Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Members: Marian Calnon, Christine Ebrahimi, Kathie Fellows, Arden Gibbs, Carole Hopkins, Stan Hopkins, Barbara Jones, Paul Langner, Phyllis Olson, Norm Riley, Judy Valpiani

Other Citizens Present: Donald Cass (Neighborhood Association)

Officials/Staff/Consultants Present: James Bundy (Public Works Director, Columbia City), DJ Heffernan (Cogan Owens Cogan), Jim Holycross (City Planner, Columbia City), Dee Loyd (Planning Commission Secretary), Leahnette Rivers (City Administrator, Columbia City), Matthew Udziela (Cogan Owens Cogan), Kent Verner (Planning Commission)

DJ Heffernan briefly explained the process so far. The draft buildable lands inventory report is completed, and a city-wide visioning workshop is scheduled for next month. The main task for tonight’s meeting would be choosing a population forecast, which would be used to calculate land needs for residential, commercial and industrial lands.

For the visioning workshop, the City will need to contact residents and property owners on the perimeter of the urban growth area. Leahnette Rivers noted that many are already aware of the process. City staff will develop a notice to send to them.

Matthew Udziela reviewed the comments about the draft buildable lands inventory report. Arden Gibbs had discussed the present sewer infrastructure and the costs of servicing new development. Matthew explained that while water supply is considered by the state to be a constraint to new growth, costs of providing services and infrastructure such as sewers does not affect the buildable lands inventory. Cities are required to provide services to existing and future residents.

The Port of St. Helens had contributed comments on two issues: 1) redevelopment of the industrial parcel on the Columbia River; and 2) riparian protections along McBride Creek related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Matthew explained that because the land value of the industrial parcel is higher than the improvement value, it has potential for redevelopment. He clarified that redevelopment could mean another industrial use, and not changing the zoning to residential. In terms of McBride Creek, the City’s Fish Overlay Zone regulations are not sufficient to comply with the ESA. A 100 foot setback on both sides of the creek is suggested as a safe harbor. After this setback area was subtracted from parcels adjacent to the creek, some parcels still had enough remaining area to be considered buildable; others did not and were removed from the inventory.

Barbara Jones had made several observations related to urban growth and the variety of amenities needed to support a high quality of life in the city. Matthew noted that these are exactly the type of issues that participants should be considering before and during the visioning workshop.

Matthew noted that there were no comments received related to individual parcels. The final inventory of buildable land therefore remains 88 vacant parcels with a total area of 56.09 acres. The residential portion of this land can accommodate 204 single-family houses and 10 multi-family units.

Christine Ebrahimi noted that the City’s current minimum allowable lot size is 10,000 square feet. She asked if anyone could force the City to reduce their minimum lot size. DJ replied yes. Because the state has a general objective of minimizing expansion of urban growth boundaries (UGBs), a jurisdiction is first required to consider regulatory alternatives, such as mandatory density requirements, before deciding to expand the UGB. This has occurred in other places as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. However, if a local jurisdiction does not contain a particular type or density of zoning, a developer can not force the jurisdiction to create the zone simply to have it.

Barbara Jones noted that Multnomah County on numerous occasions has changed many different plan elements, including plan designations and zoning, to accommodate developers without expanding the UGB. This has generally occurred for larger projects.

The discussion then turned to the City’s population forecast. Jim Holycross updated the group about the County’s work. The County is required to use a population value calculated by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, and distribute that number among the cities and unincorporated area. There are various methods of allocating the OEA figure. At the last County Planning Commission meeting, the Commission selected the "Option 2" method, which gives projected 2015 population for the City ranging from 2,023 to 2,346. This figure was recommended to the Board of County Commissioners, who will consider it at an upcoming meeting. If they agree with the recommendation, that population value can be used for the City’s demand analysis exercises. Another method of allocating the County’s projected growth was suggested by DLCD, but the Planning Commission decided against it, because it assumed the cities and the unincorporated areas would grow at similar rates.

Barbara asked at what date would the Board of County Commissioners make a decision on the population forecast. Jim replied he did not know. Because he also is the planner for the City of Columbia City, it would be considered a conflict of interest to also be working on the County’s population forecast, so he is not involved with this project.

DJ noted that DLCD commented that the County’s methodology yields a population number for the City that is low in comparison with the City’s Transportation System Plan and its historic growth rate. Also, the population forecast is for the year 2015, but the planning horizon for the buildable lands inventory and UGB assessment is the year 2020. This low projection may not be problematic; there could be an economic downturn in the region. But if the number is too low, we will underestimate the land needs and will have to repeat this process in five years. Therefore, the study should use two numbers: the County’s, and a second one to be selected by the participants. State rules allow a jurisdiction to use different population forecasts from the County under specific circumstances.

