan region.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
General Concepts
1) Quality - The Portland metropolitan areawill be known internationally for the effortmade and achievements by its people tomaintain and enhance urban quality of life.This is a healthy, good place to live, onethat sustains as well as inspires.
2) Different - This urban region is differentthan any other in North America, and itsability to remain that way will be creditedto the foresight, creativity, and action ofits people.
3) Diversity - The urban region will be evenmore diverse physically, culturally, andeconomically in the future, and theplanning and development of the regionwill anticipate and embrace this trend.
4) Opportunity, Equity, and Fairness -This will be a region of opportunity,shaped by the people who live and workhere and, in turn, offering a place withinwhich individual effort is supported andencouraged. Further, in this region wecare about each other, as individuals aswell as jurisdictions, and are committed tosharing the prosperity we envision so thatno segment of our community and nocommunity is denied access to present andfuture opportunities.
5) Character - This will be a region with asense of place, one whose identity isclearly apparent and consciouslyembraced.
Growth and Change
6) Growth - This will be a growing regionwhere jobs, affordable housing, and publicservices are available and capable ofmeeting the needs of the evolving urbanpopulation.
7) Accessible - This will be an accessibleregion, where mobility is planned for andprovided through an efficient, balancedtransportation system.
8) Compact - Urban planning will foster acompact development form, favoringefforts to use all existing urban land asefficiently as possible in order to avoidfuture sprawl.
9) Linkage - This is a thoughtful region,where considerable effort will be made toensure the quality of relationships betweenurban and rural, urban center andsuburban fringe, and citizens and the city.
10) Natural Areas - The identity of the urbanregion in the future will be strongly tied tothe presence Of natural areas linked byfunctional wildlife and recreationcorridors.
11) Major Urban Centers - Rather than aregion with one center and multiplesuburbs, this region in the future will haveseveral mixed use, high density, pedestrianoriented economic activity centers,accessible by transit and exemplifying thehighest standards of urban design.
12) Conservation - We will be careful withour natural and cultural heritage, mindfulof what we have inherited and equallymindful of what we will contribute to thefuture.
Implementation
13) Workable - Both the vision for the futureof the region as well as the developmentoccurring here will be models for the waysin which metropolitan areas can managetheir growth in practical and cost-effectiveways.
14) Continuity and Vision - This region iscommitted to choosing and seeking itsfuture through participatory long-termplanning, and can remain focused on itslong-term objectives while addressing thedemands of the day.
15) Coordination - This is a region ofcomplex but critical inter-relationships.Our ability and resolve to functionallyinter-relate jobs, housing, and services, aswell as the plans of cities, counties,special districts, regions and states, will bethe true test of our aspirations formaintaining and enhancing metropolitanquality-of-life.
16) Roles - Successful management of urbangrowth will require the cooperation andcoordination of state, regional, city, andcounty governments and special districts.
REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL i: BUILT ENVIRONMENTOF THE REGION
Development in the region shall occur in acoordinated and balanced fashion asevidenced, at a minimum, by the provisionof infrastructure and critical publicservices concurrent with the pace of urbangrowth; the meshing of localcomprehensive plans with publicinvestment decisionmaking at all levels;the continued evolution of regionaleconomic opportunity; and the location ofjobs, housing, supporting commercialactivity, parks, and open space in relationto each other in order to decrease thenumber and length of automobile tripsrequired to support a household.
OBJECTIVE 1.HOUSING
There shall be arange of housingtypes availableinside the UGB,for rent orpurchase at costsin balance with the range of householdincomes in the region. Housing should belocated in proximity to major activitycenters and the regional transportationsystem.
Policy 1.1 Metropolitan Housing Rule -The Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR660, Division 7) has effectively resulted inthe preparation of local comprehensiveplans in the urban region that:
• provide for the sharing of regionalhousing supply responsibilities byensuring the presence of single andmultiple family zoning in everyjurisdiction; and
• plan for local residential housingdensities that support net residentialhousing density assumptionsunderlying the regional urbangrowth boundary.
However, it is now time to develop a newregional housing policy that directlyaddresses the following issues:
• Diverse Housing Needs - It shallbe the policy of the region toaddress the diverse housing needsof the present and projectedpopulation of the region, and tocorrelate those needs with theavailable and prospective housingsupply. Upon identification ofunmet housing needs, a region widestrategy shall be developed whichtakes into account subregionalopportunities and constraints, andthe relationship of market dynamicsto the management of the overallsupply of housing,
• Housing Affordability -Affordability shall be defined asthe availability of housing such thatno more than 30% (an indexderived from federal, state, andlocal housing agencies) of themonthly income of the householdneed be spent on shelter. Publicpolicy shall be designed to assurean adequate supply of housing forrent and/or sale at prices in linewith the median household income
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
in the region. If, following ahousing needs analysis, certainincome groups in the region arefound to not have affordablehousing available to them, it shallbe the policy of the region to focusland use policy and public andprivate investment towards meetingthat need.
• Housing Location - Public policyand investment shall encourage thedevelopment of housing in locationsnear or adjacent to employmentthat is affordable to employees inthose enterprises, or in otherlocations consistent with adoptedpublic policy for the developmentof the regional transportationsystem.
OBJECTIVE 2.PUBLICSERVICES ANDFACILITIES
Public services andfacilities (such aspublic safety,water andsewerage systems, parks, schools,libraries, the solid waste managementsystem, storm water management facilities)shall be planned and developed so as to:minimize cost; maximize serviceefficiencies and coordination; and result innet improvements in environmentalquality; keep pace with growth, withoutany loss of existing service levels anddesired service levels are ultimatelyachieved.
