Ord 2530 - Urban Growth BoundaryCOUNCIL BILL NO. 2992
ORDINANCE NO. 2530
AN ORDINANCE RESPONDING TO A LCDC REMAND ORDER BY ADOPTING AN
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY; AMENDING THE WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT TO DESIGNATE AN URBAN
RESERVE AREA AND CREATE TWO 20 -YEAR UGB EXPANSION LIMITATIONS, MAKING
LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS TO EXPLAIN THE CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION ON REMAND; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City submitted Work Task 2, "Commercial and
Industrial Lands Inventory" (Task 2) of its Periodic Review work program to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for review pursuant
to OAR 660-025-0150. The City and Marion County concurrently submitted an
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendment to address identified deficiencies in
residential, commercial, and industrial land needs to DLCD for review pursuant to
ORS 197.626 and OAR 660-025-0175. The Oregon Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) issued a final written order approving both Task
2 and the UGB amendment on February 14, 2007 (Approval Order 07-WKTASK-
001720); and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2010, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded LCDC's order 07--WKTASK-001720, 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC
(Woodburn 1), 237 Or App 213 (2010). On January 12, 2011, LCDC met to hear
argument from the parties to appeal and DLCD. LCDC then closed the public
hearing and deliberated to a decision, again approving Task 2 and the UGB
amendment (Approval Order 11-WKTASK-001802); and
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded LCDC's order 11-WKTASK-001802. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC
(Woodburn 111, 260 Or App 444 (2014). On July 7, 2014, the court issued the
appellate judgment in Woodburn 11; and
WHEREAS, at its July 2014 meeting, LCDC directed DLCD to initiate a
mediation assessment. DLCD did so, and the parties to the case ultimately
entered into mediation, culminating in a jounf request by the City and Marion
County to remand the UGB amendment. On May 21, 2015, LCDC remanded Task
2 and the UGB amendment to the City and Marion County for further action; and
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2992
ORDINANCE NO. 2530
WHEREAS, LCDC's Remand Order 15-WTASK-001872 (the Remand Order)
provides as follows:
The Commission modifies its Approval Order li-WKTASK-001802
to reverse the approval of Task 2 and the UGB amendment,
and to remand Task 2 to the City, and the UGB amendment to
the City and Marion County. On remand, the City and Marion
County may either readopt the UGB amendment based on
findings that comply with the statewide planning goals, and
applicable administrative rules that are supported by
substantial evidence, or fulfill the requirements of Task 2 and a
UGB evaluation in any other manner that complies with the
statewide planning goals, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. In response to the Remand Order, the UGB is amended as
provided in Exhibit 1.
Section 2. In response to the Remand Order, the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan is amended as provided in Exhibit 2 to designate an Urban
Reserve Area and two 20 -year UGB Expansion Limitations.
Section 3. In response to the Remand Order, a modification of the City of
Woodburn/Marion County Urban Growth Coordination Agreement (Exhibit 3) is
authorized, which will include establishment of an Urban Reserve Area and two
20 -year UGB Expansion Limitations.
Section 4. The actions taken in Sections 1 through 3 are in response to the
Remand Order and are taken after reconsideration by the City Council of the
facts and evidence in the existing record.
Section 5. The actions taken in Section 1 through 3 are explained and
justified by the Legislative Findings on Remand, which are attached hereto as
Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein.
Section 6. Section 2 of Ordinance 2391 (2005), which adopts a
Comprehensive Plan Map and UGB boundary that is inconsistent with this
Ordinance, is repealed.
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2992
ORDINANCE NO. 2530
Section 7. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health and safety (because of the need for a
timely response to the Remand Order) an emergency is declared to exist and this
Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Council and
approval by the Mayor.
Approved as to form:
Passed by the Council
ew.rm--15<2�
City Attorney
Approved:
111, Kat�
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of" he Recorder
ATTEST:
Heather Pierson, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2992
ORDINANCE NO. 2530
M
'-Dec'E' on _Yzi X�
N Z'0 I s ",
410
o
r wi
r
x m
���p�s4 m Q wx
JO W m
xII N
r
o
LU
°
I;
im ,d pp
A a`a.
...........
...
...
v
i
......!„
a
°
I aII
n
_ J ...„
,.. C
6 �
I
II
W ���®.
®®
L04
O
° rc
W
r� r ou
> o�
f
�
J 4
of
m�
m���Wa�� ,www w�Wu w�uu www,
z _9
a
no
J uoquj! rj uoisuedx3 son aeaA-OZ � � N
w
z ra
xw
v
� N
a=
� „ 2
VIII II t
Exhibit 2
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
Growth Management Goals and Policies
Goal
G-1. The City's goal is to manage growth in a balanced, orderly and efficient manner, consistent
with the City's coordinated population projection.
Policies
G-1.1 Woodburn will assure that all expansion areas of the City are served by public facilities
and services with adequate capacity. Consideration of proposals that vary from City
capacity standards and facility master plans shall include mitigating measures determined
to be appropriate the Public Works Department. Other public service providers such as the
School District and Fire District shall also address capacity considerations.
G-1.2 Woodburn will encourage the optimum use of the residential land inventory providing
opportunities for infill lots, intensifying development along transit corridors, and
application of minimum densities.
G-1.3 The City shall provide an interconnected street system to improve the efficiency of
movement by providing direct linkages between origins and destinations.
G-1.4 The City shall assure the provision of major streets as shown in the Transportation Systems
Plan. The City shall hold development accountable for streets within and abutting the
development. In addition, the policy of the City is to emphasize development outward in
successive steps and phases that avoid unnecessary gaps in the development and
improvement of the streets.
G-1.5 The City's policy is to consider the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) when investing
public funds or leveraging private investment.
26
G-1.6 The City shall encourage high standards of design and flexibility that are enabled by the
PUD zone.
G-1.7 The City's policy is to accommodate industrial and commercial growth consistent with the
2001 Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA).
G-1.8 Woodburn's policy is to diversify the local economy. Woodburn seeks to diversify the
local economy so that the community will prosper and can weather swings in the business
cycle, seasonal fluctuations, and other economic variables. The intent is to provide a broad
spectrum of commercial and industrial enterprises. The variety of enterprises will not only
provide insulation from negative business factors, but a choice in employment
opportunities that in turn allows for the diversification in income types.
G-1.9 To ensure that growth is orderly and efficient, the City shall phase the needed public
services in accordance with the expected growth. Extensions of the existing public services
should be in accordance with the facility master plans and Public Facility Plan in this
Comprehensive Plan.
G-1.10 Woodburn will ensure that land is efficiently used within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB)by requiring master development plans for land within Nodal Development Overlay
and Southwest Industrial Reserve overlay designations. Master plans shall address street
connectivity and access, efficient provision of public facilities, and retention of large
parcels for their intended purpose(s).
G-1.11 The City shall pay for public facilities with system development charges from anticipated
growth.
G-1.12 The County shall retain responsibility for regulating land use on lands within the urban
growth area(unincorporated land inside the UGB)until such lands are annexed by the City.
The urban growth area has been identified by the City as urbanizable and is considered to
be available, over time, for urban development.
27
G-1.13 The City and County shall maintain a process providing for an exchange of information
and recommendations relating to land use proposals in the urban growth area. Land use
activities being considered within the urban growth area by the County shall be forwarded
by the County to the City for comments and recommendations. The City shall respond
within twenty days, unless the City requests and the County grants an extension.
G-1.14 All land use actions within the urban growth area and outside the City limits shall be
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the County's land use regulations.
G-1.15 In order to promote consistency and coordination between the City and County, both the
City and County shall review and approve amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
which apply to the portion of the urban growth area outside the City limits. Such changes
shall be considered first by the City and referred to the County prior to final adoption. If
the County approves a proposed amendment to the City's plan, the change shall be adopted
by ordinance, and made a part of the County's plan.
G-1.16 The area outside the urban growth boundary, including the area within the Urban Reserve
Area (URA), shall be maintained in rural and resource uses consistent with the Statewide
Land Use Planning Goals.
G-1.17 The City and County shall strive to enhance the livability and promote logical and orderly
development of the urban growth area in a cost effective manner. The County shall not
allow urban uses within the Urban Growth Boundary prior to annexation to the City unless
agreed to in writing by the City. City sewer and water facilities shall not be extended
beyond the City limits, except as may be agreed to in writing by the City and the property
owner and the owner consents to annex. The City shall be responsible for preparing the
public facilities plan.
28
G-1.18 Conversion of land within the boundary to urban uses shall be based on a consideration of:
(a) Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services;
(b) Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to ensure choices in the market place;
(c) LCDC Goals;
(d) Further development of vacant and under utilized residential land within the City's
buildable land inventory before annexing additional territory for conversion to
residential use at urban densities; and
(e) Applicable provisions of the Marion County and City Comprehensive Plans.
G-1.19 Woodburn is committed to working with Marion County to minimize conversion of farm
and forest lands,by achieving a compact urban growth form. The City shall zone buildable
land such that the private sector can achieve 8 units per gross acre, consistent with the
City's housing needs analysis. This efficiency standard represents the average density for
new housing that will be zoned and allowed under clear and objective standards by the
City. Through a combination of infill,redevelopment,vertical mixed use development and
provision for smaller lot sizes and a greater variety of housing types, Woodburn provides
the opportunity for the private sector to achieve at least 8 dwelling units per gross buildable
acre (after removing protected natural areas and land needed for parks, schools and
religious institutions). Housing through infill and redevelopment counts as new units, but
no new land consumption, effectively increasing the density measurement.
G-1.20 Woodburn designates and establishes two 20-year UGB Expansion Limitations as depicted
in Figure G-1.20, which is adopted as part of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. For 20
years from the date the UGB amendment decision is acknowledged,the City shall not seek,
consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn UGB in the following areas:
• West of the portion of Butteville Road NE, as depicted in Figure G-1.20.
• Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing
UGB, as depicted in Figure G-1.20:
29
Figure G-1.2Q
yil 1
LSF✓2'�ai �s �i�
0.
I
o
��.. �. Q+�
R _
AZ
'Td r
e'.0
d
CL
LU
CO
� +
-.
I� bei ,.oQo Feo
Urban Reserve
hd—tl,al UGB EPA—on
YiL/ 11JJ)1 ean�ss��e
To further the mutual objective of the City and County to enhance livability and promote
logical and orderly development in a cost effective manner, both UGB Expansion
Limitations shall function as boundaries that shall not be crossed by any UGB expansion
for a period of 20 years.
G-1.21 The City and Marion County have jointly agreed to establish an Urban Reserve Area
(URA) consistent with state law. The URA is designated and established west and south
of Parr Road as specified in Figure G-1.21, which is adopted as part of the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan. Designating a URA achieves the following objectives: (A) It
identifies appropriate lands to be reserved for eventual inclusion in the UGB; (B) In
conjunction with Marion County's adoption of policies and regulations for the URA, it
protects this land from development patterns that would impede long-term urbanization;
and (C) it provides more certainty for jurisdictions, service districts and property owners
to undertake longer-term planning for public facilities and services such as transportation,
sewer and water, schools and parks.
30
211
G+[22Woodburn shall apply 8minimum density standard for new subdivisions and planned unit
developments of approximately 80% nfthe allowed density in each residential zone.
G+|23 /\ospecified inthe Marion County Framework Plan,the County's preliminary employment
land use needs for Woodburn are replaced by the more detailed employment forecasts and
site suitability unu]yoio found in the 2001 VVnndbuolB()/\.
G-1.24 Woodburn will consider residential and commercial redevelopment and infill potential for
purposes of calculating [JGB capacity, prior to expanding the [JGB. VVnndhuol will also
constrain the supply of commercial land to encourage redevelopment along Highway 214
west nfInterstate 5, and along Highway 99VV.
G-1.25 Woodburn has identified two urcuo for mixed-use development — Dnvvntnvvn VVnndhuol
and the Nodal Development District along Parr Road. Thc [JGB Justification Report
includes specific cotirnutco nfthe number nfnew housing units and commercial jnho that
can hcaccommodated inthese overlay districts.
31
G-1.26 Woodburn intends the UGB expansion area known as the Southwest Industrial Reserve
comprising approximately 190 acres, located east of Butteville Road and north of Parr
Road to be used for larger industrial users. Consistent with other provisions contained in
the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, all land within the Southwest Industrial Reserve shall
be reserved exclusively for industrial uses identified in the EOA and shall not be converted
to another commercial or residential plan designation. Specific lot size standards shall be
established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties.
G-1.27 Woodburn recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both
agricultural practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part
of their regular business practice. Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land
to the west of Butteville Road NE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the
region's agricultural industry. Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and
agricultural uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest
Industrial Reserve and other urban uses, the City and County will:
• Ensure that the design of any improvements to the portion of Butteville
Road NE serving the Southwest Industrial Reserve not encourage any urban
traffic unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate area and unrelated to
agricultural uses west of Butteville Road.
• As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial
Reserve consideration shall be given to methods that mitigate impacts from
development and adjacent agricultural activities. This can include buffers
or increased setbacks along Butteville Road, provided that any buffers
needed to reduce conflicts between the industrial uses and agricultural
activity west of Butteville Road NE are located inside the UGB.
