91ÊÓƵ

Every six years, the Metro Council makes an urban growth management decision, either bringing more land into the Portland metro urban growth boundary (UGB) or maintaining the status quo. Metro makes its urban growth management decision based on technical forecasting of the amount of demand for residential and employment land, and whether the land within the current UGB has the capacity to meet that demand for the next 20 years. If there is not sufficient capacity, more land is brought into the UGB and can be used to meet that demand. If capacity exists, no additional land need be brought into the UGB.

Metro’s technical analysis considers a number of factors other than just the availability of land, including population projections, dynamics of development markets, housing price trend, regional employment projections, as well as income and wage trends. The full analysis is contained in Draft 2014 Urban Growth Report, which was accepted by the Metro Council in December 2013.

One wild card in the process was the state Legislature which earlier this year was considering various bills that would have granted urban reserve status for various parcels, essentially selecting the land that would go to the front of the line to be brought within the UGB. However, the Legislature did not pass a single one of these bills, sending a clear message that the specifics of designating urban reserves and modifying the UGB is a local matter in which the legislature will only intervene under extraordinary circumstances.

With the assurance that the Legislature will remain on the sidelines, Metro is scheduled to make its next urban growth management decision in November. All of the previous urban growth management decisions have added more land with the political debate surrounding how much acreage to bring in and from which areas. In contrast to previous decisions, the 2014 Urban Growth Report (the technical analysis) and Metro’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) both recommend that the Metro Council choose to maintain the status quo and not bring any additional land within the UGB.

The Urban Growth Report forecasts the regional need for residential, commercial, and industrial land based on a range of projections (low, middle, and high growth), finding sufficient capacity to meet all of the projected residential needs, but that commercial and industrial needs would not be met under the high growth projection. Based on the technical projections in the Urban Growth Report as well as legal and political factors and regional policies, Metro’s COO has likewise recommended that the Metro Council stand pat for the time being when making its urban growth management decision.

The recommendation calls for no action now. Instead, the suggestion is to wait until the urban reserves are acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and then revisit the need for urban land again – even if it means shortening the six-year timeline before the next urban growth management decision. In theory, hitting the pause button for a couple of years will allow much of the uncertainty to pass, such as the ongoing saga of the future of Damascus and the Oregon Court of Appeals remanding the prior urban reserves decision. Metro can then start afresh and make more informed urban growth management decisions with less uncertainty. This approach is fine in concept, but at first blush seems to have shortcomings.

Both the future of Damascus and the outcome of the urban reserve process are dependent on third parties and not within the direct control of Metro. To put it generously, both of these processes have been less than predictable.

The urban reserves were first approved in 2011. After a trip to the Oregon Court of Appeals, the process was remanded back to Metro to make a new decision.

Even more drawn out and contentious is the political process associated with land use planning in Damascus. Incorporated as a city in 2004, Damascus has yet to adopt a comprehensive plan (as required to undertake urban development), and is likely to undergo its second disincorporation vote this fall. In other words, these processes have gone on for four and 11 years respectively, and neither is a sure bet to reach any final resolution in the next few years.

If the coming urban reserve decision is appealed to the Court of Appeals again, it will take years before it becomes final, assuming that Metro wins the appeal. If the Damascus disincorporation vote fails (like the last Damascus disincorporation vote), there is no telling when progress toward urban development in Damascus will occur. Even if waiting is the right decision, the Metro Council should not hinge its timeline for revisiting its urban growth management responsibilities on such uncertain thresholds.

Recent history has demonstrated that despite the best intentions at the regional and local government level, the politics of urbanizing rural land remains controversial and fraught with uncertainty. Should the Metro Council decline to take action on the UGB before the urban reserves and Damascus become more predictable, it could quite easily result in a decade passing without inclusion of additional acreage in the UGB. The impact of such a delay may not be immediately felt, but would be later in the 20 year planning period. Compensating for unmet demand after-the-fact is difficult because there are timing and financial barriers to providing the urban utilities necessary to serve development of land newly brought within the UGB. Recent history seems to indicate that bringing large swaths of land into the UGB all at once, such as Damascus, comes with its own set of risks.

 Damien Hall focuses on land use and real estate law as an attorney at Ball Janik LLP. Contact him at 503-944-6138 or [email protected].