[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]