Planning Commission - workshop

Good evening. I call this Planning Commission meeting to order, and we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Okay, we have three consent item, or three consent items to address. The first is going to be draft meeting minutes from October 13th, 2025. And on that meeting, myself, Mr. Ewert, Ms. McCarthy, And Judy, we're all present, so we have enough for quorum. So do we have a motion on draft meeting minutes for October 13th, 2025? Mr.

Chair, I make a motion that we accept the draft meeting minutes as submitted. Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none. So draft meeting minutes October 13th, 2025 are adopted. The next is going to be April 27th, 2026. We had Mr. Ewert, we had Ms. McCarthy, we had Ms. Driscoll and Mr. Roche. So we have enough for a quorum. Do we have a motion?

I move to adopt the draft meeting minutes of April 27th, 2026 as written.

And a second. I'll second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. Okay, so the ayes have it. We've adopted meeting minutes April 26th. Moving on to June 8th, 2026. We had myself, Mr. Ewert, Ms. McCarthy, and Ms. Driscoll, and Mr. Hutchinson, and Ms. DeRoche all present for that meeting. Do we have a motion on June 8th, 2026 meeting minutes?

I move we accept the draft meeting minutes for June 8th, 2026 as written. And a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Aye.

All right. We got all three done. I think that lingering one from last year finally. Okay, next up is citizen input on non-agenda items. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on non-agenda items. Each person will be given three minutes to speak. Staff and the Planning Commission will make every effort to respond to questions raised during the citizens input. before the meeting ends or as quickly as possible thereafter. Do we have any citizen input? None. Okay, moving on. We have no old business, no new business, and no public hearings. And that then will take us to the Planning Commission work session. The purpose of tonight's work session is to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to discuss the proposed urban growth boundary amendment. To make the most of the short time we are given for these work sessions, public comment will not be taken. Instead, we invite the public comment at all of the planning commission's regular meetings under either of the two opportunities dedicated on each agenda for public comment. In addition, we invite the public to contact city staff with comments or concerns. Although this is a public meeting, the Planning Commission cannot make any formal decision in a work session. Next step actions are often determined for deliberation and discussion at a properly noticed Planning Commission hearing. And with that said, I turn it over to Planning Director Don Hardy.

Good evening Chair Ellison and Planning Commissioners. Tonight we'll be discussing the City of Canby proposed urban growth boundary expansion. Steve Faust is here. He'll be leading us to the presentation. I just wanted to make a few comments regarding tonight's presentation. We'll be walking you through the steps involved and how we came up with the urban growth boundary expansion, the community involvement that's happened so far in that process. And speaking of community involvement, if you all are interested, there is a community summit across the street at Cuss Forest Town Hall tomorrow night for the community summit for their concept planning and urban growth boundary expansion. We'll be going through some table group MAPPING EXERCISES FOR THAT, WHICH WILL GET INTO MORE DETAIL. WE'RE HAVING OUR WORK SESSION WITH YOU TONIGHT. NORMALLY WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THAT COMMUNITY SUMMIT INPUT FIRST, BUT WE'RE ON A VERY TIGHT SCHEDULE TO GET THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSION COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE YEAR. THERE WERE SOME LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ADDRESSING THE NEED FOR THAT, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT PROCESSES OVER AGAIN. WE'RE TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING DONE THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR. to go through that. We do want your input on this tonight. This could be high level. You all will see this on August 24th and that'll be a hearing for a recommendation to the council. Council will have a work session on September 2nd and then there'll be a city council hearing on September 16th. So this is all happening relatively quickly on this process. Tomorrow night's community input will obviously be important in terms of like The concept planning in particular, in terms of the land use pieces of it tonight, we're really looking more at the boundary. And Steve will go into that in more detail.

