Receive a briefing on the current status of the Stafford basin urban reserve remand, and direct any questions to staff.

Transcription

1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council David Powell, City Attorney Study Session Stafford Urban Reserve Remand DATE: March 3, 2017 ACTION No action is requested. The purpose of the study session is to provide the Council information on the current status and issues relating to the 2010 remand of the Metro/Clackamas County proposed urban reserve designation for the Stafford area. BACKGROUND As background for the presentation and discussion, attached is a February 22, 2017, joint memorandum from the Clackamas County Administrator and Metro Chief Operating Officer to the County Board and Metro Council discussing issues raised by Lake Oswego, West Linn and Tualatin, together with a related Metro staff memo. As a refresher on the history of Stafford urbanization and related city concerns, also attached are the slightly dated meeting materials for the April 21, 2015 City Council study session on urban reserves and the Stafford basin. RECOMMENDATION Receive a briefing on the current status of the Stafford basin urban reserve remand, and direct any questions to staff. ATTACHMENTS 1. February 22, 2017 memo from Martha Bennet and Don Krupp, with attached February 28, 2017, Metro staff memo from Ted Reid A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR

2 Page 2 2. Meeting materials from the April 21, 2015 City Council study session A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR

3 Date: February 22, 2017 To: Council President Tom Hughes and Metro Councilors Chair Jim Bernard and Clackamas County Commissioners From: Martha Bennett, Chief Operating Officer Don Krupp, County Administrator Subject: Conditions for future urbanization of Stafford Urban Reserves In March and April, the Metro Council and Clackamas County Commission will hold public hearings and consider findings as part of finalizing the 2010 designation of urban and rural reserves. Those hearings result from the Land Conservation and Development Commission s (LCDC) remand of the urban and rural reserves decision that followed the Oregon Court of Appeals 2014 decision in the Barkers Five case. As you will recall, the City of Tualatin and the City of West Linn were two of the appellants in that case, and those two cities persuaded the Court that the 2010 decision did not adequately consider potential future traffic impacts in and around Stafford. Those two cities and the City of Lake Oswego remain concerned about the designation of Stafford as an urban reserve (specifically, urban reserve areas 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D). We know that the Metro Council and Clackamas County Commission are committed to working collaboratively with these three cities, and we are writing this memo to help the Council and Commission convey our agencies mutual commitment to addressing the concerns raised by the cities. In particular, we recommend that the Council and Commission specify, as part of your decision on the remand, that Metro and Clackamas County execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure the following issues are addressed before any future decisions are made to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB) into Stafford: An existing city government wants to govern the area: Both Metro and Clackamas County believe that this area should be governed by the surrounding cities (West Linn, Tualatin, Lake Oswego and Wilsonville). The cities must have the authority to decide what land uses should be planned for, and when and how municipal services will be provided. Similarly, both Metro and Clackamas County should oppose any future effort to incorporate a new city or create service districts to provide urban services in the area. An existing city government has completed a concept plan: As you all know, since 2011 Metro requires that local governments develop concept plans before an area comes into the UGB. In the case of Stafford, some of the concerns that have been expressed about future urbanization such as steep slopes; preserving stream corridors, natural areas, visual buffers and green spaces; the intensity of development; and the cost of infrastructure - will be addressed by the cities in their concept plans. The cities have local control over these decisions. Neither Metro nor Clackamas County have made any decisions about how much development needs to take place in Stafford. Citizens from the Stafford area are engaged and involved: Metro, the County and the cities must ensure that decision-making regarding the timing and content of concept planning and the expansion of the UGB involve the participation of citizens from the Stafford community along with others having a stake in the future of this area.

