Will citizens really be heard? Washington County is about to find out.

Carla Axtman

In 2007, a whole bunch of interested folks came together with the legislature to reconfigure the system for managing the Portland region’s urban and rural land use issues. The system in place wasn't protecting critical farmland or natural resources over the long term and was failing to consider how to effectively manage urbanization when deciding where to expand the Urban Growth Boundary.

In response, the legislature developed Senate Bill 1011. This legislation came up with a process to set aside long-term urban and rural reserve lands in Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties. It also created a process for designating them simultaneously through agreements between Metro and the counties.

For the last two years under this process, the counties have been ironing out plans for the unincorporated land that could set it aside for development or set it in place over the next 50 years.

A Reserves Coordinating Committee (RCC) was set up in the various counties to make recommendations to Metro for the each counties' urban and rural reserves. In Washington County, this committee was made up of city mayors, Washington County Commissioners Tom Brian and Andy Duyck and two representatives of the Farm Bureau.

When Washington County began airing their plan to set aside 34,000 acres as urban reserves (after originally considering 47,000), much of it north of Highway 26 near Helvetia, groups of local citizens began to express concern about the size of the reserves and the location. Multnomah County's citizen advisory committee and county planners recommended little or no urban reserves for their county. Clackamas County recommended 8000. The disparity between Washington County and the rest was seen by many as alarming.

According to Brian Beinlich of Save Helvetia, Washington County had little in the way of citizen representation with the RCC. "No citizens groups were represented and there was little ag representation," Beinlich said. "(Washington County Commission Chair) Tom Brian originally wanted only Andy Duyck to represent agricultural interests. But the Farm Bureau managed to get on after some wrangling." Beinlich said that each member of the RCC had one vote, except the two members of the Farm Bureau who each had half a vote.

When the time came for the RCC to vote on the urban and rural reserves recommendations for Washington County, the vote was 5 11-2. The dissenters? The two Farm Bureau representatives and Washington County Commissioner Andy Duyck. From the Sherwood Gazette:

After discussion for more than a year regarding what should be designated as reserve land, representatives voted 11 to 2 to move the recommendations to the next step of the process, a regional coordinating committee who are expected to feel the brunt of the fallout of those who object to the location and size of the recommended acreage.

Both Washington County Commissioner Andy Duyck and Washington County Farm Bureau representatives Dave Vanasche and Larry Duyck (who collectively had one vote on the issue) rejected the proposal.

In the same story, the Farm Bureau expressed dismay with Washington County's process:

Recently, the Washington County Farm Bureau issued a five-page report blasting Washington County for how it came up with its criteria for designating rural reserve land and that land set aside for future urban development.

The farmers’ report says the county put too much emphasis on irrigation and parcel size when determining what farmland would be a good fit for future development, and that the county misread the state statute enabling Metro — and Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas counties — to set aside reserves in the first place.

In voting against acceptance of the reserve recommendations, Commissioner Duyck said he didn’t feel there were enough protections for agricultural pursuits, saying there wasn’t a process to analyze what farmers would like to see in the next 40 to 50 years.

The Farm Bureau and Duyck weren't the only ones deeply dissatisfied with the decision. Beinlich says comments coming in to Washington County favor having a greater measure of rural reserves by a 3:1 margin.

Gerritt Rosenthall of the Metro Committee for Citizen Involvement says Washington County is not listening to it's citizens. "350 people showed up to the big meeting (for the RCC). 90 people testified and 75-80% were in favor of greater rural reserves. But they still voted 5 11-2 for the big urban reserves."

Rosenthall said that Washington County Community organizations have been left to informing the county's citizens about the goings on with the process. He says he believes that the county's citizen information process has the ability to do a good job, but perhaps the County Commission isn't giving it good direction.

But Washington County Program Educator Mike Dahlstrom noted that the county has a public involvement plan and that public comment and participation in open houses has been good. Dahlstrom provided a webpage that links to county processes for public involvement on the urban and rural reserves. He also provided an an issue paper produced September 1, 2009 providing an overview of public involvement efforts.

Yet despite all of this public involvement and pleading for less urban reserves and more land set aside for rural interests, the RCC steamrolled ahead with the 34.000 acre recommendation to Metro.

Rosenthall isn't against having land set aside for development. "There are some lands that should be in urban reserves," he said. "But 30,000 is not necessary. The economics don't stack up."

And when talking about how the RCC in Washington County made its decision, Rosenthall is unequivocal: "Information isn't the problem. Listening is."

The recommendations are now in the hands of Metro, who appear to be leaning toward scaling back from what Washington County recommended:

Metro councilors strongly support preserving land north of U.S. 26 and land north of Council Creek near Cornelius, as rural reserves, protected from development for the next 40 to 50 years.

At a meeting of the key players of the reserves designation process Monday, Metro Councilor Kathryn Harrington said there are several areas of “strong support” among her peers on the council.

In a memo circulated Monday, Harrington wrote that Metro councilors strongly support protecting land north of Highway 26, with the exception of land near West Union, and protecting land north of Forest Grove and Cornelius, with the exception of land between Thatcher Road and Highway 47, south of Purdin Road.

Councilors strongly support urban reserves in West Union and north of Forest Grove, as well as land southeast of Cornelius, land south of Hillsboro near Reedville, and land north of Hillsboro, south of Waible Creek and Meek Road. In total, the Metro Council strongly supports establishment of 15,661 acres of urban reserves regionwide, with 8,660 of those acres in Washington County.

According to the above story, Washington County Commission Chair Tom Brian was upset with the memo, accusing Metro of pushing its will on the Core 4, the group with Metro that will ultimately decide the outcome of the reserves.

The Core 4: Multnomah County Commissioner Jeff Cogen, Clackamas County Commissioner Charlotte Lehan, Washington County Commissioner Tom Brian and Metro Councilor Kathryn Harrington. Their next meeting is this Friday, December 4.

Brian appears to be the one holding out against the tide of public opinion to scale back--much of it coming from his own county.

We'll see if the Core 4 listens to these citizens, even if they have to bring Brian along kicking and screaming.

By Carla Axtman Dec. 03, 2009