Excuse me. Thank you, Don. Commissioners, thanks for having us here this evening to talk about this urban growth boundary expansion amendment. I think you all know this is part of the same project through which we updated the comprehensive plan successfully and the transportation system plan. And now this is the third leg of that stool, if you will. You can see on this page all of the different projects Activities that went into those three, you know, not just the urban growth boundary expansion, but those other two documents as well. We just had our seventh PAC meeting to go over this in, I think, late June. And yeah, and we have our summit tomorrow. A reminder of the work that we've done previously, this is the final land need that we have for the City of Canby. I'm going to walk you through this. For residential, we say up to 102.5 acres, and there's some reasons for that. For housing itself and related infrastructure, there are 73.1 acres of that the city has to include in an urban growth boundary expansion. Once you establish in your housing needs analysis what that need is, you have to address that need. So the 73.1 acres will definitely be included in the urban growth boundary expansion. The other types of land need do not have that same requirement. So for parks, the city has identified up to about 26 acres. The city can choose to do that full 26 acres or some lesser amount. That's one of the things we want to talk to you about tonight. And then we added a third piece to the residential land need. In rules that were passed for Oregon, I think they went into effect January 1st of this year, allow cities that are doing a residential urban growth boundary expansion to, along with that residential, include up to 5% of that acreage for neighborhood serving commercial, so commercial services to serve those new residences. That's a safe harbor that cities are now able to use. It does not apply to the city of Canby because of the process that the city has already initiated and going through. However, when we were talking to representatives from DLCD, they said it wouldn't, you know, the city could propose, it's not a safe harbor, it's not guaranteed, but if the city feels strongly that it's warranted, then it's something we could include in the proposed urban growth boundary expansion. So there's 3.7 acres there. Again, that's another question that we'll want to talk to you about tonight of whether or not you think that there should be some amount of neighborhood serving commercial in our expansion area. And then finally, the employment component is 439.2 acres. Again, the city can choose to... to have no expansion for employment lands or up to that 439.2 acres. There's no requirement that a city has to expand for employment lands. And then I just want to point out that that employment land need is almost entirely residential. There's less than one acre of need for commercial services. So that brings us to a total land need of up to 541.7 acres. So we've completed almost all the steps in the process required by the state to expand an urban growth boundary. We created a study area. I'll talk a little bit about prioritization. We looked at the prioritization factors. We applied what are called the Goal 14 location factors. I think you've seen all this before, and now we're here to you with our preliminary UGB expansion recommendation. This is the study area that I just mentioned. There's a requirement that the study area be at least two times the amount of the land need. So the land need is about 541 acres. Our study area was over 1,500 acres, so we met that requirement. A few notes before we go into the details of the proposal. So what you will eventually be acting on and City Council as well is simply an expansion of the boundary itself. We won't be designating land uses to that expansion. However, when we're talking about urban growth boundary expansion, it's really helpful to be thinking about, oh, where do we want residential expansion? Where do we want employment, industrial, et cetera? So you'll see that in our proposal tonight. Again, the residential land need includes land for homes, parks, and that neighborhood serving commercial and any associated infrastructure right-of-way. And again, I mentioned virtually all the employment land need is industrial. A reminder that industrial can represent a wide variety of land uses, ranging from like office parks all the way up to manufacturing through... The subsequent concept planning process, when we do assign land uses, the city will have an opportunity to create new industrial zones if people feel that's what is appropriate. So we're not necessarily tied to the current industrial zones that the city has. It's possible that through the concept plan, we might create new industrial zones that fit what the community wants in these expansion areas. And then I'll just show a map in a second. But through our process that I showed earlier, the community really gave their feelings about where certain types of uses are most appropriate. And you'll see in a moment that in the Northwest portion of the community, that's where people said, that's where residential should be. That's where we should be expanding for residential uses. And to the East is where the industrial expansion belongs. There's some areas within our study area that people thought could go either way. But generally speaking, residential to the Northwest, industrial to the East. I thought we had a map that is in the presentation for tomorrow, but not tonight. The one other thing that I want to mention is the parcel prioritization. So there are these priorities that are given to us by the state, starting with urban reserves, exception lands, and non-resource lands. That's the first priority for land to bring into the urban growth boundary. Canby doesn't have any urban reserves, but Canby does have exception lands. And what those are are lands that are not exclusive farm or forest use. And what Canby has in our study area is a fair amount of land that is designated rural residential five acre. And because the state program is really focused on protecting farm and forest land, they say, okay, the first priority is to bring in land that's not exclusive farm and forest land. So that's our first priority. We'll show that in a moment. Marginal lands is second. Canby doesn't have what's referred to as marginal lands. And then the third and fourth, and this is really technical, but the third priority is low-value farmland and the fourth priority is high-value farmland. We followed the state procedures and determine that really all of the farmland in Canby is high value farmland. So basically what we have is priority one, the exception lands, and priority four, the high value farmlands. And now we'll go through the recommendation. So the areas highlighted in yellow are our exception lands. They're designated as 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D on your map. Area 1A, and as I mentioned, Area 1A is in that northwest area where the community said that's where we want to have residential expansion in the future. That area 1A is about 116 acres, so it's already enough by itself to accommodate that 73 acres of residential, plus potentially some acreage of parks, depending on how much you and city council decide are appropriate, and if you all decide it's appropriate, neighborhood serving commercial as well. So all of the residential need is going to be accommodated in that sub-area 1A. That means that 1B and 1C and 1D, if they are to be included in the UGB expansion, would have industrial access. be eventually designated for industrial use. Our recommendation is to bring in 1B and 1C, which you can see there on the map. 1D is the new era area, which is pretty much filled with manufactured homes and a cemetery. And we are not recommending that that area be brought into the UGB. It's also pretty far away in terms of extending public infrastructure to that area. That would be a costly endeavor. So again, our recommendation is that 1A is where the city will accommodate its residential land need along with some parks and potentially some neighborhood commercial. 1B and 1C will accommodate a portion of that industrial land need. So I probably shouldn't have said all that. I have one for each one. So again, 1A is 116 acres, suitable for residential use. Our recommendation is to add 73 acres from within that area for residential use. We have not yet determined which 73 acres. That's something that we'll be talking about with you again, with the public tomorrow, and with city council. Again, some portion of that 26 acres for parks, we assume will be included in here. It doesn't have to be all of it, but again, that's something we want to hear more about. And then potentially that neighborhood serving commercial. 1B is 50 acres. There are seven, about eight acres that are constrained with either steeper slopes or are within the Willamette River Greenway. We recommend that 50 acres be brought into the urban growth boundary for industrial or employment. And the city could also in that 1B area add some acres for park if we feel that is an appropriate place for parks. Area 1C is about 34 acres. Again, we also recommend that that come in for employment to accommodate some of that employment or industrial use. And again, parkland could be considered for that area as well. And area 1D is about 39 acres. Some of it's constrained, but I mentioned there's a manufactured home park and a cemetery, and we do not recommend that be brought into the urban growth boundary. Now we're gonna move on to the priority four. I mentioned we have the priority number one, first priority and the fourth priority. This is the fourth priority. Briefly, we're recommending that areas seven, eight, and nine to the east be brought in. We recommend that areas four, five, six, and 10 are not brought into the urban growth boundary. And areas two and three are not going to be brought in. We recommend are not brought in through this current urban growth boundary expansion, but through some subsequent actions, which I'll talk about and Don may chime in on. So sub area 2, this is 13 acres. It is very suitable for residential use, and it's completely surrounded by the city, so it's an obvious candidate for future residential expansion. However, as I mentioned earlier, the entire 73 acres of residential can be accommodated in that area 1A. So there's no need to apply to sub area 2. However, In talking with the state, there is another mechanism that the city can, after this urban growth boundary expansion is completed, there's an action that the city can take through what's called a goal exception because that area is surrounded by the city to bring that area into the urban growth boundary through a subsequent action. So that is our recommendation. Don't include it right now, but take these subsequent actions. And very similar for sub-area three, which is not completely surrounded by the city, but will be when 1A is brought in. Again, very suitable for residential use. And we recommend that through a subsequent action that eventually be brought into the urban growth boundary, but it's not recommended at this time. Don, is there anything else you want to say about that? No.