32
Exhibit 3
CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY
URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
This Agreement made and entered into this day of
by and between the City of Woodburn, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City" and Marion
County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "County."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, IT APPEARING to the City and County that ORS Chapter 197, the Land
Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC"), and Statewide Planning Goal 14:
Urbanization require that an Urban Growth Boundary be established around each incorporated city in
the State of Oregon, and that the "establishment and change of the boundary shall be a cooperative
process between a city and the county or counties that surround it"; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2015, LCDC remanded Work Task 2 of the Woodburn Periodic
Review and Urban Growth Boundary amendment to the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to respond to LCDC's remand order it is necessary for the City to make,
and the County to approve, a new land use decision on the existing record ("the Decision on
Remand"); and
WHEREAS, in response to LCDC's remand, Goal 14, and the authority granted by ORS
Chapter 190 concerning intergovernmental agreements, City and County have adopted an Urban
Growth Boundary in Response to Remand, which is appended as Attachment 1, together with policies
and procedures for amending the Urban Growth Boundary, revising City and County comprehensive
plans within the Urban Growth Boundary and outside the city limits, and a coordination process for
county land division and land use decisions within the Urban Growth Area (i.e., the area between the
city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary); and
WHEREAS, both the City and County believe that this Agreement must be amended so that
the Decision on Remand can be addressed; and
33
WHEREAS, the City and County may designate an Urban Reserve Area pursuant to Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-021 where there is a demonstrated long-term need for land for a city's future
Urban Growth Boundary expansion and a consideration of the cost-effective provision of public
facilities and services to lands to be included in a Urban Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, Marion County has areas of significant and high-value farmland that should be
preserved by preventing future expansion of the City onto those lands for a certain number of years;
and
WHEREAS, the intent of the urban growth program for the City is as follows:
1. Promote the orderly and efficient conversion of land from Rural/Resource uses to urban
uses within the Urban Growth Area.
2. Reduce potential conflicts with resource lands, establishing an Urban Reserve Area and
expansion limitations where necessary.
3. Promote the retention of lands in resource production in the Urban Growth Boundary
until provided with urban services and developed.
4. Coordinate growth in accordance with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the
Marion County Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and County adopt the following coordination and revision
procedures and policies that, along with the policies of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, shall serve
as the basis for land use decisions within the Urban Growth Area and within the Urban Reserve Area.
It is the intent of the parties that the boundary and coordination policies and procedures expressed in
this Agreement shall be consistent with Oregon State Laws, the Marion County Comprehensive Plan
and the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan.
Page 2—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
34
I. COORDINATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
1. The County shall retain responsibility for regulating land use on lands within the Urban
Growth Area until such lands are annexed by the City. The City and County identify
the Urban Growth Area as urbanizable and available over time for urban development.
2. The City and County shall maintain a process providing for an exchange of information
and recommendations relating to land use proposals in the Urban Growth Area. The
County shall forward land use activities being considered within the Urban Growth
Area by the County to the City for comments and recommendations. The City shall
respond within twenty (20) days, unless the City requests and the County grants an
extension.
3. Upon receipt of an annexation request or the initiation of annexation proceedings by the
City, the City shall forward information regarding the request (including any proposed
zone change) to the County for comments and recommendations. The County shall
have twenty (20) days to respond unless they request and the City allows additional
time to submit comments before the City makes a decision on the annexation proposal.
4. All land use actions within the Urban Growth Area shall be consistent with the
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the County's land use regulations.
5. In order to promote consistency and coordination between the City and County, both the
City and County shall review and approve amendments of the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan that apply to the Urban Growth Area. Such changes shall be
considered first by the City and referred to the County prior to final adoption. If the
County approves a proposed amendment to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, the
change shall be adopted by ordinance and made a part of the County's Plan.
6. The area outside the Urban Growth Boundary shall be maintained in rural and resource
uses consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. The area outside the Urban Growth
Page 3—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
35
Boundary designated the Urban Reserve Area shall be subject to the requirements in
Section V below.
7. The City and County shall promote logical and orderly development within the Urban
Growth Area in a cost effective manner. The County shall not allow uses requiring a
public facility provided by the City within the Urban Growth Area prior to annexation
to the City unless agreed to in writing by the City.
8. City sewer and water facilities shall not be extended beyond the Urban Growth
Boundary, except as may be agreed to in writing by the City and County, consistent
with Oregon Administrative Rules, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the Marion
County Comprehensive Plan.
9. Conversion of land within the Urban Growth Area to urban uses shall occur upon
annexation and be based on consideration of applicable annexation policies in the
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan.
10. The City shall discourage the extension of public facilities into the Urban Growth Area
without annexation. However, if the extension of public facilities into the Urban
Growth Area is necessary because of an emergency, health hazard or the City
determines it is otherwise desirable, the facilities may be extended subject to terms and
conditions contained in a service contract between the City and the property owner.
11. The City shall be the provider of public water, sanitary sewer and stormwater facilities
within the Urban Growth Boundary unless otherwise agreed to by the City, the County,
and any other applicable party. The City shall be responsible for preparing the public
facilities plan for all lands within the Urban Growth Boundary.
Page 4—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
36
H. AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND THE URBAN
GROWTH AREA
The Urban Growth Boundary and all Comprehensive Plan designations applicable to land
within the Urban Growth Area shall be reviewed by the City and County as required by LCDC under
its Periodic Review rules or as the City updates its Comprehensive Plan where County concurrence is
necessary. These, and any other amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary, Comprehensive Plan or
zoning in the Urban Growth Area shall be reviewed and approved in the manner provided below.
1. City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments for land within the city limits:
Whenever the City proposes an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan for land within
the city limits, the City shall provide notice and request for comments on the proposed
amendment to the County at least 20 days before the City's initial evidentiary public
hearing.
2. City initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments within the Urban Growth Area and
proposed Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Reserve Area amendments:
A. Upon receipt of notice of Periodic Review, the City shall review its
Comprehensive Plan to determine if it needs to be updated. The City may also
propose Comprehensive Plan amendments, including Urban Growth Boundary
and Urban Reserve Area amendments, at times other than those specified by
LCDC's Periodic Review Order.
The City shall forward proposed amendments together with all exhibits, findings
of fact, and conclusions of law regarding the amendments to the County for
review and comments at least 20 days before the City's initial evidentiary public
hearing. The City shall be responsible for providing necessary notice of
amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
("DLCD").
Page 5—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
37
The City and County shall jointly submit one notice of a proposed Urban
Growth Boundary or Urban Reserve Area amendment to DLCD, as required by
administrative rule, at least 35 days before the City's first evidentiary hearing.
The City shall hold one or more Planning Commission and one or more City
Council hearings. Upon conclusion of its deliberations, if the City Council
concludes it will approve a proposed amendment, it shall adopt a resolution
stating its intent and adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the
Council's decision.
B. After adopting a resolution of intent to amend its comprehensive plan the City
shall forward the proposed amendment to the County for hearing along with any
comments from DLCD or other interested parties received by the City. Within
90 days after the date the City provides its resolution of intent along with all
supporting studies, exhibits, comments and findings of fact and conclusions of
law to the County, the County shall hold a public hearing on the City's proposal.
If the County decides to reject the proposal or wishes to propose modifications,
either party may request a joint meeting to resolve differences.
C. Upon concurrence by the County, both the City and County shall formally
amend their respective Comprehensive Plans to reflect the agreed upon change.
The County shall forward its signed ordinance approving an Urban Growth
Boundary or Urban Reserve Area amendment to the City, and the City shall
submit a joint notice of adoption to DLCD as required by administrative rule.
3. County initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments within the Urban Growth Area or
Urban Growth Boundary Amendments:
A. Upon receipt of notice of Periodic Review, the County shall review its
Comprehensive Plan to determine if it needs to be updated. The County may
Page 6—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
38
also propose amendments at times other than those specified by LCDC's
Periodic Review Order.
The County shall develop proposed amendments and forward them together
with all exhibits, findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the
amendments to the City for review and comments at least 20 days before the
County's initial evidentiary public hearing. Within 90 days after the County
provides the proposed amendments to the City, the City shall schedule at least
one public hearing by the City Planning Commission. The County shall be
responsible for providing necessary notice of amendments to DLCD.
B. The City Planning Commission shall hold one or more public hearings. After
the Planning Commission has concluded its hearing(s), it shall make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council and the County Board
of Commissioners shall each hold a public hearing or may jointly conduct one or
more public hearings. The two governing bodies may deliberate together on the
proposed amendment(s). At the conclusion of those deliberations, if the
conclusion is to approve the proposed amendment(s), the City Council and the
Board of Commissioners shall each adopt an ordinance to amend their
respective comprehensive plans accompanied by agreed upon findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
4. County Zoning Amendments in Urban Growth Area: Whenever the County proposes
an amendment to its zoning map or regulations for lands within the Urban Growth Area,
the County shall provide notice and request for comments on the proposed amendment
to the City at least 20 days before the County's initial evidentiary public hearing.
5. City Zoning Amendments in city limits: Whenever the City proposes an amendment to
its zoning map or regulations for lands within the city limits, the City shall provide
notice and request for comments on the proposed amendment to the County at least 20
days before the City's initial evidentiary public hearing.
Page 7—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
39
6. In amending the Urban Growth Boundary, the city limits or their respective
comprehensive plans, the City and County shall follow all procedures as required by
Oregon State Law. In the case of an amendment to Urban Growth Boundary, the
governing bodies shall base the amendment on consideration of Goal 14 (Urbanization),
applicable planning statutes and Administrative Rules.
III. ADMINISTRATION OF ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
In making land use decisions within the Urban Growth Area, the City and County agree to the
following:
1. The County shall provide notice and request for comments on conditional uses,
variances, adjustments, land divisions, property line adjustments and administrative
reviews within the Urban Growth Area to the City at least 20 days before the County's
initial evidentiary hearing or land use decision when no hearing is held. The County
shall provide the City a notice of decision for all such applications in the Urban Growth
Area when requested by the City.
2. Applications for uses permitted outright in the applicable County zone, including
ministerial actions, will not involve any notice or request for comments to the City.
3. The County may require City development standards for development within the Urban
Growth Area, including dedication of additional right-of-way or application of special
street setbacks when requested by the City. The County may require compliance with
City development standards, in lieu of County standards if the development is other
than a single-family dwelling.
4. For development approved under (1) or (2), if public sewer and water facilities or city
limits are located within 300 feet of the subject property, the County shall require that
the development connect to the facilities unless use of wells or other means are allowed
in writing by the City. The City will require any property connecting to City sanitary
sewer or water facilities to annex to the City. The City shall provide the County
Page 8—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
40
information about the location of public sewer and water. The County may approve
development of permitted uses on properties more than 300 feet from the city limits, or
from a public sewer or water facility using wells and DEQ approved wastewater
disposal systems.
5. If a proposed use is not specifically identified in the Marion County Urban Zone Code,
and the County is proposing an interpretation classifying the use as permitted in the
applicable zone under the interpretation provisions of the Zone Code, the County shall
give the City an opportunity to comment before the County makes a final land use
decision.
IV. MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
This Agreement is required to be consistent with the Urban Growth Management Framework
of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. The Framework is a coordination planning strategy that
provides guidelines a city may choose to follow when coordinating urban growth boundary needs with
the County. The decision on how to use any applicable coordination guidelines of the Framework is
up to a city and there can be several approaches taken by cities to coordinate planning efforts with the
County consistent with the Framework.
To facilitate coordination between the City and County, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
has been amended to incorporate applicable policies and guidelines found in the Marion County Urban
Growth Management Plan. The City shall consider applicable Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
policies and guidelines when making land use decisions within the Urban Growth Area.
V. EXPANSION LIMITS AND URBAN RESERVE AREA
1. For 20 years from the date the Decision on Remand is final and acknowledged by LCDC,
neither the City nor County will seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn
Urban Growth Boundary in the following areas:
• West of the portion of Butteville Road NE, as depicted on Attachment 2.
Page 9—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
41
• Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing Urban Growth
Boundary, as depicted on Attachment 2.
2. Woodburn intends the Urban Growth Boundary expansion area known as the Southwest
Industrial Reserve comprising approximately 190 acres, located, east of Butteville Road and
north of Parr Road to be used for larger industrial users. Specific lot size standards shall be
established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties.
3. Woodburn recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both
agricultural practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part of
their regular business practice. Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the
west of Butteville Road NE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the region's
agricultural industry. Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and
to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest Industrial Reserve and other
urban uses, the City and County will:
• Ensure that the design of and any improvements to the portion of Butteville Road NE
serving the Southwest Industrial Reserve not encourage any urban traffic unrelated to
the industrial use in the immediate area and unrelated to agricultural uses west of
Butteville Road.
• As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial Reserve
consideration shall be given to methods to mitigate impacts from development and
adjacent agricultural activities this can include buffers or increased setbacks along
Butteville Road, provide that any buffers needed to reduce conflicts between the
industrial uses and agricultural activity west of Butteville Road NE are located inside
the Urban Growth Boundary.
4. As part of the Decision on Remand the Urban Reserve Area depicted on Attachment 3
is created:
Page 10—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
42
A. The County shall apply a rural resource zone that establishes a minimum parcel
size of at least 80 acres, notwithstanding provisions for the division of land into
smaller parcels for certain non-resource uses as allowed by the zoning.
B. Dwellings on any new parcels created shall be clustered to the maximum extent
possible, taking into account parcel dimensions, natural hazards, proximity to
roadways, natural features, future platting potential, nearby dwellings and other
similar features.
C. The County shall continue to be responsible for building code administration
and land use regulation until such time as the property is annexed into the City.
D. No sewer or water service will be provided while the property remains outside
the Urban Growth Boundary. Fire protection will continue to be provided by the
Woodburn Fire District. While remaining outside the Urban Growth Boundary,
parks and transportation facilities will be provided by the County. While
remaining outside the Urban Growth Boundary, stormwater requirements will
continue to be applied by the County.
VI. AREA OF MUTUAL CONCERN
The area of land identified in Attachment 4, attached to this Agreement, lies outside the
Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary and shall be known as the Area of Mutual Concern. Land use
decisions within this area may have a significant impact on future growth plans of the City of
Woodburn. The County recognizes this interest and agrees to coordinate with the City as follows:
1. The County shall retain responsibility for land use decisions and actions concerning and
affecting lands within the Area of Mutual Concern.