Policy 2.1 Planning Area - The regionalurban growth goal, objectives, and policiesfor Urban Form shall be used as the basisfor identifying the long-term geographical
planning area for the provision of allurban services.
Policy 2.2 Efficiency - Public facilitiesand services should be planned so that theprovision of the service leads to thegreatest efficiency and cost effectiveness.Where consolidation of service providersleads to greater efficiency and costeffectiveness, it shall be the policy of theregion to seek that consolidation.Jurisdictions choosing to avoid suchconsolidation when it is demonstrated tolead to greater efficiency and costeffectiveness will be required todemonstrate that their decision will haveno adverse impacts on service deliverysystems and the ability to meet serviceneeds elsewhere in the region.
Policy 2.3 Environmental Quality -Public facility and service developmentshall maintain and enhance environmentalquality, individually and collectively,across political boundaries. It shall be thepolicy of the region to pursue thedevelopment of public facilities andservices which meet federal and statestandards for environmental quality, areenergy efficient, and promote the efficientuse and conservation of resources.
Policy 2.4 Forecast Need - Publicservice and facility development shall beplanned to accommodate the rate of urbangrowth forecast in the adopted regionalgrowth forecast for the forecast period.Contingency plans shall be developed toaccelerate system development should 5-year growth rates exceed forecastexpectations.
Policy 2.5 Facility Sizing - Publicservice and facility plans shall be sized toaccommodate the planned density ofadopted comprehensive plans. Publicservice and facility plans shall integrateplanning for key services and facilities,
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
recognizing that to achieve a total publicservice and facility package which is themost cost-effective may require less thanoptimum financial commitments for one ora number of services or facilities.
Policy 2.6 Concurrent Funding - It shallbe the policy of the region to seek theprovision of a wide range of publicfacilities and services concurrent withurban growth. However, the primaryobstacle for providing a wide range ofpublic facilities and services concurrentwith new urban development is financial.Planning for concurrency, and requiringconcurrency, is not enough. Developingfunding mechanisms is critical. Anaggressive effort shall be made to seekfunding mechanisms to achieveconcurrency. Two results are expectedwith this effort:
• A formula which apportionsresponsibility for paying for publicfacilities and services needed toachieve concurrency among newdevelopment, existing development,the state, the region, cities,counties, and special districts.
• Tools and techniques to enableeach of the responsible parties tosecure the funds necessary to meetthe overall objective ofconcurrency.
OBJECTIVE 3 .TRANSPORTA-TION
A regionaltransportationsystem shall bedeveloped whichprovides adequatelevels of mobility consistent with local
comprehensive plans and state andregional policies and plans; recognizesfinancial constraints; and minimizes theenvironmental impacts of systemdevelopment, operations, and maintenance.
Policy 3.1 TransportationCoordination -Build on existingmechanisms for coordinating transportationplanning in the region by:
• identifying the role for localtransportation system improvementsand relationship between local,regional, and state transportationsystem improvements in regionaltransportation plans;
• clarifying institutional roles,especially for plan implementation,in local, regional, and statetransportation plans; and
• including plans and policies for theinter-regional movement of peopleand goods by rail, ship, barge, andair in regional transportation plans.
Policy 3.2 Mobility - In portions of theregion outside of designated economicactivity centers, adequate mobility will beprovided by:
• first, encouraging growth in areashaving transportation systemcapacity that meets regionallyadopted mobility goals;
• second, actively working to meetthe mobility needs of those areas inways that do not require newtransportation system construction;and
• third, as a last resort, expandingthe capacity of existing systems ordeveloping new transportationsystem infrastructure.
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
Policy 3.3 System Priorities - Indeveloping new regional transportationsystem infrastructure, the highest prioritywill be meeting the mobility needs ofdesignated economic activity centers.Such needs, associated with ensuringaccess to jobs, housing, and shoppingwithin and among those centers, will beassessed and met through a combination ofintensifying land uses and increasingtransportation system capacity so as tominimize negative impacts onenvironmental quality, urban form, andurban design.
Policy 3.4 Barriers - Structural barriersto mobility for transportationdisadvantaged populations will be assessedin the current and planned regionaltransportation system and will beaddressed through a comprehensiveprogram of transportation and non-transportation system based actions.
Policy 3.5 Transport of Goods - Theneeds for movement of goods via trucks,rail, and barge will be assessed andaddressed through a coordinated programof transportation system improvements andactions to affect the location of tripgenerating activities.
Policy 3.6 EnvironmentalConsiderations The regionaltransportation system shall be planned to:
• minimize, as much as practical, theregion's transportation-relatedenergy consumption throughimproved auto efficiencies andincreased use of transit, carpools,vanpools, bicycles and walking;
• maintain the region's air quality(see clean air objective);
• remove through-traffic from
neighborhood streets which resultsfrom congestion on adjacentfacilities.
• minimize negative impacts onparks, public open space, wetlands,and negative effects oncommunities and neighborhoodsarising from noise, visual impacts,and physical segmentation.
Policy 3.7 Transportation Balance -Planning for increased use of transit shalladdress a broad range of requirements formaking transit competitive with the privateautomobile.
OBJECTIVE 4.ECONOMICOPPORTUNITY
Public policy shallencourage thedevelopment of adiverse andsufficient supplyof jobs, especially family wage jobs, ineconomic activity centers and otherappropriate locations throughout theregion; and, seek the full utilization of thelabor force in the region through ongoingefforts to provide education and traininglinked to the needs of present andprospective employers.