4 Metro and Clackamas County support planning for transportation: As the Council and the Commission likely recall, Metro has approved a Community Planning and Development Grant that would allow the County to begin planning for transportation. That grant was submitted in collaboration with West Linn, Tualatin and Lake Oswego, and it will help all five jurisdictions better understand how roads in the region, in Stafford and in the three cities would be affected by future development. This project can begin as soon as both Metro and Clackamas County have finalized the urban reserve decision, and we recommend that both the Council and Commission express your continued commitment to this project. Metro and Clackamas County support widening of I-205: In 2016, Metro and Clackamas County both supported a Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) decision that prioritized five transportation projects as the region s top priorities for funding: Widening I-205 from Oregon City to Stafford Road Reconstructing the I-5 viaduct at the Rose Quarter in Portland Resolving congestion on Highway 217 Providing high capacity transit in the Southwest Corridor Providing high capacity bus service on Powell-Division Both Metro and Clackamas County are seeking funding for these projects and are working collaboratively with ODOT as they begin work on the I-205 project. There are four other things, too, that we believe are worth remembering: Once designated, existing land use plans and zoning for Stafford are locked in and cannot be changed until designated lands have concept plans and are included in the UGB. The purpose of designation is to preserve lands for potential future urban development, not to facilitate or expedite their development. Concept plans must be completed before the UGB can be expanded, and the cities, Metro and the County must agree on the timing for completion of those concept plans. Metro s Community Planning and Development Grant program can provide funding for the cities in planning Stafford. Those grants are certainly available to the cities for concept planning, but could also be granted for projects to address governance of the area or the cost of infrastructure. There are several cities in the region that will likely have completed concept plans by 2018, the next time Metro will determine whether to expand the UGB. This includes the Cities of Wilsonville, Tigard, Hillsboro and Sherwood. Attached to this memo is a technical memo from Metro staff that spells out the past direction that Metro Council has provided around urbanization. Please let either of us know if you have questions.

5 Date: February 28, 2017 To: Martha Bennett, Chief Operating Office From: Ted Reid, Principal Regional Planner Subject: Process that would precede future urbanization of urban reserves Background Urban and rural reserve designations are an important aspect of the region s efforts to protect farms and forests, create quality jobs and housing, and to provide additional certainty for cities and property owners for the long-term. At the Council s direction, Metro staff has been working with Clackamas and Multnomah counties to finalize reserve designations. Public hearings have now been scheduled for the Metro Council and the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners. As you are aware, the three cities surrounding the Stafford urban reserve area and residents in the area have ongoing concerns about the area s proposed urban reserve designation and what it may portend for future development. In 2015, Metro, Clackamas County, West Linn, Lake Oswego, and Tualatin participated in a several-months-long facilitated dialogue about the future of the Stafford area and, although areas of agreement were identified, the participants did not arrive at a comprehensive agreement settling all issues. These ongoing concerns remain part of the urban and rural reserves discussion and I understand that Metro would like to address them to the extent possible. To further clarify Metro s intent in the reserves process and future growth management decisions, and to address some of the cities and residents concerns, you asked that I summarize the direction that the Council has provided over the past several years on these issues. In short, there is significant analysis and process that would need to occur before urban reserves could be added to the urban growth boundary (UGB). Many of these Metro policies implement state law, but this memo does not attempt to describe the relevant state laws that also govern UGB expansions. What an urban reserve designation means As the Council has consistently stated, an urban reserve designation does not necessarily mean that urbanization will happen in the area either soon or in several decades. The urban reserve designation simply means that the area is suitable for urbanization under state law should there be a demonstrated need in the next 50 years to expand the UGB. Contrary to a petition that is being circulated regarding Stafford, the urban reserve designation does not constitute a decision on future UGB expansions or potential population densities in those expansion areas. As described in this memo, any discussion of future densities would occur through a city-initiated concept planning process. The Metro Council has been clear that it does not intend to expand the UGB into urban reserves that lack city commitments for planning, governance and service provision. Adopted Metro policies In response to state laws, public sentiment, and urban planning best practices, the Metro Council has adopted a number of policies that indicate a commitment to compact urban growth and efficient use of public resources. These policies all highlight Metro s stance that UGB expansions should only be made when needed and when they will actually lead to housing or jobs. Following is a summary of some of those policies: 1

6 Regional Framework Plan Policy 1.1 (Compact Urban Form) lays out a number of policies that state the Metro Council s commitment to ensure and maintain a compact urban form within the UGB. Policy states Metro s policy to adopt and implement a strategy of investments and incentives to use land within the UGB more efficiently and to create a compact urban form. Policy 1.7 (Urban and Rural Reserves) describes the Council s policy to adopt urban reserves that are suitable for longer-term urbanization. These policies make clear that the urban reserve designation is not a commitment to expanding the UGB. Policy states Metro s policy to, in conjunction with the appropriate county, cities and service districts, develop concept plans for urban reserves prior to their addition to the UGB. Metro is to provide technical, financial and other support to local governments to: Identify the city or cities that will likely annex the area after it is added to the UGB. Identify the city or cities or the service districts that will likely provide services to the area after it is added to the UGB. Determine the general urban land uses and prospective components of the regional system of parks, natural areas, open spaces, fish and wildlife habitats, trails and greenways. Policy 1.9 (Urban Growth Boundary) reiterates Metro s commitment to maintain a compact urban form and describes the significant steps and analysis that must be taken before adding an urban reserve to the UGB. Policy calls for maintaining an urban growth boundary to limit urbanization of rural land and facilitate the development of a compact urban form. Policy states the Metro policy to consider expansion of the UGB only after having taken all reasonable measures to use land within the UGB efficiently. Policy again states Metro s policy to add land to the UGB only after concept planning for the land has been completed by the responsible local governments Policy requires an inventory of significant fish and wildlife habitat that would be affected by addition of land, and consider effects of urbanization of the land on the habitat and measures to reduce adverse effects, prior to a decision on the proposed addition. Policy requires Metro to prepare a report on the effect of the proposed amendment on existing residential neighborhoods prior to approving any amendment or amendments of the urban growth boundary in excess of 100 acres and send the report to all households within one mile of the proposed UGB amendment areas and to all cities and counties within the district. The report shall address: a) Traffic patterns and any resulting increase in traffic congestion, commute times and air quality. b) Whether parks and open space protection in the area to be added will benefit existing residents of the district well as future residents of the added territory. 2