2. The County shall provide notice and request for comments of pending land use actions
within the Area of Mutual Concern to the City at least 20 days before the initial
evidentiary hearing or land use decision when no public hearing is held. Where the first
Page 11—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
43
scheduled action on a proposal is a public hearing and the City responds in writing
within 10 days requesting additional time in which to review the proposal, the City's
time for submitting comments may be extended until the next regularly scheduled
hearing before that body. If no additional hearing is involved, the City shall be allowed
an additional 10 days to submit comments.
3. The County shall discourage development that would preclude future redevelopment
and urbanization of the area. The County shall encourage applicants for land divisions
to submit plans for the efficient future re-division of the land to urban densities.
4. The County shall send notice of land use decisions within the Area of Mutual Concern
to the City when requested by the City, when such decisions are issued. Applicable
appeal periods set by County ordinance or State statute shall apply to such decisions.
5. The County shall send notice of public hearings to the City within the times prescribed
by County ordinance or State law prior to hearings on appeals of such decisions, when
requested by the City.
6. The City may at its discretion develop studies as to the suitability, feasibility, and
effectiveness of extending urban facilities such as water and sewer service to land
within the Area of Mutual Concern. Such studies shall not be construed by the County
or others as being a violation of the City's or County's Comprehensive Plans. The City
will not, however, extend such facilities into this area without first obtaining appropriate
amendments to the City and County's Comprehensive Plans. This provision is intended
to recognize that certain facility planning requires consideration of timetables that
extend beyond the 20-year planning period recognized in the City and it is therefore
appropriate for specialized facility planning to be undertaken for the Area of Mutual
Concern.
Page 12—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
44
VII. APPEALS
If no mutual agreement can be achieved in the course of reviewing amendments or land use
applications as noted in Sections H, III and V, each party retains its right to appeal as provided in State
law.
IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that this Agreement shall remain in effect
unless terminated by one of the parties giving the other party a thirty day (30) termination notice, in
writing. It is further understood that this Agreement may be reviewed by the City and County every
year.
The City and County shall authorize the execution of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the respective parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
signed in their behalf the day and year first above written.
MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Chair
Commissioner
Commissioner
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 13—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
45
Marion County Legal Counsel
CITY OF WOODBURN
Mayor
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Woodburn City Attorney
Page 14—CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
46
410i
o
N o o
r
n � m
��o4o�s4 m Q Q
p W W.
co 7
r
o
4I
4-0
M
m
w :d 9
o �
a
> a
a f
s.
aLi
� a
® a
W ,� �M y
Q
n 1"
hs
� a .,.� �• r,: � h III
W " 7
RIMW—M �.. .
W .. .,a 1.
a II
..
CD
.•
"
z v
z � _9
a � 9
1 o
o
u01;ej!wl-1 uoisuedx3 eon aeaA-oz m
r
E
o `9
x
O
O L]
O a
O Ilp P:4
N �x
o
v ra
r Y
o mU oa` ¢
m
/ x
O
LL V) C O
C O_
co
ry
Q
Wx Q x
r W
CO W m
CD m CDCD
N
O w C (n O
arEau oR CD" '— cu
au))
a
bo,d
\ a es
17
I�
w,,....»w� M ... IW9 Q
4 "
N iu�6
�WyW
O
IU
J
b m
-
V "
� ;
I
� e �
�IIII� � IIII�I IIS
WWWWwww WwWwwwwWWWWW. wwwww' .
ow
.1„ I
WON) uoijsjiu l7j uoisusdx3 sin je;Dk-oz
T
m
a a9
a c �o
lry. o o
" o
m �a
m a Eor
a —
3
0
c � o
c �
a �
LL ° —
v a
o �(a
rx=
�q
O p/ `
i
O
w _
p
I v
®�
3q
5
- av
x
O E o u w
O
o =b
v rc
IT v
a�
I Q Og H LAko dJ Nb auQ Lx4-g-a j,, N
co
x � �
F—T7
L
�i
z �
a
a �
Q
0
0
x
a
M
� a
V
a
- oa 3»�n3una
a
a
m
1
E 0 m " J
q
`o f+:. � � Y E3zM
�o
N
as o a
U d Q
aEomE
Fpm
I �
\� Ll
� I
T/x AN ab-io HOS NoiNn _ —
i -
Ix
11111,04
r- I
�w
I m
\ I o
z /
0 /\ i z ' --- i
0�
F-
Ix444 l : P 2r 4t
,III J;
/ a �
Jill ---- �U
1-4
IS LO
uaz yry
— N41.
,� ---- Jl
if++ "
L ^NII j I
3N MlS3N008
24U itI Jill,
0IN
p
l
0/ / ++ + .�
o
(7
J� 'LIA
ami m C� —
Q � d U Of
I3N
1 a,
8
I I
m
LU °' z
of
w m
co -2 CO o aa)
-- � a a v af
z co
Exhibit 4
Legislative Findings on Remand
Woodburn Periodic Review Work Task 2 and UGB in Response to Remand Amendment
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter came before the City of Woodburn on remand from the Oregon Court of
Appeals and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). These findings and
the already existing evidentiary record support the City's decision on remand to: expand the urban
growth boundary (UGB), designate an urban reserve area (URA), and establish two long-term
expansion limitations. The UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres. This
includes approximately 190 acres for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406 acres
for residential use. The URA is west and south of Parr Road, and consists of approximately 230
gross acres. The two 20-year expansion limits are Expansion Limit No. 1,located along Butteville
Road, and Expansion Limit No. 2, located east of Highway 99E at Carl Road.'
As part of completing Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the UGB in Response to Remand
amendment, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the City of Woodburn/Marion County Urban
Growth Coordination Agreement (Coordination Agreement) are amended to incorporate the two
20-year UGB Expansion Limits, to the west of Butteville Road and to the east of Highway 99E at
Carl Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose beyond these limits for a
period of 20 years from the date this decision is final, including any appeals.
A. Case History
On July 30, 1997, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
approved the City of Woodburn's Periodic Review Work Program. All Periodic Review Work
Tasks have been completed by Woodburn and approved by DLCD except Work Task 2, the
Commercial and Industrial Lands Inventory. Work Task 2 required Woodburn to evaluate its
commercial and industrial needs over a 20-year period and initiate any changes to accommodate
needs, which could include changes to plan and zone designations and the UGB.
See Attachment 1:UGB in Response to Remand Map.
51
Following is the timeline of relevant events carrying out this Periodic Review:
November 2,2005: Ordinance 2391 was finally adopted by the Woodburn City Council approving
a UGB expansion and other Periodic Review Work Tasks.
July 19, 2006: Marion County Board of Commissioners co-adopted the UGB expansion.
August 3, 2006: City and County submit Ordinance 2391 and co-adopting ordinance to DLCD.
DLCD determines the submittal is complete on August 4.
August 22 - 24, 2006: Ten objections are timely filed.
January 25, 2007: LCDC held a hearing on Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment and made an
oral decision to approve Woodburn's submittal.
February 14, 2007: LCDC issued written Approval Order 07-WKTASK-001720.
April 12,2007: 1000 Friends of Oregon, Marion County Farm Bureau, Lolita Carl,Kathleen Carl,
Diane Mikkelson, Carla Mikkelson, and Friends of Marion County petitioned the Oregon Court of
Appeals for judicial review of LCDC's Order.
September 8, 2010: Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC's decision, in 1000
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Woodburn I), 237 Or App 213 (2010). Appellate judgment entered
November 30, 2010.
January 12, 2011: LCDC held a hearing on a draft revised order and heard argument from the
parties on the record. LCDC again orally approved Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment.
March 16, 2011: LCDC issued Approval Order 11-WKTASK-001802.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 2
52
May 12, 2011: 1000 Friends of Oregon, Marion County Farm Bureau, Lolita Carl, Kathleen Carl,
Diane Mikkelson and Friends of Marion County petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals for
judicial review of LCDC's order.
January 2, 2014: Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC's decision in 1000
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC(Woodburn II), 260 Or App 444 (2014).
July 24 -25, 2014: LCDC unanimously voted to initiate a mediation assessment, to be conducted
by Oregon Consensus, because mediation had "the potential to resolve the City's UGB
amendment."
December 23, 2014: Oregon Consensus submits its Assessment Report to LCDC, concluding:
"While there are significant challenges in mediating a solution to the dispute over the City of
Woodburn's proposal for expanding industrial land within an amended urban growth boundary,
there is a possibility of success if parties are willing to (1) seriously examine their own interests
and objectives, (2)strive to understand the interests of the other parties, and(3) seek solutions that
meet multiple interests and avoid the significant economic and social costs of alternative forums.
It is suggested that the parties use the selection of a mediator as an opportunity to practice
collaboration."
March 30, 2015: All parties to Woodburn II enter into mediation.
April and May, 2015: All parties to Woodburn II sign a Framework for Mediation Settlement
Agreement.
May 21,2015: LCDC passed a motion to"remand the City of Woodburn's Periodic Review Work
Task 2 and UGB amendment for further action and establish a resubmittal date of December 1,
2015."
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 3
53
B. Oregon Court of Appeals Decisions
On remand to LCDC the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded:
"Because we conclude that LCDC again did not adequately explain why the City's
expansion of its UGB to include an additional 409 acres for industrial use is consistent with
pertinent law, we reverse the order and remand for reconsideration."
Woodburn II, 260 Or App at 446.
"We have carefully reviewed LCDC's entire order on remand, and we conclude that LCDC
did not adequately explain the reasons that led it to conclude the City's UGB amendment
complied with applicable law."
Woodburn II, 260 Or App at 460.
C. Mediation Process
All parties to Woodburn II entered into mediation on March 30, 2015 to resolve issues and
continued litigation related to the City's UGB amendment. This mediation was successful and a
Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement was approved by 1000 Friends of Oregon,
Friends of Marion County,Theodora Schrier(as personal representative for Lolita Carl,deceased),
Kathleen Carl, Diane Mikkelson, Marion County Farm Bureau, DLCD, Marion County and the
City of Woodburn.
For purposes of transparency and legal defensibility,it is important to place in context how
the Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement relates to the land use decision that is
explained and justified by these Legislative Findings on Remand. This matter — the City of
Woodburn's Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the related urban growth boundary amendment -
is on remand from the Court of Appeals to LCDC and from LCDC to the City of Woodburn and
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 4
54
Marion County. Any subsequent land use decisions made by the City of Woodburn, and Marion
County, and work task approval decisions made by LCDC pursuant to that remand must comply
with Oregon land use law,including the decisions of the Oregon Court of Appeals, as well as laws
regarding land use decision-making processes.
Through mediation, the parties have agreed to a map and substantive elements of Work
Task 2 and the UGB decision,reflected in the framework for the anticipated future land use actions.
If the anticipated future land use actions conform to this framework, the parties have agreed to
forego any future legal challenges regarding Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the related UGB
amendment.
Pursuant to the Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Court of Appeals'
decisions, LCDC remanded the underlying decision to the City.
IL PROCEDURAL MATTERS ON REMAND
A. City Procedure on Remand
Absent specific instructions from a reviewing tribunal or applicable local regulations, a
city is entitled to limit the scope of a remand proceeding to that of addressing the legal deficiencies
articulated by the appellate opinion ordering the remand. In the instant case, it is completely
appropriate for the City to adopt a revised Work Task 2 and related UGB in Response to Remand
amendment, relying upon relevant portions of the already existing record to better explain and
justify its UGB action. Having already afforded extensive opportunities to present evidence over
the course of these UGB proceedings,the City is not obligated,on remand,to afford an opportunity
to present new evidence, but may proceed on the already existing record.
B. Record on Remand
The remand proceedings were conducted based on the existing evidentiary record
submitted by the City of Woodburn to DLCD on August 3, 2006, as part of its submission of
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 5
55
Periodic Review Work Tasks 1-4, 7-11, and a related UGB amendment. In particular, these
Legislative Findings on Remand rely on and incorporate by reference the Woodburn UGB
Justification Report (Winterbrook Planning, October 2005), and Buildable Lands Inventory
(Winterbrook Planning, July 2005). Much of the Justification Report and Buildable Lands
Inventory provide the basis for this decision. In any instances where these documents conflict with,
or are inconsistent with, these Legislative Findings on Remand, the language of Legislative
Findings on Remand shall prevail.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
A. General
Evaluation and expansion of a UGB requires application of several interrelated statutes,
statewide land use Goals, and administrative rules: ORS 197.298, Goal 14, and OAR chapter 660.
Woodburn opted to complete its Periodic Review under the new Goal 14.E As part of its Goal 14
UGB analysis, Woodburn must address capacity needs under Goal 9 (Economic Development)
and Goal 10 (Housing), and related statutes and administrative rules, OAR chapter 660, divisions
8 and 9.
LCDC's administrative rules implementing Goal 9 were adopted on December 1,2005 and
do not apply. The division 9 rules "Industrial and Commercial Development" adopted by LCDC
prior to that do apply.
B. Amount of Land
A key issue that was extensively briefed in both Woodburn I and Woodburn II is whether
the City included more employment land in its original UGB expansion proposal than was
necessary to accommodate its needs over the 20-year planning period in violation of Goals 9 and
14. This issue, with the same applicable legal standards, must also be addressed in justifying the
UGB in Response to Remand.
2 Rec.Item 10,p. 1372;ER-4;Remand Rec. 0006.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 6
56
The Oregon Court of Appeals has explained how ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 are to be
applied to a UGB expansion. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC(McMinnville), 244 Or App 239
(2011). Although that case was based on the old Goal 14, the new Goal 14 and OAR chapter 660,
division 24 were designed to clarify and streamline the existing Goal 14, not change it
substantively.3
The applicable legal requirements are found in ORS 197.712, Goal 9, OAR chapter 660,
division 9 (2005), and Goal 14. The first step is to determine the "amount of land needed" and a
"differentiation of land use types according to their land consumption attributes,"under Goal 14.
McMinnville, 244 Or App at 256.
Goal 14 requires that (emphasis added):
"Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the following:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a
20-year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; and
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as
public facilities, streets and roads, schools,parks or open space, or any combination of the
need categories in this subsection (2).
