[0:02] [Music]

[0:10] Welcome, welcome to the city of Malala Planning Commission meeting for May or

[0:16] sorry June June uh June 4th 4th 2025.

[0:24] Um so please join me in the flag seat.

[0:32] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:38] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:44] justice for all.

[0:52] Uh, next is roll call. Um, I guess we'll start with

[0:57] um over here. We'll start over here with

[1:00] you, Jessica. Jessica, community development technician. Jessica Worth,

[1:04] present. Jamie Viverus, associate planner, present. Commissioner

[1:08] Hodkinson, present. Commissioner Ornelis, present. Uh, Commissioner Eagle

[1:13] Bear, present. Commissioner Anel, present. Commissioner Pototts, present.

[1:17] Senior Planner Dan Zinder, present. Pho Brown, 3J Consulting, present. Mhm.

[1:24] Thank you. Um we're moving on to our

[1:29] uh consent agenda uh for the minutes from May 7th, 2025. Um there are there

[1:37] were some corrections made. So I need to ask may I have a motion to amend and

[1:42] adopt the consent agenda with corrections? I motion to approve the uh

[1:47] May 7th agenda with corrections. May I get a second? I second. Is there any

[1:53] discussion? Does anybody need any discussion on

[1:56] that? All right. Uh Jessica, can you call the role?

[2:02] Commissioner Anel, I. Commissioner Onelis, I. Commissioner Pototts, I.

[2:09] Commissioner Hodkinson, I. And Chairman Eagle Bear, I.

[2:17] It passes. 5 Z.

[2:27] Okay.

[2:32] Next, uh, we don't have any ceremonies or proclamations.

[2:39] Um, however, we do have, let's see, now's the time to receive public comment

[2:43] on items not listed on our agenda. Citizens are allowed up to three minutes

[2:47] to present information relevant to the city but not listed as an item on the

[2:52] agenda. Prior to speaking, citizens shall complete a comment form and

[2:57] deliver it to the support staff. Planning commission does not generally

[3:01] engage in dialogue with those making comments, but may refer the issue to the

[3:04] community development director. Complaints shall complaints shall first

[3:09] be addressed at the department level prior to addressing the planning

[3:12] commission. Did staff receive any written communications?

[3:17] We did receive one via email and you each have a copy.

[3:23] Yep. It was submitted by Paige Lance in regards to the general business item,

[3:27] the UGB CO4 memo. Um generally uh talking about challenges in in expansion

[3:33] to the south. Um and so that'll be added to public record. Okay. Yes, it was uh

[3:39] thank you for the copies. um looks a little lengthy and my understanding is

[3:44] that it'll be attached to the uh meetings posted at next next month's

[3:50] meeting online. Yes, sir. All right. So,

[3:57] all right. Um we don't have any other public comment or anything that you're

[4:02] aware of. Okay.

[4:07] Uh we don't have any public hearings today. So that moves us already into our

[4:12] general business. Mr. Zinder, we got a lot of general business

[4:18] um for the goal 14 um general business category. Uh we didn't submit a written

[4:26] staff report. I'll just read a quick overview into the record before turning

[4:29] over in to uh our consultant Violet Brown with 3J Consulting. So uh yeah,

[4:35] this is uh this topic is for our UGB study. It's a goal 14 memo overview. Uh

[4:41] the just recommendation is to get your feedback on it once we present to you

[4:46] what um the goal 14 memo overview. And uh so background when cities have de

[4:53] demonstrated land need as determined through their housing

[4:57] employment lands and public facility studies. Uh statewide planning goal 14

[5:01] outlines criteria for urban growth boundary expansion to to meet those

[5:05] needs. uh once the land need has been quantified, a study area determined and

[5:10] sub areas have been created with within that study area in accordance with state

[5:14] prioritization for UGB expansion, four factors are applied to the sub areas to

[5:19] determine suitability for expansion. Um the first one is efficient accommodation

[5:24] of identified land needs. Second is orderly and economic provision of public

[5:29] facilities and services. The third is comparative environmental, energy,

[5:34] economic and social consequences. And the fourth is compatibility of the

[5:38] proposed urban area with nearby agricultural and forest activities

[5:42] occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB. So how how would the

[5:45] expansion interact with the stuff outside the UGB? Um

[5:51] sub areas within the exception lands are to be considered first as our exception

[5:56] lands are large enough to accommodate the needed residential lands. These

[5:59] seven sub eight areas are the focus of this analysis. Uh from their

[6:03] consideration is given to the remaining sub areas to accommodate the larger

[6:06] parcels needed for uh larger employment developments that are unavailable in the

[6:10] exception lands. Um so with that I'll turn it over to Brown of 3J Consulting

[6:15] to talk about our memo our goal 14 analysis stole my thunder.

[6:21] Um okay so yeah thank you for the opportunity to come back and talk about

[6:25] the expansion process. Uh the agenda tonight will take a very similar uh

[6:31] structure in that I'll start with the policy framework and a bit of the

[6:35] process and timeline and then move into a quick review of some of the

[6:40] information that you've already received uh in terms of what is the kind of

[6:44] factual basis behind this. We'll dive into the goal 14 analysis which uh uh

[6:51] Dan was alluding to and at that point we'll get to look very closely at some

[6:57] maps of you know at a at a parcel level and look at these sub areas and it is my

[7:02] hope at that point that we can uh have a discussion because I I do want to get

[7:07] through all seven of them and then have sort of a end kind of next steps and

[7:12] what happens later. Uh but I do hope that we're able to kind of discuss them

[7:17] as we as we move through them because there's going to be some some very

[7:21] specific uh information at that point and then like I said at the end we'll go

[7:25] through next steps. Uh I will say this is uh something I wanted to say before

[7:30] but this is sort of the beginning of the process. I know it might feel like we've

[7:34] been doing this for a very long time. Uh, but the information that I'm

[7:40] presenting tonight is a draft. That's what we're as consultants, that's what

[7:46] we've been brought on to do is to to kind of get you guys through this draft

[7:50] analysis of the goal 14. Staff will be able to sort of pick it up from there

[7:54] and start applying that more specifically. So again, the work plan

[7:59] goes all the way through March of 2026. There's still quite a bit of discussion

[8:04] and planning that goes into actually drawing the boundary. We're not going to

[8:08] end tonight with a recommendation for a specific boundary. It's just setting up

[8:13] the what will become the factual basis when a boundary does get get suggested.

[8:19] So again, as Dan talked about and we've seen this slide, although I let uh

[8:24] PowerPoint give me some fancy uh graphics on there uh by just clicking a

[8:29] button. So um let's see. establish the land needs. So, as Dan mentioned, uh the

[8:34] HNA, the housing needs analysis or or now it's called an HCA, housing capacity

[8:39] analysis, is what sets the the land need for residential. And then the EOA is

[8:45] what sets the land need for jobs and uh and and employment. That was completed.

[8:50] We've gone through efficiency measures both part of the HPS which is just uh

[8:55] making sure that you're you're doing things sort of efficiently to build

[8:59] housing but then also efficiency measures the very specifically like the

[9:04] reasonzoning that definitely bring down the land need that you have by

[9:09] increasing the capacity within the existing UGB. So that's a required step.

[9:14] We've created the preliminary uh and the final study area which I talked to you

[9:18] guys about last time and gone through the parcel prioritization which I know

[9:23] has been a big issue here in terms of the fact that some of the land has been

[9:27] designated as first priority and uh and we spent some time last time discussing

[9:33] why that is and and why that happens. And then we uh evaluate the sub areas

[9:38] according to the goal 14 location factors. That's what I've been doing uh

[9:42] in May. And then here we are presenting analysis to both planning commission.

[9:46] Next week we'll present to city council. And it's my hope that our discussion

[9:51] tonight will uh inform some of this information and may change a few of the

[9:55] slides and and and will get incorporated into our analysis as we talk to city

[10:00] council next week. Uh, we'll also then as as 3J starts to finish this DLCD

[10:06] grant that's been funding this this analysis, we'll sort of like turn over

[10:10] all my spreadsheets and my uh my stuff and write this all up and so that the

[10:16] staff has all of the details uh in their hands and there will be a report

[10:21] associated with that. What happens next is uh an amendment uh gets adopted by

[10:26] the city to change the boundary and update the the comp plan and the comp

[10:30] plan map and uh it then needs to get adopted by the county and then you get

[10:36] to an approval or denial by DLCD. Um at that point there is the potential

[10:42] for a legislative override. We've seen uh Roseberg do this. Uh we've also seen

[10:49] uh I think more recently I think Monmouth uh is trying that as well to

[10:54] say you know if we apply the rules we're going to get a negative outcome.