7 c) The cost impacts on existing residents of providing needed public services and public infrastructure to the area to be added. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 14 (Urban Growth Boundary) describes the criteria and processes for UGB expansions, which per state law are to be made based on documented regional needs. Title 14 also further describes the report called for in Regional Framework Plan policy (report on the effects of proposed expansions on existing residential neighborhoods). Title 11 (Planning for New Urban Areas) requires that before the Metro Council adds an area to the UGB, that there must be a concept plan developed by the cities and counties prior to UGB inclusion. Concept plans must, among other things, include an agreement that identifies which city, cities or districts will likely be the providers of urban services. The agreement must also preliminarily identify the city that will be responsible for annexation and comprehensive planning of the area. I should point out that the Regional Framework Plan and Title 11 state that, if local governments cannot agree on a concept plan, the Metro Council may add an urban reserve to the UGB to fulfill its responsibility to ensure sufficient growth capacity. However, the very reason that the Metro Council has adopted concept planning requirements is that it has learned that expansions that lack city support are not likely to result in housing or jobs. Consequently, from a practical standpoint, it is reasonable to conclude that additional vacant land that lacks governance and infrastructure is not needed. Under state law, Metro has an obligation to reconcile that practical perspective with its obligation to provide sufficient land for needed housing. If cities have not completed concept plans for consideration in future growth management decisions and those expansions are not made, population and employment growth would happen elsewhere (in the existing UGB, in expansion areas that have city support, or in neighboring cities outside the Metro UGB), at different prices, or in different development forms. This likely market response would be reflected in Metro s staterequired analyses. In essence, there is not one single correct answer to whether additional land is needed, giving the Council the latitude to decide that expansions without city governance are not warranted. As described below, staff s proposed work program for the 2018 growth management decision is grounded in this understanding. Proposed work program for the 2018 urban growth management decision On February 28, 2017, the Council will have an opportunity to discuss a proposed work program for its 2018 urban growth management decision. Staff s hope is that the proposed approach provides a useful framework for future decisions and that it gives cities and residents additional certainty about how those decisions will be made. The Metro Council has given staff several pieces of direction that shape the proposed work program, including: Provide the Council with additional flexibility to respond to city requests for expansions into concept-planned urban reserves. The Council is inclined to expand the UGB only when a city has completed a concept plan for an urban reserve. 3

8 The Council will take an outcomes-based approach that moves the region away from a debate solely about numbers. The Metro Council will only expand the UGB when there is a demonstrated regional need. With that direction in mind, staff s proposed work program will seek to focus the Council s decision making around the actual UGB expansion proposals made by cities rather than on a theoretical growth debate that I believe causes worry among our local government partners and residents, including those in the Stafford area. Essentially, the proposed work program means that the Council s 2018 decision would boil down to two basic options, both of which would be based on cities proposals for UGB expansions and peer-reviewed regional analysis. Staff believes that, with proper documentation, either option could satisfy Metro s legal requirements: 1. Find a regional need for UGB expansions: Determine whether city-proposed UGB expansions could accommodate growth that may otherwise spill over into neighboring cities outside the Metro UGB. Find that this option advances desired outcomes. Expand the UGB accordingly. Note - these expansion areas would also need to rank well in the location analysis required under Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization). 2. Find no regional need for UGB expansions: Determine that an acceptable amount of growth can be accommodated inside the existing Metro UGB. Find that this option advances desired outcomes. Don t expand the UGB. Both of these options assume that UGB expansion would only be made in urban reserves that have city support. Should the Metro Council support this approach, staff s hope is that it will reduce the concerns of cities of West Linn, Tualatin, and Lake Oswego regarding reserve designations. I look forward to the Council s February 28 discussion and direction regarding the proposed work program for the Council s 2018 urban growth management decision. 4