"In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel size,
topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need."
The Goal 9 rule provides that "[t]he total acreage of land designated in each site category
shall at least equal the projected land needs for each category during the 20-year planning period."
OAR 660-009-0025 (2005) To accomplish that, compatible employment uses with similar site
s Goal 14 was amended,effective April 28,2005.As stated on DLCD's website,the new Goal 14 and OAR chapter
660,division 24 were designed"to clarify and streamline the UGB amendment process,"not to change it
substantively 1-ittp-://www.oregon.gov/LCD/nilemaking
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 7
57
characteristics are combined into "broad site categories." OAR 660-009-0025(1) Jurisdictions
should limit incompatible uses on and adjacent to sites as necessary to protect them for their
intended employment function.
Under Goal 10 and the Goal 10 rule, Woodburn must ensure there is sufficient capacity to
meet its housing needs for the planning period, meaning "housing types determined to meet the
need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent
levels." OAR 660-008-0005(6). This requires that"[s]ufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined
in the housing needs projection." OAR 660-008-0010.
If there is a need to accommodate population or employment growth, the jurisdiction must
first look to land inside the existing UGB to accommodate that need. Goal 14; McMinnville, 244
Or App at 255-57; 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains, 27 Or LUBA 373, 390, aff'd
130 Or App 406, 882 P2d 1130 (1994).
C. Alternative Sites Analysis
If some or all of the identified need cannot be accommodated inside the UGB, the
jurisdiction then moves to the second step: "application of ORS 197.298 (1) and(3), together with
Goal 14, to locate and justify inclusion of land to fill that quantified need." McMinnville, 244 Or
App at 257. This starts with the identification of buildable land contiguous to the UGB. Id. at 26-
27. The jurisdiction must follow the priority statute, ORS 197.298, sequentially. City of West
Linn, 201 Or App 419, 440 (2005); D.S. Parklane Development, Inc. v Metro, 165 Or App 1, 20-
21 (2000).
As applied here, the City, when seeking a UGB expansion, must look first to any lands
designated as urban reserves,none of which exist around Woodburn.4 The City must then look to
4 The Urban Reserve Area adopted with this decision is not an acknowledged urban reserve available for
consideration in this analysis.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 8
58
"second priority" lands - those designated as exception areas.5 If the amount of land designated
as exception areas is "inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed," Woodburn would
next look to the third category of"marginal" lands.6 Finally, the City may consider the "fourth
priority"lands—those designated for agriculture or forestry. In selecting from among agricultural
lands, higher priority for inclusion in the UGB must be given to those lands of lower productive
capability as measured by soil classification. ORS 197.298 (2). That is, agricultural lands with
poorer quality soils must be included in the UGB before those with more valuable soils. Class I
and 11 soils are the most valuable agricultural soils.7
If the amount of land within a category exceeds the need,then the jurisdiction must use the
boundary location factors of Goal 14, "consistent with ORS 197.298," to choose among those
"like"lands. The "relevant Goal 14 considerations in assessing the adequacy of land in a priority
class under ORS 197.298 (1)" are what were factors 5 and 7 in old Goal 14, and are now factors 3
and 4 in new Goal 14:
"(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and
(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities
occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB."
McMinnville, 244 Or App at 265.
A decision to include or exclude land from a UGB must be based on a balancing of all
these factors,rather than reliance on any one factor. Parklane, 165 Or App at 25; 1000 Friends of
Oregon v. Metro (Ryland Homes), 174 Or App 406, 409-10 (2001).
It is possible to include in a UGB expansion lands of lower priority ahead of lands of higher
priority under ORS 197.298,but only if one or more of the three narrow reasons described in ORS
197.298(3)(a)-(c)is found to exist. Those exceptions to the priorities are:
5"Exception areas"are those lands for which an exception to the statewide planning goals for farm or forest lands,
taken under ORS 197.732,has been acknowledged.
6 No marginal lands exist in Marion County.
Statewide Planning Goal 3,Agriculture; ORS 197.298.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 9
59
"(3)Land of lower priority under subsection(1)of this section may be included in an urban
growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the
amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following
reasons:
(a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on
higher priority lands;
(b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands
due to topographical or other physical constraints; or
(c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary
requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services
to higher priority lands."
IV. LAND USE DECISION -UGB
A. Summary of Decision
In this decision on remand, the City approves a UGB in Response to Remand expansion,
the designation of an URA, and the establishment of two long-term expansion limitations.' The
UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres. This includes approximately 190 acres
for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406 acres for residential use. The URA is west
and south of Parr Road, and consists of approximately 230 gross acres. The two 20-year expansion
limits are Expansion Limit No. 1, located along Butteville Road, and Expansion Limit No. 2,
located east of Highway 99E at Carl Road.
The 190 acres brought into the UGB for industrial purposes will form the Southwest
Industrial Reserve (SWIR). The City's 2020 Employment Forecast, Industrial Land Needs
Analysis, Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), Economic Development Strategy (EDS), and
Target Industry Site Suitability support this expansion of the UGB for industrial use. In particular,
these inform the City's decisions to plan, zone, and protect the 190 industrial expansion acres for
I See Attachment 1:UGB in Response to Remand Map.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 10
60
future industrial use consistent with the Targeted Industries report. As explained below, the
amount of employment land included in the UGB is justified by the traditional employee-per-acre
method of estimating future industrial land needs.
The expansion areas for residential use consist of the Southwest residential expansion area
(approximately 151 gross acres), the North expansion area (consisting of approximately 79 gross
acres), the Northwest area (consisting of approximately 155 gross acres), and two small areas in
the southeast(consisting of approximately 21 gross acres) totaling approximately 406 acres.
As part of the Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment, the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan and the Coordination Agreement are amended to incorporate the two 20-year
UGB Expansion Limits, to the west of Butteville Road and to the east of Highway 99E at Carl
Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose beyond these two limits
identified on Attachment 1 for a period of 20 years from the date this decision (Periodic Review
Work Task 2 and UGB) are final, including any appeals.
B. Need
1. Population Projection to 2020
In accordance with state law, the City of Woodburn's Population Projection is for a total of
34,919 people by 2020.9 Woodburn is experiencing growth in two major population cohorts: a
young population and an older population,both of which need and are demanding smaller housing
options (small-lot single family, townhouse, and multi-family). 10
Net migration accounted for approximately 63 percent of population growth in Marion
County in the decade prior to the time period for which this UGB is being evaluated." The hourly
wage upon moving to Marion County was less than the statewide average.12 Per capita personal
9 Rec.Item 10,p. 614(Woodburn Ordinance No.2391,November 2,2005).
10 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1397, 1399(UGB Justification Report,pp.29,31).
Rec.Item 10,p. 1024(Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis,p.2-6).
12 Id.,pp. 1024-25;pp.2-6,2-7.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 11
61
income in Marion County has also been below the State and national average.13 Employment
growth in the 3-county region is projected to be overwhelmingly in the Services,Retail Trade, and
Government sectors.14 These socio-economic trends support the need for more diverse, smaller,
and affordable housing types.
2. Employment Projection to 2020
Woodburn projects 8,374 new employees by the year 2020 (for a total of 18,762 jobs). Of
that, Woodburn projects a total of 2,710 new industrial jobs and 5,664 new commercial and other
jobs by the year 2020.15
Woodburn's consultant, ECONorthwest, analyzed which industries are likely to locate or
expand in Woodburn over the long-term, extending beyond the time period of this UGB
evaluation.16
Woodburn's consultant described 13 industries most likely to locate or grow in Woodburn,
which have a variety of different site size and location preferences, ranging from 1-acre sites in
mixed-use areas to 20+ acre sites, to business parks, to areas restricted to industry.17 The
transportation needs also vary, from industries that desire foot traffic and local shoppers to those
that move materials by freight and need good road access for trucks.18
3. Non-Industrial Employment
As described in the UGB Justification Report, the current Woodburn UGB and two
commercial expansion areas comprising 23 acres can accommodate the City's projected non-
industrial employment growth. The City continues to rely on the UGB Justification Report for the
accommodation of non-industrial employment.
13 Id.,p. 1025;p,2-7.
14 Id.,p. 1028;p.2-10.
15 Rec.Item 10,p. 1096,Table 11 (ECONorthwest memorandum,April 29,2002,p. 18).
16 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1054-1075 (Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis,p.4-3 through p.B-4).
17 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1059-1060(Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis,pp.4-8,4-9).
11 Id.,pp. 1072-75 (pp. B-1 through B-4).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 12
62
4. Industrial Employment
Woodburn currently has 126 acres of vacant, partially vacant, and redevelopable
employment land within the UGB.19 This land is available for future industrial uses, either by new
employers or by existing employers expanding their businesses. Employment density for the
existing UGB is anticipated at 7.6 employee-per-acre, since much of this land supply is already
partially developed. The existing land supply will accommodate 958 new employees. After
accounting for the industrial use accommodated on the 126 acres inside the UGB, there is a
capacity need to accommodate approximately 1,752 new industrial employees through the UGB
in Response to Remand expansion. The record demonstrates that a reasonable employees-per-acre
ratio for Woodburn is 10 employees per acre.20 Therefore, approximately 175 net buildable acres
are needed for new industrial capacity. The City's addition of 190 acres of industrially designated
lands accounts for the individual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to the City
limits.
5. Residential and Public/Semi Public Land Needs
On remand, Woodburn has re-examined its residential land need and supply. This revised
analysis is based on the detailed parcel by parcel capacity data in Appendix A of the Buildable
Lands Inventory (BLI). The revised acreages and capacities below reflect this more accurate
information. In addition, the City has revised its projected household size to 3.1 persons per
household, reflecting the Woodburn-specific data in the 2000 census.21 Based on information in
the record, the City has also determined that one-third of its projected park need can be met on
constrained land, reducing overall public and semi-public land needs by 21 net buildable acres.22
The UGB adopted on remand will have a de minimus one acre surplus of residential land.
19 Rec.Item 10,p. 1390(UGB Justification Report,p.22).
zo Rec.Item 10,p. 1278,Table 1 (ECONorthwest memorandum of October 20,2003,p.2).
21 Rec.Item 10,p. 1396(UGB Justification Report,p.28 fn 22.);Also Rec.Item No.3 pp.653-665 (See also DLCD
letter dated April 21,2004 stating,"The household size projection used by the consultant[2.9] is not predicated on a
factual basis,but on national trends that do not accurately describe the conditions in Woodburn.")
22 Rec.Item 10,p. 1402(UGB Justification Report,p.34). Woodburn has an 86 acre surplus of"Natural Areas"
that can partially meet park needs.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 13
63
Table 1 identifies vacant, partially vacant and infill residential lands within the exiting
UGB as well as areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB to meet residential needs.
There are 681 gross acres and 466 net buildable acres available to meet residential needs
through the year 2020 in the existing UGB.
Expansion areas total 406 gross acres or 276 net buildable acres available to meet future
needs; totaling 742 net buildable acres, both within the existing UGB and proposed UGB
expansion area.
Table 1 -Vacant Residential Areas (Existing residential areas within the existing UGB and
lands proposed in the UGB expansion)
Residential Areas Gross Acres Net Buildable Acres
Existing UGB (Vacant,partially 681 466
vacant, &infill)23
Southwest(Parr Rd) Residential 151 119
Expansion Area 24
North Residential Expansion 79 37
Area 25
NW(Butteville Rd) Expansion 155 112.5
Area 26
SE Expansion Area(Residential 21 7.5
Portion)27
TOTALS 1,087 742
Calculation of Need
Table 2 projects both population and housing needs through 2020. Woodburn is projected
to grow by approximately 14,059 over the planning period, resulting in the need for 4,647 needed
housing units, or 2,788 single family housing units and 1,859 multi-family housing units.
2s Rec.Item 10,pp. 1179-1187(Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI),Appendix A,Tables 11, 12 and 13).
24 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1187-1188(BLI,Appendix A,Table 14).
25 Id.
26 Rec.Item 4,p. 1028 (Periodic Review(PR)and UGB amendment p. 12);Also Rec.Item 10 pp. 1188-1189 for net
buildable acreage(BLI,Appendix A,Table 15).
27 Rec.Item 4,p. 1028.(PR and UGB amendment p. 12);Also Rec.Item 10 p. 1408 for net buildable acreage(UGB
Justification Report,p.40).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 14
64
Table 2-Projected Population and Housing Needs 2000 -2020
Population Institutional Net Household Needed Vacancy Total Single Multi-
Increase Population29 Population Size Dwelling Rate DU's Family Family
(2000-2020)28 Units (5%)30 Needed (60%) (40%)
(DUs) DU's 31 DU's 32
14,059 337 13,722 3.1 4426 221 4,647 2,788 1,859
DU
The UGB Justification Report identified the need for 210 net buildable acres of Public and
Semi-Public (P/SP) lands, intended to accommodate schools, parks, religious institutions, etc.33
The UGB Justification Report further indicated that P/SP needs are typically met on residentially
designated land because the uses typically serve local residents.34 Evidence in the record indicates
that some park needs can be met on unbuildable (flood plain, wetlands, etc.) lands.35 Table 3
reduces the amount of buildable land needed for parks by on-third to 42 net buildable acres, a
reduction of 21 acres, to account for the partial accommodation of park needs on unbuildable land.
This results in a total of 189 net buildable acres needed to accommodate P/SP uses.
Table 3 -Public and Semi-Public Land Needs
From UGB Justification Report Revised Public, Semi-Public Need
(net buildable acres) (net buildable acres)
Schools 108 108
Parks 63 42
Institutional 11 11
Religious 28 28
Total 210 189
zs Rec.Item 10,p. 1387 (UGB Justification Report,p. 19).
29 Rec.Item 10,p. 1396(UGB Justification Report,p.28).
301d.