[10:59] Therefore, we're asking for the legislature to allow us to uh not apply

[11:04] the the rules uh the way that they stand since there is not a mechanism with DLCD

[11:10] to allow you to do anything other than what this what the rules what the OAR

[11:15] and and and and the rules say. So, um that is something that uh has happened

[11:20] in other jurisdictions. It's not something that I'm presenting on. I'm

[11:25] presenting on how to get this kind of submitted to DLCD and and and and what

[11:29] happens then. I'll add a quick addendum on that at the end of this. Yes. So, I

[11:34] just it's it's um you know, it's kind of a buzz in the planning world. Um you

[11:39] know, I think that I wasn't, you know, necessarily around for the the grand

[11:43] bargain and other things that have happened around in the Portland area,

[11:46] but you know, again, there's there's this mechanism for UGB expansion. I'm

[11:50] here, you know, I'm an expert on that and those rules. That's what I've been

[11:53] applying my legal brain to and trying to like pick it apart for you guys and and

[11:58] get you as much information as possible. That's what I'm presenting on. Um, but I

[12:02] would be remiss if I didn't say that other jurisdictions have explored this

[12:08] ability to um go a more political route and say, you know, to the governor's

[12:13] office and to the legislature that um applying the rules isn't in the the

[12:19] spirit of goal 14 wouldn't accomplish what goal 14 is really trying to

[12:22] accomplish. Um, and so there's been some traction on that. So again, I would be

[12:27] remiss if I didn't mention that as part of the process. So, UGB expansion. Um,

[12:33] that slide is doubled. So, I guess I'm really deep into the process. Um, EOA

[12:38] and HNA land needs. Um, as you guys have heard many times, the population

[12:43] forecast that we're required by law to to rely upon from PSU says that uh

[12:49] there's going to Malala is going to grow by about 5,432

[12:54] people. Um again PSU uses uh birth and death rates for that. It isn't

[13:01] necessarily uh you know in migration but a lot of it is just around birth and

[13:06] death rates and families growing and people living longer and things like

[13:10] that. Um so around that there would be a housing need of about 2,000 new units uh

[13:16] between 2023 and really based on 2022 numbers when

[13:20] the H&A was done into 2042. So for 20 years from 2022 to 2042,

[13:27] uh through the efficiency measures, and we talked about this last time, the

[13:30] efficiency measures and the pipeline projects that have been completed since

[13:35] the HNA was adopted, we've gotten that number down to 928 new units. Uh that

[13:41] comes out to around um 182 acres. Although there is a 25% adjustment for

[13:48] infrastructure for utility easements, road easements uh and parks that because

[13:53] there is a requirement to have parks per a certain amount of acres of parks per

[13:57] thousand residents. So that brings that up to about 227

[14:03] 228 acres of residential land. Uh 98% of that is for R1 is for single family.

[14:12] So um and then on the other side the employment land goal is to accommodate

[14:18] uh four sites each of the 10 the 5 to 10 and the 10 to 20 acre size

[14:24] and uh two acre two sites that are over 20 acres and again as you saw in your

[14:29] EOA that's really to attract jobs and businesses that they feel the market

[14:34] around Malala uh you know is in the best interest of Malala and uh and the

[14:39] citizens. So we want to do that prioritization. There are four

[14:44] priorities again. Fourth priority being that high value farmland that we keep as

[14:48] the land of last resort. Um where we have assessed the soils uh based on you

[14:55] know a whole laundry list of very particular soil types and determine that

[14:59] those are the that is the land of last resort. And then first priority are

[15:04] lands that have already been urbanized uh outside of the UGB. And we've gone

[15:08] through this uh map before where you have the uh exclusive farm use land

[15:14] versus the county zoning that is primarily residential zoning.

[15:20] And so we have this map which you've seen before which is the first priority

[15:24] and fourth again you have a little bit of third priority but that's because

[15:27] it's not high value farmland because it's um mainly around the creek uh and

[15:34] um not around Kaiser Creek and uh other watershed sort of areas that are not as

[15:40] easy to farm. So we had a public meeting uh we went through a handout. We did an

[15:47] FAQ on what it meant um to, you know, to uh do an expansion. We got a lot of of

[15:54] really good attendance on that. Um we had an online survey which I believe was

[15:58] still open last time I spoke with you guys. We got 41 responses on that. Uh

[16:04] they kind of ran a huge v variety. Um some people very positive about

[16:09] expansion, some people very against expansion.

[16:13] um you know somebody said it was the worst idea that had ever happened in the

[16:16] history of ideas. Um but that is um I smile because that is sort of you know

[16:20] we we do hear this the people are um not always in favor uh but there were

[16:25] definitely a number of people who responded who were and we got some very

[16:29] thoughtful responses that that really did um dive into the different sub areas

[16:34] and give me some details on to how that land is being used and what the

[16:38] implications would be for expansion there. And so I thought that that the

[16:42] survey uh was very helpful. Uh so okay, the location factors, we've talked about

[16:48] this last time. Uh location factor one is about efficiency. And when they say

[16:54] that, usually they're talking about proximity to the UGB, the existing UGB.

[16:58] So is it efficient? Right? We're not going way over here. We're just kind of

[17:02] expanding land that's already on the border. Uh parcel size. So, we're

[17:06] looking at um how parcelized it is in terms of whether it would be efficient

[17:12] for development, meaning uh larger parcels tend to be easier to develop uh

[17:18] to to purchase and develop as opposed to a bunch of 5 acre lots where, you know,

[17:24] maybe they split and com, you know, and create two or three new homes. Maybe,

[17:30] you know, maybe they don't, maybe they just don't develop, right? So, um, we

[17:34] look at parcel size and buildable land. So, again, if you're going to bring in a

[17:38] whole parcel, but half of it is not buildable because of, uh, wetlands

[17:44] constraints or things like that, then that's not an efficient,

[17:47] uh, you know, you don't want to bring in 80 acres and only get 40, uh, use out of

[17:52] it. That that goes to against efficiency measures. I want to say these goal 14

[17:57] locations, again, it's sort of a balancing uh, and and comparable. So uh

[18:02] u when we look at land if we're looking all at the same priority so let's say

[18:07] it's all first priority and that's what we have here for location uh sub areas

[18:12] one through seven you know these are going to be a balancing you're going to

[18:15] look at one against the other is this more or less efficient than going here

[18:20] if I take these parcels versus that parcels you know what is more efficient

[18:24] these are just criteria by which to gauge that right so we want to make sure

[18:28] that when you're choosing one and you say hey we're going to go this direction

[18:31] over that one. You want to be citing back to these things that I'm kind of

[18:35] giving you guys as that basis. So you would say, you know, this side is more

[18:39] efficient because of these reasons. Again, on efficiency, the second one is

[18:44] orderly and economic provision of public facilities. Again, your water, your

[18:48] sewer, your transportation, and storm water, uh public services, public works.

[18:53] What What does it mean to go this way versus that way? How expensive would it

[18:56] be to expand down Malala Avenue or over on you know onaway or or somewhere else?

[19:04] Okay. Um and then uh again the Dan mentioned three three is really kind of

[19:09] sneaky. It's like you know four different factors in a trench coat. It's

[19:14] got um economic where we talk about cost of the land. Uh transportation

[19:19] facilities. Again, you're seeing utilities and services prop up again,

[19:23] just as we saw in location factor 2. Parcel size, just like we saw in

[19:27] location factor 1. Uh development potential, what do you think is really

[19:32] the the likelihood that this land is going to develop? Um so again, that goes

[19:36] into like this is an economic use of of land. Social, we talk about how close is

[19:42] it to school existing schools and parks. uh how close is it to uh commercial

[19:48] centers, economic centers, uh you know, serviceable through emergency services

[19:54] and stuff, right? So, how um you know uh from a community basis, how compatible

[20:00] is it with nearby uses and does this really make sense as an expansion uh

[20:04] from a social standpoint? environmental, we look at gulf five resources, we look

[20:09] at the wetlands, we look at slopes and flood planes and, you know, is this a

[20:14] hazardous area that we're bringing in for development you would want to, you

[20:18] know, the the greater the risk of of environmental damage or uh flooding,

[20:24] right? Um then the lower the efficiency of bringing that in as a as an

[20:30] expansion. And then energy. Usually that's talked about very similar to the

[20:34] social in my mind, which is like if you're way over here and people have to

[20:38] drive across town to get to shop, groceries, and dinner, and schools, and

[20:44] all that stuff. And it's sort of like way out here, then that's more vehicle

[20:48] miles traveled. That's not something that we're necessarily trying to

[20:51] encourage. Um so they look for energy standpoint but then also like pipe up

[20:58] sizing, wastewater pumps, you know, things like that. Is this uh really

[21:02] going to be a good use of energy in terms of or a good impact on on energy

[21:07] resources? And then the last is compatibility with a and forest outside

[21:12] of the UGB. So again, since this is all about expansion, generally what the

[21:18] expansion's new neighbors will be is that EFU land. So, um, as you all know,

[21:24] not all EFU land is created equal in terms of compatibility with neighbors.