Policy 4.1 Economic Coordination -Enhance coordination among economicdevelopment groups by:
• completing and maintaining aregional and subregional economicanalysis, identifying specificimpediments to and opportunitiesfor the retention, recruitment, and
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
8start-up of private and nonprofitsector organizations with jobs thatpay family wage levels or better;
• identifying as a priority forrecruitment, retention, andexpansion those basic industriesthat would further broaden anddiversify the region's economicbase while maintaining orenhancing the region' s averagewage/average housing cost ratio;and
• complementing and linking jobdevelopment efforts with an activeand comprehensive program oftraining and education to improvethe overall quality of the region'slabor force.
In particular, public efforts to providelabor training and education shall focus onthe needs of economically disadvantaged,minority, and elderly populations.
Policy 4.2 Economic Analysis - Regionaland subregional economic opportunitiesanalyses, as described in StatewidePlanning Goal 9 (Economic Development),shall be conducted to assess the adequacyand, if necessary, modify the supply ofvacant and redevelopable land inventoriesdesignated for a broad range ofemployment activities. Target industrieswill be identified through a regional"economic opportunity analysis".Economic subregions will be developedwhich reflect a functional relationshipbetween locational characteristics and thelocational requirements of targetindustries.
Policy 4.3 Employment Locations -Public policy shall encourage thedevelopment of employment and anyrezoning of existing urban land or thezoning of new or future urban land for
employment or commercial purposes inlocations consistent with regional urbangrowth goals and objectives for housing,public facilities and services,transportation, and urban form.
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives •°tro
GOAL n: NATURALENVIRONMENT OF THE REGION
Preservation, use, and modification of thenatural environment of the region shalloccur so as to maintain and enhanceenvironmental quality while striving forthe wise use and preservation of a broadrange of natural resources.
OBJECTIVES.WATERRESOURCES
Planning andmanagement ofwater resourcesshall becoordinated in order to maintain thequality and ensure sufficient quantity ofsurface and groundwater in and availableto the region.
Policy 5.1 Formulate Strategy - A long-term strategy is needed to identify andsatisfy the beneficial water uses of theregion while accommodating growth.Towards that end, a coordinated planningprogram for water resources managementshall be instituted to:
• Identify the future resource needsof the region for municipal andindustrial water supply, irrigation,fisheries, recreation, wildlife,environmental standards andaesthetic amenities;
• Monitor water quality and quantitytrends vis-a-vis beneficial usestandards adopted by federal, state,regional, and local governments forspecific water resources importantto the region;
• Collectively reexamine standards -Beneficial use standards will beexamined in light of apparent waterresources trends, projected growthin the region, and livabilityexpectations of residents;
• Assess the cost of water resourcemanagement scenarios; and
• Coordinate water resourcemanagement responsibilities shallbe coordinated among affectedinstitutions and agencies to satisfythe beneficial uses identifiedthrough this process.
OBJECTIVE 6.CLEAN AIR
Air quality shallbe protected andenhanced so thatgrowth can occur,human health isunimpaired, and the visibility of theCascades and the Coast Range from withinthe region is maintained.
Policy 6.1 Action Program - An airquality management plan shall bedeveloped for the regional airshedoutlining existing and forecast air qualityproblems, identifying prudent strategies,and recommending an action programwhich includes consolidation of Oregonand Clark County Air QualityManagement Areas.
Policy 6.2 Monitoring - Air quality willbe actively monitored to achieve thefollowing air quality goals:
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
10
• Hydrocarbon emissions from allsources should not exceed Federalozone standard of .12 ppm (partsper million), (current policy fromRTP)
• Areas with concentrations ofcarbon monoxide emissions fromtransportation-related sourcesshould not exceed the Federalstandard of 9 ppm. (current policyfrom RTP)
• All transportation plans and localcomprehensive plans, when takenin aggregate should be consistentwith the State Implementation Plan(SIP) for air quality, (currentpolicy from RTP)
• Standards for visibility, adoptedthrough the planning processreferenced in Policy 1, whichmeets the general objective ofensuring that views of themountains are not impeded by airpollution as growth occurs.
Sufficient openspace in the urbanregion shall beacquired, or otherwise protected, andmanaged to provide reasonable andconvenient access to sites for passive andactive recreation; and a system ofregionally significant interconnectedhabitat capable of supporting the continuedpresence of native wildlife in the urbanarea and the region.
Policy 7.1 Open Space Assessment -Quantifiable targets will be established toset aside certain amounts and types ofopen space— neighborhood, communityand regional parks, as well as other typesof open space for passive recreationalactivities — in order to meet local needswhile sharing responsibility for meetingmetropolitan open space demands. Thiseffort will begin with an inventory ofexisting open space set asides andopportunities in order to determine areaswithin the region where open spacedeficiencies exist now or likely will givenadopted land use plans and growth trends.An assessment of current and prospectiveactive recreational needs shall be made,employing both locally generated andnational standards for park land provision.Multi-jurisdictional tools for planning andfinancing the protection and maintenanceof open space resources will be developed.
Policy 7.2 Corridor Systems - Thedevelopment of interconnected recreationaland wildlife corridor systems within themetropolitan region will be coordinated to:
• develop a system of trails, capableof functioning as a unit within theregion through the use ofcompatible standards and useobjectives, to link public andprivate open space resources withinand between jurisdictions;communities with each other; andcommunities with significant openspace and wildlife habitat.
