Protection vs. development battle continues

Three Metro counties plus Metro are trying to figure out the Urban Growth Boundary’s next look

By Lee Van Der Voo And Steve Law

The Lake Oswego Review, Apr 9, 2009, Updated Oct 30, 2009

ADVERTISEMENTS

<< Prev. Page 1 | 2

Led by a board with both interests in mind, the hamlet adopted a vision statement March 19, essentially agreeing on a mix of urban development and rural protections for Stafford.

But the accord that was struck between would-be developers and their rural neighbors threatened to fall apart when a group of large landowners, some of whom were members of the hamlet’s board of directors, recently drafted more than 20 letters to the Clackamas County Commissioners advocating to develop the area.

“It’s getting hotter because decisions are about to be made. The people interactions are not pleasant,” said Carol Yamada, also a director on the hamlet’s board.

As talk continues about which lands should develop, and at what densities development should occur, Yamada said the conversation continues to hit upon a wide range of viewpoints.

Some people support the dense development ideas advocated by Metro, offering suggestions that include clustered housing, a golf course and retail areas. Others want room for property owners to maintain horses, gardens and a closeness to wildlife that’s typical of life in Stafford today.

As surrounding cities look on, “Stafford is a bright and shiny star on everybody’s map,” Yamada said.

West Linn has advocated for the area to remain a rural reserve. Tualatin, by contrast, has advocated for development of portions of Stafford, including areas south of I-205.

Lake Oswego has yet to offer its suggestions for Stafford, though the city has previously advocated for preserving the area’s rural charms and keeping development there at low densities. Officials in the city say they are currently drafting an opinion but offered no details.

Clackamas County is suggesting that the Stafford area be studied for urban development. That suggestion will be weighed against other land needs in the region as Metro and the counties come to a decision.

A look by county

A similar controversy between preservationists and pro-development forces ended in Multnomah County two weeks ago when its citizens advisory committee removed Sauvie Island from its urban reserves list.

The island is prime farmland and wildlife habitat, and lacks enough bridge capacity to serve residential subdivisions.

That leaves three potential urban reserves in Multnomah County: 6,040 acres west of the Sandy River near Orient, a West Hills tract of 2,640 acres west of Forest Park and a 50-acre tract along the road to Sauvie Island.

In a sign of the sensitive nature of remaining undeveloped lands inside Multnomah County, each of the three areas, along with Sauvie Island, also are candidates for rural reserves.

Clackamas County, which has more rural lands than Multnomah County, lists 40,000 acres of potential urban reserves, including the Stafford Triangle, plus the Boring and Beavercreek areas. To put that in perspective, the entire area inside Portland’s urban growth boundary is 260,000 acres.

But that pales in comparison to Washington County’s list of potential urban reserves, now set at 106,000 acres. That’s enough land for 10 cities the size of Beaverton.

Washington County heeded requests of area cities that wanted to expand their boundaries by 46,000 acres, and it incorporated feedback from a business coalition that cited other good lands to develop. The resulting urban reserves proposal is largely a simple line beyond the developed part of the county.

Metro Councilor Kathryn Harrington, who is overseeing the urban and rural reserve process, acknowledged that will make it hard for citizens to provide meaningful feedback on such a wide swath of land.

Washington County was “the most flagrant in not giving us meaningful maps,” said Mary Kyle McCurdy, a planner for 1000 Friends of Oregon who sits on the Reserves Steering Committee. The county’s urban reserves list includes virtually the entire Tualatin Valley, McCurdy said.

Brent Curtis, Washington County planning director, said the county wanted to err on the conservative side and not exclude lands for consideration before they can be evaluated thoroughly.

Once Washington County gets more serious about specific sites to urbanize, Council Creek could be a dividing line. McCurdy said her group will oppose any urbanization north of Council Creek, in the Forest Grove and Cornelius areas. The group would be more amenable, she said, to adding urban reserves along Evergreen Road, considered prime development property for industrial use.

The Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland, based in Lake Oswego is staying clear of recommending specific areas for urbanization, because its members have different views on prime parcels, said Dave Nielsen, chief executive.

The homebuilders are skeptical that the Metro Council will permit much new land for urban reserves, he said, given strong sentiments on the council in favor of denser development inside the urban growth boundary.

After upcoming public hearings, Metro expects to pare down the urban and rural reserves lists during the spring and summer. Then there’d be a series of showdown votes by the four local governments to approve the reserves lists, starting in September.

“Trying to get unanimous agreement from all four is going to be difficult, from the way things are going,” Nielsen said.

If the four entities can’t agree, Metro must use its older, oft-maligned method of expanding the urban growth boundary, where prime farming soils made parcels ineligible for urbanization.

<< Prev. Page 1 | 2