9 15.1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council Scott Lazenby, City Manager David Powell, City Attorney Study Session on Metro Urban Reserves and Stafford DATE: March 24, 2015 ACTION No specific action required. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND While the legal challenge to Metro s inclusion of the Stafford area in the proposed Urban Reserves is still ongoing, draft bills have been introduced as a legislative fix to the issue. Residents and property owners in Stafford have explored various alternatives, some property owners are interested in development, and Clackamas County has proposed formal mediation involving West Linn and Tualatin, parties to the urban reserves legal challenge. And Lake Oswego residents as well as members of the City Council have serious concerns on the possible effects on our city if all or parts of the Stafford area urbanize. Against this backdrop, it seems helpful to review some of the history of land use issues involving Stafford, and a more detailed outline of city interests that are generally identified in our Comprehensive Plan. To that end, two documents are attached. RECOMMENDATION Provide feedback and direction to staff, particularly on the suggested list of interests or concerns A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR

10 METRO URBAN RESERVES AND THE STAFFORD AREA The City of Lake Oswego may have an opportunity to enter into discussion with the cities of Tualatin, West Linn, and Wilsonville, as well as Clackamas County and Metro on issues relating to the inclusion of Stafford in Metro s Urban Reserves. The cities share many areas of mutual concern, and many of these are also shared by at least some of the current residents and property owners in the unincorporated Stafford area. This discussion will also give Lake Oswego an opportunity to raise issues that may be unique to our city. Lake Oswego acknowledges that the preference of residents in the Stafford basin on issues of development and density should be taken into account in any final outcome. However, to the extent that development of the Stafford area has an impact on Lake Oswego residents, services, and infrastructure, it is appropriate that Lake Oswego insist that these impacts be addressed and mitigated before any development occurs. Rather than jumping to prescriptive solutions (e.g., details of zoning or transportation planning), the chance of agreement among stakeholders is highest if the conversation focuses on interests rather than positions. Interest-based negotiation leaves open the possibility of a number of ways that could be explored to ensure that the various stakeholders interests are being served. Here are some suggestions on a statement of the interests of Lake Oswego residents and the City of Lake Oswego government: Infrastructure Transportation. Development of Stafford should not increase congestion on Lake Oswego streets and arterials (e.g., Stafford Road, Childs Road). If additional traffic is generated on these streets, the effect of this traffic should be mitigated at no cost to Lake Oswego residents. Development of Stafford should not increase congestion on the already over-burdened regional transportation facilities (e.g., I-205 and I-5). Other utilities. The costs of extending or providing water, sewer, and surface water infrastructure should be supported by new development and not subsidized by Lake Oswego ratepayers. Urban Form The present rural character of Stafford is important to residents of Lake Oswego because it offsets the negative effects of urban sprawl and maintains a sense of separate communities between Lake Oswego, West Linn, Tualatin, and Wilsonville. This interest can be served either by leaving the entire area in its present rural state, or by providing for effective open space buffers, visual barriers, and green corridors on major arterials (Stafford, Rosemont, I-205 and any future arterials) and along the Tualatin River. Residents of Lake Oswego neighborhoods adjoining the Urban Growth Boundary have in many cases purchased their homes based on the rural character that an urban growth boundary provides. While there is no guarantee that the boundary will never be expanded, consideration for the interests and values of these residents is important to the City Council. Page 1 - Metro Urban Reserves and the Stafford Area

11 Governance If any of the unincorporated area is included in a future urban growth boundary, the four cities should by mutual agreement establish urban service boundaries for the area within the UGB and require annexation to the appropriate city prior to development. By charter, annexation of any property in the Stafford basin to Lake Oswego requires approval by the voters of Lake Oswego. Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Note: this proposed identification of interests is consistent with the recently-updated Comprehensive Plan, which includes a section on the Stafford Basin: Urban Service Boundary and Urban Growth Boundary Policies (Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan pp ) A-1. The City will not expand the existing Urban Service Boundary (USB) and will resist efforts to require expansion, except in those areas designated Tier 1 Urban Reserves as of February 1998, or where properties are needed for the development of public parks and recreation facilities. A-2. In any areas where the Urban Service Boundary has been expanded, new development will be required to pay for the full cost of extending urban services. A-3. The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services. A-4. Unless created in partnership with the City, oppose the formation of any new service district within the Urban Services Boundary. A-5. Support expansion of an existing service district s boundaries only if: a. It can be shown that it is the only feasible way to provide a particular service. b. City services, rather than district services shall be provided when they are, or can be made available and are adequate; c. The provision of service is consistent with the City s Public Facility Plan and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; A-6. When expanding the USB, inventory historic resources and provide incentives to designate and preserve the resources as historic landmarks. Stafford Basin Policies (Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan p. 168) B-1. Maintain the rural character of the Upper Stafford Basin to support land uses such as sustainable agriculture and parks in close proximity to the City center, consistent with the provisions of the Inspiring Spaces & Places chapter. B-2. In the Upper Stafford Basin, support a rural buffer between any urbanized areas and the existing communities of Lake Oswego, Tualatin and West Linn to maintain the individual character of each community. B-3. If concept planning occurs in the Stafford Basin Urban Reserve; Page 2 - Metro Urban Reserves and the Stafford Area