• develop a system of wildlifecorridors capable of linkingsignificant wildlife habitat in orderto sustain and enhance populationsof native wildlife in the urban area.
• implement the Willamette RiverGreenway plan by the turn of thecentury.
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
11Policy 7.3 - Wildlife Inventory - Adetailed biological field inventory of theregion will be maintained to establish anaccurate baseline of native wildlifepopulations. Target population goals fornative species will be established througha public process which will include ananalysis of amounts of habitat necessary tosustain native populations at target goallevels. After target native wildlifepopulation goals have been adopted,necessary habitat will be identified,protected, and in some cases created. Theplanning process will emphasize habitatcorridors and sites which play a significantrole in sustaining baseline native wildlifepopulations.
Policy 7.4 Land Bank - A land-bankingprogram both within and outside the urbanarea will be used to ensure thatpreservation needs and options are notprecluded by future urban development orresource lands management/productionprograms. Open space preservation willbe incorporated in planning and regulatoryprograms.
Agricultural andforest resource land outside the urbangrowth boundary shall be identified andprotected from urbanization, andaccounted for in regional economic anddevelopment plans.
Policy 8.1 Urban Limits - Outside andadjacent to the urban growth boundary arerural resource lands that should never beurbanized.
Policy 8.2 Urban Expansion - For rurallands that are available for futureurbanization the following hierarchyshould be used for identitying prioritysites for urban expansion to meetdemonstrated needs for urban land:
• First, propose such expansions onrural lands excepted from StatewidePlanning goals 3 and 4 in adoptedand acknowledged countycomprehensive plans. Thisrecognizes that small amounts ofrural resource land adjacent to orsurrounded by those "exceptionlands" may be necessary forinclusion in the proposal toimprove the efficiency of theboundary amendment.
• Second, consider secondary forestresource lands, or equivalent, asdefined by the state.
• Third, consider secondaryagricultural resource lands, orequivalent, as defined by the state.
• Fourth, consider primary forestresource lands, or equivalent, asdefined by the state.
• Finally, when all other options areexhausted, consider primaryagricultural lands, or equivalent, asdefined by the state.
Policy 8.3 Resource Economy -Includedin a regional economic opportunitiesanalysis carried out as directed by Policy4.2, shall be a consideration of theagricultural and forest products economyassociated with lands adjacent to or nearthe urban area.
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
12
GOAL m: URBAN FORM
The management of the urban land supplyshall occur from a regional perspective, bedirected to achieve a compact urbangrowth form, contribute to creating a cleardistinction between urban and rural lands,and reflect the inter-relationship betweendevelopment of vacant land andredevelopment objectives in all parts ofthe urban region.
OBJECTIVE 9.URBAN/RURALBOUNDARY
The pattern ofdevelopmentproviding thetransition betweenurban and rurallands shall be planned and developed in amanner that makes best use of the naturaland built landscape, efficiently connects toexisting and planned public service andfacility systems, and recognizes the likelylong-term prospects for regional urbangrowth.
Policy 9.1 Boundary Features - TheMetro urban growth boundary shall, wherefeasible, be located using natural or builtgeographic features, such as roads,drainage divides, floodplains, andpowerlines.
Policy 9.2 Urban Reserves - Fifty-year"urban reserves", adopted for purposes ofcoordinating planning and delineatingareas for future urban expansion, shall beidentified and reviewed every 15 yearsbased on the regional urban growth goals,objectives, and policies. Establishment ofurban reserves will take into account the
efficiency with which the proposed reservecan be provided with urban services in thefuture, the unique land needs of specificurban activities assessed from a regionalperspective, and the regional urban growthgoals and objectives.
No expansion of the urban growthboundary shall occur outside of urbanreserves. Where urban land is adjacent torural lands outside of an urban reserve,Metro will work with affected cities andcounties to ensure that urban uses do notnegatively affect the use or condition ofthe rural land. Where urban land isadjacent to lands within an urban reservethat may someday be included within theurban growth boundary, Metro will workwith affected cities and counties to ensurethat rural development does not createobstacles to efficient urbanization in thefuture.
Policy 9.3 Sense of Place - Features ofthe natural and built regional landscape —historic, cultural, topographic, andbiological — found both inside and outsideof the urban growth boundary, whichcontribute significantly to this region'sidentity and "sense of place", shall beidentified. Management of the total urbanland supply shall occur in a manner thatsupports the preservation of those featuresas growth occurs.
Policy 9.4 Planned Public Services -Upon identification of urban reservesadjacent to the urban growth boundary,ultimate providers of urban services withinthose areas will be designated and chargedwith incorporating the reserve area(s) intheir public facility plans in conjunctionwith the next periodic review. Changes inthe location of the urban growth boundaryshall occur so as to ensure the presence ofplanned key public facilities and servicesconcurrent with development on the newlyannexed lands. <
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
13Policy 9.5 Relationship to Other UrbanAreas - The prospect of creatingtransportation and other links between theurban economy within the Metro UrbanGrowth Boundary and other urban areas inthe state will be investigated as a meansfor better utilizing Oregon's urban landand human resources.
OBJECTIVE 10.DEVELOPEDURBAN LAND
Opportunities forand obstacles tothe continueddevelopment andredevelopment ofexisting urban land shall be identified andactively addressed through a combinationof regulations and incentives so that theprospect of living, working, and doingbusiness in those locations remainsattractive to a wide range of householdsand employers.