31 Rec.Item 10,p. 1382. (UGB Justification Report,p. 14).
32 Id.
33 Rec.Item 10,p. 1402 (UGB Justification Report,p.34).
341d.
35 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1400- 1401 (UGB Justification Report,pp.32-33).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 15
65
Calculation of How Need Will Be Met
The existing UGB can accommodate a total of 3,041 low density residential (LDR) and
medium density residential(MDR)dwelling units if every parcel develops at maximum capacity.36
New development will necessarily occur at between 80 percent and 100 percent of maximum
allowable density; this analysis assumes a mid-range average of 90 percent.
Table 4 identifies the LDR and Nodal LDR capacity within the existing UGB and proposed
expansion areas. They can accommodate a total of 3224 dwelling units at 90 percent of maximum
allowable density.37
Table 4 -Meeting the need for 2788 LDR dwelling units
Need Existing UGB NW North Total LDR Surplus in Surplus
capacity(90% expansion Expansion supply in dwelling available for
of maximum capacity Area existing units(supply public and semi-
capacity of (90%of (90%of UGB & minus need) public uses in net
3,041 du in maximum maximum NW&N buildable acres
BLI Appendix capacity of capacity of expansion
A,Tables 11, 293 du in BLI 248 du in BLI areas
12, 13) Appendix A, Appendix A,
Table 15) Table 14)
LDR 2,788 1,364 du 264 du 223 du 3,224- 5.5 du per net
dwelling 2,788=436 acre
Nodal units(du) surplus 436/5.5=79
LDR 1,373 du
Total 2,737 du 264 du 223 du 3,224 du 436(DU 79 net buildable
Surplus) acre surplus
Notes: LDR land in the existing UGB is projected at 5.5 dwelling units per net buildable acre.38 The 436 surplus dwelling unit
capacity divided by the assumed density of 5.5 units per net acre in the UGB Justification Report yields a surplus of 79 acres
available for public and semi-public uses. It is assumed that public and semi-public uses will locate on LDR-zoned land in the
existing UGB and the north expansion area,rather than in the highly parcelized Butteville Road exception area.
It is unlikely that all new development will occur at 100 percent of maximum allowable capacity. On the other hand,
Woodburn has adopted measures requiring new development to achieve at least 80 percent of allowable density.It is also unlikely
that development will occur at 80 percent that is the minimum that is legally allowable.So new development will occur at between
80 percent and 100 percent of maximum allowable density. 90 percent is a reasonable mid-range average. It does not mean
Woodburn is committing to hit 90 percent in every development. Some development will occur at over 90 percent of allowed
density and some will be less.
36 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1179-1187(BLI,Appendix A Parcel Tables,including:Table 11 "Vacant Residential Taxlots-
Existing UGB",Table 12"Infill Residential Taxlots-Existing UGB",and Table 13"Partially Vacant Residential Taxlots-
Existing UGB").
37 Rec Item 10,pp. 1179-1187(BLI,Appendix A Parcel Tables,including:Table 11 "Vacant Residential Taxlots-Existing
UGB",Table 12"Infill Residential Taxlots-Existing UGB",and Table 13"Partially Vacant Residential Taxlots-Existing
UGB").
38 Rec.Item 10,p. 1409 (UGB Justification Report,p.41).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 16
66
After meeting the need for 2,788 LDR dwelling units there is a surplus of 79 net buildable
acres to meet public and semi-public land needs within the existing UGB and the North expansion
area.
Table 5 identifies the MDR and Nodal MDR capacity within the existing UGB and
proposed expansion areas at 90 percent of maximum allowable density. These areas can
accommodate the needed 1,859 MDR dwelling units with a surplus of 111 net buildable acres
available to meet P/SP needs.
Table 5 -Meeting the need for 1859 MDR dwelling units
Need Existing UGB New SE Total MDR Deficit to Net buildable Surplus available
capacity(90% DDC Expansion supply in be met in acres needed for public and
of maximum & Area(from existing SW(Parr in SW semi-public uses
capacity of NNC UGB UGB &SE Rd Nodal) expansion area in net buildable
1,734 du in zones Justification expansion expansion at assumed acres.
BLI Appendix Report,p. area&new Area Nodal MDR
A,Tables 11, 40) DDC& density of 18
12, 13) NNC zones units/net
acre.39
MDR 1,859 1,123 du 50 du 105 du (1,859 (144 du (SW expansion
dwelling needed divided by area has 119 net
units(du) units assumed buildable acres.
Nodal 437 du minus density of 18 119 net acres
MDR supply of units/net acre) minus 8 net acres
1,715) needed for
housing units
yields a surplus
of 111 net acres)
Total 1,560 du 50 du 105 du 1,715 du 144 du 8 net acres 111 net
(deficit) buildable acre
surplus
Notes: DDC and NNC zones are new mixed use zones in two commercial areas that will accommodate 50 dwelling units with no residential
land. See UGB Justification Report,page 41.
After accommodating needed housing, Table 6 demonstrates that the UGB adopted on
remand has a total of 190 net buildable acres (79 acres plus 111 acres) available to meet the need
for 189 net buildable acres for Public and Semi-Public uses.
39 Rec Item 10,p. 1409 (UGB Justification Report,p.41. 143 units- 18 units/net acre=44.4 net acres total
rounded.)
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 17
67
Table 6-Meeting Public and Semi-Public Needs
Surplus School Park Institutional Religious Natural Government Total Remaining
Residential Need Need Need Need Need Need Acres P/SP Surplus
land before Acres Acres Acres Acres Areas Acres Residential
meeting P, SP (surplus) Needed Land
needs Acres
(79+111=190)
190 1 108 1 42 1 11 1 28 1 0 1 0 1 189 1 1
Notes: P/SP lands to be met on surplus residential buildable acres(190)and constrained lands-page 33 Woodburn UGB Justification Report.
1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan update identified 129 constrained(unbuildable)riparian,wetland,and floodplain acres
in Woodburn UGB available to meet this generalized need—Woodburn UGB Justification Report—page 33.
C. Alternative Sites Analysis
To summarize,Woodburn needs to accommodate the following residential and industrial needs
through a UGB expansion:
• Commercial. In addition to existing capacity within the UGB,Woodburn will add
23 acres for non-industrial employment land as identified in the UGB Justification
Report.
• Industrial. Woodburn needs additional capacity to accommodate approximately
1,752 new industrial employees. The record demonstrates that a reasonable
employee per acre ratio for Woodburn is 10 employees per acre.40 Therefore,
approximately 175 net buildable acres are needed for new industrial capacity. The
City's addition of 190 acres industrially designated lands accounts for the individual
parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to City limits.
• Residential. Woodburn needs additional capacity to accommodate approximately
300 dwelling units. In addition to housing, Woodburn projects a need for
approximately 189 net buildable acres of residential land for public and semi-public
uses.
As described in Section III, if some or all of the identified need cannot be accommodated
inside the UGB, Woodburn must then move to the "alternatives analysis" step: "application of
40 Rec.Item 10,p. 1278,Table 1 (ECONorthwest memorandum of October 20,2003,p.2).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 18
68
ORS 197.298 (1) and (3) together with Goal 14, to locate and justify inclusion of land to fill that
quantified need." McMinnville, 244 Or App at 257.
This starts with the identification of buildable land contiguous to the UGB. Id. at 262.
Woodburn examined all the lands contiguous to and within approximately one-half mile of the
existing UGB. It did so by dividing the adjacent lands into eight study areas, defined based on their
geographical integrity and potential transportation connectivity to the existing urbanized area and
other existing routes.41 As described in the UGB Justification Report, every area was evaluated
based on: size, amount of buildable land, and amount of constrained land; soil classification;
relationship to surrounding agricultural areas; proximity and connections to existing or planned
transportation routes and utilities and general serviceability; relationship to existing urban area;
and the economic, environmental, social, and energy consequences of urbanizing the land.42
In selecting where to expand the UGB from amongst the studied areas, Woodburn must
follow the priority statute, ORS 197.298, sequentially. City of West Linn, 201 Or App 419, 440
(2005);D.S. Parklane Development, Inc. v Metro, 165 Or App 1, 20-21 (2000).
Therefore, Woodburn must look first to any lands designated as urban reserves. Because
the URA adopted with this decision is not an acknowledged urban reserve for purpose of this
decision, there are no urban reserves around Woodburn.43
The City must then look to "second priority" lands - those designated as exception areas.
Woodburn identified four exception areas within the contiguous study areas it examined. Two of
those areas —the Butteville Road exception area and the Southeast exception are included in the
UGB in Response to Remand expansion.
41 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1413-1447(UGB Justification Report,pp.45-79). See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and
Soils Capability Class Map.
42 Id.
41"The urban reserves designated by this decision were not adopted and in place prior to this decision,and thus are
not available for analysis or selection in this UGB decision."
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 19
69
The Butteville Road exception area 44 contains 155 gross acres, which Woodburn intends
to plan for residential use and zone for low density residential. The remaining buildable lands can
accommodate 293 additional dwelling units.45 The residential portion of the Southeast exception
area 46 contains 7.5 acres of vacant residential land that will be planned residential and zoned for
medium density residential, at a projected density of 14 units/net buildable acre. The Southeast
exception area can thus accommodate 105 additional dwelling units.
The Northeast Exception Area includes MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility which is
owned by the State and operated as a youth correctional facility. Given the use and ownership the
properties are not considered for redevelopment.47
Woodburn evaluated a fourth exception area, the Carl Road area, located northeast of the
current UGB. However, this area has no development potential to meet the needs of the City
within the relevant time period. The Carl Road area"has no remaining development capacity,"48
and does not contain land that is "usable for urban purposes."49 Because this area cannot
reasonably accommodate identified land needs and because it would be a significant unbuffered
intrusion into surrounding agricultural land, it has been excluded from the UGB expansion.
Therefore, the exception areas together can accommodate an additional 398 dwelling units.
Because there is a remaining need for both residential land and industrial land after
including the exception areas in the UGB, Woodburn must next look to the third category of
"marginal"lands, none of which exists in Marion County. Therefore, Woodburn must turn to the
"fourth priority" lands — those designated for agriculture or forestry. In selecting from among
agricultural lands, higher priority for inclusion in the UGB must be given to those lands of lower
productive capability as measured by soil classification. ORS 197.298 (2). As described in Section
III, if the amount of land within a category exceeds the need, then the jurisdiction must use the
44 Rec Item 10,p. 1406(UGB Justification Report,p.38).
45 Rec Item 10,p. 1188-1189 (BLI,Appendix A,Table 15).
46 Rec Item 10,p. 1408(UGB Justification Report,p.40).
47 Id.
48 Rec Item 10,p. 1431 (UGB Justification Report,p. 63).
49 Id.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 20
70
boundary location factors of Goal 14, "consistent with ORS 197.298," to choose among those
"like"lands.
A decision to include or exclude land from a UGB must be based on a balancing of all
these factors, rather than reliance on any one factor. Parklane, 165 Or App at 25; 1000 Friends of
Oregon v. Metro (Ryland Homes), 174 Or App 406, 409-10 (2001).
Woodburn must accommodate approximately 144 dwelling units on residential expansion
land outside the existing UGB and outside of the exception areas included in this expansion. These
144 units should be the more-affordable, higher-density types. Woodburn also has a need for
approximately 175 net buildable acres of industrial land. The City's addition of 190 acres of
industrially designated lands accounts for the individual parcel sizes and their location
immediately adjacent to City limits.
The remaining portions of the eight study areas are very similar in terms of their soil
classifications; Class II soils predominate in all areas. Three of the areas —Study Areas 4, 5, and
6 — contain the largest amount of Class 11 soils.50 The City therefore ranks these three areas last
in priority amongst the farm land alternative areas, due to the following factors:
• As described in the Goal 9 Findings in section V.A., agriculture is the number one
industry in Marion County; it is the largest employment sector in Woodburn; and
the employment growth rate for agriculture related businesses in Woodburn far
exceeds the state employment growth rate. High quality farm land is essential to
the health of this industry, and the City chooses to protect it,like any other valuable
industrial land.
• These three Study Areas —4, 5, and 6 — are more distant from some of the City's
primary transportation corridors that serve urban industrial uses (I-5, the Highway
214 interchange;planned roadway extensions at Stacy Allison Drive and Evergreen
5'Rec.Item 10,p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15).See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 21
71
Road). They are proximate to the Highway 99E corridor, which runs through the
eastern portion of the City and serves major parts of Marion County farm land.
• There are suitable,buildable lands in the remaining study areas with larger amounts
of lesser quality soils.
Study Areas 1, 3, and 6 contain exception areas that the City has already evaluated and
determined to include (Butteville Road area in Study Area 1 and Southeast area in Study Area 6)
or exclude (Carl Road area and MacLaren area in Study Area 3).
As described in the UGB Justification Report and supporting documents, Woodburn
evaluated the remaining exception areas under the Goal 14 Locational factors:
(1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
(2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and
(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities
occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.
Following is a brief summary of the performance of each of the remaining Study Areas -1,
2, 7, and 8 - under the Goal 14 factors, based on the UGB Justification Report and supporting
documents incorporated into it.51
Study Area 1
• The area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs,because it contains
relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing
urbanized portions of Woodburn.
• The area falls within the middle range of cost on serviceability.52
51 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1422-1426(UGB Justification Report pp. 54-58).
51 Id.,p.55,58;Rec.Item 10 at 1423, 1426.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 22
72
• The northern portion of Study Area 1 contains Class I agricultural soils. 53 Intensive
crops producing high value products are grown in this area, including hops and
berries.54 Urbanizing this land would have an adverse impact on the agricultural
economy of the state and county.
• Due to a lack of human or natural boundaries, urbanization of the northern portion
of Study Area 1 would be an urban encroachment, with no logical boundary, into a
highly productive and intact farming area. This could cause conflicts between
common farming practices in the area(pesticide spray, aerial spraying, and 24-hour
machinery operations) and the movement of farm equipment, and urban uses such
as housing or industrial.
