Portland's Urban Growth Boundary and Public Participation
Elaine Wilkerson, Growth Management Services, Portland, Oregon
Presentation at DalTech Mid-Term Planning Module, March 11, 1999
Background
Portland has a two-tier region, with the regional tier elected directly from 7 regional districts and an Executive Director elected from the whole region. The region has 1.3 million people, 24 cities and the urban portions of 3 counties. The State of Washington is just north across the Columbia River, and we work with them on committees.
The urban growth boundary is a state requirement, in a 25 year old law. The edge between urban and rural must be drawn to include a 20 year supply of land for urban uses.
In 1990, Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives were adopted. The whole population voted on the Home Rule Charter, which defined the role of the two tiers of local government. Land use and transportation planning was established as the primary responsibility of metro.
We have reduced sprawl over the past 20 years, and now only need 5,000 to 8,000 more acres for urban growth. We are expecting a half-million more in the next 20 years. Two-thirds of these are from migration.
Public Participation Process
The planning horizon was long-range: 50 years. We presented these four scenarios:
1. Base case - current 233,000 acres requiring a 50 percent increase
2. Growth at the edge
3. Growth within the urban growth boundary (UGB) and transit improvements
4. Satellite cities
We started in 1992 with telephone, stakeholder and focus group surveys. We asked: what do people feel about growth ? The results were: we expect growth, but it is undesirable.
There were two intensive years of public involvement. The newsletter that started with a circulation of 13,000 has grown to 70,000.
We talked about the above options during 1992 to 1994. We had open houses and sessions at regular meetings of community organizations. We tried to go out to people, have one-to-onediscussions. We also had workshops at libraries, auditoriums, school gyms and county fairs. We revisited people after doing a data analysis.
In 1994 we carried out a large survey, with bulk mail to everyone. The survey asked people to make choices, and tried to get them to see the interactions. The core of every question was the impact on the UGB. The options were presented in terms of the increase in acres required. For example, 6,000 acres of expansion could be avoided if city centers were emphasized.
There were 17,000 responses from the survey; a 3 percent return. We received photos, maps and songs as part of the responses. We presented the results using videos that explained the issues and had interviews with local people and politicians.
A later 1997 mail-out survey centered on our mailing list. It included a 3-D map with viewing glasses.
We ended with a 2040 Growth Concept, adopted in 1995. It involved concentration in centres, preserving the UGB and providing transit. Farmland loss was undesirable. There was concern about congestion. People wanted compact communities and the natural areas in the city not to be jeopardized. Regional centres were to be promoted through investment in them. The preservation of Portland’s downtown, which is vibrant and has never suffered decline, was a major aim.
The UGB amendment was the most contentious issue, but people saw NIMBY has the effect of expanding the UGB. The 1998 amendment added only 5,000 acres to the UGB.
We are now starting a second round of public outreach. The UGB amendment this year is expected to be for 3,000 acres. We are now concentrating on natural land protection; e.g. flood plains and stream edges.
Reasons for Success of Public Participation Process
1. Open houses involved politicians.
2. Metro Technical Advisory Committee includes local interest groups.
3. "Early measures". Implement Growth Concept and not lose opportunities. Council adopted these early measures in a "Functional Plan". Municipalities had to change codes and then report on compliance. The measures were: accessory units allowed, minimum densities, road connectivity in suburbs, limit retail in industrial areas, water quality, flood plains.
4. Interest groups included home builders as well as environmental groups.
5. There was a large following of the issues on cable TV.
6. Community leaders developed out of the process.
7. People cared about the environment and farmland. They participated because of their reverence for nature.
8. The process engaged people by focusing on choices.
9. There was good leadership, whether elected or not.
10. The Charter made people vote on the role the municipality should play, and they supported planning first.
11. There is State foresight and support for planning and the UGB, even after two years of challenges in the Legislature.
Links on World Wide Web
![[home]](http://www.atlanticplanners.org/images/back.gif){kind=small}
Atlantic Planners Institute Home Page
This page and all contents are produced by the Atlantic Planners Institute, an affiliate of the Canadian Institute of Planners.
This document was last modified on April 28, 1999.