Policy 10.1 Redevelopment & Infill -The potential for redevelopment and infillon existing urban land will be included asan element when calculating the buildableland supply in the region. When Metromakes a finding of need for additionalurban land within the urban growthboundary, it will assess redevelopment andinfill potential in the region by utilizing, ata minimum, the following kinds ofanalyses:
• An inventory of parcels where theassessed value of improvements isless than the assessed value of theland.
• An analysis of the differencebetween comprehensive plandevelopment densities and actual
development densities for allparcels as a first step towardsdetermining the efficiency withwhich urban land is being used. Inthis case, efficiency is a function ofland development densitiesincorporated in localcomprehensive plans.
Metro will then work with jurisdictions inthe region to determine the extent towhich redevelopment and infill can berelied on to meet the identified need foradditional urban land. After this analysisand review, Metro will consider anamendment of the urban growth boundaryto meet that portion of the identified needfor land not met through commitments forredevelopment and infill.
Policy 10.2 Financial Incentives -Financial incentives to encourageredevelopment and infill consistent withadopted and acknowledged comprehensiveplans will be pursued to makeredevelopment and infill attractive toinvestors and buyers. One possiblemechanism might be an "urban expansionmarket impact fee", assessed per acre onlands added to the Metro urban growthboundary, and deposited in a trust fundused to address issues which hinderredevelopment.
Policy 10.3 Economic Activity Centers -The region shall identify and reinforce alimited number of emerging economicactivity centers. An "economic activitycenter" is a mixed use node of relativelyhigh density, supportive of non-auto basedtransportation modes, and supported bysufficient parks, open space, and otherurban amenities. State, regional, and localpolicy and investment shall be coordinatedto achieve development objectives foreconomic activity centers, and minimumtargets for transit:highway mode split,jobs:housing balance, and minimum
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
14housing density may be associated withthose public commitments.
New economic activity centers shall besited with respect to a system of suchcenters in the region, and shall notsignificantly affect regional goals forexisting centers, the transportation system,and other public services and facilities.Tools will be developed to addressregional economic equity issues stemmingfrom the fact that not all jurisdictions willserve as a site for an economic activitycenter. Such tools may include off-sitelinkage programs to meet housing or otherneeds or a program of tax base sharing forthe increment of new tax base created bypublic investment in economic activitycenters.
OBJECTIVE 11.URBANGROWTHBOUNDARY
The regional urbangrowth boundaryshall separate x —'urbanizable fromrural land, be based in aggregate on theregion's 20-year projected need for urbanland, and be located consistent withstatewide planning goals and regionalurban growth goals and objectives.
Policy 11.1 Expansion into UrbanReserves - Upon demonstrating a need foradditional urban land, urban growthboundary amendments shall only occurwithin urban reserves unless it can bedemonstrated that Statewide Planning Goal14 cannot be met for the urban regionthrough use of urban reserve lands.
Policy 11.2 Adequacy of Land Supply -The adequacy of the supply of urban landwithin the urban growth boundary shall be
judged on the basis of an assessment of allland within the boundary, taking intoaccount any special and unique conditionsor circumstances associated only withparticular portions of the urban area.
Policy 11.3 Amendment Criteria-Criteria for amending the urban growthboundary shall be derived from statewideplanning goals 2 and 14 and relevantportions of the regional urban growthgoals and objectives.
Policy 11.4 Major Amendments -Proposals for major amendment of theUGB shall be made primarily through alegislative process in conjunction with thedevelopment and adoption of regionalforecasts for population and employmentgrowth. The amendment process will beinitiated by a Metro finding of need, andinvolve local governments, specialdistricts, citizens, and other interests.
Policy 11.5 Locational Adjustments -Locational adjustments of the UGB shallbe brought to Metro by cities and countiesbased on public facility plans in adoptedand acknowledged comprehensive plans.
OBJECTIVE 12.URBAN DESIGN
The identity andintegralfunctioning ofcommunities in theregion shall besupported throughthe recognition and protection of criticaltopographic and open space features in theregion; public policies which encouragediversity in the design and development ofsettlement patterns, landscapes, andstructures; and ensuring that incentivesand regulations guiding the developmentand redevelopment of the urban areapromote a settlement pattern which:
• includes concentrated, high density,mixed use economic activitycenters developed in relation to theregion's transit system;
• is attractive and reflects a"Northwest Style of Life"; and
• is responsive to needs for bothprivacy and community in an urbansetting.
Policy 12.1 Landscape Analysis - Aregional landscape analysis shall beundertaken to inventory and analyze therelationship between the built and naturalenvironments and to identify key openspace, topographic, natural resource,cultural, and architectural features whichshould be protected as urban growthoccurs.
Policy 12.2 Tools for Change - Modelguidelines and standards will be developedwhich expand the range of tools availableto jurisdictions for accommodating changein ways compatible with neighborhoodsand communities while addressing thisobjective.
Policy 12.3 Pedestrian, Transit Support-Pedestrian friendly and transit supportivebuilding patterns will be encouraged inorder to minimize the need for auto tripsand to create a development patternconducive to face-to-face communityinteraction. Efforts towards this endinclude:
• Building orientation standards,including blank wall, setback,height, and parking components,among others, which encouragetransit and pedestrian use.
• Light Rail Transit stops, bus stops,transit routes, and transit centersleading to and within economicactivity centers shall be planned toencourage pedestrian use and thecreation of mixed use, high densityresidential development.
• Mixed use housing developed innonresidential zones and allowedby right shall be included inhousing inventories compiled forpurposes of showing compliancewith the Metropolitan HousingRule.
