The Metro Council and Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington county commissions approved agreements this week that will set aside more than 272,100 acres of farmland, forestland and natural areas to be excluded from urban growth during the next 50 years. The agreements also set aside about 28,100 acres of land for potential future growth needs during that same period.
Today the Metro Council voted 5-2 on a resolution to adopt agreements with each county to designate urban and rural reserves. The Clackamas and Multnomah county commissions unanimously adopted their respective agreements with Metro earlier in the day. The Washington County Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted its agreement with Metro on Tuesday.
"We have before us today an amazing opportunity to protect and provide certainty for more than 270,000 acres of farmland, forests and natural landscape features for up to a half-century," said Metro Councilor Kathryn Harrington, who served as Metro's representative on the Core 4 group that led this effort.
"We have the opportunity to make it more straightforward to provide land for future employers in places that the market wants to go. We have the opportunity to end forever the old, divisive, inadequate way of expanding the UGB based on soil type rather than on the creation of great communities as needed, when needed, and how it is needed," she added. "We have the opportunity to show the state and the nation how we can work together to shape our own future, and thereby win the confidence about investing in our future."
Prior to its adoption of the resolution, the Metro Council cast separate votes on each of its agreements with the three counties. The agreements with Multnomah and Clackamas counties each passed on a 7-0 vote. (The Multnomah County reserves map was amended to change two areas in the western part of the county from undesignated to rural reserve, in keeping with the action taken by the Multnomah County Commission earlier in the day.) The agreement with Washington County was the most contentious and resulted in a divided 4-3 vote, with Councilors Rex Burkholder, Robert Liberty and Rod Park voting no.
Burkholder, who ultimately voted in favor of the full reserves package, raised serious concerns about the amount of urban reserve land, particularly in Washington County. "While I support providing land needed for employment and population growth, urbanization is a one-way street," he said. "Designating land as urban will make it more difficult for farmers to make long-term investments. There is also the very real problem of creating demand for infrastructure when we have challenges maintaining the roads, sewers and other infrastructure that we have."
Both Park and Liberty voted no on the final resolution containing all three agreements. "Once again, we spent time looking at the edge instead of focusing on the communities that need it [attention]. Now we have 28,000 acres of distraction," said Liberty. He also stated his belief that there is too much land in urban reserves, noting that the vast majority of new residential development that has occurred in the region since 1998 has taken place inside the urban growth boundary as it stood in 1979.
Park noted that laudable efforts at compromise had been made by many parties to come to the map prepared today. "We do need jobs. We need places for people to live," said Park, who expressed concerns about the amount of foundation farmland included as urban reserve north of Cornelius. "The decision needs to be balanced. It doesn't feel right to me."
Others expressed support for the reserves package and the protection it offers for agricultural land. "If you want uncertainty, go back to the old system. What is certain are rural reserves. This map would protect 98 percent of the [foundation] farmland in Washington County from having to be discussed" for future urban growth boundary expansion, noted Councilor Carl Hosticka.
Councilor Carlotta Collette also expressed concerns about location and sizes of particular urban reserves but supported the proposal and the compromises necessary to produce it. "I'm trusting and hoping that the principles that accompany the IGAs will provide the level of protection for natural resource areas that they deserve," she said.
"One of the valuable aspects of urban and rural reserves is that, by limiting the amount of land and the locations available for future growth, it requires us to rethink how we invest limited resources in our existing communities and make the best use of what we already have," said Metro Council President David Bragdon. "Now the real work begins."
The Oregon Legislature, in enacting Senate Bill 1011 during the 2007 session, provided Metro and the three counties with the authority to designate urban and rural reserves. Since early 2008, Metro and the three counties have led a collaborative effort, working with local governments, business representatives, farmers, environmental and land use advocates, property owners and other residents, to identify areas most suitable for urban growth over the next 40 to 50 years and provide long-term protection to valuable farmland, forestland and natural areas.
The designation of urban and rural reserves will support implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept, the region's blueprint for growth adopted in 1995 that calls for focusing development in city and town centers, along transportation corridors and near employment areas. As the final reserves designations are made, the Metro Council will strengthen its focus on finding ways to maximize public investments to support jobs and redevelopment.
Later this spring, each county will take formal actions to designate rural reserves through their existing comprehensive land use plans, and the Metro Council will designate urban reserves through amendments to its land use ordinances and plans. The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission will review the entire reserves package this fall before the Metro Council considers a possible urban growth boundary expansion by the end of this year, as required by state law.