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

Officials/Staff/Consultants Present: DJ Heffernan (Cogan Owens Cogan), Jim Holycross (Columbia County), Dee Loyd (Planning Commission Secretary), Leahnette Rivers (City Administrator, Columbia City), Matthew Udziela (Cogan Owens Cogan), Kent Verner (Planning Commission), John Yazzolino (Planning Commission)

DJ Heffernan reviewed the project description. The first step in evaluating the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is to conduct an inventory of buildable lands, followed by an analysis of projected needs for residential, commercial, and industrial land.

Normally, cities with less than 2,500 population are exempt from this process. However, because Columbia City is growing at a rate faster than the state average, it is required to do this analysis. All cities in Oregon must have a 20-year supply of buildable land. Regardless of Measure 7, Columbia City is still required to evaluate its UGB. The CAC will play a key role in this evaluation.

There are three objectives of the project: 1) determine whether there is enough land to meet the needs of projected growth; 2) determine the forecasted population and employment needs of the City; and 3) engage the public. The CAC is especially important for the third objective. Another way in which the public will be engaged will be through the Young Visionaries contest and a Community Vision Workshop.

Jim Holycross asked what the purpose and goal of the City visioning process was. DJ responded that it would help everyone take a step back and think about what they would like the town to become. The visioning process has a long time frame, such as a generation from now. It will include evaluating where people live, work and play; amenities, quality of life, what the neighborhoods are like; how people connect with each other; safety concerns, etc. The visioning process will occur in January or early February.

The more technical parts of this process are necessary to meet the requirements of Oregon law. The first step in evaluating the UGB is to conduct a buildable lands inventory and determine how much land is available for residential, commercial and industrial uses. The inventory should also estimate the land available for uses such as parks, schools and places of worship. Usually this is done by assuming a certain percentage of land will be allocated to these uses; however, Columbia City may be too small for this method. The need for these uses may need to be considered on a site-specific basis, for example, sites owned by religious organizations. Land that has development constraints such as steep slopes is subtracted from the inventory. If the remaining land is not enough to provide housing for the projected population growth, the City must either expand its UGB or redevelop land within the UGB.

The needs analysis will consider the amount of land available for single-family and multi-family housing. A possible outcome may be that Columbia City has enough land designated for one type of housing, but a shortage of the other. State law allows planners to modify very few variables when calculating housing needs. There is more flexibility for commercial and industrial land. Currently Columbia City has very little commercial uses.

Leahnette Rivers noted that because the grocery store on 2^nd and I Streets closed, there is only one store in Columbia City.

DJ explained that although residents may feel there is presently no need for additional commercial areas in the City, the land base needs to be there for future needs. He concluded his overview of the process by stating that the visioning and buildable lands assessment processes will continue for another five or six months.

Norm Riley asked why Columbia City has to grow at all. DJ and Jim explained that the federal constitution allows people to choose where to live, and that no local jurisdiction can legally refuse to accept newcomers. The only exception is if there is an overlying constraint such as lack of water or absolute lack of building space. Neither of these situations applies to Columbia City.

Stan Hopkins asked about the City of Portland, which is surrounded on all sides by other cities and has nowhere to expand. He asked where its projected 20-year growth would occur. DJ explained that the Portland metropolitan area has a single UGB. Portland is addressing its share of growth by infill and redevelopment, e.g., brownfields redevelopment.

Stan then asked whether Columbia City’s city limits should be expanded. Jim explained that the purpose of this project is justify a decision whether more land is needed for new residents. Stan asked if Columbia City is compelled to accept more residents. DJ answered, yes, people have a constitutional right to move here.

Arden Gibbs noted that water supply can be a constraint. DJ noted that it is one of the factors by which a jurisdiction can conclude its carrying capacity is exceeded.

John Yazzolino asked if the study finds out Columbia City has land for 20 homes and it is determined that the City will need 20 more homes over the next 20 years, then could the City say there is no need to move the UGB. DJ said yes. John then asked if the study found there was land for 20 homes but there was a need for 25 more homes would the UGB have to be expanded. DJ answered that the City could expand its UGB, but would also need to consider if it could redevelop land inside the UGB, or develop land inside the UGB at increased density.

Arden noted that pretty much any new resident arriving in the City will also be bringing a car with them, and so growth will increase the need for parking, which is already a problem in the City. Norm added that new schools may also be needed. Arden stated that more residents may require more churches—a church has already expanded into the school.

Norm noted that growth will require more sewers that will have high costs. DJ explained that the high cost of sewers does not change the state requirements for the City to identify land needs and plan to service those lands.

Christine Ebrahimi asked what would happen if, after identifying a 20-year supply of land for projected growth, the City’s growth rate declines. DJ replied that the City would no longer be on a periodic review cycle of five years, and their buildable land supply would last longer. Cities that either have more than 2,500 population or are growing at a rate faster than the state average must update their land use plans every five years.

Kent Verner noted that the city limits are different from the City’s urban growth area defined by the UGB. While the City must provide services to lands inside its city limits, being located within the UGB does not necessarily imply services. This discussion does not affect service provision. In reply to the question of many participants about whether landowners outside the city limits would want to be annexed, DJ noted that some may desire to be annexed while others may desire to stay outside the City. Leahnette noted that annexation is usually initiated by petition of the property owner except in certain situations such as parcels being surrounded by land within the City.