• A broad spectrum of house and lottypes (zero-lot line, common wall,z-lot, etc.) will be offered tobroaden the range of optionsavailable to neighborhoods,jurisdictions, and builders as theyattempt to incorporate change intheir communities while meetingthe evolving housing needs of thepublic.
• Increased opportunities, incentives,and requirements for mixed useprojects and districts in the regionwill be developed to facilitate theemergence of economic activitycenters.
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
16
GOAL IV:PROCESS
METRO PLANNING
Land use planning in the urban regionshall be accessible to and understandableby a wide range of interests and shallcontribute generally to the creation ofcertainty about the results of the planningprocess.
OBJECTIVE 13.CITIZENPARTICIPA-TION
Metro shalldevelop andimplement anongoing programfor citizen participation in all aspects of itsregional planning program, including bothlegislative and quasi-judicial processes.Such a program will be coordinated withlocal programs for recognizing andsupporting organizations intended tofurther citizen involvement in planningprocesses, and will not duplicate thoseprograms.
JMetro shall ensure that the RegionalUrban Growth Goals and Objectives arereviewed at regular intervals, that anyreview involves a broad cross-section ofcitizen and jurisdictional interests, and anyproposals for amendments receive broadpublic review prior to Metro Councilaction.
OBJECTIVE 14.NOTIFICATION
Metro shalldevelop programsfor publicnotification,especially for (butnot limited to) proposed legislativeactions, that ensure a high level ofawareness of the potential consequencesand of opportunities for involvement onthe part of affected citizens, both withinand outside of its district boundaries.
Draft Regional Urban Goals and Objectives Metro
17
Giossary
Beneficial Use Standards - Under Oregon law, specific uses of water within a drainage basin deemed to beimportant to the ecology of that basin as well as to the needs of local communities are designated as "beneficialuses". Hence, "beneficial use standards" are adopted to preserve water quality or quantity necessary to sustainthe identified beneficial uses.
Economic Activity Center - An "economic activity center" is a designated location for a mix of relatively highdensity office space, commercial activity, residential uses, and supporting parks and public places. There willbe a limited number of these centers designated in the region, and they will be characterized by designelements which work to minimise- the need to make trips by automobile either to or within a center. State,regional, and local policy and investment will be coordinated to achieve development and functional objectivesfor these centers.
Economic Opportunities Analysis - An "economic opportunities analysis" is a strategic assessment of thelikely trends for growth of local economies in the state. Such an analysis is critical for economic planning andfor ensuring that the land supply in an urban area will meet long-term employment growth needs.
Exception - An "exception" is taken for land when either commitments for use, current uses, or other reasonsmake it impossible to meet the requirements of one or a number of the statewide planning goals. Hence, lands"excepted" from statewide planning goals 3 (Agricultural Lands) and 4 (Forest Lands) have been determined tobe unable to comply with the strict resource protection requirements of those goals, and are thereby able to beused for other than rural resource production purposes. Lands not excepted from statewide planning goals 3and 4 are to be used for agricultural or forest product purposes, and other, adjacent uses must support theircontinued resource productivity.
Infrastructure - Roads, water systems, sewage systems, systems for stormdrainage, bridges, and otherfacilities developed to support the functioning of the developed portions of the environment.
Key or Critical Public Facilities and Services - Basic facilities that are primarily planned for by localgovernment but which also may be provided by private enterprise and are essential to the support of moreintensive development, including public schools, transportation, water supply, sewage, and solid waste disposal.
Local Comprehensive Plan - A generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governingbody of a city or county that inter-relates all functional and natural systems and activities related to the use ofland, consistent with state law.
Metropolitan Housing Rule - A rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission toassure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of landwithin the Metro Urban Growth Boundary. This rule establishes minimum overall net residential densities forall cities and counties within the urban growth boundary, and specifies that 50% of the land set aside for newresidential development bezoned for multifamily housing.
State Implementation Plan - A plan for ensuring that all parts of Oregon remain in compliance with Federalair quality standards.
Urban Growth Boundary - A boundary which identifies urbanizable lands to be planned and serviced tosupport urban development densities, and which separates urbanizable lands from rural lands.
METRO Urban Growth Boundary 2000 S.W. First Avc, Portland, OR 97201-5398, (503) 22M646,1" = 4 mi., 3-87-1
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT2000 SW First AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5398503/221-1646
Executive OfficerRena Cusma
Councilors
District 1DistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrict 6District 7District 8District 9District 10District 11District 12
David SaucyLawrence BauerJim GardnerRichard DevlinTom DejardinGeorge Van BergenJ. Ruth McFarlandJudy WyersTanya CollierRoger BuchananDavid KnowlesGary Hansen
METRO2000 S.W. First AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5398503/221-1646
Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
October 1, 1990
JPACT
^Andrew c. Cotugno, Transportation Director
Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives
Attached is the "Draft" Urban Growth Goals and Objectives pre-pared by Metro's Urban Growth Management Policy Advisory Com-mittee and Technical Advisory Committee. This document wasprepared over the past year and is now in a public review period.Adoption is scheduled by the end of this year. Many of the samejurisdictions that are represented on JPACT participated in thedevelopment of this document.
As part of the public review period, it is recommended that JPACTprovide formal comments on the regional transportation aspects ofthe proposal. Toward this objective, a review of the Draft docu-ment and a preliminary set of comments are proposed for theOctober 11 meeting. Adoption of a set of comments is proposedfor the November 8 meeting.