Woodburn included the exception area portion of Study Area 1 in the UGB, but has
determined that based on balancing the Goal 14 factors, the remaining portion of Study Area 1
should be excluded. Recognizing the importance of the agricultural industry to the city, county,
and state,55 the City desires to protect large intact farming areas from encroachment by
urbanization, and looks to reinforce natural and manmade buffers to do so. The Butteville Road
exception area in the southern portion of Study Area 1 is separated from surrounding agricultural
uses by the Oregon Electric Railway and Highway 214.56 Further,the agricultural portion of Study
Area 1 is bisected north to south by a riparian corridor, further limiting the urbanization potential
of the remaining lands.57 On balance, the agricultural portion of Study Area 1 ranks low for
potential inclusion in the UGB.
Study Area 2
• Can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains
relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing
urbanized portions of Woodburn.
53 See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map.
54 Rec.Item 10,p. 1429(UGB Justification Report p.61).
55 See Section V,A,"Findings on Economic Importance of the Agricultural Industry to Woodburn and to Marion
County."
56 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1428-1429(UGB Justification Report pp. 60-61).
57 Id.,p.61;Rec.Item 10,p. 1429.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 23
73
• Ranks high on serviceability for sewer, water, and stormwater.58
• The southwestern portion of Study Area 2 includes about 79 gross acres,59 lying
both west and east of Boones Ferry Road. It can be distinguished from the rest of
the study area because it does not contain any Class I soils.60 It is partially
developed with the OGC (Tukwila) Golf Course and is further defined in part by a
stream corridor that separates it from the highly productive farm land to the north,
northwest, and northeast. The southern portion's proximity to, and partial
development with, the OGC Golf Course makes it a logical site for residential
development, including parks and other public and semi-public uses.
• The northern portion of Study Area 2 contains Class I soils and is an integral part
of the farming areas and agricultural industry to the north of Woodburn.61
Urbanization of the northern portions of this study area could cause severe conflicts
with farming and would cause a significant loss of excellent farm land to
urbanization.
The southern portion of Study Area 2, in the vicinity of the existing golf course 62 and
proposed for inclusion in this UGB expansion for residential use, contains approximately 37 net
buildable acres.63 Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here,the southern portion of Study
Area 2 is suitable for a UGB expansion for residential use.
Study Area 3
• Ranks low on both serviceability and suitability for industrial use.64
• There is no development or service capacity in the existing Carl Road exception
area, located within Study Area 3.
51 Id.,p.55,58;Rec.Item 10 at 1423, 1426.
59 Rec Item 10,p. 1187-1188 (BLI,Appendix A,Table 14).
61 See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 Rec Item 10,pp. 1187-1188(BLI,Appendix A,Table 14).
64 Rec.Item, 10 pp. 1423-1425 (UGB Justification Report pp. 55-57).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 24
74
• The study area includes a youth correctional facility, making urban residential use
unsuitable.65
• The area has poor access to the City's transportation network and is not easily
integrated into the existing urban area because of its distant location across
Highway 99E, a major state highway that physically separates it from the rest of
the City.
• The area has substantial riparian areas that make development challenging.66
Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, Study Area 3 is not as suitable for urban
uses as other alternative sites within the same ORS 197.298(l)priority.
Study Area 7
• The study area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it
contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the
existing urbanized portions of Woodburn.
• The study area falls within the middle range of cost on serviceability.67
• The area is served by Parr Road and by planned extensions of Stacey Allison Drive
and Evergreen Road. This planned road network and the extension of other urban
services will facilitate the future long-range provision of urban services to the urban
reserve area immediately to the south in a cost-effective manner.
• This road network provides excellent access to I-5, to Highway 99, and to the
internal portions of the City, making the site readily integrated into the existing
urbanized area. In particular,the northern portion of this site is well-located relative
to the transportation network for industrial use.
• The Parr Road Nodal Development area, located on the eastern portion of this site,
is particularly well-suited for residential use, because it can be integrated into both
the existing neighborhood that is inside the UGB and the planned nodal
65 Id.,pp. 64-65;Rec.Item 10,pp. 1432-1433.
66 Id.,p.65;Rec.Item 10,p. 1433.
67 Id.,pp. 55,58;Rec.Item 10 at 1423, 1426.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 25
75
development area within the existing UGB. The residentially designated area
surround two recently constructed schools. The City's Nodal Development plan
requires that the area be developed with safe routes to schools and a sidewalk and
bicycle network to ensure safe access to neighborhood stores and services.
Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, the northern portion of Study Area 7 is
suitable for a UGB expansion for industrial use, and the Parr Road Nodal Development Area in
the eastern portion of Study Area 7 is suitable for residential use. The northern portion provides
65 net buildable acres for industrial use.68 The Parr Road Nodal Development Area contains
sufficient land in the appropriate location to meet the land need for the 144 MDR units, plus
approximately 111 net buildable acres for public and semi-public land needs.
Study Area 8
Study Area 8 is comprised of approximately 755 gross acres.69 Butteville Road runs north-
south through the study area and divides it into two distinct blocks. 130 gross acres lie east of
Butteville Road.70 These 130 gross acres include 110 net buildable acres in three tax lots.71 This
eastern portion is adjacent to the existing urban growth boundary and City limits and does not
contain any Class I soils.72 In contrast, the larger, more distant area west of Butteville Road
contains a significant block of Class I soils.73 Land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which
is in Study Area 8 and some of which is to the west of it, consists primarily of Class I and 11 soils.74
The soils are capable of growing a wide variety of crops,including grains,berries,hops, orchards,
hay, vegetables, grass seed, and more.75 This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part
of an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west.
68 Rec.Item 10,p. 1450(UGB Justification Report,p. 82).
69 Rec Item 10,p. 1414(UGB Justification Report,p.46).
70 Rec.Item 10,p. 1416(UGB Justification Report,p.48).
71 Rec.Item 10,p. 1450(UGB Justification Report,p. 82).
72 Rec Item 10,p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p. 50). See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
73 Rec Item 10,p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p. 50).
74 Rec Item 11,p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils-Non Irrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map,Eight Study Areas
Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
75 Rec Item 10,pp. 1442-1444(UGB Justification Report,pp.74-76).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 26
76
• The study area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it
contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the
existing urbanized portions of Woodburn.
• The area ranks highest among the study areas on serviceability.
• Butteville Road serves as a significant manmade buffer between the land to the east
and the large expanse of farm land to the west. Therefore, potential conflicts
between urban uses to the east of Butteville Road and farm practices to the west of
the road can be minimized.
• The 130 acres east of Butteville Road are separated from the large farming areas to
the west, south, and north by the manmade buffers of Butteville Road, the I-5
freeway, Highway 214, and the Butteville Road exception area. This allows the
130 acre area to be developed as a unified industrial site, for one or a few industrial
users. It also allows the site to be protected from conflicting uses on and near the
site.
• The 130 acres east of Butteville Road are connected to the urbanized portion of
Woodburn via existing access to the Highway 214 interchange,which will provide
excellent freeway access to freight trucks.
Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, the eastern portion of Study Area 8, to
the east of Butteville Road, is suitable for a UGB expansion for industrial use. This is conditioned
coupled with measures to:
• Provide a legal boundary at Butteville Road, beyond which the UGB will not be
expanded for at least 20 years. See Attachment 4.
• Plan and zone the site for industrial use only,the City has accomplished this through
the SWIR overlay zone which establishes minimum lot sizes throughout the
industrial area and limits the types of uses.
The industrial land proposed to be brought into the UGB in this decision, which totals
approximately 190 acres in Study Areas 7 and 8, meets the identified industrial land need.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 27
77
V. URBAN RESERVE AREA
Pursuant to ORS 195.145(a) and OAR chapter 660, division 21, and in coordination with
Marion County, Woodburn designates approximately 230 acres to the southwest of the UGB for a
URA.76 This will be the first area to which the City expands its UGB in the future, if a need for a
UGB expansion is demonstrated.
The City intends to establish this URA to meet the demand for land beyond that time period
of the UGB which is from 2000-2020. The City will adopt findings specifying the particular
number of years over which the designated URA is intended to provide a supply of land. Division
21 authorizes cities to identify an amount of land estimated to be at least a 10-year supply and no
more than a 30-year supply of developable land beyond the 20-year time frame used to establish
the UGB.77 The City is establishing a URA out to year 2031, carrying forward some assumptions
of the current UGB and modifying others to reflect likely future development trends.
Future residential densities of population growth can be estimated by application of a
simple method. In Table 7, assumptions regarding the single- and multi-family residential mix,
dwelling unit density, and persons per household are presumed to carry forward from the
established UGB into the planning period for the URA. Using a straightforward method, an
estimate of the persons per net acre of residential land is made. That net acre estimate is converted
to gross acres applying a weighted average of 60 percent single-family residential and 40 percent
multi-family residential. Since the net to gross conversion factors used to establish the existing
UGB primarily address needed roadways (public lands are addressed separately) for the URA
planning period, the 25 percent safe harbor net to gross conversion factor is used instead. This
provides a means to estimate land need(both roadway and public lands)associated with residential
land. The table concludes that, during the URA planning period, residential densities will be
approximately 20.1 persons per gross acre.
76 See Attachment 3:Urban Reserve Map.
77 OAR 660-021-0030.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 28
78
Table 7—Future Residential Density
Average Percent New
Residents Homes in Persons per
per Gross Single/Multi Dwelling Persons/ Net Acre Net to Gross Persons
Acre Family Units/Net Household (5.5 * 3.1 Conversion per Gross
Analysis Designations78 Acre 79 80 and 12 * 3.1) Factor" Acre
Single
Family
Residential 60% 5.5 3.1 17.1 25% 13.6
Multi-
Family
Residential 40% 12.0 3.1 37.2 25% 29.8
Weighted
Averages
SFR/MFR 25.1 25% 20.1
Next, the City must estimate its population growth during the URA period. Applying the
adopted growth rate(2.80 percent aagr)for the 2020 UGB population(34,919)yields a population
of over 46,000 by the year 2030, the earliest possible year for the URA planning period. Because
this number is so large in relation to the 2020 City population, it would not be reasonable to plan
for it in the existing process. Therefore, the City Council looks to and takes official notice of the
coordinated population number already prepared by Marion County for 2030: 37,216.82 The
average annual growth rate associated with that forecast is 2.04 percent. This yields a more
reasonable population estimate that can be planned for in this current process. Table 8 shows the
population between 2030 and 2035 applying the coordinated average annual growth rate for each
year's growth. The persons per gross acre calculated from Table 7 is applied to the population
increase during the URA planning period to determine an estimate of the gross acres of residential
land needed in each year 2030-2035.
78 Rec Item 10,p. 1410(UGB Justification Report,p.42).
79 Id.,p.43.
8°2000 Census.
81 Safe harbor assumption of 25 percent.
82 Marion County Coordinated 2030 Population Forecast.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 29
79
Table 8 -Residential Land Need
Population (Grows People Added
at 2.04% average Since 2020
annual growth Population of Persons per Gross Residential Gross
Year rate)83 34,919 84 Acre 85 Acres Needed
2030 37,216 2297 20.1 114
2031 37,975 3056 20.1 152
2032 38,750 3831 20.1 191
2033 39,540 4621 20.1 230
2034 40,347 5428 20.1 270
2035 41,170 6251 20.1 311
Next, the City must determine the amount of needed employment land during the URA
planning period. The City will estimate the employees per gross acre in a simple method similar
to the residential land need. In Table 9, an analysis is made of the number of employees assumed
at the end of the UGB planning period and the number of acres existing or added to accommodate
that need. It is assumed that moving forward into the URA planning period, the same mix of
commercial and industrial jobs will remain and the same net to gross conversion factors will apply.
In Table 9, the analysis uses a weighted average of the mix between commercial and industrial
jobs, estimating that employment land will contain, on average 17.4 employees per gross acre.
Table 9 -Future Employment Densities
Average Percent
Employees Jobs Employees Net Acres Net Net to
per Gross Commercial Added Available Acres Total Gross Employees
Acre and 2000- Existing Added Net Employees Conversion per Gross
Analysis Industrial 202086 UGB to UGB Acres Net Acre Factors 17 Acre
Commercial 68% 5664 10888 2389 131 43.2 10% 39.3
Industrial 32% 2710 12690 17591 301 9.0 15% 7.8
Totals 100% 8374 234 198 432 19.4 12% 17.4
83Id.
84 Rec Item 10,p. 1387(UGB Justification Report,p. 19).
85 From Table 7 (in this report).
86 Rec Item 3 p. 167-185 (ECONorthwest memorandum,April 29,2002,p. 18(public and office employees
included with commercial for this analysis).
87 BLI p. 6.
88 Rec.Item 10,p. 1390(UGB Justification Report,p.22-23).
89 Id.
91 Rec.Item 10,p. 1390(UGB Justification Report,p.22).
91 Rec.Item 10,p. 1388(UGB Justification Report,p.20).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 30
80
To determine the number of employment acres needed, the residential population estimate
is carried over from Table 8 and the population to jobs ratio determined in the UGB Justification
Report is assumed to continue during the URA planning period. The number of employees added
since 2020,the end of the UGB planning period,is calculated and,using the estimate of the number
of employees per gross acres determined in Table 9, a demand for employment land is identified
for during the URA period.
Table 10 -Employment Land Need
Employees
Population Added since Employees Employment
to Jobs 2020 Jobs per Gross Gross Acres
Year Population Ratio 92 Employees 18,76293 Acre 94 Needed
2030 37,216 1.9 19,587 825 17.4 47
2031 37,975 1.9 19,987 1225 17.4 70
2032 38,750 1.9 20,395 1633 17.4 94
2033 39,540 1.9 20,811 2049 17.4 118
2034 40,347 1.9 21,235 2473 17.4 142
2035 41,170 1.9 21,668 2906 17.4 167
Because URAs, outside of the Portland Metropolitan planning area, are not permitted to
identify land separately for a particular type of land (e.g., residential, employment or public), the
land needs for residential and employment land, calculated separately in the tables above, are
combined into one single land need in Table 11. Public land needs, including roadways, are
included within each category of residential and employment land through the use of the net to
gross conversion factors in Tables 7 and 9.