We've had conversations with City Council on this as well, and I think just from kind of the procedural process here, maybe backing up a step, which may be a question of yours, is the 73 acres came from our housing needs analysis. So that's basically what's required for the next 20 years based on a population projection. that Portland State University has provided to each city, and that's about 6,000 people. So that 73 acres is not going to accommodate 6,000 people. So it's a combination of vacant lands within the city already existing, plus we didn't have enough land in the city boundary, in the current urban growth boundary, so therefore there is a need for extra land, and that 73 acres comes from that. The exception lands are a bit interesting in the sense in 1A they predate zoning and so these have been parceled up and basically kind of marginalized and that's why the exception land provisions exist as they do. From a tidiness perspective, it would be probably sequentially more logical to develop 2, 3 and then do 1A. But from a procedural perspective, we're stuck with essentially the procedures in the state process that's requiring us to look at 1A first. So that's it. However, what Steve said is because Sub Area 2 is what we call irrevocably committed to development because it's completely surrounded by urban development. That's a fairly easy goal exception, which can happen outside of the urban growth boundary process. Subarea 3, slightly more challenging, but still has some of those same elements, and that's going to deal with access to the area in general. And if there's a need for access, which there likely is to get to properties to the north, that subarea 3 could be brought in through a goal exception as well. There's some complexity to this. We're not going to go into the detail of that tonight. I think the general leaning of the council is that we should be pursuing sub area two and three post the urban growth boundary process that we're doing. So that would be something that would be happening after this process. It would be happening after, not to get too far in the weeds, but after concept planning is done, which basically be next summer. we'd likely be initiating the goal exceptions for subarea two and three. So, but just, I know that's a lot, but just wanted to provide some context there.

Yes. Two and three, are those for the seedling farms?

They're IFA, and they're, not that that's a criteria, but they're willing to come in. So, they've contacted us, yes.

I'm glad you asked. Subarea four is the Dahlia Farm. And yes, and as an important cultural and economic institution in Canby, we are not recommending that that be brought into the urban growth boundary. The same goes for areas 5 and 6 to the north there. Again, someday those will be very appropriate for residential use, but we do not have the land need. Again, that residential 73 acres is going to go into 1A most likely, so 5 and 6, neither of them are recommended to bring in at this time. Area 7, which is kind of in between 1B and 1C there, that's a little over 40 acres, a little bit of constraint, but we recommend that that area be brought in, again, to accommodate some of the employment need. Again, that area, if there's places appropriate for parks, there could be parkland in there as well, but that is recommended to be brought in. Sub-area 8, we are recommending to bring in As well, that is 228 acres with some constraints and one historic property, but very appropriate for industrial land and could also have some parkland there as well. Sub area nine is recommended to bring in as well. I need to update this slide. That's 112 acres, but 43 acres are in the 100-year floodplain. So we're recommending bringing in nine, but not... I don't know if this...

works on this.