Also attached at the request of Citizens for Better Transit is aproposal to evaluate a transit-intensive alternative to the RTP.This type of evaluation could be incorporated into a follow-uptask involving consideration of alternative land use/transporta-tion scenarios.
ACC: lmk
Attachments
lecyded Paper
METRO Memorandum2000 S.W. First AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5398 DRAFT50V221-1646 —
Date: October 1, 1990
To: Urban Growth Management Plan Policy Advisory Committee
Regarding: REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
We have reviewed your draft document proposing Regional Urban GrowthGoals and Objectives and congratulate you on your considerableprogress in defining an urban growth strategy for the Portlandregion. This document will provide a helpful framework for guidingand coordinating local and regional plans. The proposals in thisdocument will have a significant effect on the Regional Transporta-tion Plan (RTP) and we look forward to working with you to finalizeand implement these recommendations.
The following are comments on specific aspects of the proposed goalsand objectives:
1. The goals and objectives define a policy framework for urbangrowth which must ultimately be implemented through a geographicconcept plan delineating the urban growth pattern for the region.It is important that Metro, its growth management and transporta-tion committees and interested jurisdictions, agencies and thepublic continue to participate in this urban growth managementprogram, leading to more specific products in the future. Basedupon the Draft document, we see the importance of the followingactivities:
a. evaluation of potential urban reserve areas outside the UGB;
b. evaluation of the feasibility of and density for infill andredevelopment within the urban growth boundary;
c. identification of planned economic activity centers andproposed development requirements inside and outside thesecenters;
d. identification of natural areas proposed for protection;
e. evaluation of alternative land use scenarios in conjunctionwith alternative transportation system plans.
Based upon these studies, an urban growth concept plan should bedeveloped and adopted.
JPACT, TPAC and the Metro Transportation Department look forwardto assisting and actively participating in the aspects of thesestudies having transportation implications, particularly theevaluation of alternative land use/transportation scenarios. Wewill ensure that the next Regional Transportation Plan update iscoordinated with your efforts.
2. A number of land use recommendations appear to be very good interms of their potential benefits to transportation planning:
a. Establishment of a series of economic activity centersappears to be a very good concept in that it provides abasis for integrating development with major transit nodesand provides sufficient density to encourage pedestriancirculation and use of alternative access modes. We wouldlike to further evaluate the implication of this proposal onthe full transportation system, including highway access,parking, ridesharing, transit system design and internalcirculation.
b. There should be a stronger emphasis on restricting multi-family housing to economic activity centers and designatedtransit zones.
c. There should be a stronger emphasis on restricting Class Aoffice and regional retail development to economic activitycenters.
d. In general, infill and redevelopment results in more cost-effective infrastructure investments, depending upon thespecific type and density of development.
e. Delineation of urban reserves outside the urban growthboundary will assist in planning the size of facilities nearthe fringe.
f. Consideration of a longer term planning horizon (such as 50years) is helpful and should be pursued both inside andoutside the boundary. This is particularly important for
evaluating the long term viability of LRT and for definingrequirements for right-of-way dedication.
3. The proposed objectives on urban design relating to a better landuse relationship to transit, pedestrians and bikes is veryimportant to successfully integrating land use and transporta-tion. More attention is needed to develop good urban designtechniques that are applicable in high density environments suchas economic activity centers as well as lower density neighbor-hood environments.
4. Transportation Policy 3.2 needs to be restructured. As proposedin the Draft document, it deals with directing new developmentfirst into areas already having needed transportation systems,second into other parts of the region that can meet mobilityneeds without new construction and last into areas requiring newor expanded transportation systems. This may be a desirablepolicy for controlling and directing growth but is misplaced as atransportation policy.
As an alternative, this policy could establish that the overalllong range transportation plan should first seek to meet mobilityobjectives without new construction before proposing new facili-ties be added to the RTP.
5. Objective 2, dealing with the provision of public facilities andservices, should explicitly include transportation.
6. Objective 2 should establish the policy that public infrastruc-ture investments be used to help implement the desired urban formexpressed in these goals and objectives.
7. In order to better integrate land use plans with the RegionalTransportation Plan, consideration should be given to coordinat-ing the schedule for periodic reviews in the Portland region.
8. We encourage you to include ODOT and Tri-Met on your technicaland policy committees.
CITIZENS for BETTER TRANSH
To: Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee, March 1990FROM TFOTD; Ray PolaniSubject: Request for a study of a Transit Intensive Regional *~ional
Transportation Plan lsn to he included in the fiscal year1991 Unified Work Program
The proposed study would8 develop the base data needed to pro-duce" a Transit Intensive Regional Transportation plan ̂lan. This M scontingency plan pla'i would be invaluable in the event of suddenchanges in national transportation priorities. Possible siz-able increases in fuel prices and diversion of federal trans-p-rtation funds to more pressing national needs could raisehavoc with our current highway intensive transportation plan.A relatively low-cost, fuel efficient transit stratery couldsave our area from a future mobility crisis.
The modest amount of funds needed to develop this plan now,could save valuable time and resources later on. It alsowould be a valuable tool to evaluate light rail and highwayprojects in the context of the current Regional TransportationPlan.
ft tu d y Fl em en t s .