Consistent with the "Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement" dated May 2015,
the City is establishing a 230-acre URA. According to Table 11, this will provide an 11-year land
supply.
92 Id.,p.20.
93 Id.,pp.21-22.
94 From Table 9 (in this report).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 31
81
Table 11 -Urban Reserve Land Need
Residential Employment
Gross Acres Gross Acres Total Gross
Year Needed Needed Acres Needed
2030 114 47 162
2031 152 70 222
Urban Reserve Alternative Site Analysis
Woodburn is surrounded by high value farm lands and the City carefully considered how
best to expand its future City limits, while minimizing impacts to these valuable lands. Woodburn
evaluated potential expansion in light of ORS 197.298 (2)to determine which areas contain lower-
quality soils than others.95 The URA designation minimized the impacts of growth on the
surrounding agricultural lands.
The portion of Study Area 7, immediately south and adjacent to the adopted UGB, totals
230 gross acres or 20696 net acres,and is predominantly Class III soils.97 Parcels are large,ranging
from 10—55 acres in size. Development in the lesser soil class in Study Area 7 requires inclusion
of some Class II soils to maximize efficiency of areas with the lesser soil quality.98 Other areas
considered for urban reserve are predominantly Class II soils.
Evaluating alternative areas for possible designation as Urban Reserve Area(URA) found
that all areas are relatively flat and have well-drained soils that can accommodate urban
development.99 The portion of Study Area 7 designated as urban reserve is serviceable at
reasonable costs.100 It has good access to transportation facilities and will help solve long-term
95 Rec.Item 10,p. 1416-1417 (UGB Justification Report p.49-50).
96 Rec.Item 10,p. 1190-1192 (Appendix A of the Building Lands Inventory,Tables 17 and 21). The identified
parcels of land contain 206 net acres.Using the conversion factor from Table 9 of 12 percent,206 net acres is the
equivalent of 230 gross acres.This is approximately 3.6 percent more land than the 222 acres identified as needed
for the urban reserve in 2031.
97 See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map.
98 Rec.Item 10,p. 1416-1417 (UGB Justification Report p.48-49).
99 Rec.Item 10,p. 1422(UGB Justification Report p. 54).
ioo Rec.Item 10,p. 1423 (UGB Justification Report p. 55).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 32
82
transportation needs.101 From a social and economic prospective, designation of this land as Urban
Reserve minimizes the impact to adjacent farm lands.102
The urban reserve is bisected by a planned southern arterial that will link to Butteville Road
and can be efficiently served by public services.103 Urban uses can be made compatible and are
less sensitive to nearby agricultural practices 104 through development standards.
VI. UGB EXPANSION LIMITS
As described in this decision's findings for Goal 3 and Goal 9,105 agriculture is the number
one industry in Marion County, and is among the top industries in Woodburn. Moreover, it is
growing in value and both the City and County desire to ensure that the land base and infrastructure
on which the agricultural industry depends is protected to support that growth.
The City and County further recognize that urbanization near farmland has an adverse
"spillover"impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities. These conflicts include urban
traffic congestion in farming areas; vandalism, theft, and trespassing; complaints about common
farm practices, such as night-time harvesting; and unwarranted increases in the price of farmland
due to land speculation where the integrity of the UGB is in question.106
Without adequate buffers, measures to reduce conflicts, and long-term certainty for those
farming near the UGB, the agricultural industry in the region and in the state will be significantly
adversely impacted beyond simply the land that is converted from farm to urban uses.to' As farm
land is converted to non-farm uses or compromised because of conflicts, the region will lose its
ancillary industries, which employ many — including processors, farm equipment dealers,
1°1 Rec.Item 10,p. 1425 (UGB Justification Report p. 57).
loz Rec.Item 10,p. 1428 (UGB Justification Report p. 60).
los Rec.Item 10,p. 1438(UGB Justification Report p. 70).
114 Rec.Item 10,p. 1447(UGB Justification Report p.79).
115 Data from Oregon Department of Agriculture,included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug.23,2006;Rec.
Item 6,p. 101.
106 Rec.Item 6,p. 170.
117 Rec.Vol. 5,p. 843: Oregon Department of Agriculture letter to Woodburn,March 19,2004.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 33
83
professional service providers, and the like. This will cause a particularly adverse economic
downturn in the local Woodburn economy. 108
In addition, the City wishes to conserve its financial resources by focusing infrastructure
investment inside the existing UGB and through limited expansion of the UGB, if necessary.
In particular, the areas to the north and northeast of the current City UGB and to the west
of Butteville Road NE consist of the highest quality soils and are part of larger and very productive
agricultural regions.109
The area north of the current UGB, known as Study Area 2, consists primarily of Class I
and II soils,the most productive and highest capability soils that exist.'to Current agricultural uses
include filberts (a high value crop), grass seed, orchards, and grain."' The soils are also suitable
for hops, vegetables, berries, and other crops.112 The farming units are large, and are part of a
larger agricultural area of excellent soils sweeping to the north and northeast.113
Similarly, the land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and
some of which is to the west of it, consists primarily of Class I and II soils.114 Ninety-nine percent
of the agricultural land in Study Area 8 is High-Value farmland.115 The soils are capable of
growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, hay, vegetables, grass
seed, and more.116 This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an agricultural
production area that stretches uninterrupted west.
los Rec.Item 6,p. 170: Carl family/Pudding River Ranch letter to Woodburn,August 23,2006.
109 Rec.Vol. 5,p. 843: Oregon Department of Agriculture letter to Woodburn,March 19,2004.
110 Rec Item 11 p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils-Non Irrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map,Eight Study Areas
Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
111 Rec.Item 10,p. 1430(UGB Justification Report,pp. 61-62).
...Rec.Item 10,p. 1441 - 1446(Id., pp.73-76 and Table 18).
lis Rec Item 11,p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils-Nonirrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map,Eight Study Areas
Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
114 Id.
115 Rec.Item 10,p. 1255 (Technical Report 3,"Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis,November 2002.p.9
Table 4b).
116 Rec.Item 10,p. 1442 - 1446(UGB Justification Report,pp. 74-76).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 34
84
The land northeast of the City and to the east of 99E is in Study Area 3. The agricultural
soils in Study Area 3 are primarily Class II(prime).117 Most of the agricultural land in Study Area
3 is high-value farmland.118 These soils are suitable for the wide range of crops described above.119
The MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility and a small fully developed manufactured
home park, are also within Study Area 3. "The Northeast Rural Residential (Carl Road) area has
no remaining development capacity,"120 and this exception area does not contain land that is usable
for urban purposes. Its inclusion within the UGB "would also be a significant unbuffered intrusion
into surrounding agricultural land."121 There is no urban land or infrastructure planning need to
bring these two areas into the UGB.
Butteville Road NE on the west, and Highway 99E and the MacLaren Youth Correctional
Facility in the northeast, provide substantial manmade structures that, with management, can
provide fairly effective buffers between urban uses and agricultural uses, and can help to minimize
conflicts between the two. The City has no intention or need to urbanize beyond these two
roadways.
Therefore, the City and County will adopt measures to minimize the impacts of
urbanization at the"edge,"to reduce farm and non-farm conflicts, and to not encourage economic
speculation on farm land. These measures are consistent with and serve to fulfill the City's and
County's existing obligations under the Coordination Agreement and the Marion County
Comprehensive Plan.
1. The City of Woodburn and Marion County will adopt the following language into the
Coordination Agreement:
117 Rec.Item 10,p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15)and Rec.Item 10p. 1442(UGB Justification
Report,p. 74,Table 18).
118 Rec.Item 10,p. 1442 - 1446 UGB Justification Report,pp. 74-76).
119 Id
lzo Rec.Item 10,p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p.40).
lzl Rec.Item 10,p. 1441 - 1447(UGB Justification Report,pp. 73-79).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 35
85
"For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and acknowledged,122 neither the
City nor County will seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban
growth boundary in the following areas:
• West of the portion of Butteville Road NE depicted in Attachment 4: UGB
Expansion Limitation Map.
• Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as
depicted in Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map.
2. The City of Woodburn, as part of its urban growth boundary decision, will adopt the
following language into its Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Goals 9 and 14:
"For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and acknowledged,123 the City
shall not seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban growth boundary
in the following areas:
• West of the portion of Butteville Road NE depicted on Attachment 4: UGB
Expansion Limitation Map.
• Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as
depicted on Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map.
3. The City of Woodburn, as part of its UGB decision,will adopt the following language into
its Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Goals 9, 12, and 14. Both the City and Marion
County will adopt the following language into the Coordination Agreement:
"Woodburn intends the UGB expansion area known as the Southwest Industrial
Reserve, comprising approximately 190 acres,located east of Butteville Road and north of
Parr Road, to be used for larger industrial users. Specific lot size standards shall be
122 This UGB decision is not final and acknowledged until all appeals and appeal time periods have been exhausted
or passed.
123 Id
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 36
86
established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties. Woodburn
recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both agricultural
practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part of their
regular business practice.124 Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the
west of Butteville Road NE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the region's
agricultural industry.125 Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural
uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest Industrial Reserve
and other urban uses, the City and County will:
• Ensure that the design of and any improvements to the portion of Butteville Road
NE serving the Southwest Industrial Reserve not encourage any urban traffic
unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate area and unrelated to agricultural
uses west of Butteville Road.
• As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial Reserve
consideration shall be given to methods to mitigate impacts from development and
adjacent agricultural activities this can include buffers or increased setbacks along
Butteville Road, provide that any buffers needed to reduce conflicts between the
industrial uses and agricultural activity west of Butteville Road NE are located
inside the UGB.
4. The City of Woodburn, as part of its UGB decision, further recognizes that Highway 99E
and the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility provide a substantial buffer between urban
uses and agricultural lands to the northeast. Both the City and Marion County will adopt
the following language into the Coordination Agreement:
"Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the east of Highway 99E and northeast
of the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the
agricultural industry."126
114 Rec.Item 10,p. 1445 (UGB Justification Report,p. 77).
115 See VII,P Other Goal and Statutory Findings herein.
126 Id
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 37
87
VII. OTHER GOAL AND STATUTORY FINDINGS
A. Applicable Goals
After consideration of the existing record on remand, the City Council finds that the Statewide
Planning Goals applicable to this land use decision are as follows:
• Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
• Goal 2: Land Use Planning
• Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
• Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
• Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
• Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
• Goal 8: Recreational Needs
• Goal 9: Economic Development
• Goal 10: Housing
• Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
• Goal 12: Transportation
• Goal 13: Energy Conservation
• Goal 14: Urbanization
B. Applicable Law
The City adopted its UGB amendment, on November 2, 2005127 and the substantive law
that applied on that date remains applicable to this remand proceeding. LCDC's current rule
implementing Goal 9 was adopted on December 1, 2005 and consequently does not apply. The
prior division 9 rules, OAR chapter 660, division 9 (2005), are applicable.
"I Rec.Item 10,p. 1372(UGB Justification Report,October 2005,p.4).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 38
88
The amendments to Goal 14 ("the new Goal 14") were adopted on April 28, 2005, with a
delayed effective date unless a local government elected to apply the new goal. The City elected
to apply the new Goal 14 when it adopted its UGB amendment and the"new" Goal 14 is applicable.
However, OAR chapter 660, division 24 ("the Goal 14 rule") was adopted on October 19, 2006,
but did not become effective until April 2007. Since the City adopted its UGB amendment on
November 2, 2005, almost a year before the date that OAR chapter 660, division 24 was filed,
division 24 rules are not applicable.
C. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement- OAR 660-015-0000(1)
The intent of Goal 1 is to ensure that citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate
in land use planning decisions. As stated in the Goal, the purpose is to develop a citizen
involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the
planning process. The City has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and the City
Council finds that nothing in this land use decision amends or affects that program, and no
provisions adopted herein are inconsistent with that program.
Goal 1 has five stated objectives that are relevant to the UGB boundary amendment:
• Citizen Involvement -- To provide for widespread citizen involvement.
• Communication -- To assure effective two-way communication with citizens.
• Citizen Influence -- To provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process.
• Technical Information -- To assure that technical information is available in an
understandable form.
• Feedback Mechanisms -- To assure that citizens will receive a response from
policy-makers.
In relation to Goal l: Citizen Involvement, the City Council finds, based on the existing
record, that the City utilized its acknowledged citizen involvement program to engage in an
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 39
89
extensive public outreach efforts regarding the proposed UGB expansion.128 The UGB expansion
project included numerous public hearings, community meetings and ongoing coordination. More
specifically, Woodburn's Periodic Review Program was approved in 1999. After this approval,
there were a series of technical advisory committee meetings, a joint Planning Commission/ City
Council work session, a series of public open houses, four Planning Commission work sessions,
and formal public hearings before the Marion County Board of Commissioners, the Woodburn
Planning Commission and the City Council.129
In the several years required to create the existing record, the City Council finds that the
City of Woodburn complied with Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. Notice was mailed to all property
owners within the City,the unincorporated area within the existing UGB,and the UGB study areas.
Numerous workshops were held within the community to present proposals, answer questions and
receive comments. In addition to open houses hosted by staff, formal public hearings were held
before the Planning Commission and the City Council.130 All documents relied upon and the
proposed amendments were available on the City's website, Woodburn City Hall, and the
Woodburn City Library. All of the public input received in the hearing processes was considered
and retained. In fact, the existing record shows that during the extensive public engagement
process some modifications were made to the UGB expansion proposal based on comments
received during the City Council's public hearing and deliberation process.131
The City Council finds that, as a direct result of extensive citizen involvement, seven inter-
related Community Planning Objectives were developed. The UGB expansion proposal was
designed so that each of these objectives could be achieved. The Community Planning Objectives
are as follows:
1. Implement the Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Economic
Development Strategy (EDS)by encouraging higher wage jobs in the community.