[21:30] Some farmland is very active where they're harvesting multiple times a year

[21:34] and big trucks and things are coming in. Sometimes,

[21:39] like was mentioned with Christmas trees, you know, they may not be super active

[21:43] year round. Um and so again looking at um you know what what that expansion

[21:50] what type of neighbors it would have and how compatible with the type of

[21:55] development that you're expanding in order to include what that make if that

[21:59] makes sense. So um I have here the existing uh map although it doesn't have

[22:06] uh the recent resoning on it but that's on the next slide. And so one of the

[22:11] ways that I look for compatibility is just really looking at both outside of

[22:17] the UGB like what are the neighbors going to be on the other side and then

[22:20] what are the neighbors right we're talking about like expanding along the

[22:24] UGB having close proximity what are the uses that are on the other side of that

[22:28] existing UGB border. So here you can see I think a lot of the

[22:33] sub area um was near sorry I skipped twice was near industrial and now we're

[22:39] um there's some here that is now uh

[22:44] residential and so I think that will be uh will play a role as we start to look

[22:48] at these these smaller sub areas as we go because you can see sub areas six and

[22:54] seven which I showed you last time and a little bit of five are right across from

[22:58] that reszoning from industrial to residential.

[23:01] Uh so that sort of becomes relevant in terms of thinking whether parts of five,

[23:07] six or seven would make sense for future residential uh development and whether

[23:13] it's compatible. So the way we look at this and the way um eventually you'll

[23:17] see in a report is just to take each one this is sub area 2 and I think you guys

[23:21] saw this map last time and just really try to dig in to the facts factual basis

[23:27] that we have around these parcels. So we look at sewer mains, storm mains, water

[23:33] manes, the existing UGB, the goal five constraints. And here there is a piece

[23:38] that we're reviewing which is um goal five is speaking to what uh the state

[23:45] requires constraints on development due to wetlands. Um but I do think that the

[23:50] city code may have additional uh protections that I didn't map here. So,

[23:56] um, we've talked a lot about hydric soils, um, and additional wetlands, and

[24:00] you can see from the map in the middle on the right that, um, sub area 2 has

[24:07] significant wetlands on it. Um, but only the blue is what is, um, has been taken

[24:14] out already from the constraints in terms of like what's buildable. Um, so

[24:20] it a lot of those other wetlands may be things that can be mitigated. uh but we

[24:25] wouldn't really know until uh the inventory gets done as part of a concept

[24:30] plan later down the road. But again, I think we talked about this last time in

[24:35] terms of comparable um going one way versus the other. Um if

[24:40] if you do have we have a couple of sub areas that do have significant hydric

[24:44] soils on them and you are sort of running the risk that they're going to

[24:48] end up not being very developable once uh once they get inventoried. And so

[24:54] here you can see that two is next to one. We don't talk about one. And I

[24:58] think there was a little bit of confusion. Uh I got a couple survey

[25:02] responses that said please don't develop one. And I said, I, you know, it's there

[25:06] because it has to come in because it's a city- owned park, but there is no plan

[25:09] to develop it. We're not talking about what's the developable, what's the

[25:13] capacity, how many how many homes can we fit on uh on the park. Uh that would

[25:18] that's not in the plan at all. We're just including it because we know it

[25:22] needs to come in. Uh but so yeah, we can see that this one is uh while zoned

[25:28] residential in county zoning, it's right next to the park. It's across the

[25:32] existing UGB from industrial zoning and it does have those wetlands and um

[25:40] and you can see in terms of access to existing lines, you know, I think it's

[25:46] Malala Avenue really and then also some down uh South Malala Forest Road. uh one

[25:53] of the things later down the road to give the answer away, but um I think we

[25:59] talked about last time we know that because you got 580 acres of first

[26:04] priority land and we're looking for about 225 acres of residential land and

[26:09] about 120 acres of of industrial land that it all fits in that first priority.

[26:17] Um what doesn't fit is there's two 20 acre parcels. Um, so once we get through

[26:23] this process for the residential expansion

[26:27] and you can include in that the eight parcels that are smaller than 20 acres

[26:33] because there are parcels like that in the first priority land u but there

[26:38] aren't any that are over 20 and so the city can then start to look outside um

[26:44] and that's why I drew eight sub areas 8 through 19 as contenders for are any of

[26:50] these large lots really um things that we want to consider for expansion.

[26:56] That's under a separate separate rule u because that's site site characteristics

[27:01] where you're saying hey it has to be a parcel size and we'll talk about that a

[27:05] little bit later but this one will come up because sorry I keep clicking on it.

[27:09] This one will might come up again because uh one of the things before you

[27:13] can go outside of first priority land and say hey we have some first priority

[27:18] land left but we're not going to take it. we're going to go to highv value

[27:21] farmland because it's bigger because it's the 20 acres. You kind of have to

[27:25] show that you can't make a larger parcel. If you have large parcels that

[27:31] are owned by the same owner, then you may be kind of asked to consider them as

[27:36] one. Um if they're all have the same ownership and so I think this is one

[27:41] where many of these parcels have the same owner. And so um so it may come

[27:46] back into play a little bit further on in terms of can we go elsewhere and take

[27:53] uh 20 acres of highv value farmland that's fourth priority because we don't

[27:58] have anything that fits the bill but this could maybe fit the bill um if it

[28:03] if it can be combined. Um so those are the kind of things and then I dig in a

[28:08] little bit deeper. So this is the map again I think you've guys seen and

[28:12] really try to put some numbers to this. So this is 40 uh sorry 74 acres uh

[28:18] without that blue strip of the creek. Uh it leaves about 67.7 acres again of

[28:25] buildable land. That may go down uh because again we it just came up

[28:32] um just came up this week I think um that um that we maybe need to apply some

[28:39] additional code from the city that give additional u protections to uh wetlands

[28:45] and and limit development within wetlands. So, we'll be an analyzing that

[28:50] in in GIS to see if it comes if that number comes down at all. Um, and then

[28:55] 240 housing units. Uh, again, there's math from DLCD ex about how I can go

[29:01] about doing all of that calculation. Uh, and you basically are looking for uh you

[29:08] apply the five units per acre to anything over two acres. And then things

[29:13] under two acres, if it's I think I talked about this last time, if it's

[29:17] under two acres and it has one home on something that's say one to two acres,

[29:22] they assume a development capacity of adding one additional home over the next

[29:26] 20 years on those two acres. If it's one home on one acre or less, they assume

[29:31] it's not going to develop at any greater density than what it is. So that's how I

[29:36] come up with 240 units um added that could be built on this par

[29:44] on this sub area. It are four parcels that could be of a significant size to

[29:50] make them contenders for industrial development. Uh combined their 54

[29:55] buildable acres of uh of in those four and you can kind of see I've put the

[30:00] numbers on there so you can see which four I'm talking about. Uh again, you

[30:04] can tell that they're sort of the same owner since some of them don't have

[30:08] access outside of going through uh some of the other parcels.

[30:14] This one is contiguous. Uh there is existing sewer along Malala Avenue, but

[30:19] it can't accommodate additional flow the way that it is. Uh and that there would

[30:23] be a required lift station over Bear Creek. Again, compatible uses. There's

[30:29] industrial inside the UGB, but there's a park and nature area on the other side.

[30:34] Uh, and there are those hydric soils that may turn out to be locally uh

[30:39] locally significant wetlands uh once the inventory is done.