12 a. Participate in a primary decision-making role for Urban Reserves 4A, 4B and 4C. b. Advocate for the following plan features to be included: i. A design and development pattern that results in strong transportation and transit connections to the east and west along I-205. ii. Concurrent provision for accommodating increased demand for travel along I- 205, including transit. iii. In the Upper Stafford Basin, retention of the rural character and related land uses (Policy B-1) and a rural buffer between existing communities and future urbanized areas (Policy B-2). c. Support the area s inclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary only if i-iii, above, are part of the final plan. Page 3 - Metro Urban Reserves and the Stafford Area

13 HISTORY OF LAND USE ISSUES RELATED TO STAFFORD URBANIZATION By state law, Metro is charged with adopting and expanding the urban growth boundary (UGB) for the Portland Metropolitan Area. The UGB must be reviewed periodically and expanded if necessary to include sufficient buildable land to accommodate needed housing, employment, and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space for the following 20-year period. Among other factors, land is considered for inclusion based on certain priorities relating to soil types, in order to protect high-value agricultural land (but see the alternative urban reserve process below). Locally the UGB coincides with the southern boundary of Lake Oswego s Urban Services Boundary (USB). The USB is the area that Lake Oswego has determined to be the City s ultimate growth area, where the City will ultimately provide the full range of urban services. Stafford Policy Task Force In the early 1990 s the City joined in establishing the North Stafford Area Policy Task Force, which included Lake Oswego, West Linn, Tualatin, Clackamas County, the West Linn-Wilsonville School District, and Stafford area residents. The Task Force concluded that Stafford should not be urbanized, but instead should be planned to preserve the area s rural character and open space values. The task force also concluded that future development must be consistent with the capacity of existing public facilities and services; that air, water and land resource qualities be preserved; and that safe and efficient transportation be provided consistent with the area s needs. Urban Reserves - Parklane case In 1992 the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted rules authorizing Metro (and cities and counties outside the Portland metropolitan area) to designate urban reserve areas land reserved for eventual inclusion in the UGB and protected from patterns of development that impede urbanization. When UGB expansions are considered, lands within urban reserves are to be included before other areas, except where an identified need for a particular type of land cannot be met within a reserve. In 1997, Metro designated 54 urban reserve areas, including reserves in the North Stafford area. Numerous parties appealed, including Lake Oswego and West Linn. In 1999, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) ordered that the designations be remanded to Metro. LUBA s decision was appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which modified and affirmed LUBA s decision for a number of reasons, including that Metro had incorrectly designated lower-priority lands as reserves without first determining the priority levels of all the lands in question. D.S. Parklane Development, Inc. v. Metro, 165 Or App 1 (2000). Charter Amendment In November of 1998, while the Parklane case was on appeal, Lake Oswego voters approved an amendment to the City Charter prohibiting annexation of territory in the Stafford Area unless Page 1 - History of Land Use Issues Related to Stafford Urbanization