Matthew then distributed a table and graph depicting various population predictions for the City for the year 2020. The highest figure extrapolates the City’s average growth rate during 1980-2000 (4.81%) to 2020 to obtain a projected population of 4,440. The next figure extrapolates the City’s average growth rate during 1970-2000 (3.99%) to obtain a projected population of 3,798. The next figure is from the City’s TSP, predicting a 2020 population of 3,081, based on the City’s 1995 population and a 3.36% growth rate. However, the City’s current population is already higher than what the TSP predicted for the year 2000. The mean of these three time-series forecasts, 3,773, is very close to the trend based on the 1970-2000 average growth rate. DLCD’s method results in a projection close to the City’s TSP, a 2020 population of 3,107. The forecast range from the County’s method is significantly lower.

DJ then requested that the group choose a population projection in addition to the County’s. He noted that the number the group would pick would not influence the actual population growth rate. However, it will influence the extent to which the UGB expands. If the population figure chosen is much lower than what occurs over the next 20 years, the City will run out of buildable lands early and will have to repeat this process. If the population figure chosen is much higher than what actually occurs, the UGB will expand too far and land could be urbanized inefficiently. It is therefore desirable to choose a number that is as accurate as possible.

Norm Riley asked about the City’s TSP. DJ explained that it was prepared by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and it classifies all the streets in the city. It evaluates the conditions of the streets, identifies existing deficiencies, and plans for pedestrian networks and bicycle lanes. Dee Loyd stated that she had worked on the TSP from the beginning. The top priority street improvements identified are 6^th Street, "A" Street, "E" Street, and other collectors that connect with Highway 30. The TSP also identifies needs for curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bike facilities.

Norm asked if freight train transport would increase. Paul Langner confirmed that it would. A grain mill, U.S. Gypsum and other industries are already expanding the number of railroad cars they are moving along the tracks, and collectively could increase to almost 1000 cars per month. Donald Cass asked if truck traffic would also increase. Paul replied that trucks serving U.S. Gypsum and the grain mill will likely cross the river into Washington where they can access I-5.

Stan Hopkins asked what consequences would result from picking the wrong population forecast. DJ replied if the number chosen is too low, the City may have difficulties later on managing the growth that occurs, and may need to redo its UGB exercise. Stan asked if it would have financial impacts to the City. DJ replied no. Barbara asked if the City could face penalties for not maintaining a 20-year supply of buildable land. DJ stated a court could force the City to expand its UGB, but would not impose a fine on the City. The City would, however, not be in compliance with state law.

Stan asked what authority does the City have to annex more land. DJ replied that annexation can occur in one of three ways: 1) the property owner petitions to become part of the City; 2) the City Council can refer an annexation petition to the property owner (who can accept or refuse, unless their land is completely encircled by the City); 3) the City is allowed to annex every parcel inside its UGB according to a scheduled annexation plan which has been approved by voters (this is allowed by a new 1997 law and has only been used once in the state, in Bend).

Judy Valpiani asked how decisions are made to located the UGB, and how St. Helens was able to extend its UGB to Columbia City’s city limits. DJ replied that St. Helens’s UGB would have been difficult to justify under the current process, which is stricter and more rigorous than the original process. Property owners and residents have significant input under Statewide Planning Goal 1. The state also has established guidelines for which type of lands should be considered for urbanization first. Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land, timber lands, wetlands and other resource lands can only be urbanized as a last resort. Rural residential land (also known as Goal 3 and 4 Exception Lands) are the first priority for urbanization.

James Bundy asked if it would be possible to extend the City’s UGB northward along Highway 30, as that buffer area would be excellent for commercial and industrial use. Jim Holycross noted that the County has zoned that land as resource industrial for its aggregate deposits. DJ explained that such an expansion would have to justify a need for that use. If the City needs more residential land and the land where it wants to expand is zoned industrial, the expansion would not meet the need without revising the Comprehensive Plan and taking a Goal exception. The question is therefore what are Columbia City’s needs.

Donald stated that the City needs jobs so people can live and work in the community.

Christine stated that the City doesn’t have many options for expansion. The Columbia River is to the east, the City of St. Helens to the south, an industrial area that people would not wish to live near is to the north, and steep hills are to the west. Jim Holycross noted specific possibilities for expansion. These include: several acres to the south of the city and west of Highway 30 that are zoned Rural Residential, certain areas to the north of the city, and a few parcels to the west. If the City is able to show the need for more land, it is possible to also expand onto the resource lands to the west. This would be a more difficult process.

Stan asked who owns the resource lands in the hills to the west of the city. Jim and Dee stated some of the most significant landowners. Jim explained that the City is restricted to expanding to Rural Residential and resource exception lands first. Some of the property owners to the south of the city wish to come inside the UGB. DJ noted that ODOT discourages adding residential access to Highway 30, so the transportation link to these parcels south of the City may need to come from another direction.