The southern triangle of that sub-area 9 is the floodplain area. We are not recommending to bring that southern portion in. So in the end, it's about 61 acres, I believe, of land, more of a rectangle there, not including that triangle to the south. And then finally sub area 10, talked a bit about this with our project advisory committee and city council. That area potentially could be brought in for industrial, but a lot of people feel that it might be more appropriate for residential. So we decided in our recommendation at this time to not bring it in so that in the future, because if it's brought in, it would have to be industrial. because we don't have enough residential land need to bring it in. So the thinking is don't bring it in at this time and that gives the city more time to think about in the future whether that would be more appropriate for residential or employment uses. So when we total this all up, so remember our 20-year land need is up to 541.7 acres. Our urban growth boundary expansion recommendation would bring in about 530 gross acres and up to 492 acres that are free from constraints. So again, we say up to because we don't know how much parkland is going to be brought in. We don't know if that neighborhood serving commercial is going to be brought in. So it's up to 492 acres, which is a little less than the land need. And this is what that map looks like. So everything in that yellowish color would be brought in through this urban growth boundary process. And then areas two and three, again, we recommend for future inclusion in the urban growth boundary, but not through the process that we're in right now. We have a couple questions to help guide your discussion, but I think I should go and just do the rest of the slides here and then we'll come back to this, just so you know the process. So as Don mentioned, we have a community summit tomorrow evening. We have a hearing with you all scheduled for August 24th. Then it goes to city council work session and hearing on September 2nd and 16th. And then once the city adopts urban growth boundary amendment, it then goes to the county because they have to approve it as well. We have a planning commission hearing on November 9th, what's called a county commissioner pre-hearing on December 1st. And then do we have the hearing on the 17th as well, Don? Mm-hmm. There's actually just one hearing on December 1st. Just the December 1st. Okay. So that's the rest of that process. So I think that unless Don has anything to add, that's the end of our presentation. And as we mentioned, we welcome, of course, any of your thoughts and comments. But to help with that, we're looking for guidance on how many acres of parks should be added and where would they be appropriate. Should any land be included for neighborhood serving commercial in that sub-area 1A where the residential land is going to be? and what types of industrial, again we mentioned there's what we would say is less intensive industrial uses like office parks and things like that. There's more intensive industrial uses like manufacturing or warehousing or all sorts of things there. We're also looking to hear more about what types of industrial you all and the community would like to see.

So the it's open for your discussion and questions you probably have questions. I'm guessing that we can help clarify as we go through this So how about you fill us in about the neighborhood commercial There's a little bit a detail about what that is Yeah, and just kind of what we have in mind when you just use that term, and I think that I That would really be like your country store. It's not really a very intensive kind of thing. It's not very well defined by state law. It's a new provision in state law that says it can go up to 5% of the land need. And so that... That is really more what that would be. You'll be serving that area. Some of that discussion is going to continue through your hearing process on the 24th at the City Council, and tomorrow night as well we'll have some influence on that. We're not really sure if there is a desire for that in terms of like we're looking to the property owners and specific out there to some degree. That's part of that. And that's not a must issue. That is a may issue. So if there's zero neighborhood commercial, that would still work. So that's an optional component. We're putting it in there because at this point it needs to be considered.

I find it to be a worthwhile addition, actually. I mean, it's nice to have small places that you can just go and get a soda, you know, on your foot or on your bike without having to engage with the commercial traffic, especially 99. Or someplace that's more convenient and safe for kids to go to to get candy. You know, that sort of thing. I mean, I don't want to, like, you know... take away the focus from downtown, but it's, you know, when we start looking about how far we're looking at extending, you know, almost all the way to the river, I think it might be worthwhile, you know, at least along Territorial maybe at the intersection with that and Ivy or Holly where there's already a lot of traffic.

I'll add that the neighborhood serving commercial is defined in state statute. It's included in the most recent version of the full urban growth boundary expansion report, and we can follow up with that definition for you all. I don't have it on me right now.

I'm sure there are. I mean, I have opinions about there because I live in the area, you know, and I was just thinking about when I bought my property about how how Canby would expand out that way, and I just kind of assumed that there would be something. But, you know, it would be nicer if it wasn't big, which, you know, these smaller businesses can kind of alleviate the pressure from wanting to put a larger grocery store out there.

The intention is the scale. I mean, it's not supposed to be a giant grocery store. I mean, that's not the scale, I don't believe.

There's some bodegas in Portland that are just tiny, but you would be amazed at all of the things that they managed to get in there.

Could that neighborhood commercial include, like, child care?

I believe so. Again, I don't know. I don't think we have it printed up. I could try to find the definition on my phone while we're talking.

Yeah. I'd be curious as to what that is, too. I mean, what are we talking? Are we talking, like, gas stations, 7-Eleven type stuff, or are we talking... Like she just said, child care type things. Are we talking... Dry cleaner? What's that?

Dry cleaner.

Dry cleaners, hair salons. What are we... Restaurants. Then we start pulling business away from downtown. Then we start creating little mini... downtowns, I can see that being a problem. But then again, I can also see taking pressure off of, I mean, everything gas station-wise and whatnot pulls off a 99 here that we have here. And I hope that having something on either side of our neighborhood for that type of service would be probably a good idea. But then again, we have full traffic. stations that were off the territorial and people aren't even coming this way, then we created a thing on territorial where people are, you know, now we got it.