14 approved by a majority of voters in a city-wide election. Excluded from this requirement were a few properties then known as Tier One Urban Reserves. All but a small portion of the Tier One reserves have since been annexed. Residents of Rosemont case In December of 1998, also while Parklane was on appeal, Metro approved expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary to include 830 acres in the Stafford area. Lake Oswego and West Linn joined others in appealing the decision to LUBA. Although LUBA ruled in favor of the cities on several points, it rejected the cities arguments that Metro erred in basing the expansion on a subregional need for affordable housing only in the Stafford area, rather than determining the need by looking at the region as a whole. However, in 2001 the Court of Appeals reversed LUBA on this point (and others) and remanded the decision. Residents of Rosemont v. Metro, 173 Or App 321 (2001). Alternative Urban Reserve Designation Process In response to desire by a number of jurisdictions for improved methods for managing growth, together with the desire for UGB expansion criteria that focus less on soil-capability priorities and more on suitability for sustainable urban development, the 2007 Legislature established a new, alternative urban and rural reserves designation process, codified in ORS , and implemented through LCDC administrative rules. An option under this process allows Metro and a county to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to designate urban or rural reserves. To designate an urban reserve, Metro and the county must consider factors including, but not limited to, whether the proposed reserve area, alone or in conjunction with land inside the UGB: 1. Can be developed at urban densities in a way that makes efficient use of existing and future public infrastructure investments; 2. Includes sufficient development capacity to support a healthy urban economy; 3. Can be served by public schools and other urban-level public facilities and services efficiently and cost-effectively by appropriate and financially capable service providers; 4. Can be designed to be walkable and served by a well-connected system of streets by appropriate service providers; (LCDC rules add bikeways, recreation trails and public transit to this factor). 5. Can be designed to preserve and enhance natural ecological systems; and 6. Includes sufficient land suitable for a range of housing types (LCDC rules specify needed housing types). The implementing LCDC rules add two more factors: 7. Can be developed in a way that preserves important natural landscape features included in urban reserves; and Page 2 - History of Land Use Issues Related to Stafford Urbanization

15 8. Can be designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects on farm and forest practices, and adverse effects on important natural landscape features, on nearby land including land designated as rural reserves. Urban reserve designations must be planned to accommodate population and employment growth during a period of between 20 and 30 years beyond the 20-year buildable land supply period to be achieved through UGB expansions Urban Reserves Decision Barkers Five LLC v. LCDC In June of 2010, using the alternative designation process, Metro together with Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah counties submitted a joint urban and rural reserves decision. Included among the urban reserves designations was all of the land between the Lake Oswego s current Urban Services Boundary and I-205, together with land extending south of I-205 toward Wilsonville. As required by the alternative process, the decision was submitted to LCDC for review. LCDC ultimately issued an acknowledgement order approving the submittal. West Linn and Tualatin, among other parties, appealed the LCDC decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Lake Oswego did not participate as an appellant, but remained opposed to the designation, consistent with its opposition testimony submitted during the initial designation process. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC s acknowledgment order on multiple grounds. Relating to the Stafford urban reserves, the Court found that LCDC had failed to demonstrate that it adequately reviewed the record for substantial evidence of compliance with the requirement to consider the above designation factors (primarily factors 1 and 3). Specifically, the Court found that evidence in the record--metro s own Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)--established that, even with optimistic financial assumptions, the transportation facilities serving the Stafford area would fail by The Court noted that this demonstrated urban development of the area would not be served at all by existing or projected transportation investments let alone adequately or efficiently. The Metro and Clackamas County findings approved by LCDC did not dispute that the facilities would fail by 2035, but instead pointed out that the RTP predicts traffic flows for a 25-year period whereas the reserves designations are intended to address a 50-year time frame, and suggested that the transportation system will necessarily change in 25 years (citing as an example that the Regional High Capacity Transit System Map identifies a new light rail line in the vicinity of I-205 as the next phase of regional priority. ) The Court of Appeals found that the Metro/County reasoning was impermissibly speculative. The Court reversed and remanded the decision to LCDC, directing that LCDC should meaningfully explain on remand why, in light of the above evidence of transportation system failure, the designation of the Stafford area as an urban reserve is supported by substantial evidence. Bakers Five LLC v. LCDC 261, Or App 259 (2014). On March 16, 2015, LCDC remanded the Stafford urban reserves designation decision to Metro and Clackamas County for further action consistent with the principles expressed in the Court of Appeals opinion. Page 3 - History of Land Use Issues Related to Stafford Urbanization