[30:46] Um, moving on to sub area three. You can see I'm just going to kind of move

[30:50] through the along the UGB uh border here. Uh, you can see three is pretty

[30:56] long. Uh again I want to reiterate that the sub areas are for the ease of

[31:02] analysis. When it comes time to actually draw the boundary it may be that some of

[31:08] the parcels along the existing UGB in sub area 2 makes sense to bring in and

[31:16] some don't. It doesn't mean that you either bring in two or three or it's 2

[31:21] plus three. It really will be a carving up of each of these sub areas. This is

[31:26] just for me to get you the numbers. Uh, and I do think, you know, with GIS and

[31:31] things, you know, Dan will be perfectly capable of saying, okay, well, if we

[31:34] draw it this way and we take these par, you know, this half of two and this half

[31:38] of three or whatever, how many units are we creating and how many acres have we

[31:43] met our need? Uh, that definitely will be doable based on the information and

[31:48] the analysis that we've done. One of the reasons you might see in other UGB

[31:52] expansions and it came on came up in our TAC is the idea of giving like a scoring

[31:56] system to each sub area for this one. I didn't want to do that because again

[32:02] you only need about 200 acres of this 580. So we all know there it's going to

[32:07] get carved up. So, I could give sub area 2 a, you know, three out of five stars

[32:13] or whatever it is, uh, in terms of for location factor one or location factor

[32:18] two or three. But the reality is it it's probably going to come in in peace meal

[32:22] and then those scores go out the window because you don't know if what was

[32:26] bringing the score up or down, was it this parcel or that until you actually

[32:30] apply these four factors to where you're drawing the line.

[32:34] So three um you can see the the size of the parcels on three uh is is

[32:40] interesting. I think it's again continues South Malala Avenue down a

[32:44] bit. Um and uh so that would include similar it would include similar

[32:50] expansion along South Malala Avenue of uh water and sewer. Again, it's between

[32:57] residential uh uses in um kind of two and four, but across the UGB there are

[33:04] some industrial uses. And um this one has very little in terms

[33:09] of the wetlands. There are a little bit on the edges. Uh and we did hear in the

[33:14] survey that there was significant flooding when there are heavy rains. Um

[33:18] we heard that for a number of the sub areas that there was flooding uh in

[33:22] heavy rains and that is definitely something that can be considered uh and

[33:26] the city can rely on that information uh when making a determin a comparable

[33:31] determination between uh between parcels.

[33:36] So, if we go in and um dig into the numbers again, uh we've got sub area,

[33:41] it's about 90 acres. 67 acres are buildable, and that seems really low. Um

[33:47] but those blue areas, it it does get quite hilly. Um I think uh very small

[33:55] little hills um that just make a kind of change in elevation kind of over and

[34:01] over again that just keep it from being these kind of large you know uh uh

[34:06] parcels that are considered fairly easy to develop. Um so again the ones that

[34:11] don't have that are more over towards Malala Avenue. Um, and it may be that

[34:17] when the city actually goes to draw a boundary that some of these are brought

[34:21] in and some are not. It may be that like you you may decide that further over

[34:26] like these 9 acres over uh to the east uh next to the park, you know, maybe

[34:34] they're, you know, too far from services or or things like that. When you apply

[34:38] all of these location factors and that things closer in uh to Malala Avenue

[34:43] might be easier. Um it is contiguous again to the extent that the the western

[34:49] chunk of it is contiguous or if two came in then it would be contiguous with the

[34:54] new boundary. Um sewer could get extended along uh

[35:00] Matias road. The lines are currently 8 in and are designed only for the

[35:04] subdivisions that they currently serve. So they would have to be upgraded. Uh,

[35:08] and I think, you know, I think you guys are in in good hands, uh, with staff in

[35:13] terms of telling you how much that actually would cost, right? How many

[35:17] feet are we talking and what's the cost per foot for for that sort of upgrade

[35:22] when it comes time to deciding that? Um, and then there's an 8 in water line

[35:27] along Matias at the southern uh town boundary that would need to be expanded

[35:32] as well. So again, it's near the city park, it's

[35:35] near industrial, but it's also uh near rural residential, and there has been

[35:41] flooding reported when we uh when we did the survey.

[35:46] Sub area 4 is a little bit removed. It's on the other side of sub area 3. You can

[35:50] see it is our most parcelized. Um in terms of development, there aren't

[35:55] a lot of large parcels to develop. uh unless all of three comes in then it's

[36:00] not contiguous with the UGB um and and again we don't have sign

[36:06] significant wetlands but it will definitely still be on the border with

[36:10] EFU land and I didn't get an uh what I feel like would the the amount of

[36:15] information that I would have loved to have gotten is like what is that EFU

[36:20] land right there is that an active farm um you know are we going to be putting

[36:25] uh significantly more traffic down um is it sautell sautell road

[36:32] um or uh in where Malala turns into willpoint

[36:38] right so I don't know anything about those farms that would be something that

[36:42] the city would want to uh explore in other projects that I've done uh for say

[36:47] the city of Cami where there is a lot of really active farming um then we uh we

[36:53] were able to do like informational interviews

[36:56] and conversations with the farmers and get those notes down and do summary

[37:01] reports. Um, and that's definitely something that staff could still do.

[37:05] That farm on the corner there of Sautel has been a Christmas tree farm for 40

[37:09] years. Okay. I don't think it's going to change anything and it's not going to

[37:12] change. Are you talking about one that's in the in the No, we're talking just on

[37:15] the outside of it. Oh, that that one. And

[37:19] I think some of those properties there are are the ones that are being

[37:23] addressed in the comment that was submitted by Miss Lance. I was just

[37:26] reading through it. Let me own some of those that Yeah. Right where the mouser

[37:30] is right there. Yeah. Yeah. That's Kylo's farm. Okay. It's been a tree farm

[37:34] for Yeah. Yeah. And I will say um we do have a map of the crops and I know we

[37:39] talked about this before. I unfortunately if somebody ever reported

[37:43] that they were going to do Christmas trees, it got put on the map. You know,

[37:47] you would think that this was, you know, Christmas town cuz all over it's just

[37:52] just Christmas trees everywhere. Um I don't know how accurate that is today

[37:57] because again somebody we we were told somebody it was like yeah they gave it a

[38:00] shot two years ago they put in a you know permanent they they didn't make it

[38:04] work and and now it's not actively a Christmas tree farm um and so I don't I

[38:09] don't know uh right but what I wanted to say is is on this when we talk about

[38:13] compatibility you know something like here where where we're talking about sub

[38:19] area three that goes along here it's very easy to say this is industrial

[38:24] within the UGB. This is sub area 2 that we discussed. Here's the park and we

[38:30] know that this is rural residential. So when we talk about compatibility of

[38:35] developing three and its impact on local agriculture there there's basically no

[38:42] impact on local agriculture for say two or three because it's not bordering it.

[38:47] But when you start to go out here to to four, you know that their boundary is

[38:54] with an active farm. And you would probably the city would want to reach

[38:57] out to them to discuss uh you know, again, how trafficicky is it? Are they

[39:04] moving? Are they using the roads to move big equipment on a regular basis? You

[39:09] know, how sensitive are their is their crop? If it's Christmas trees, probably

[39:13] not so much. But like organic produce farms are very sensitive to trespassers

[39:18] and people walk, you know, letting their dogs run out in the field. And I mean,

[39:22] that's a huge problem. Um, versus a Christmas tree, it might be a little bit

[39:26] different, right? So, it would be something that the city would want to

[39:29] reach out and discuss. You can see here I added in the acreage even though you

[39:35] know when we're talking like 5.1 or five acres. Uh again parcelization it doesn't

[39:41] mean it can't develop. It doesn't mean you don't bring in land that's

[39:46] parcelized. It just means there is an assumption that it would be harder to

[39:50] devel to develop. And we had uh developers on our uh pack on our

[39:55] committee who talked about you know if I have to if you know I need what what did

[40:00] he say? He was like I need you know like 16 was sort of a slow end for for to

[40:05] build a sub again he's building subdivisions so that's one particular

[40:10] type of of of development. Um but it is tends to be the you know um I know there

[40:16] was like e economy of scale. It tends to happen like they can plan it out. it can

[40:21] happen versus something that maybe happens sort of trickles over time where

[40:25] individual owners sell and and and you know maybe five to 10 homes get built on

[40:31] a on a 5 acre lot uh as opposed to a larger development. So this is our more

[40:36] parcelized area although there are two larger uh larger sites that could be

[40:41] potential for um I mean technically there are 11 sites that could be

[40:46] potential for industrial development. Um although again that's because you're

[40:51] looking for four that are over five five to 10 acres and you've got uh you know a

[40:57] handful of them that are exactly five or 5.1 acres. Um but again you're right

[41:04] across from uh from the EFU land. So I you know and

[41:10] I don't and with with existing residential. So I don't know how much

[41:14] the city would actually determine that you know four of those five acres should

[41:18] be set aside for industrial development. Um and again there was some

[41:24] flooding reported and we have been working with the city to also get you

[41:28] know for each of these we're really trying to look at it and say okay where

[41:31] is the existing sewer and water where would it make sense to expand it here I

[41:36] think there would be an expansion along Malala um but uh you know there might be

[41:41] other areas where there could be expansion how many feet are we talking

[41:45] what's the cost per foot for that how many homes can really be serviced and

[41:49] then when you actually get a number and you start to draw a boundary and include

[41:54] certain parcels. Um that was is when you can really say well what's the price tag

[41:59] on this one versus going the going this way.