This may not satisfy your desire to define this, but the definition in statute is neighborhood serving commercial refers to pedestrian oriented. So I think that does maybe say not gas stations or things with high automobile traffic. Pedestrian-oriented small-scale commercial development intended to serve surrounding residential areas. So not super specific, but I think it does address the vehicular concern that it's supposed to be pedestrian-oriented and not like a destination where people are going to be driving for something like gas.

So like a 7-Eleven with two parking spots.

A 7-Eleven with two parking spots. With a little tiny pocket. Two or three parking spots.

Okay, if I'm a businessman, I don't think I won't go to 7-Eleven.

I think you'd be able to walk to it. There's a visual I have in the neighborhood I'm in, which is not in Canby, but it's like there's a store. It's about 1,000, 1,200 square feet. They've got a bakery in there. They sell milk. They sell eggs. The point that was made earlier about not having to drive three miles to the store, it's kind of nice to be able to drive half a mile to the store and get those items. So it would be those things, bakery items, and it's a small scale. They had a barber in there at one point. I think part of this is going to be that... There will be absolute review of these things just because that state provides for that. There's a review process and all indications from our perspective is that commercial and industrial projects will continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. So that whole thing about the review process would still be there. It is a bit challenging, I think, though. I think what you're going to find is market-wise, probably unlikely that any kind of brand name service station is going to go there. They're looking for high traffic volumes. They're not looking to be out on the country lands. And the margins on those are very difficult. So I don't think gas stations would be likely.

So this would be maybe more geared toward like the Dahlia, where you have people that live in a home I love.

It could be single story or, you know, two-story, but I would likely, yeah, I would say probably be, you know, more, yeah, exactly. It's more single story and like if in the neighborhood, let's say you're in Dodds and you wanted to get a gallon of milk, you probably would probably go there, I'm guessing, versus driving all the way to downtown.

There's a little bit more here. I think, I don't know if this is in statute or not, but limits ground floor sizes typically under 5,000 square feet to be compatible with residential areas, small cafes, local professional offices, convenience retail, and the idea is that it reduces vehicle trips by placing daily essentials within walking distance of homes.

We had that in the area I lived in, and like us, we go, it was wonderful. We had a plaid pantry and a little pizza place and a nail place and a gift store. And for sure, some people would drive in there, but that was on their way to and from home. And people walked there all the time too. You see people walking down the street with a pizza, but it was great.

And I think that you're nailing it because it's not a destination. I would say it's more like you're in the neighborhood already, so therefore you're really not generating a full trip going all the way downtown through all the intersections. You're already living in the area, and your wife needs butter, and so you run down and get butter. Yeah.

So it's not something that... I, living in where I live here on this side of town, would travel to that area to go utilize those shops?

Generally speaking, yes, unless it was a fantastic restaurant, which you might drive all the way from your house to that.

Yeah, but yeah. Okay. So it was a two-high school town when I was growing up in Hillsboro, and each one had a little tiny market, you know, within a few blocks of it. And they made money on game days, and then they also made money on the kids coming and going all the time.

I think I'm sure you've got that. I think it was a little market. Yeah. A little shop. That's why I live in Germany. We had a meat shop, a cheese shop, a pastry shop.

So I like it.

I have a couple questions if I could. So thank you for boiling this ocean, by the way, when I was reading the documents and I remembered all the work you've gone through and the many revisions and the state changes and oh my gosh, this is fantastic. So it's just the right level of detail when I was reading both the documents you sent out. So just some quick questions out of curiosity. So Under recreational needs, it says the 2043 population translates to a need of 59.3 acres of developed parks. Is that in total, including whatever we add for the, what was it you said, up to 25 acres? Yes.

So if we go just by the population increase and the city's stated benchmark of 10 acres of parks per thousand residents, that's how you would get about 60 acres. However, Don can talk about the conversations they've had with city council and with the parks group about there's... NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE CITY CAN AFFORD IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARK FACILITIES, AND THEY'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT THAT.

