At its meeting Wednesday night the Metro Policy Advisory Committee recommended the Metro Council and the Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington county commissions adopt an urban and rural reserves map that reflects the suggestions made by MPAC at its Jan. 27 and Feb. 1 meetings.
Representatives from each county commission and the Metro Council – a group called the "Core 4" – approved a map this week that reflects their consensus on 99.5 percent of a 400,000-acre study area. The Core 4 map includes more than 270,000 acres of rural reserves and 27,000 acres of urban reserves while leaving a total of 2,753 acres yet to be resolved in three main areas: West Multnomah County, south of Sherwood, and north of Cornelius.
Concerns were raised by several MPAC members that their committee's recommendations were not discussed by the Core 4 at its Feb. 8 meeting, and that MPAC's recommendations may have been ignored in the development of the final Core 4 consensus map.
"There has been so much time put in on this," said Fairview Mayor Mike Weatherby, who represents the cities of Fairview, Wood Village, Troutdale and Maywood Park at MPAC. "I'm frustrated. I can't go back [to East Multnomah County cities] and say nobody really cared."
Clackamas County Commissioner Charlotte Lehan, who serves on both MPAC and the Core 4, shared her perspective on the discussion at the Core 4 meeting. "People were so eager to go home and declare victory," she said. "I felt like I was the wet blanket on Monday, saying that we had not come to agreement on many levels."
Portland City Commissioner Amanda Fritz expressed similar disappointment. "I would like some communication [from Core 4] back to MPAC on why our views were not discussed."
Metro Councilor Carl Hosticka countered that many of MPAC's recommendations – particularly on areas for which Core 4 had specifically asked for input – were incorporated.
That did not satisfy Portland Mayor Sam Adams. "I disagree that MPAC was treated well in Core 4, regardless of how the map turned out," he expressed. Adams made the motion to advance the previous MPAC recommendation on reserves. "I think we should honor our own work by moving forward our previous recommendation." In the end, the MPAC recommendation was advanced on a 15-2 vote.
Following discussion of the reserves map, the committee discussed language and principles contained in the draft intergovernmental agreements between Metro and each of the three counties. The language of the draft IGAs describe the conditions and principles for planning urban reserve areas before they are added to the urban growth boundary as well as conditions guiding the protection of rural reserves. MPAC supported the IGAs and recommended additional refinements:
- The agreements should require (not merely suggest) that concept planning include certain elements.
- The protection of natural resources should be strengthened by reducing assumptions about urban density in areas with significant natural features.
- The agreements should assure that existing cities are included and can participate in urban reserves concept planning.
- The agreements should address urban form, density and transportation circulation.
- Priority should be given to large lot employment land in particular urban reserves.
- The principles for concept planning should be consistent across all three IGAs.
It is anticipated that representatives of the Metro Council and the three county boards will reach agreement on the final reserve areas within the next week. The county commissions and the Metro Council are scheduled to consider adoption of the IGAs, including final reserves maps, by the end of February.
MPAC and Core 4 recommendations side by side
Several of MPAC's recommendations were incorporated partially or fully into the Core 4 map. In some cases, where the designations differ, conditions were placed by Core 4 on its recommended designations to address many of the issues of concern to MPAC.
- Area 1F (north of Highway 212 near Boring): MPAC recommended an urban reserve, and the Core 4 map changed from an option area to urban reserve.
- Area 1D (Boring/Damascus): MPAC recommended placing the buttes east of Damascus in rural reserve. Core 4 included the area in urban reserve but proposed a set of principles for concept planning to address the known environmental and topographic constraints in that area.
- Area 6B (Cooper Mountain): MPAC recommended reducing the size of the proposed urban reserve. Core 4 retained the full area as an urban reserve with principles for concept planning to address the known environmental and topographic constraints.
- Area 4A (Stafford north, triangle): MPAC recommended an undesignated area, whereas Core 4 included the area as urban reserve with a set of principles for concept planning to address the known environmental and topographic constraints.
- Area 4D (Stafford south): MPAC recommended reducing the amount of land in urban reserve and using Stafford Road as boundary between urban reserve to the east and rural reserve to the west. Core 4 reduced the size of the proposed urban reserve but kept urban reserves on both sides of Stafford Road.
- Areas 8D, 8E, 8F (near Banks and North Plains) and 3H (Canby): MPAC recommended general reduction of acreage in undesignated areas around Banks, North Plains and Canby. Core 4 reduced the acreage of undesignated lands in these areas.
MPAC recommendations and Core 4 recommendations differed completely in two areas.
- Area 1A (east of Troutdale): MPAC recommended this area be included as urban reserve, but the Core 4 map proposed an undesignated area of 186 acres.
- Area 8B (North of Highway 26 near Hillsboro): MPAC recommended surrounding this urban reserve with rural reserve, whereas the Core 4 map retained an undesignated area between Highway 26 and West Union Road.
MPAC also made recommendations on the three areas where Core 4 consensus has not yet been reached.