[42:03] Uh sub area five um I think is interesting. Um it is uh we shaped it a

[42:11] little strange and it is another one of those that does share a significant

[42:16] boundary with existing EFU land. Uh particularly the uh parcels to the

[42:22] south. Uh some of the parcels that are up along uh the existing UGB boundary at

[42:28] the top um are right across from what is uh what is now residential. Although

[42:36] there is this one little bump out here of the existing UGB that is still uh in

[42:44] industrial use. Um but yeah, so we have um a number of parcels here. We got some

[42:50] really good information uh from the community around this. Um I

[42:55] think a lot of these parcels don't have access. Um so there may be like

[43:01] easements through they don't have very clear access to the major roads. Um so

[43:08] in terms of um you know finding these parcels and how they would be serviced

[43:13] and how the roads would need to be expanded. Um again it's not a complete

[43:18] bar that this is like never developable. Um, but uh I think there would have to

[43:24] be some real thought put into uh exactly the the public works piece and the

[43:31] transportation piece. Again, if you go to DLCD and you say, you know, this

[43:36] isn't efficient. I will say this, um, one of the reasons

[43:41] that we have these rules is the most efficient thing sometimes is just to

[43:44] take the high value farmland, right? That's why we have the UGB expansion. we

[43:49] h force you to do this analysis to say like well we really want to protect this

[43:53] land and not necessarily always do what's just easiest um but we want to do

[43:58] something that kind of follows our values um so this is definitely one that

[44:04] I think um we'll need to look at the cost associated with the transportation

[44:09] so if you go to DLCD and you're like it's going to be expensive they're like

[44:11] yeah expansions are expensive everybody knows ex right you like city grows by

[44:16] 5,000 people you're going to need new roads you're going to need new pipes,

[44:20] you're going to need like growth is exp running a city is expensive. So saying

[44:24] it's expensive doesn't quite get us out of the conversation. Um but saying that

[44:30] this is more expensive than say one of the other sub areas where you're talking

[44:35] apples to apples, then that is definitely a conversation. Uh but when

[44:39] you're talking apples to oranges and you're saying, "Well, we can't use the

[44:42] first priority land and we want to use fourth priority land instead because

[44:46] it's easier." that burden is it needs to be sort of prohibitively expensive uh

[44:52] for for for that to happen according to the goal 14 rules in the framework that

[44:57] I'm I'm showing you guys here. But yeah, we did get some really good information

[45:00] and I'm I'm hopeful that the city uh on this sub area and I'm hopeful that um

[45:06] you know public works can really dig into uh where those lines are. Um again

[45:12] we have here that there's water um nearly to the city limits on Matias Road

[45:18] but no sewer until 7th Street could extend it along Matias. The lines are 8

[45:23] in and designed only for the subdivisions that they currently serve.

[45:26] So we are talking significant upgrades. Um and again I do think that while there

[45:31] are some large parcels here that could be con uh contenders. Sorry I was

[45:36] thinking here where we have it. Um yeah, extend water down Malala Forest Road and

[45:42] uh way Yeah. and likely a lift station. Um so and and like I said, we got really

[45:49] good information from the public around um access to these parcels and sort of

[45:54] how they're going to be used. Um I will also say that this has come up many

[45:59] times and we've talked with the with DLCD about this. They will tell you time

[46:03] and again that um trying to get to talk about whether

[46:10] property owners want or don't want to be to come in is something that they don't

[46:15] like to rely on because property changes hands. And so people say, you know, so

[46:19] it's like somebody really doesn't want to do it and then whoever inherits the

[46:23] land does or whoever bought it does and then all of a sudden you're having a

[46:27] totally different conversation. So in terms of talking about development over

[46:30] the next 20 years, we try not to to look at that. But at the same time, if you

[46:37] know something is, like I said, parcelized, it's not going to be

[46:41] combined and put into a large development and people are are probably

[46:45] against development, then you go into developability and what's the likelihood

[46:49] that you're actually going to get homes out of bringing that land in, right?

[46:54] Um, so that and again there's some flooding and you'll see that some of

[46:58] these right along uh Malala Forest Road up at the top uh are still kind of uh

[47:04] have some of that wetlands and hydric soils from the creek and we did hear

[47:09] that there's some flooding and heavy rains. Um let's see uh sub area here

[47:16] hold on sub area six. Um so here we've got um a number of parcels. So this goes

[47:23] along uh south on way and again uh follows the UGB. So the

[47:30] northern parcels are along the existing UGB, but again that's kind of along the

[47:34] creek as well. Although the actual constraints and wetlands aren't on any

[47:38] of these parcels themselves. Uh right across the UGB is the land that's been

[47:43] reszoned into residential and this goes down south on away. Um, so again, it's

[47:49] about 70 acres. Almost all of them are considered developable from a constraint

[47:53] standpoint. Uh, the housing capacity of these parcels would be about 240 new

[47:59] units. Uh, six of the lots are of the size that are included in your EOA and

[48:05] they take up about 55 buildable acres of those 70. Like I said, I put that number

[48:11] there so that you can kind of see, okay, well, if like if these are going to be

[48:14] four of the if these are going to be the four that we bring in for the 10 acre

[48:19] size, then you know, we'd have to subtract from that housing capacity

[48:23] number, right? Um we'd have to subtract 55 buildable acres from that and redo

[48:28] that math, which is not difficult. And I'll they've they've got my

[48:31] spreadsheets. Um, again here we're dealing with stuff that's near uh

[48:36] residential, but again uh towards the south of it, your border would then be

[48:40] on EFU land. Uh, so again, it's kind of a short border on this one. The way that

[48:46] we drew them the sub areas, you know, tend to kind of be strips coming out

[48:50] from the existing UGB. Uh, but it's something to consider in terms of

[48:54] compatibility. Um, here we've got two 8 in pipes, uh, sanitary lines in the

[48:59] vicinity of the northern portion of the property. One goes along south on ONA

[49:04] north of Bear Creek and one along the Malala Forest Road and South Low Road.

[49:10] Um 8 inch water line at city limits along South Ona way. So there again

[49:14] would be need to be an expansion and depending on uh or extension of lines

[49:18] depending on how many of the acres uh how many of the parcels would come in

[49:23] would determine how many feet right of of extension would need to happen and

[49:28] that would impact the cost there. Um and again we're creek adjacent here and and

[49:32] we did hear that there was some flooding.