SO THERE WERE MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISOR BOARD AND WITH CITY COUNCIL AS WE WERE UPDATING OUR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE, WHICH WE'VE JUST ACCOMPLISHED, AND ALSO OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS ACCOMPANYING THAT PROCESS. SO IN THAT EXERCISE, THERE WAS AN IDENTIFICATION 73 acres, I think 73.4 acres of need over a 20 year horizon and that was defined as where the city is going to be in focusing on that. There are other parks arguably could be additive to that but that's the focus and so that became our core focus here in terms of like the direction we're going in here. It's a bit challenging to look at parks in terms of like the urban expansion areas in general. We've done, I think, a really good job of kind of targeting them in the city boundary and urban growth boundary, the current urban growth boundary, but we have not spent a significant amount of time going through that exercise. and the UGB, but there'll be some of that exercise as part of the concept planning that we're going to be doing here as well, based on the community input. The challenge, I think, and this is going to be something tomorrow night folks are going to be involved with, is Looking at, hypothetically, the forecast, because this came out of the Project Advisory Committee, looking at the forecasted population of the 73 acres, what would that yield? And then there was some discussion about a metric might be appropriate to determine whether all the 26 acres should go into that area or just part of it. the metric would be based on 10 acres per thousand. So, you know, let's say, for example, 1,200 people could live or are anticipated to live in 1A, then that would be about 12 acres of park need. So that's more the scale here in terms of the relationship of, like, going forward here. Staff's not necessarily making any recommendation. We're trying to provide information to the community as, you know, as to how that is... formulated in the future. The one that's probably important to understand is that parks in the exception land area, now obviously the city would need to have some intention of like developing those areas because it would be probably a community park of some sort or neighborhood park. If those were not developed as park lands, they would be developed as residential lands. So that's the caveat here. It's a bit more than you want it probably as an answer, but basically, formulaically, I think we're dealing with the urban growth boundary area probably more in terms of a scale issue because the park need has really already been determined through the system development charge and CIP process.

So in short, while the city could ask for that 60 acres through this process, it seemed more appropriate about 26 acres. As Don mentioned, in sub-area 1A, it could be 12 acres to accommodate about 1,200 residents. It could be more, though, if that seems appropriate. But some of that other parkland could be distributed to the east among the industrial lands.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. So I know there's been some discussion with the parks groups about a sports complex, and I wonder if they would be eyeing that area then instead of where they've considered it in the past.

And that hasn't really been part of the focus. I mean, because it takes so long. I mean, this is... This is years before the stuff is going to come in and be developed. I mean, so I think it's more near term, you know, and not sharing, oversharing here, but I think there is some desire to continue our coordination with Canby School District as well. So all I'm going to say on that is that's something that's out there that is part of that discussion.

If I could, I'll add one more thing that's important to note is that recreation or parks facilities is an allowed use within your industrial zones. So if and when the city decided if they want and was included in the economic opportunities analysis as an economic opportunity. So that's another option that the city could have down the road if they decide that they want to use industrial land for some sort of sports complex.

It's a pretty common practice in the city of Portland for the grounds adjacent to the schools to be taken care of by the parks department simply because they've got a bigger fleet of mowers and it's easier for them to just manage the whole thing. There are places where the entire, like an entire sports field is surrounded by the school grounds and those ones they tend to take care of it themselves but A lot of the parks that I, you know, Buckman Field is one that I'm at all the time. And also East Portland Community Center. They're both adjacent to schools and they're both used by the schools. Buckman Field is also what Benson Tech uses as their field. And then what is it? David Douglas. It's the Floyd Light Middle School, I guess, in that school district. It uses the one out at East Portland Community Center. And so I can see a route. There's a lot of economy that comes from that, not duplicating equipment. And if you can situate sports fields for civic use adjacent to the sports fields for the school use, I think that you could save a lot on infrastructure by duplicating. putting them together. But, you know, people are, like, one of the things about Buckman Field is that that place is, anytime the school isn't using it, it is busy. I mean, there are people, there are adults doing soccer practice there all times of the day, all days of the week, whenever there's not kids in there. It is very heavily used. And so, you know, it's one of those things, if you build it, they will come. But, you know, I mean, all of this is kind of one of the things that I've come to understand about with parks and can be is it's the knives out meetings and that, you know, we end up with a lot of times, you know, putting a, you know, nature parks or, or, you know, pet exercise parks at odds with sports parks, you know, and they have different needs and there are different kinds of entertainment for different kinds of people, and they also come from different patches of ground, you know. I'm, you know, looking at the end of 1A, you know, where it comes up against the river, and that seems like it'd be a fine place to put a park, of course, but it's not going to be very good for sports, except maybe, you know, Frisbee golf or something like that, you know. And so, you know, if we're actually looking at, you know, about sports parks still, you know, which are kind of a heavy infrastructure. We should be looking at everything we can to save every dollar we can on how we operate them. And then, you know, we also have to be strict on making sure that what is the schools at what times of the day, what is the public's at certain times of the day, and make sure that both sides get use of the parks at all times of the day. I mean, I tell you, it's like if there are sports parks that are open in the morning during the week, some group will find a way to take those days off and go out there and practice.

I had two more questions if I could. So under economic development, it mentions a demand for 6,700 additional jobs between now and the goal date. And the population is expected to increase by 6,000. So is the 6,700 jobs, does that exceed the population because we want more people to stay here and work here? I don't remember how that number was derived, the 6,700 additional jobs.

So the Economic Opportunity Analysis is a document that was reviewed and adopted, and that forecasted the need for employment. Employment, basically acreage, and then that acreage converts into job forecast. What you have essentially is you have the Pioneer Industrial Park that was developed 30 plus years ago that is essentially built out or committed to most of that property is pretty well developed. Not all, every patch of ground has not been developed, but most of it has been. And the size of that, ironically, for the Pioneer Industrial Park is very similar to to the urban expansion that we're now talking about. And that scales about the same employment that was there previously. So essentially we've exhausted what was visioned for the Pioneer Industrial Park, and this is the next 20 years it's going out. So it's based on forecasted need and the rate of consumption of employment lands. And then converting that into an assumption on a mix of industrial activity there. And that's where the 6,700 employees came from.