Stan asked if the owner’s permission is required to expand the UGB onto their land. DJ replied it is required if the lands are resource lands, but permission is not required for other types of land.

Stan asked if the City could expand the UGB to the Deer Island area. Jim replied no, because that is another type of resource land, aggregate resources. Other participants explained that the Deer Island treatment plant, a coolant plant, is close by the northern end of the city. Parcels adjacent to this plant would not be suitable for residential development. DJ stated that bringing that industrial land into the City would be beneficial from a revenue standpoint. The City would probably not be able to make a case that it needed more industrial land, since it already has a very large amount. Instead, the City could make a case that those industrial lands need urban services such as sewer lines, and therefore should to be brought into the City’s urban growth area.

Leahnette asked if the City could rezone some of their existing industrial land, such as the log yards, as residential. DJ replied that not only could the City do that, they would be required to do that before exploring options for expanding the UGB. DLCD would require the City to prove that it couldn’t redevelop underutilized industrial land before expanding onto resource land. He asked if the logging operation could be moved from its present site, and if it needed rail or river access.

Donald stated that the logs travel in and out on trucks, so rail and river transport is not needed. Paul noted that because the log yards presently provide jobs for 200 people, that use should not be eliminated. It could be relocated as long as the new site was very close by. It might be possible to swap land uses with the Reicholt property north of McKay Creek and adjacent to the fertilizer plant.

DJ noted current buildable lands are likely not sufficient for projected population growth. Columbia City has room for roughly 250-500 more people, but based on past trends needs room for about 1,000-2,000 new people.

Kathie Fellows asked what would happen if the City couldn’t acquire enough land to meet this need. DJ stated he wasn’t sure that this has happened before. The City would be allowed to expand onto resource land as a last resort. Stan asked what would happen if the City had no other choice but to expand onto resource land and the property owner refuses to come in to the UGB. DJ replied that he wasn’t sure that situation has occurred before in Oregon.

DJ noted that the 2015 population projection calculated by the County may be too low because the overall 2015 population figure assigned to the County by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis is too low. Jim agreed and said OEA is revising the forecast.

The participants then chose the population forecast based on the average annual growth rate between 1970-2000 (3.99%), which results in a 2020 population of 3,798. Just as the County’s method resulted not in a single figure, but a range with high and low values, DJ said he would calculate high and low values for the alternative 2020 forecast.

DJ then briefly reviewed the assumptions on future employment and demand analysis for residential, commercial, industrial and public lands. He noted that he would need data from both the Port and the County. For residential land needs, the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Development has a model. They first enter certain attributes, such as projected 2020 population, into the model and then forecast future housing needs by type and cast. For commercial and industrial land needs, using current trends will not be workable for Columbia City. Other methods that examine regional employment and acreage will be more useful. DJ will also examine other bedroom communities of similar size, such as Cornelius and Ranier.

Land needs for public and community uses such as schools, parks and churches will require a simpler method than the regular percentage allocation because Columbia City is small. Leahnette noted that Columbia City currently does not have enough land for churches. Dee explained that parcel size is a constraint in most cases.

DJ then stated that all of the information from these land needs analyses would be presented at the visioning workshop.

Matthew briefly described the visioning process. All the students at the elementary school have been given a flyer inviting them to participate in a visioning contest and contribute art. The adults will be invited to the visioning workshop on Thursday, February 15, 2001. DJ asked if residents had been notified. Leahnette answered yes. The date has been confirmed at the school, and the workshop will be held in the gymnasium. A starting time needs to be chosen. The CAC members decided to start at 6:30 so that the first half-hour could be for orientation.

Kathie suggested that the flyer distributed to the children be included in a newsletter, and the contest extended to adults. Leahnette stated a similar flyer, designed for adults, should be developed, but care must be taken not to encourage written responses unless the person really can not attend the visioning workshop. The goal should be for people to show up at the workshop rather than submit written testimony.

Leahnette asked if the CAC members still wanted to do door-to-door outreach, using a second flyer, a few days before the meeting. The participants confirmed they were still committed to this, and Leahnette passed around a volunteer sign-up sheet. Judy suggested using door hangers and not tape. Also, the flyer should be displayed at the Post Office.

Judy noted that on the Saturday before the visioning workshop, there is a party and dance at the school, so she will display a poster advertising the workshop at this event.

Jim Holycross asked about the format of the visioning workshop. DJ explained that it would begin with an orientation for all the participants. Facilitated small groups would follow, and each group would perhaps discuss a specific topic. The entire group would reconvene, share information, and put together goals and priorities.

The participants discussed the next CAC meeting. It should occur after the visioning workshop, and in conjunction with a Planning Commission meeting. A second public meeting would occur after the next CAC meeting.

Next CAC meeting: Thursday, March 22, 2001, 7 pm, Columbia City City Hall

Return to Columbia City Home Page