1. Improved and expanded transit network designa. Improved bus network (routing, headways and preferential
treatment)b. Additional hirrh capacity corridors (LRT)c. Hew circumferential corridors (Bus, F.ailbus, J."RT)d. Commuter service beyond metro area (rail, 3us)
2. Travel demand forecast using input from improved and expandedtransit network designa. Modify base highway network to exclude highways not cur-
rently in place.and include "fantorn lines to replicatetransit corridors not in the highway network. Thf.s assumestravel demand irill change as a result o^ providing su-perior transit facilities between zones not served wellby the highway network.
b. Make land use assumptions that concentrate a high per-centage of projected growth within walking distance ofthe rail stations. (During the past 30 years, £ 0 ^ ofToronto 1s apartment contruction and 90% of *ts officedevelopment has occurred within walking distance of itsmetro system).
3. Input the travel forecast model with transit supportiveassumptions,a. Moderate faresb. Parking costs highest near the rail systemc. High auto operating costs (due to increased fuel,parking parVine
and registration)d. Constrained auto traffic flow consistent with existing ex^stin^
capacitye. Unreliability factor for corricdors of constrained flow
(due to accidents, breakdowns)f« Comfort and. reliability factor for rail travel
i|. Research availability of existing regional rail corridorsfor passengers and freight usea. Negotiated purchaseb. Condemnationc. Joint use agreements
5. Develop costs for this transit intensive alternativea. Capital (right-of-vay, fixed infrastructure, rolling
stock)b. Operating (cost less projected farebox revenue)
Me agree that many of the assumptions made in a transit intens-ive scenario are not realistic in the present political climate,but we believe the approved regional transportation plan isalso not realistic given many obvious global trends. politicalreality will move in the direction of more transit the way itis already happening in California, the heart of the auto-de-pendent culture of today.
This plan vtli help set the upper limit of what can be expect-ed from transit intensive development so that future decision-makers will have a broader spectrum of options to choose fromas national priorities change.
For the financing of the study we recommend that 2f^-3^ of Metro'sFiscal 1991 planning budget be diverted to this critical project(i> 100- §150,000).
METRO2000 SW First AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5398(503)221-1646Fax 241-7417
October 3, 1990
Executive OfficerRena Cusma
Metro Council
Tanya CollierPresiding OfficerDistrict 9
Gary HansenDeputy PresidingOfficerDistrict 12
David SaucyDistrict 1
Lawrence BauerDistrict 2
Jim GardnerDistrict 3
Richard DevlinDistrict 4
Tom DejardinDistrict 5
George Van BergenDistrict 6
Ruth McFarlandDistrict 7
Judy WyersDistrict 8
Roger BuchananDistrict 10
David KnowlesDistrict 11
Mr. Robert RoyerPlanning EngineerOregon Department of TransportationRoom 605, Executive House325 13th NESalem, Oregon 97310
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your response to my comments on theDraft Highway Plan. Please advise me when the finaldocument is available. I would like to take thedocument for review and adoption of a position state-ment by JPACT prior to consideration of adoption bythe Oregon Transportation Commission.
Sincerely,
4Anarew C/ CotugnoTransportation Director
ACC: lmk
CC: Bob BothmanDon AdamsDon ForbesJPACTTPAC
METRO2000 SW First AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5398(503)221-1646Fax 241-7417
October 3, 1990
Executive OfficerRena Cusma
Metro Council
Tanya CollierPresiding OfficerDistrict 9
Gary HansenDeputy PresidingOfficerDistrict 12
David SaucyDistrict 1
Lawrence BauerDistrict 2
Jim GardnerDistrict3
Richard DevlinDistrict 4
Tom DejardinDistrict 5
George Van BergenDistrict 6
Ruth McFarlandDistrict 7
Judy WyersDistrict 8
Roger BuchananDistrict W
David KnowlesDistrict 11
Mr. John ElliottAssistant DirectorStrategic Planning and CommunicationsOregon Department of TransportationRoom 140, Transportation BuildingSalem, Oregon 97310
Dear John:
Thank you for taking time to meet with me regardingyour new strategic planning responsibilities at ODOT.I am particularly interested in the specific scope andprocess to be undertaken by ODOT for the development ofan Oregon Multi-Modal Transportation Plan. Generally,I believe three options are available to ODOT:
1. Prepare and implement a multi-modal plan relatingto ODOT's direct responsibility for building, oper-ating, financing or regulating different componentsof the system. This plan would be strictly an ODOTplan affecting areas of direct ODOT responsibility.As such, it should be developed by ODOT in-house,include solicitation of outside review and commentthrough a hearings process and be adopted by theOregon Transportation Commission.
2. Compile a multi-modal needs assessment similar tothe Roads Finance Study; this would include theeffect that trade-offs between modes has on theoverall needs determined for each mode. The resultwould be a comprehensive assessment of statewideneeds including those under the jurisdiction ofODOT and local governments and private modes oftransportation. A needs assessment could be pre-pared by ODOT in-house followed by a hearingsprocess and adoption by the Oregon TransportationCommission.
3. Develop a statewide transportation plan definingneeded ODOT, local government, transit and privatetransportation system improvements taking intoconsideration trade-offs between modes; such a planshould be developed in close cooperation with the
Mr. John ElliottOctober 3, 1990Page 2
parties responsible for implementing their compo-nents of the plan. The final result would be ajoint plan adopted by the OTC and the responsibleimplementing jurisdictions.
In all cases, the final product should include legisla-tive recommendations necessary to implement the plan,including a financing element. Since the highway fund-ing recommendations will be developed through the RoadsFinance Study, attention to the financing needs ofother modes should be accomplished through the multi-modal plan.
In conclusion, I am encouraged that ODOT is embarkingon the development of a multi-modal transportationplan. I am, however, concerned that the process in-clude the appropriate level of involvement by otherjurisdictions commensurate with the intended productenvisioned by ODOT.