[49:35] All right, sub area seven. You can see we've got hydric soils through the

[49:40] center. Um and this one while it borders on six, so it kind of depends on what

[49:45] happens with six. Um but right across the UGB is industrial uses. Uh there are

[49:52] a number of larger lots. It's not as parcelized as some of the other sub

[49:57] areas that we looked at, although you do have uh some EFU land between seven and

[50:03] the 213. Um we did hear uh in terms of, you know, increased traffic and and and

[50:11] things like that. I'll show you here. We've got it 76 acres, 291 possible

[50:16] units. According to the state's math, uh there are eight lots on 58 buildable

[50:22] acres with access mainly along South Ona away. I mentioned access. We got this

[50:27] question on the TAC. I tend to talk about access a lot, but again in my mind

[50:32] it's like if you're saying something is could be developed for industrial then

[50:36] like what kind of industrial and what kind of trucks and things are they

[50:40] needing to come in, you tend to want to put industrial development near larger

[50:44] highways um and not necessarily have them uh going through neighborhoods,

[50:50] right? So, I tend to think about access. Um, and I do feel like through this this

[50:55] whole exception land, uh, you know, there would need to be a number of of

[51:01] street improvements, I think, and a lot of these lots don't seem to have very

[51:05] obvious access to me, and I think people are kind of maybe using easements to get

[51:10] through um, on some of this land. So that would obviously be something that

[51:15] would need to be worked out um in terms of if uh something would were to develop

[51:21] and the other one would not. Right. So um yep. So I think here we've got

[51:26] similar to six we've got an opportunity for sewer water uh to lines on the on

[51:31] the 213. There's a 12-in water line that ends um this says Crumpton's and I don't

[51:37] think that's right. Is that wasn't it Cromp? There's

[51:41] Crumpton's. Yeah, okay. Yeah, it's it's O. Yes, I think my auto correct decided

[51:47] it needed to be Crump. Um, and sewer ends about 135 ft north of the city

[51:53] limits, potential gravity connection with extensive upsizing and extension of

[51:57] sewer. So again, when you actually talk about where to build that boundary would

[52:01] when those those you actually start to put a price tag on different um

[52:05] different uh expansion ideas. So looking at all seven, I've now given

[52:12] you a map a bit with green just being EFU land. Um, and then the brighter blue

[52:18] being 5 to 10 acre lots, the darker blue being the uh the 10 to 20 acre lots that

[52:25] are in this first priority land. Again, if you leave any first priority land on

[52:29] the table and want to go outside of the first priority land to fourth priority

[52:34] land to get anything, your EO does say you need 28 two 20 acre parcels. Um, so

[52:40] you can uh but you would have to um you would have to look into these sub areas

[52:48] and um decide which where those two parcels are going to be. You would need

[52:55] to then apply your goal 14 exactly the same analysis, the efficiency, the

[53:01] parcelization, the you know the the location to transportation, the cost of

[53:07] public works. And these would all be apples to apples if you're talking about

[53:12] sub areas 8 through 19. Um in terms of looking for two candidates for a 20 acre

[53:18] parcel, uh or for yeah, two candidates for 20 acre parcels. I will say um one

[53:24] of the conversations that we had is there are restrictions if you bring in

[53:29] say 10 which has been talked about a little bit um if you bring in sub sub

[53:34] area 10 because it is a large parcel um that possibly makes sense for industrial

[53:40] it's near the air strip it's near trans it's near major highways it's near the

[53:44] water treatment plant uh things like that uh there would be restrictions that

[53:50] uh the city would have to then zone it and restrict it from then being chopped

[53:55] up. Because if the reason that it is you're able to go get it is because it

[54:00] is a large parcel, then you have to as a city preserve that characteristic. So if

[54:05] you say this site has characteristics that we need, you have to then preserve

[54:09] the characteristic. you can't then let it kind of just go by the wayside

[54:13] because what you're trying to do according to the EA EOA is attract a

[54:16] certain kind kind of business and jobs and you want to kind of have that land

[54:21] as a potential candidate for that. Uh my report will sort of end with just a kind

[54:26] of like advantages disadvantages notes on areas 8 through 19 in terms of if

[54:32] they make sense or compatible for industrial uh uses. And so I'll give you

[54:38] a little bit of analysis on that. But since you're not required to do the two

[54:43] 20 acre lots, um you're required to do residential and you're required to start

[54:48] with for first priority land. That's what my report is sort of writing up.

[54:54] So again, next steps is for the city to actually start to dig in over the course

[54:59] of now until March of 2026 to start to dig in to each of these sub areas and

[55:05] really start to decide probably talk with people um uh you know about, you

[55:11] know, really dig into where those lines are in terms of public works and what

[55:15] the cost would be and um and the uh the ability for for them to develop. Um, and

[55:22] again, then the county has to approve it. If the county doesn't approve it,

[55:26] um, I think you, that is something that is appealable. Um, I did send, uh, Dan a

[55:32] kind of more detailed list of all of the, uh, ins and outs of, you know, how

[55:37] many days not, you know, all the stuff in terms of all the pieces of this. Uh,

[55:41] but again, basically, it's the city makes a decision, the county then either

[55:45] agrees or doesn't agree. Hopefully, they agree and then DLCD looks at it. If they

[55:51] approve it, great. Um, it can get appealed by outside parties. Um, um, but

[55:56] if if DLCD doesn't sign it, doesn't sign off on it, um, the city can appeal or

[56:02] again, some other cities have been doing a legislative override. What's what

[56:06] we're what we in the planning world have been referring to as the legislative

[56:10] override uh, button. Uh, and so again, two cities have done it now. I don't

[56:15] know what the future of that is. I do think that Roseberg might get go to the

[56:21] court of appeals. It might not. It might stand. Uh it might not. We'll see. Uh

[56:27] but again, that's definitely something where uh Roseberg felt like the rule as

[56:32] it stood didn't uh accomplish what needed to be accomplished and so they

[56:36] asked the legislature to basically order DLCD to approve it. Um so we'll see what

[56:44] what happens with that. Yes, I think and I think before uh before we get to

[56:49] questions and discussion, I just wanted to add a little piece about that uh

[56:52] legislative override um because that's sort of where uh 3J and

[56:58] Violet's work end. And I want to be clear about that's where their work ends

[57:02] and sort of staff and and and you know city officials uh work may begin a

[57:08] little bit and I think uh since we've been looking at this you know sta staff

[57:13] has certainly felt and we've gotten uh some of that some of that similar

[57:16] feedback from some of the commission and council um that we'd be remiss uh to

[57:22] only look at the the lands to the south that are that are that those first

[57:26] priority lands um and that before we sort of exhaust other options because so

[57:31] what you know when you look at the prioritization it's very clear where

[57:34] where the city has to expand. Um when you look at some of the other factors

[57:38] that you find in the goal 14 analysis, those four factors of uh you know

[57:42] efficient accommodation of land needs or orderly and e economic provision of

[57:48] public facilities or and services comparative environmental energy

[57:53] economic social consequences and the compatibility with uh adjacent farm

[57:58] uses. Um there's some pretty clear advantages to going other places in the

[58:04] city uh than to the south. uh just because of uh where our utility lines

[58:08] lie, where where major roads go through uh for access uh for at least initial

[58:14] access before you sort of carve up into uh you know subdivision roads that get

[58:19] that get built. And then um for uh

[58:24] and then the the economic viability of going um you know going in other

[58:29] directions versus uh versus to to the first priority lands. Um, so we uh MAC

[58:36] drafted and and Scott sent a memo uh that uh outlines a lot of this to the to

[58:43] the governor's office to the legislature over the past couple weeks. I think

[58:48] about a week ago. Uh they sent it out to them and and we'll be talking uh to

[58:54] those officials uh you know within the next couple weeks uh I think early next

[58:59] week. um just and and and basically the idea is like say we went to we we passed

[59:05] an ordinance that went to the north, you know, we did our we did our analysis and

[59:08] said this is where we want to go. Well, so DLCD by law would just they'd

[59:13] basically remand it on site. They'd say no. No, you can't you can't do that. Um

[59:18] and then at that point we would that that's where we would invoke the

[59:21] legislative override. We we'd go and we'd say, "Hey, we we want an amendment

[59:24] that says, hey, DLCD, you pass this, right?" Um and and you know, we'll get a

[59:29] sense in the next couple weeks if if uh the governor's office and legislators

[59:34] are like, "Absolutely no. We're not we're not going to support this. We like

[59:37] uh we like our Senate Bill 100 as it as it is." And and or if they say, "Yeah,

[59:42] we've been looking for a case and this seems like the perfect case." Or more

[59:44] probably more likely somewhere in between those two. Yeah, those two

[59:48] polls. I'll jump in even though Dan's trying to protect me in my my bubble of

[59:53] my my goal 14. Uh but um one of the things is the rules just don't have a

[59:59] mechanism. The rules as they stand don't have a mechanism for you to say uh what

[1:00:05] what members of your community and staff have said very eloquently which is the

[1:00:11] spirit of goal 14 is not being accomplished if you follow the letter of

[1:00:15] the of the rules. Um, and so, um, I think that

[1:00:21] in in that way, I think DLCD's hands are tied because there just isn't a

