Urban/Rural Reserves Study   Urban and rural reserves Find out about a unique new collaborative process the region is using to choose the best places for future urban growth. Learn how regional partners are identifying lands that won’t be urbanized for the next 50 years. What are urban and rural reserves? Urban reserve means lands outside an urban growth boundary that will provide for: (future expansion over a long-term period; and the cost-effective provision of public facilities and services within the area when the lands are included within the urban growth boundary. Rural reserve means land reserved to provide long-term protection for agriculture, forestry or important natural landscape features that limit urban development or help define appropriate natural boundaries of urbanization, including plant, fish and wildlife habitat, steep slopes and floodplains. Oregon Revised Statute 195.137 Planning and policy news Get breaking news on Metro’s endeavor to build a sustainable and prosperous region. Subscribe to updates on land use, transportation, development, natural areas, parks and trails planning. Help shape the policies that create the future of this place we call home... Go to oregonmetro.gov/planningnews. Maps Look at these maps to locate the current urban and rural designations for Boring and its surrounding areas. As the planning progresses, the maps will change. Check out this Metro site for the most up-to- date information on the maps and the process. Map One Map One Revised Map Two July 14, 2010 - A personal message from Rod Park Explaining my vote on Metro's urban and rural reserve ordinance On June 10, my colleagues and I completed a multi-year process that will guide regional land use for the next five decades. In what many described as a historic moment, the Metro Council designated 28,615 acres of urban reserves around the region. For the next fifty years, when Metro considers expanding the urban growth boundary, the focus will be on these lands. Choosing land for urbanization was a thoughtful and painstaking process. I particularly want to acknowledge the efforts of Councilor Kathryn Harrington as well as my fellow councilors, elected officials, Metro and county staff, interest groups and residents throughout the region who called, e-mailed or otherwise took part in the discussion. Although I'm proud of the innovative approach we've undertaken, I would like to take the opportunity to explain why I opposed the final product. For many years, leaders in the region have realized the importance of balancing the needs of an ever-growing population with the obligation to protect farm and natural resource lands. Instead of focusing on short-term growth solutions, we endeavored to broaden the discussion and explore long-term planning strategies. Those conversations led to Metro and the region being granted the unique opportunity to re- prioritize which lands could be urbanized. While exciting, these efforts also had a lot of risk: the new strategy meant everyone had to let go of the old safeguards for new untested tools. In 2000, I learned about the limitations of the current tools when we considered trying to urbanize a prime piece of farmland known as St. Mary's with the trade-off of protecting other farm lands in western Washington County. Knowing the only thing about the future that we can safely predict is that things will change, we agreed that we should be conservative in our approach when designating urban reserves. I don't think that means in just the amount of land being placed in the reserve but also the location of those lands. What we found, though, is that everyone has their own definition of conservative, depending on the direction they wish to travel. The creation of urban and rural reserves will clarify which areas will be considered for urbanization over the next 40 to 50 years and where we can ensure that the appropriate planning and investments can occur. This is important as it will better allow all the parties to identify the efficiencies of reusing lands before expanding into new areas. Conversely, farmers will know if they can plant long-term crops and make capital investments without fear of being included into urban development. In evaluating the work of the region, I have kept these outcomes in mind in my judgment on whether we have met our goals. Have we balanced these as required by the legislation and our stated goals? Our county partners were faced with many difficult choices, I appreciate all their work and in general, I think they've made responsible choices given their options. All three had unique challenges. Clackamas County did well to protect the most threatened of rural areas while suggesting development that will create a very exciting to place to live and work. There, areas of conflicted farmland are mostly included in urban reserves, with the exception of the Boring area, which has foundation farmlands in the urban reserves. The area with the most challenges but also with the most promise will be the Stafford Basin, where time will be needed to work through the various issues of urbanization. Much of Multnomah County's prime farmland had already been urbanized because of past development patterns - beginning with the pioneers. On the east side, we have attempted to correct past decisions made before land use planning was initiated. The main thrust there will be to include and incorporate three schools in urban reserves and eventually into neighborhoods by building around them. On the west side, the goal is to ensure long term habitat and watershed protection. However, I believe this area also illustrates how the political boundaries and the geographical boundaries do not match and where under different circumstances, a different decision might have prevailed. Washington County had the most difficult issues to resolve. It has the best farmland in Oregon – perhaps the world, is home to a vibrant high tech cluster and has major transportation issues by virtue of its limited access to the highway system. The dual importance of Washington County's urban and rural economies means that any land use planning decisions will have to strike an important balance between safeguarding rural areas and spurring urban development. Of all the areas in Washington County being placed in urban reserve, it is the area north of Council Creek which gives me the greatest pause. We all hope for a prosperous and vibrant Cornelius, but we also realize that with prosperity comes traffic. People testified about their desire to locate closer to Hwy 26, which would direct urban traffic through rural reserves. Urban level traffic moving through rural areas is not conducive to farm operations, moving equipment and goods to market and between farms. I know this from personal experience; I actively farm within and outside the urban growth boundary. As I review the map, the configuration of the Cornelius area would be the only one to use a rural reserve as a transportation corridor between urban areas and would throw off the critical balance between rural and urban investment. Planning for the future requires us to understand our finite resources and make judgments about what will best suit our region 30 to 50 years from now. Striking the right balance between urban and rural reserves means understanding the trade-offs we make when we allow urbanization of prime farmland. While we can't undo historical decisions on settlement patterns, we can decide to not repeat some of the decisions that have come since. I ask myself - if I had the ability to make the choice on whether to urbanize the farmland that Charbonneau was built upon, the catalyst of SB100, Oregon's Land Use system under Senator Hector McPherson and Gov. Tom McCall, would I? My answer would be no. It is along these lines that I decided to vote "no" on the urban and rural reserves ordinance. I believe we are giving up too much to future urbanization and at the same time, locating reserves in areas that will not meet the stated goals of urban and rural reserves. While I found a great many features to like and accept in the legislation before us, overall I could not vote to support a piece of legislation that will fail to meet our overall long-term objectives. This was a historical event, and regardless of my vote, I can say that I was honored to be a part of the process and encouraged that so many of us around this region worked so hard to come to a decision. Rod Park Metro Councilor, District 1 rod.park@oregonmetro.gov Metro offers new options for receiving Councilor Park's messages. An e-mail digest of Councilor Park's newsfeed is now available in daily, weekly or monthly frequencies. Or use an RSS reader to receive his District 1 news at your convenience [RSS feed link]. To subscribe to the digest If you wish to receive the daily, weekly or monthly digest of any councilor's newsfeed, follow the Manage your subscription link and select a newsfeed digest frequency. If you don't opt in to a digest, you will still get your councilor's personal messages but not the more frequent district news appearing on his or her newsfeed. Metro news has daily updates on the actions, events and activities at Metro that support vibrant neighborhoods, thriving local economies and treasured farms and forestland. View upcoming activities in the region at Metro's calendar. Metro 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97232-2736 503-797-1700 503-797-1804 TDD 503-797-1797 fax Boring CPO PO Box 391 Boring, Oregon 97009 (503) 663-1297 General Boring Community Planning Organization (CPO) information, contact Les Otto or Steve Wiege Website design and hosting provided by WolfPk. Copyright © 2006-2010 Boring Community Planning Organization. Legal Information All Rights Reserved.