Okay. Thank you, Don. And then I have one more quickie, I think. So I live on a Canby EFU property, but it's four miles south of the map. But for my other friends that live on EFUs, we're lucky we have minuscule property taxes. So how does that work when those properties get converted? At what point... Do they no longer have the benefit of EFU, but do they still own the property or does it, how does that timing work?

I'm just curious. So 100% a property owner can leave their property as is in their urban growth boundary. We have no control over that, the city. They can leave it indefinitely for forever, for infinity. And they will remain EFU. They will remain under county taxation. There's only one taxation bucket in Clackamas County or either unincorporated or you're annexed. So the taxation really would not change. This is completely property owner driven. So we are simply creating a boundary and an opportunity here to create employment and residential growth But people could choose to say, I will never annex to the city of Canby, and that would be fully within their choice, and then they would not be paying any additional tax. They would remain zoned county. They would be controlled by county regulations.

So these are people that are going to be brought into the growth boundary?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, and so nothing changes until they sell to a developer or something?

Well, they'd have to go through an annexation process to fully do that, and then they would be essentially, we'd be looking at utilities at that point, transportation, those kinds of things that would be part of that exercise of annexation.

So again, that's up to them to annex or not?

That would be completely their decision. Yeah, and that's just the way it works. I mean, we're not forcing anyone to annex to the city.

Okay, that's it, thank you.

Commissioner Driscoll, just want to make sure we get your questions if you have any at this point.

Yeah, so as we go through this process, it's always been framed that the industrial land was going to be brought in at that almost 500 acre level. At the beginning of this presentation, it kind of sounded like It's optional how much industrial land would come in. I was just looking for clarification about how much has to come in versus how much we are looking at suggesting bringing in and why there might be a difference between the two.

And so great question. So the economic opportunity analysis actually forecasted a need that, you're correct, greater than what we're proposing. There's a limited geography and geographic area the city can actually go into. I think the outlier really is subarea 10 if we were going to add that in and You know, there's two things going on on sub-area 10, as Steve mentioned. One is that's directly adjacent to residential, and, you know, that doesn't feel like that should be employment land or industrial land. It feels like that should be future residential land from the city's perspective. So that kind of limits... that situation right there, that's the limiting factor. So to answer your question directly, there's not enough land essentially to fulfill the economic opportunity analysis forecast. We're going as much as possible, but there's just not the land there that's available that would be would be a good use for that in terms of being employment lands that are logical. So that's probably the best answer I can give you.

Okay, so really the difference is that we have what the UGB requires and then we have what the economic analysis recommends. And we're looking towards the economic analysis and the higher number of acres that it's recommending taking. And that's why we're leaning that way to be bringing in more of the land to the UGB itself.

As Steve mentioned, the employment lands, there's maybe just a bit of a deeper dive. The employment lands are optional for the city in terms of they are not a must, but they are a may. The residential lands are a must, so we must have 73 acres of residential land, but we're planning for both. It makes sense to plan for both because we're, you know, employment is a really critical factor for the city's finances and future. And, you know, hopefully we can create more job housing balance here that would also help with the housing issue that we're having in Canby. So that's what we're looking at both of them. But there just is not the physical balance. geography the way that we have a set of lands that can be included that are in the study area that can be addressed as employment lands and they're not infinite. We're looking at all the ones that we believe are viable.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome. Any other questions or comments from Planning Commission?

When does the next round of it come in? Like how many years in between expanding the Urban Growth Fund?

Well, two answers to that. One is that, as we mentioned, those sub areas two and three, the city could act on those whenever following this process. In terms of a next round of urban growth boundary expansion, the need is really based on the housing needs analysis and the economic opportunities analysis. So A few years down the road, if the city were to do those analyses and find that despite what the city's added, there's more need, then the city could do this again. It is, as you know, a lengthy and costly process. But yeah, there's no real time limit. It's when can the city demonstrate a 20-year land need.

I think this is a forecast. I think it's every seven to ten years. I mean, that's probably the earliest. I mean, we should be revisiting our comprehensive plan. In fact, I think you all were recommending every five years, as my recollection. So that would be, it really is a policy, it's more of a policy check-in. And I think part of that is a litmus test on what is the growth factor here. For a while, we were debating on, like, is the population growing? Is it not growing? So there's a lot of dynamics in our economy and how people move across the country or come to this area or are living in this area. And I think part of that, we don't really know what that looks like completely. Oregon could be the next super hot market or it could just be, like, pretty much the 1.3% growth that we've been seeing in that arena or it could end up going faster than that.

And we do know now under new state rules that the city of Canby is required to update its housing needs analysis every eight years. So that would be a benchmark.

ANY OTHER ITEMS YOU GUYS WANTED TO THROW OUR WAY FOR CONSIDERATION?