16 2015 House Bill 3211 On March 19 th and 24 th of this year, the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water held public hearings on HB 3211, a bill that would legislatively designate the Stafford area urban reserves that were overturned and remanded by the Court of Appeals. The bill as introduced would remove the urban reserves decision from the land use process, and immediately finalize the designation by state law. This would be similar to the Legislature s grand bargain resolution of the Washington County reserves in the last session but without the bargain. Unlike the Washington County matter, the affected jurisdictions have not reached an agreement. Although the bill would implement Metro s 2010 decision, Metro opposed it, testifying that the Legislature should provide the policy framework and process for land use decisions but should not actually make local land use decisions. Lake Oswego, Tualatin, and the Stafford Hamlet also submitted opposition testimony, as did 1000 Friends of Oregon. Testifying in favor were Clackamas County, the Clackamas County Business Alliance, the Borland Neighborhood Association, and a number of area landowners. At this point it appears that the Committee is unlikely to support the bill in a form that legislatively designates Stafford Basin urban reserves. However, a Committee work session on HB 3211 is pending. Potential Next Steps on Urban Reserves Remand Attached is a copy of the April 2, 2015 letter from Metro Council President Tom Hughes (on behalf of the Metro Council) to Clackamas County Board of Commissioners Chair John Ludlow suggesting that Metro and the County work together to promptly respond to the issues raised by the Court of Appeals in Barkers Five and to finalize the Stafford urban reserve designation. Metro also proposes to convene a parallel facilitated dialogue among the leadership of Clackamas County, Lake Oswego, West Linn, Tualatin, and Metro to lay the groundwork for consensus on Stafford s future. Forecasting the 2015 Urban Growth Boundary Process In the attached March 18, 2015, letter opposing HB 3211, Metro Council President Hughes states there is no need for the Legislature to intervene and immediately establish Stafford area urban reserves, because the 2014 draft Urban Growth Report indicates that the region will have more than enough land within the existing UGB to accommodate growth during the projected 20-year period. While Metro intends to work with affected area jurisdictions to refine the estimate of need, to date there is no indication that the analysis will warrant expanding the UGB during the current five-year planning cycle. Page 4 - History of Land Use Issues Related to Stafford Urbanization

17 Council President Hughes also notes that, when there is a need to expand the UGB, Metro will look first to areas in urban reserves that have a local government sponsor willing to pre-plan expansion areas and identify how infrastructure will be provided. He points out that no local government has applied for a pre-planning grant for the Stafford area. Instead the surrounding cities have raised concerns about future development in Stafford. For this reason, he concludes that the Stafford area would not be a candidate for UGB expansion in the Metro 2015 process even if it were designated an urban reserve. ATTACHMENTS 1. April 2, 2015 Letter from Tom Hughes to John Ludlow 2. March 18, 2015 letter from Tom Hughes to Brian Clem Page 5 - History of Land Use Issues Related to Stafford Urbanization

18 ATTACHMENT 1 April 2, 2015 The Honorable John Ludlow, Chair Clackamas County Board of Commissioners 2051 Kaen Rd. Oregon City, OR RE: Urban Rural Reserves remand Chair Ludlow and Members of the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Metro Council to propose that we establish a joint work plan between Metro and Clackamas County to address the issues raised by the Court of Appeals remand of Metro s designation of urban reserves in Clackamas County (attached hereto). After many years of work with our residents, local elected officials, and interested parties to identify the best lands to look to for future growth in population and employment, Metro and Clackamas County now have the opportunity to create greater certainty for how we will accommodate that growth. We believe that, working together, we can get this work done this year and seek acknowledgement of urban reserves from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) late in the year or early in The Metro Council proposes that Metro and Clackamas County work together as efficiently as possible to respond to the Court of Appeals decision and finalize the urban reserve designations that the entire region spent so much time and effort developing. While it s clear that stakeholders still disagree about many issues in Stafford, the urban reserve designation allows for a wide variety of possible outcomes. Once this designation is finalized, all parties could begin working together from this common baseline to plan for the future of Stafford. We appreciate your proposal to mediate with the cities of West Linn and Tualatin regarding the Stafford reserve designations prior to responding to the remand in order to avoid future appeals. Given the conversation you and I had last month, I believe we both agree a facilitated dialogue among all the jurisdictions is an appropriate next step. We should start this process soon, as a part of dealing with the remand of the urban reserves designation. Having said that, we remain concerned that no matter the nature of our response to the Court of Appeals remand, it is unlikely we will avoid further appeals from other private parties. Therefore, we propose moving forward now with the technical and legal work needed to respond to the remand, while also initiating a facilitated dialogue between the leaders of Clackamas County, Lake Oswego, West Linn, Tualatin, and Metro that would occur parallel to the more technical Page 1 of 2 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