[1:00:25] mechanism in the rules to apply sort of a kind of like gray area, you

[1:00:32] know, gut feeling override, right? Like there just isn't a subjective

[1:00:38] thing other than um once you're looking at land that is all first priority, then

[1:00:44] it's subjective, right? you're kind of looking at the goal 14 criteria. You're

[1:00:47] looking at all these things and you're weighing them and it's a balance, but um

[1:00:52] you know there isn't really a way to say well if we apply the goal 14 we should

[1:00:56] go to fourth priority before first. It's just not possible under the rules. And

[1:01:01] so it may be that um you know that that is a moment when the legislature decides

[1:01:07] that yeah okay well we're going to step in because the outcome you know in order

[1:01:12] to get the most just outcome uh that the goal 14 envisions we need to do

[1:01:17] something other than apply those rules. Um again as planners I think that it

[1:01:23] would be nice for just to create a mechanism instead of each people you

[1:01:28] know each jurisdiction asking uh for an exception. You know what I mean? I think

[1:01:34] maybe exceptions like that are kind of what got us here in the first place. Um

[1:01:39] but so it would be nice if there was just like a clear bright line rule of

[1:01:43] when you were out allowed to do this. Um but again that doesn't exist today. So,

[1:01:48] you know, I've given all of the analysis, I think, and and again, I

[1:01:52] think you have very um eloquent and thoughtful community members who are who

[1:01:56] are active in this. I think staff has been very impressive in their ability to

[1:01:59] kind of understand the details. I think everyone that we've met with, I feel

[1:02:04] like, from this commission, city council, and the public feels I feel

[1:02:07] like they really get it. They understand the rules. They understand the process.

[1:02:11] And um some people really support it and say, "Okay, well, if that's the first

[1:02:15] priority land, then just go there." um and some people don't. So, I think it'll

[1:02:19] be um kind of up to you guys to kind of figure out what your community wants and

[1:02:24] um what the legislature is willing to to kind of consider when you get the

[1:02:28] numbers really in front of you of of what a new boundary would look like. And

[1:02:32] and that's a good point what you're saying that we first is a good point

[1:02:35] that the that the relationship with DLCD isn't adversarial in this case. It's

[1:02:39] it's just uh they they they have their way that they have to Yeah. They just

[1:02:43] straight don't have a mechanism, right? So it's like you apply our you apply the

[1:02:47] OAR, you know, like or and if you don't follow the O, we have to deny it, right?

[1:02:53] It's like that's the law. And so we've been Yeah, we've been we've been talking

[1:02:56] with them and transparent with them and and having this discussion about what

[1:02:59] what what that would even look like, right? So, I mean, I would love to see

[1:03:02] if, you know, if if these situations keep coming up, um, then, you know,

[1:03:07] maybe a change to the rule, you know, add another section there and say,

[1:03:11] unless, right, you can make this case or here's the burden of proof to to do

[1:03:16] something different, but as of today, that doesn't exist. So, um, so I think,

[1:03:20] you know, we we've gotten all the all the details possible. There's still

[1:03:24] plenty of time like I said um where uh I didn't really get a lot of kind of

[1:03:31] individual like farmers reach out or be able to have a conversation about

[1:03:36] certain parcels. That's definitely again this analysis is the beginning. It's the

[1:03:41] draft. It's setting things up. There's still a lot of conversations to be had

[1:03:45] and a lot of numbers to crunch in terms of where a new boundary would actually

[1:03:49] go. it's not like they're just going to look at my maps and and and do it. Um,

[1:03:55] so I do think there's still a lot of opportunity for the community to be

[1:03:58] involved and to have conversations with staff about uh, you know, hopefully

[1:04:03] within these factors and these criteria and say, "Hey, you're not thinking of it

[1:04:08] this way or or you don't have the wetlands really marked or you don't have

[1:04:12] the crops really marked correctly. Let me get you some information." and then

[1:04:16] the city can get that into the factual record and include it into the report

[1:04:20] and use it as part of their decision making.

[1:04:24] Any any questions?

[1:04:28] I have a clarifying question. Yes, it's a question for clarity, I guess. Yes. Um

[1:04:36] I'm speaking to your comment about the LCD

[1:04:42] just went like no denying that. Yeah. So I guess I'm looking for insight maybe.

[1:04:50] Yeah. Um just for trying to understand. So you spend we we as a community spend

[1:04:57] all this time and money and energy on creating this idea, right? unless this

[1:05:01] is what we want. DLC comes back just is is it just that binary just No, no, no,

[1:05:07] no. I didn't mean Yeah, I didn't mean to make it. Is it is it is or is there a

[1:05:12] collaboration where you go like oh we're not going to approve it go back make

[1:05:16] some changes bring it back to there's absolutely a collaboration but my my

[1:05:22] thing of like they would just say no would be if

[1:05:26] if you don't go to first priority if you went to 12 or 13 for example if you

[1:05:30] don't go south and the or you go south a little bit right like maybe you take

[1:05:36] some parcels but you leave some first priority land on the table that hasn't

[1:05:41] been incorporated into the UGB and instead leapfrog and take fourth

[1:05:46] priority land. I don't think they have a mechanism that

[1:05:50] would allow them to sign that is what I'm saying. Okay? Like there isn't a

[1:05:55] rule for them to sort of hang their hat on and say, "Oh, okay. You have if we

[1:05:58] apply the criteria, you know, I mean, they have a checklist, right? DLCD has

[1:06:03] there are the rules. they have their criteria and they march through it and

[1:06:06] they have been again you know this this work has been funded by a grant that's

[1:06:11] you know that that's what why I'm very focused on what the rules are today um

[1:06:16] and um you know and they've been working with us at every step to make sure they

[1:06:22] have checked all my math they have gotten on a million different calls with

[1:06:26] me to for me to say okay look I'm calculating it this way is that going to

[1:06:31] fly right and they and they it would take their time to jump on a call with

[1:06:36] us, look at it and say yes or no or to say, "Hey, our read of the rule is that

[1:06:41] you have to do it this way." Right? So, they've been very involved. It isn't

[1:06:45] that they just look at it and say no. But again, if you don't go south and and

[1:06:50] you try to say, you know, go north, I know that there were many community

[1:06:54] members from, I believe, in 12 and 13 who showed up and wanted their land to

[1:06:58] come in um for residential. that's just against the way it stands,

[1:07:05] the rules stand today and there wouldn't be a mechanism within the OAR for D for

[1:07:10] DLCD to sign off on it. And so that would be the thing of like we where I

[1:07:14] feel like what I'm being told and what looking at it, I just don't see anything

[1:07:18] in the rule that would allow them to approve that. There's no discretion in

[1:07:22] their in their ability to approve that. Um but again, yeah, I think that's why

[1:07:27] the legislature come in. But there there is back and forth. there is a review of

[1:07:31] all the process. They've been looking at all of this and um and I know that they

[1:07:36] also have technical assistance for future grants um if the city wanted to

[1:07:41] apply to continue to apply the goal 14 and to do more analysis on going south.

[1:07:47] I think that that's something that DLCD has let us know that they do have other

[1:07:51] grants and the city could apply for that and continue to get money to do that

[1:07:55] analysis. Um but uh I I don't believe that they would continue to do it if it

[1:08:02] was clear that the city's plan was was to to try to do it legislatively. And

[1:08:07] just uh and so like likewise I don't think we would try to right I think I

[1:08:11] don't think we would try to go outside the first priority if we don't have a

[1:08:14] clear sense from you know from the governor's office and from the the

[1:08:18] legislature that there's a possibility. And just as a quick followup just to

[1:08:24] again another clarity this is a lot of information you know over time so

[1:08:29] forgive me if I don't remember why but why is it we have to go south um so

[1:08:36] again the um the prioritization so in the past property owners in the

[1:08:43] south have gone to the county and wanted to be excluded from exclusive farm use

[1:08:49] and they didn't want to be EFU land and so they asked the county to reszone

[1:08:53] their land so that they could be zoned residential, okay, and not have to do

[1:08:57] exclusive farmland. the the flip side of of that is it's like okay well then

[1:09:04] you're urbanized land and you're we have the the if you look at the I think

[1:09:09] there's a previous report or something where I put the exact language of the

[1:09:16] county zoning where it's like these two zones are primarily residential and

[1:09:22] they've been developed beyond the point of being usable as farmland. Um, and so

[1:09:28] when the county makes that decision, you've got this land that's already been

[1:09:33] removed from farm use. And so if you're expanding your urban footprint

[1:09:40] into outside of the UGB, the state says, which on its face makes sense, assuming

[1:09:46] that those exclusions were given in a way that makes sense, right? So

[1:09:52] again, assuming everything works as it's supposed to work, then your exception

[1:09:57] land would be land that is already urbanized and being used for residential

[1:10:02] use. And so if the city's going to expand, they should go there before

[1:10:05] going to high value farmland that's like prime soil for farming. So if you Yeah,

[1:10:10] if you look at those zoning outside of Malala, um you know, for most of it,

[1:10:15] you'd see EFU, EFU, EFU, EFU, EFU, and then where the air strip is, I think

[1:10:20] there's a rural residential. Yeah. designation. And then all those lands

[1:10:23] south have this RR FF55 which is rural residential farm forest 5 acre, right?