I THINK MAINLY THIS IS IT HERE AND WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE'LL HAVE A SUMMATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SUMMIT AND DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO ATTEND THAT TOMORROW NIGHT BUT WE WILL SUMMARIZE THAT. I THINK THAT WILL HELP IN GUIDING LIKE WHAT DO THE COMMUNITIES SAY? WE'LL HAVE A SUMMATION OF THAT. THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE THAT SAME INFORMATION AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT HERE AS WELL. This is mainly it. It's just trying to really set the stage for the boundary, and we're also concurrently doing the concept planning, which I think is helpful because I think it would be really difficult at this point if we had not started that process. So we're overlapping those two. But I think next round we'll have a bit more information. fairly high level. It's going to start drilling down to like more specifics about, you know, I mean, you're going to see small adjustments here and there to the, but for example, the final boundary of 1A will look differently. It will not have 115 acres of that. It will not take that whole thing in. Some chunk of that will not be coming in this round. And so we'll be seeing things like that. And that's based on these formulas about how much parkland and how much neighborhood commercial more if there is you know neighborhood commercial if there's a desire you know there's definitely you know an interest in that but I think scalability is important so we'll be coming back for you all to make a recommendation to council and then they'll hear your recommendation in their hearing.

At the summit, will there be a definition around that neighborhood commercial so that the community understands what that is or what it could be?

I'll give the kind of similar to the information Don and I responded when you asked tonight. I don't know that we have anything more definitive that we could reach out to DLCD tomorrow and see if they have any further guidance, but we can add some of the details we mentioned about pedestrian oriented, meant to minimize trips, service retail, less than 5,000 square feet, things like that.

I think that's an excellent point. We need to have that. I think people could go crazy trying to define what that is.

One of the things about the one I mentioned where I used to live is that it was a historic, little bit of a historic corner because it was a trolley stop for the Lake Grove Swim Park. So that's why there was a store there.

Okay. Great presentation. I really appreciated how you laid out the map. Easy to understand. So thank you very much for that. Don, do you have planning director update? I do. I'm going to switch up here. Switch chairs. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Page numbers on your slides. Tomorrow. People always say, I want to go back to slide five.

Just a few updates on our Planning Director updates. So we are, sir, going to start to see a number of Planning Commission meetings. I'm giving you kind of just a preview of what those are. I mentioned August 24th, which will be the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion hearing. Then on September 14, we have a subdivision Hartman's Garden hearing on September 14. September 28 we will have a work session and this is on House Bill 4037 and Senate Bill 974. It's to help you all understand what this all looks like. The state did not necessarily create a really clear map for us on hearing processes and It's a bit of a mess. I mean, and so, like, I think part of this is going to be to kind of untangle that. There'll be a previous work session with council on September 9th on the same item. And the challenge is that our code... The state law didn't completely say that... All the residential housing types are type 2 processes. They didn't say that. So you have to look at your code and say where the state law is silent, you have to have a process that follows that. And not to go into too much detail, but that could mean some really strange hearings where you actually have a meeting slash hearing and we don't take any verbal testimony because it's all written testimony, which is not a great way to run a meeting. So There may be some interim weird hearing processes that we have between now and the end of the year. I'm preparing you for that. We're gonna also try to change our code by the end of the year as well to address that issue. I know that sounds strange, but the state's really pushing cities to do a type 2 administrative process where there would normally be a hearing process is the gist of that. I felt it was important enough to have a work session around those items so you all can ask questions. We'll have our land use attorney here as part of that discussion. Can you send us an email with those two cards? Absolutely, I'll send that out to you. Then you guys can study that. Those are really recent legislation and so that's something that's coming up. I did want to mention, and Ryan was great about reminding me, we also have promised you a work session which we will have on traffic thresholds and work sessions on that. We're not trying to delay that, but we have other things that are kind of pushing that out a bit further, but we will be bringing that back. We also have another hearing on October 12th. So it's a conditional use permit for Habitat for Humanity. They're moving locations just nearby for where they're at, but there's a conditional use permit process. Not a super strenuous review, but one that you all will see. for that. So those are the main items that we have coming up. I did want to mention we are fortunate today to receive word that we are, the City of Canby is going to be receiving an award from the Oregon Planning Association for the Cultivating Canby project on September 16th. which is the Comp Plan, Transportation System Plan, Urban Growth Boundary. It's a team effort, and it's nice to be recognized. It's for excellence in planning for a small city. So, yeah.

Yeah, nice job, guys.

So, anyway, all your hard work, and you all were part of that, too. Yeah, so that's another thing just I wanted to mention. That is about it for now. If you have questions, let me know. But we are starting to go back in. There's a bit of a hiatus and we're now kind of coming around the corner here a bit.

Sorry.

I don't have any items of interest or guidance from Planning Commission unless any of the commissioners have anything they want to bring up. Commissioner Driscoll, do you have anything that you wanted to bring up?

No, thank you.

Okay. So with that, I'll take a motion to adjourn if we're ready.

I move to adjourn.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. All right, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.