19 ATTACHMENT 1 remand work. Metro is willing to convene this dialogue, which would lay the groundwork for a consensus understanding between the affected local governments regarding Stafford s future. We propose that the Metro Council and Clackamas County Commission each make a public statement, perhaps formalized by resolution, announcing our intent to work cooperatively to address the issues raised in the reserves remand, with the goal of finalizing the urban reserve designations in Stafford. These statements or resolutions could include a general outline of the process to come, potential timelines and public engagement opportunities. This upfront shared statement would provide clear information to all interested parties and would signal our intention to conduct an effective, efficient, and fair process. Metro and our region s cities and counties initially pursued the idea of establishing 50-year urban reserves out of frustration with the previous land hierarchy system. We wanted to create a better system for deliberately planning where future growth could best be accommodated given our collective desire to pursue economic growth while being realistic about the cost of infrastructure that comes with growth. The Metro Council believes the surest path to completing our region s work on establishing these critical long-term land reserves is to promptly and deliberately respond to the issues raised by the Court of Appeals and seek state acknowledgement of our actions. Sincerely, Tom Hughes Metro Council President On behalf of the Metro Council Attachment: LCDC Remand of Rural Reserve Area 9D to Multnomah County and Metro and Urban Reserve Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D to Metro and Clackamas (Remand Order I 4-ACK- OO I 867) CC: Tualatin Mayor Lou Ogden West Linn Council President Thomas Frank Lake Oswego Mayor Kent Studebaker Sherilyn Lombos Chris Jordan Scott Lazenby Don Krupp Page 2 of 2 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

20 ATTACHMENT 2 March 18, 2015 The Honorable Brian Clem, Chair House Rural Communities, Land Use, and Water Committee 900 Court St. NE, S-207 Salem, OR RE: Opposition to HB 3211 Dear Chair Clem and Members of the Committee, Management of urban growth in the Metro region is a complex undertaking that involves extensive analysis, public input, and a balancing of many factors. The designation of urban and rural reserves, as well as decisions to expand the urban growth boundary, have profound impacts, not just on land at the periphery of our region, but on communities within the existing urban growth boundary and on farms and other rural lands outside the boundary. For these reasons, the Metro Council feels strongly that the Legislature should provide the policy framework and process for local governments to make specific land use decisions. Except under the most extreme circumstances, such as those that led to the adoption of HB 4078 in 2014, we believe the Legislature should not make local land use decisions. This is reason enough for the Metro Council to urge you to oppose HB 3211, which would intervene in an ongoing land use process involving local governments in our region. In addition, we do not believe either that there is an immediate need for the Legislature to act on this issue or that the areas identified in the measure are actually close to being ready for inclusion in the urban growth boundary. Legislation Not Needed While urban and rural reserves in Multnomah and Clackamas Counties have not yet been acknowledged, Metro and the two counties have the ability to resolve the issues raised in last year s reserves remand from the Court of Appeals without legislative involvement. Just this week, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) delivered a remand order that directs Metro and the counties to initiate proceedings to address the issues identified by the Court of Appeals. We believe the best way to arrive at final, acknowledged urban and rural reserves in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties will be to respond to the remand order through local actions, seek state acknowledgement through LCDC, and then address any further legal challenges that may result. This may take more time than was originally anticipated, but will result in a complete set of Attachment Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

21 both urban and rural reserves through work of the local governments responsible for establishing and making use of those reserves. Furthermore, there does not appear to be an immediate need for these reserves that would justify the Legislature stepping in and making local land use decisions. The 2014 draft Urban Growth Report, Metro s 20-year population and employment forecast, indicates that the region will have more than enough land to accommodate housing and industrial growth (it is important to note that the region s current land supply includes more than 1,100 acres added to the UGB by the Legislature as part of HB 4078 last year). Through 2015, Metro will continue to work closely with cities, counties, and other stakeholders in the region to refine our forecast, though we have no indication at the moment that the metropolitan region will have a need to expand the UGB in the current five-year planning cycle. Metro can return to the question of whether new land is needed to accommodate growth and make an urban growth management decision at any time after urban and rural reserves are acknowledged. Planning Process to Proceed UGB Decisions When Metro does have a shortage of land to accommodate projected future growth, we will first look to areas in acknowledged urban reserves that have a local government sponsor. In order to ensure that lands added to the urban growth boundary can be successfully developed, it is Metro s policy and practice to ask local governments to pre-plan expansion areas and identify how infrastructure will be provided. To support such pre-planning, Metro provides funding to cities and counties that want to plan for future development in urban reserves through a competitive Community Planning and Development Grant program. No local government has applied for a grant to plan the areas identified in HB In fact, rather than stepping up to sponsor planning for development, the cities immediately adjacent to these areas have raised concerns about future development there. As a result, the areas identified in HB 3211 would not be candidates for an urban growth boundary expansion in Metro s 2015 urban growth management process, even if they are legislatively designated as urban reserves. For all of these reasons, the Metro Council urges you to oppose HB Sincerely, ATTACHMENT 2 Tom Hughes Metro Council President Attachment Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2