[1:10:30] um and and and similar zoning designations that are that are different

[1:10:34] from EFU and that that's those are those exceptions that B and and I wasn't part

[1:10:39] of the work back in 2014 but I know that when the comp plan was updated in 2014 I

[1:10:45] think Winterbrook did it and um uh that that firm did it and um I believe there

[1:10:51] was some discussions about putting some of the land that is now 11 12 and 13

[1:10:57] into uh urban reserves and doing the urban reserves process which would be

[1:11:03] your land of first resort if you do go through all the process of getting

[1:11:08] designated as urban reserves. That process never really got off the ground.

[1:11:12] I don't know why at the time I don't know if it was you know staff or

[1:11:16] politics or whatever happened it didn't get off the ground. So you have no urban

[1:11:20] reserve. So you don't have any land specifically designated for your

[1:11:26] uh you know for for expansion to happen. So instead, we, you know, we have to go

[1:11:30] through this process. And again, stuff that's that's zoned for exclusive farm

[1:11:35] use versus stuff that's zoned for primarily residential uses. When you

[1:11:38] need 180 acres of residential land, the the rules say that's where you have to

[1:11:43] go. So, yeah, thank you. No, no, no worries.

[1:11:48] No worries. This is the time. Yeah. I think this is, you know, for now, this

[1:11:52] is my last uh meeting. So, ask all your all your questions.

[1:11:58] you know, no pressure. It sounded like you guys had more to go. So, I was I was

[1:12:02] I had a couple other questions, but you kind of answered them in a way during

[1:12:06] your conversation that you had a plenty. There's still more steps and more.

[1:12:10] There's more steps and all of this will get put down into a report. Yeah. Um

[1:12:14] that that you guys will will have access to at some at some point, I believe.

[1:12:20] You guys have anything? Well, thank you so much. Well, thank you

[1:12:26] so much. Thank you again for coming and sharing always anytime presenting.

[1:12:35] All right. All right. Well, thank you so much. Thank you.

[1:12:39] All right.

[1:12:42] And with that, that was a lot. So, and with that, we'll uh we have staff

[1:12:47] communications. So, does any staff have any updates other than this big project

[1:12:53] that we're working on? Yes, sir. I do. Yeah. Um, if you guys haven't seen it

[1:12:59] yet, the Clark Park Pavilion has been replaced. It's beautiful, gorgeous. Go

[1:13:04] check it out. Um, summer is going to be great there. Um, along with Bolander

[1:13:10] Field, about 90% of the traffic improvements have been done, including

[1:13:15] those ADA and parking strips that they did. Um, and the Boy Scouts worked

[1:13:24] alongside public works maintenance to put a bench in Pioneer

[1:13:31] Cemetery. So, they poured a concrete pad, they cleaned up the um the

[1:13:37] cemetery, took out some sticks and stuff, and then put a bench in. So,

[1:13:43] they've been busy.

[1:13:48] Awesome. Uh any other project updates I might

[1:13:55] Yeah. So I wanted to give one on the efficiency measures. Um so that the

[1:13:59] efficiency measures was the uh this ordinance that passed at the end of

[1:14:04] March. Um we we chatted about it a couple times here. Uh included the ADU

[1:14:09] to to type one. Um that that's uh no issue. And then also a number of

[1:14:14] reasonzoning projects. Um so I wanted to update you on what's going on with that.

[1:14:19] So council did approve it um in Mar March and adopt it. Um

[1:14:26] but we did get a challenge to it from ODOT that um that basically some of the

[1:14:32] properties uh we went through a number of back and forth discussions on on the

[1:14:36] matter. But basically for the transportation planning rule um the city

[1:14:41] determined no significant impact to transportation facilities and ODOT um

[1:14:48] sort of disagreed and wanted more robust findings uh with regards to the the

[1:14:52] transportation planning rule. Um so we did uh an exercise we you know our staff

[1:14:57] and their staff worked together um to determine uh

[1:15:02] sort of the the what a high high trip count case scenario would be with the

[1:15:07] existing zoning and what what high count uh high trip count would be possible

[1:15:12] with the proposed zoning. Um and so basically from from there we got to uh

[1:15:18] you know ODOT was very comfortable what we had done with the residential uh

[1:15:23] resonings and then also the courtesy resonings but the industrial to

[1:15:28] commercial zonings uh increased trip counts in a way that they

[1:15:32] wouldn't have been comfortable passing it without um further analysis done. Um,

[1:15:38] and that comment would have been uh that comment would have put the ordinance

[1:15:43] subject to remand from DLCD. Uh, so rather than go through that process,

[1:15:47] we're going to do a repeal and replace. Um, and that's the that's the map that I

[1:15:51] have up here. There's sort of gray areas that show the commercial um industrial

[1:15:55] to commercial on the map. Um, that is going to be left out of this new

[1:16:00] ordinance. Uh and then the residential um and a little bit of downtown

[1:16:07] commercial and then also the prairie house in uh will go to commercial uh

[1:16:11] that'll go from from residential to uh but a as we had previously discussed. So

[1:16:16] that that will remain the same from the from the previous ordinance.

[1:16:20] Um, so I just wanted to make you all aware that that was that was going to

[1:16:25] happen and we're planning to go before council with the replacement ordinance

[1:16:29] um on the 25th.

[1:16:34] So, um it it wouldn't preclude in the future um doing those commercial

[1:16:38] resonings. It will just take uh a little more effort than we had capacity to do

[1:16:43] at the time. Um but with regards to our work with the UGB studies, uh we're

[1:16:48] still on track by uh for efficiency measures getting some of that

[1:16:53] residential extra residential land and taking out some of the surplus

[1:16:57] industrial.

[1:17:01] That's it.

[1:17:04] Cool.

[1:17:08] Anything else? No,

[1:17:12] that's good. That's good. All right. Uh, commission. Does the commission have

[1:17:18] any community event announcements or activities

[1:17:24] that they're aware of? Not me. Nothing. Nope. Chamber of Commerce isn't here

[1:17:30] tonight. So, yeah.

[1:17:34] True. Um, I'm just going to share it. I I attended the latest meeting for the

[1:17:40] new middle school and um that was uh pretty good a lot of good information.

[1:17:47] Seems that they uh took a lot of the feedback from the previous meeting that

[1:17:51] I attended um

[1:17:54] and incorporated that there. So, but appears that they legitimately went back

[1:17:59] and made some adjustments to the site layout and the traffic flows and things

[1:18:05] like that. So they were pretty excited. It looked pretty solid and um it seemed

[1:18:11] to be wellreceived, a lot better than the first one. So So that was very

[1:18:16] positive. So um I know they had indicated that it's potential that it

[1:18:20] should be coming to the city soon. So we we got the application. So yeah, we're

[1:18:27] looking at it now. There we go. So it's exciting. It's looking good. And I think

[1:18:31] on the I think it's the uh school district's website or the middle school

[1:18:37] website, I I forget which, but uh they have a video where you can do the

[1:18:41] virtual fly through and see what it's going to at least the proposed plan is

[1:18:46] for it and uh for the for the building. So I encourage people to check it out.

[1:18:53] But just kind of an update on that that I

[1:18:57] had I had encountered. and and attended. So that's all I got.

[1:19:05] Very exciting.

[1:19:09] So um with that, is there anything else for the good of the order?

[1:19:17] No. Nothing. All right. Well, then I am going to adjourn this meeting at 7:52

[1:19:23] p.m. [Music]

Molalla Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2025

Transcript