Matthew Udziela then reviewed the current status of the buildable lands inventory. He noted that his main information resources were the City’s property inventory, an air photo of the City, and Dee Loyd, the Planning Commission Secretary. He explained that vacant land was defined as land with no or low improvement value.

Jim asked whether ownership of the parcels was identified. Matthew explained that ownership information was on the property inventory, but it was not used to identify adjacent parcels in common ownership and noted that there were few vacant parcels that were adjacent to each other. There is one large parcel in the north end of the City which is actually owned by the City of St. Helens. Leahnette noted that the City would like to see part of that parcel become a park. DJ asked if Columbia City had a parks master plan. Leahnette said not yet.

Kent asked if the inventory considered land outside the city limits but inside the UGB. Matthew answered yes, but there are only two parcels, one on each end of the City, and neither is vacant. Therefore neither was included in the inventory.

Matthew then discussed land with environmental constraints, such as wetlands, riparian areas, and steep slopes. He noted that the City’s Development Code does not prohibit development on these lands, but simply requires that the development meet additional requirements. The State allows the City to remove this land from the inventory, but the City may decide to keep it in. This will be one of the issues the CAC will be exploring.

DJ then outlined the next steps of the project. These include the population and employment projections, the land needs analysis, and the vision meeting. The City and the consultants have been working with the County to establish forecast numbers. In terms of the land needs analysis, the residential land is the most important component because most of the land will be for residential uses. For commercial lands, City residents need to determine if they have adequate commercial services and if a commercial center for the City is needed.

Jim then reviewed the population projections. He explained the Columbia City asked the County to revisit its original population forecasts. ORS 195.036 designates counties as the lead agencies to update population projections for incorporated cities and unincorporated areas. Two years after the original forecast, Columbia City has already exceeded the County’s forecast. Columbia City requested that the County amend its methodology to produce a more accurate forecast.

Jim explained the State Office of Economic Analysis assigns each county a figure for projected population growth. Columbia County has been assigned a projected 2015 population of 47,954 residents. The County has the job of determining which portions of the growth will occur in each city and in the unincorporated areas. There are three options it can use to do this: 1) use the Status Quo; 2) assume that incorporated cities and unincorporated areas will grow at the same rate, which is not realistic because it does not represent what has been occurring; 3) assign a percentage of the growth to each city based on the PSU projections for each of the cities. DJ had suggested a methodology for the third option.

In the past decade, 7% of the population growth in the County has been occurring in Columbia City. The City’s population is projected to grow at a rate of 1.5%-2% a year. The City’s current population is 1,665. By 2015, using the third option, the City’s population is projected to be between 2,023 and 2,346 people. These are the low and high ends of the projected range, with the medium figure being 2,195 people in 2015. DJ noted that the City’s Transportation System Plan is based on the high figure of 2,346 people.

In summary, the City is expected to add between 400 and 700 people in the next 15 years. The preliminary inventory conducted by Matthew shows that there is land for about 214 housing units, which translates to slightly more than 400 people based on an average household size of 2.2 people. Therefore, the land supply is fairly close to the projected demand. Arden asked how many new cars this would imply for the City.

DJ then explained that he will work with both the Port of St. Helens and the County to develop figures for projected employment.

The participants then discussed the upcoming visioning meeting. Dee Loyd suggested that the meeting be local (i.e. located in Columbia City and not in St. Helens). The rest of the CAC also agreed. Christine stated that the elementary school would be a good meeting place, and that people would prefer it to the Community Hall. Judy stated that the acoustics are not great because of the HVAC system, but that a local church has allowed the school to borrow their sound system.

DJ asked the group what would be the most effective methods to engage people. Jim suggested the meeting be organized around a single question, such as, "What do we want Columbia City to be like in 2020?" Developing a slogan for the City is another methods. DJ explained that visual activities are important because they enable people to explore where to locate different land uses.

Arden suggested that there be a preliminary discussion that is detailed and clarifies the issues.

Leahnette stated her largest concern is getting the word out, and she suggested a special mailing. Christine suggested mailing a survey, but Dee explained that past experience shows that surveys do not work.

DJ asked if sending notices home from school with children would be effective. Judy replied yes, but the problem is ensuring the notices get out of the kids’ backpacks. Arden suggested door-to-door posting. Leahnette stated that volunteers would be required, but it would be workable.

DJ explained that a key part of the visioning workshop is for citizens to articulate their values (what they want to preserve) and what they see as deficiencies (what is missing in the City). John stated that two things that are needed are road signs to highlight that travelers have entered the City, and information on historic resources. Judy expressed a need for a foot bridge over Highway 30, which literally divides the City in two. DJ explained that these are the types of issues that can be discussed at the meeting.

Stan suggested that if the workshop breaks people into small groups, that it should be carefully controlled to steer people into specific areas, such as a few defined topics. Judy asked if each of these groups would require facilitators. DJ replied yes, and noted that Cogan Owens Cogan would train them.

DJ explained that there will be at least one visioning workshop, though two would be ideal. The group decided that the workshop should be on a weekday evening rather than a weekend. The group chose Thursday, February 15, 2001 as a tentative date for the workshop. This is far enough in advance so that Leahnette can send out a notice about the workshop in the next general billing mailing. The meeting will be held in the school library, and the target turnout is 40-50 people.

Next CAC meeting: Wednesday, January 17, 2001, 7 pm, Columbia City City Hall

Return to Columbia City Home Page