Last week's recommendations from the state land department on the Portland region's landmark urban and rural reserves program were sweeping, surprising, and for some stakeholders, disappointing.
Land conservation and development advocates were hoping for a Goldilocks answer from the state's land use department – were reserves too large or too small?
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development received 46 objections to the urban reserves agreement. Many came from conservation advocates, who thought the 28,000 acre urban reserve was either too large or put in the wrong place. Some came from landowners who wanted to see their parcels included in the urban reserves. Homebuilders, Realtors and some business alliances objected, saying the rural reserves would constrict development for decades to come.
On Sept. 28, the department released its report on the objections, and recommended that the state Land Conservation and Development Commission approve all of the region's proposed reserves when the commission meets in Portland later this month.
Advocates on all sides were surprised the department's recommendations were so sweeping. The department didn't seem interested in delving into whether the reserves were adequate in size. Instead, the agency looked more at whether the designation of urban and rural reserves, many of which could have been designated either way, met state law.
According to the department, the reserves are legal – maybe even good policy.
"Urban reserves will enable communities in the regional and their partners in the private sector and government to plan for efficient improvements to our roads, other transportation systems, sewer and water systems, creating the foundation for great communities that can sustain long-term job creation and provide needed housing," the department wrote.
It wasn't music to Mary Kyle McCurdy's ears.
"Apparently the DLCD has dropped the C from its name. It's the department of development and apparently no longer sees it's within its purview to balance the both conflicting and complimenting needs of the region," said McCurdy, staff attorney for 1000 Friends of Oregon. "Instead, it's OK to develop the best farmland in the world, in the Tualatin Valley."
The epicenter for the ongoing reserves battle was a 470-acre swath of the Tualatin Plains north of Cornelius. Council Creek is viewed by land conservation advocates as the Maginot Line of sprawl prevention. They say that any new development across Council Creek (a handful of houses and small businesses already exist there) will lead to further urbanization between Cornelius and U.S. 26.
Farmers are reluctant to see any top-tier farmland turned over to developers. Some have said they'd stop fighting the rest of the program if the Council Creek expansion was dropped.
Cornelius says it needs the area to lure employers with flat land and easy access to the freeway; putting jobs south of the city, Cornelius says, will force trucks to drive through town.
Dave Vanasche, a member in the Washington County Farm Bureau who farms on some of those proposed urban reserves, thinks Cornelius should worry more about the employers it already has.
Twenty-five years ago, Vanasche said, Hillsboro used to have many of the farming-related businesses Cornelius now houses.
"The ag industry and infrastructure all moved west to get away from the Hillsboro thing, and now that whole scenario is unfolding in Forest Grove and Cornelius," Vanasche said. "I think that has a lot to do with why we were adamant about Cornelius."
Here's where the politics comes to play. Under the old system for urban growth boundary expansions, soil quality was the top determining factor for deciding whether land could be brought into the boundary for urbanization. Foundation-grade farmland in the Tualatin Valley was perhaps the least likely ground in the region to see a bulldozer on it.
That system brought the region the Damascus growth boundary expansion. Nearly a decade after it was brought in, Damascus is finalizing its comprehensive plan and many residents there still harbor ill feelings toward Metro for adding the area to the boundary.
A new state law gave the region a chance to dramatically alter the process. Washington, Clackamas and Multnomah counties, and Metro, would negotiate a plan for urban and rural reserves. The former would be the top-rated land for urban growth boundary expansions; the latter would be off-limits completely to developers.
Washington County, sitting on that flat (and fertile) land, had an ambitious initial request for reserves. Clackamas County vehemently opposed running roughshod over the foundation farmland anywhere in the region.
Tom Brian, the Washington County Chair, said he felt the report validated the politics that led to the agreement.
"We were seeking a conservatively calculated, but balanced plan that can serve the region and its future growth, allowing for housing and economic vitality for 50 years," he said. Staff, lawyers and elected officials worked hard, he said, to make sure the state would OK the reserves plan.
Call the process politics or negotiation, but it led to all three counties and Metro voting in late February to approve the establishment of 28,615 acres of urban reserves and 266,954 acres of rural reserves. A region expecting a 60 percent increase in population will only increase its footprint 11 percent.
That's small consolation if your farm is on that 11 percent, or if your city could be faced with the challenges of a new community forming nearby.
Much of the Stafford Basin was included in the reserves map, despite nearby cities' reluctance to offer it public and infrastructure services and residents' appreciation for its rural character.
"Once rural edge areas are designated urban, investments in rural ventures like orchards and stables will cease to happen," said Teri Cummings, a West Linn City Councilor who opposed the Stafford urban reserve. "If you read the LCDC report, you might notice how the 'factors' are pushed aside in favor of 'political checks and balances.' I'm just wondering who checks?"
On the other side of the coin was the Coalition for a Prosperous Region, a group which includes the Commercial Real Estate Association, the Commercial Real Estate Economic Coalition, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, the Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, the Portland Business Alliance and the Westside Economic Alliance.
Drake Butsch, the coalition's chair, said he was glad the department didn't recommend that the commission reduce the urban reserves' size. But, he said, the urban reserves are too small – and they're too tightly packed against rural reserves.
The coalition wanted more undesignated land surrounding the urban reserves, so that if the urban reserves were filled up, Metro could revert to that old land-use system in picking urban growth boundary expansion areas. Butsch said his coalition members were frustrated by the way urban reserves got smaller and smaller as negotiations went on.
"Every time, they erred to the bottom side," Butsch said, aiming for density numbers "we've never, ever met."
During the reserves negotiations, many suggested a check-in somewhere decades down the road, giving the Oregon Legislature an opportunity to amend reserves laws as necessary. Butsch was dubious that might happen.
"We've left ourselves nowhere to grow if we're wrong," Butsch said. "I think it's easy to make an argument that they haven't got enough there for 50 years."
The department's recommendations to the commission carry no formal weight. Commissioners will hold a four-day hearing at the Metro Regional Center starting Oct. 19 to take testimony and deliberate on whether to accept reserves.
Acceptance would clear the way for Metro to adopt Chief Operating Officer Michael Jordan's recommended urban growth boundary expansions for 2010, including industrial land north of Hillsboro and residential land south of Hillsboro. If reserves aren't accepted, and the Metro Council decides to go forward with a growth boundary expansion, the region would be forced to eye land around Oregon City for expansion.
Because voters in that city have been reluctant to approve annexations, Jordan's referred to that expansion as his "all-time least favorite" candidate.
The commission's decision can be reviewed by the Oregon Court of Appeals. But the wake of the report left farmers disheartened.
"It looks to us like it just became the Oklahoma land rush," Vanasche said.