2. Improve transportation connections and preserve the capacity of the I-5 Interchange.
izs City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,p.25 -26.
129 Rec.Item 10,p. 1377(UGB Justification Report,October 2005,p.9).
iso Citizen Involvement Report,City of Woodburn 2005 p. 1 -4.
Rec.Item 10,p. 1372(UGB Justification Report,October 2005,p.4).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 40
90
3. Provide buildable land for housing,parks and schools while increasing land use efficiency,
connectivity and livability through good urban design.
4. Protect Woodburn's stream corridors, floodplains and wetlands from urban encroachment.
5. Preserve farmland and minimize impacts on agricultural land.
6. Coordinate with Marion County by using the coordinated population projection that
Marion County allocated to Woodburn.
7. Complete the City's Periodic Review process.132
The Woodburn City Council and Marion County Board of Commissioners conducted a public
hearing on December 14, 2015 and provided an additional opportunity for public input on the
proposed UGB and URA based on evidence contained in the existing record.
The City Council concludes that Goal 1: Citizen Involvement is applicable to its decision and
was complied with.
D. Goal 2: Land Use Planning - OAR 660-015-0000(2)
Goal 2 requires all incorporated cities to establish and maintain comprehensive land use
plans and implementing ordinances. It also requires cities to coordinate with other affected
government entities in legislative land use processes. The purpose of Goal 2 is to establish a land
use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of
land and to assure an "adequate factual basis" for such decisions and actions. Goal 2 also requires
the City to communicate and coordinate with all affected cities, counties, special districts, state,
and federal agencies. The City must accommodate the needs of those entities "as much as
possible."
In approving the UGB expansion and URA, the City Council relies on the following land use
studies, incorporated into the existing record,133 that have been prepared by the City or by firms
contracted by the City:
isz Rec.Item 10,p. 1377(UGB Justification Report,October 2005,p.9).
iss City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,pp.26-28.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 41
91
• Woodburn Local Wetlands Inventory List (Shapiro, 2000)
• Local Wetlands Inventory and Riparian Assessment (Shapiro, January 5, 2000)
• Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (ECO Northwest, May 2001)
• Woodburn Economic Development Strategy (ECONorthwest, June 2001)
• Woodburn Population and Employment Projections 2000-2002 (ECONorthwest, April 29,
2002)
• Technical Report 3 Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis Natural Resource Inventory
(Winterbrook Planning, November 2002)
• Woodburn Occupation/Wage Forecast (ECONorthwest, March 20, 2003)
• Site Requirements for Woodburn Target Industries (ECONorthwest, October 20, 2003)
• Evaluation of 2004 OEA Population Forecast(ECONorthwest, 2004)
• Marion County Comprehensive Plan Amendments Memo (Winterbrook, 2004)
• Marion County Board Minutes (November 10, 2004)
• Marion County Ordinance 1201 and Findings Approving Population Projection
(November 24, 2004)
• Citizen Involvement Report(City of Woodburn, 2005)
• Findings of Fact (City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 2005)
• Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, Update, Explanation of Proposed Plan and Zoning Map
Changes (Woodburn Community Development Department, 2005)
• Technical Report 2 Woodburn Residential Land Need Analysis (Winterbrook Planning,
May 2005)
• Technical Report 1 Buildable Lands Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, July 2005)
• City of Woodburn Public Facilities Plan (October 2005)
• Woodburn Comprehensive Plan (October, 2005)
• Woodburn Transportation System Plan (CH2M Hill, October 2005)
• Woodburn UGB Justification Report(Winterbrook Planning, October 2005)
• Woodburn City Council Agenda Packet (October 31, 2005)
• Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010 —2030
(September 2008)
• Marion County Ordinance 1291 (October 7, 2009)
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 42
92
The City Council finds that the above referenced documents provide the foundation for the
proposed UGB expansion and URA. More specifically, the City prepared, and relies on, technical
analyses for expanding the urban growth boundary area in accordance with applicable state laws.
The City adopted a coordinated population forecast, a Residential Land Needs Analysis, and an
Economic Opportunities Analysis in support of the UGB expansion and URA proposal.
The City Council further finds, based on the existing record, that the specified studies that the
City has undertaken and information received through the public hearing process has provided the
Council with an adequate factual basis for the UGB expansion and URA.
Finally, Goal 2 requires that the City communicate and coordinate with all affected cities,
counties, special districts, and state and federal agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing announcing
the February 3, 2005, Planning Commission and March 28, 2005, City Council public hearings,
explaining the nature of the proposed amendments and soliciting comments, was mailed to the
following potentially affected units of government and agencies on January 14, 2005:
• Marion County
• Department of Land Conservation and Development
• Department of Environmental Quality
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Water Resources Department
• Division of State Lands
• Oregon Department of Transportation
• Oregon State Health Division
• Woodburn School District
• Woodburn Fire District
• Marion County Planning Department
• City of Hubbard
• City of Gervais
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 43
93
Specifically, in regard to coordination with Marion County, the City has followed the
Coordination Agreement which provides guidance regarding the applicable UGB amendment
process. As coordination with affected cities, Woodburn provided notice and an opportunity to
comment to the cities of Hubbard and Gervais, the Woodburn Fire District, the Woodburn School
District and all affected state and federal agencies.
Notice of Public Hearing announcing the joint City Council/Marion County Board of
Commissioners public hearing was mailed to DLCD 35 days in advance of the December 14,2015
hearing date. Notices were sent to all of the other agencies noted above 20 days in advance of the
joint hearing.
The City Council concludes that Goal 2: Land Use Planning is applicable to its decision and
was complied with.
E. Goal 3: Agriculture Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(3)
Woodburn is surrounded by lands designated for agricultural use. Compliance with Goal 3
in the context of a UGB amendment relies on satisfaction of Goal 14 requirements and ORS
197.298. Because the Legislative Findings on Remand demonstrate that the proposed UGB
expansion complies with Goal 14, the City Council concludes that is has also complied with Goal
3: Agriculture - OAR 660-015-0000(3).
This decision further complies with Goal 3 by providing for long-term protection of the
farm land around and outside of the proposed urban growth boundary by adopting an `urban
expansion limit' in two locations. For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and
acknowledged, neither the City nor the County shall seek, consider, or approve an expansion of
the Woodburn urban growth boundary beyond the urban expansion limits described in the Findings
to this UGB decision. These limits are enforced through this decision and through inter-
governmental agreements adopted by the City of Woodburn and Marion County, as further
described in the Findings and in those agreements.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 44
94
F. Goal 4: Forest Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(4)
Because no land surrounding the City is designated for forestry use, Goal 4 does not apply.
G. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces - OAR 660-
015-0000(5)
Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR chapter 660, division 23, address protection of
significant natural, scenic and historic resources and open space. Rules in OAR 660, division 23,
specify which resource categories must be protected by comprehensive plans and which are subject
to local discretion and circumstances; the rules provide guidance on how to complete inventories
and protection programs, and when the rule requirements apply. OAR 660, division 23, requires
cities to inventory significant riparian areas, wetlands and wildlife habitat.
Goal 5 requires cities to inventory specified resources and to adopt programs to "protect
natural resources" and "conserve scenic, historic and open space resources." The City Council
finds that some of the resources that the goal requires to be inventoried do not exist in Woodburn
(specifically: federal wild and scenic rivers; state scenic waterways; approved Oregon recreation
trails; natural areas listed on the register of natural resources; and federally designated wildlife
areas). The Goal 5 resources that may apply to Woodburn are limited to the following:
a. Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish habitat;
b. Wetlands;
c. Wildlife habitat;
d. Groundwater resources;
e. Mineral and aggregate resources;
f. Energy sources;
g. Cultural areas.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 45
95
OAR 660-023-0030 through 660-023-0050 contain the requirements for all resources. For
each resource category, the rule contains standard requirements and, in some instances, an
alternative "safe harbor" standard for satisfying Goal 5. There are safe harbor alternatives for
riparian corridors and wetlands. OAR 660-023-090 and 660-023-100. Woodburn followed the
safe harbor provisions and included the safe harbor requirements in the new Riparian Corridor and
Wetlands Overlay District (RCWOD) amended zoning district.
Riparian Corridors and Wetlands (OAR 660-023-0090 and 660-023-0100)
Safe harbor provisions allow the City to determine significant riparian corridors by using
a standard setback distance from all fish-bearing streams, based on ODFW maps indicating fish
habitat. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated Mill Creek and Senecal
Creek as fish bearing streams. For streams with an average annual stream flow less than 1,000
cubic feet, the riparian corridor standard setback a distance of 50 feet upland from the top of each
bank defined as the 2-year flood elevation. Where a riparian corridor includes all or part of a
significant wetland, the riparian corridor extends upland 50 feet from the upland edge of the
wetland. Woodburn has adopted plan policies and implementing regulations that satisfy the
riparian corridor safe harbor provisions.
Wildlife Habitat for Special Status Species (OAR 660-023-0110(4)1
OAR 660, division 23 contains safe harbor provisions for wildlife habitat areas at that narrow
potentially significant habitats to only the following:
1. Habitat used by a species designated as threatened, endangered or sensitive;
2. Nesting, roosting or watering habitat of osprey or great blue heron;
3. A habitat included in a ODFW adopted management plan;
4. A habitat mapped by ODFW for a species or habitat of concern.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 46
96
The City Council finds that there are no wildlife habitat resources in the UGB expansion area
that the City is required to protect other than meeting the minimum protection requirements of the
50 feet riparian corridor and the wetlands protection requirements.
Groundwater Resources (OAR 660-023-0140)
At the time of periodic review, the City is required to inventory and protect significant
groundwater resources. Significant groundwater resources are limited to: (1) critical groundwater
areas and groundwater limited areas designated by Oregon Water Resources Commission and (2)
wellhead protection areas if the City chooses to designate such areas.
The Oregon Department of Human Services and Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality have developed a Source Water Protection Plan for the City. The plan inventories potential
sources of contamination, establishes best management practices for industries within the
influence zone of the City's wells, allows the City to develop ordinances to provide protection of
the aquifer, and maps the flow patterns of the aquifers. The City Council finds that the Troutdale
aquifer,from which the City obtains its water is not a critical or restrictively classified groundwater
area.
Mineral and Aggregate Resources (OAR 660-023-0180)
OAR 660-023-0180 addresses identification of significant aggregate resources, approval
of mining activity, and protection of the resource from conflicting uses. The rule sets criteria for
significance and prescribes a process for evaluating potential impacts from the proposed mining
activity. The City Council takes official notice of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and
notes that its inventory does not contain any mineral or aggregate resource sites in the UGB
expansion area. Consequently, the City Council finds that OAR 660-023-0180 is inapplicable to
the UGB expansion.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 47
97
Energy Sources (OAR 660-023-0190)
No natural gas, surface water, geothermal, solar, or wind area resource sites have been
identified in the Woodburn area and the City Council finds that OAR 660-023-0190 is inapplicable
to the UGB expansion and URA.
Inventories Required by Goal 5 Performance
Woodburn inventoried all natural resources, scenic, historic and open spaces, amending
the Comprehensive Plan, Park Master Plan and Woodburn Development Ordinance
accordingly.134 Adopted goals,policies, and land use standards meet state standards and the City
has been found in compliance with Goal 5.135
The City Council concludes that Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas,
and Open Spaces is applicable to its decision and has been complied with.
H. Goal 6: Air,Water and Land Resources Quality -OAR 660-015-0000(6)
Goal 6 requires that "air, water and land resource quality" not be "degraded" because of
planned urban development. DEQ is responsible for administration of the Clear Air Act and the
Clean Water Act at the state level. Cities meet Goal 6 through demonstration of compliance with
Environmental Quality Commission(EQC) air,water and land quality administrative rules. Water
quality standards typically are met through EQC approval of plans for sanitary sewer systems.
DEQ also regulates point and non-point source emissions related to water and air quality.
Along with other affected state agencies, DEQ was notified of the proposed plan
amendment package. Woodburn is in compliance with all applicable EQC requirements.136
134 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 1 -55.
135 Id., pp.32 -34.
136 id., p.35.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 48
98
The City Council concludes that Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality is
applicable to its decision and has been complied with.
I. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
Goal 7 requires cities to adopt measures to protect people and property from natural
hazards, such as floods, erosion, landslides, earthquakes, and weak foundation soils. Because
Woodburn is relatively flat,it does not have significant land slide hazards or erosion and deposition
hazards. Woodburn has considerable land within the 100-year floodplains of Mill Creek, Senecal
Creek and their tributaries.
Woodburn has adopted National Floodplain regulations through Ordinance 2018.
Woodburn is in compliance with Goal 7.137
The City Council concludes that Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards is applicable to
its decision and has been complied with.
J. Goal 8: Recreational Needs - OAR 660-015-0000(8)
Goal 8 has no implementing administrative rule.
Woodburn adopted an update to its Parks and Recreation Plan in 1999. That plan was
acknowledged to comply with Goal 8 and it satisfied completion of Work Task No. 5 of the City's
periodic review order.
The UGB Justification Report explains how Winterbrook used the 1999 Park and
Recreation Plan to project years 2020 park land needs.131 In projecting the amount of park needs
through 2020, Winterbrook applied a ratio of 7 acres per 1,000 population to project need for
neighborhood parks and assumed that 50 percent of the park needs would be satisfied on school
117 Id., pp.36-37.
138 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1400- 1402 (UGB Justification Report,pp.32-34).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 49
99
lands. As explained in the UGB Justification Report,Winterbrook applied the ratio to the projected
population of 34,919 and subtracted existing park lands (including 50 percent of school sites) to
determine needed park acreage. The 2005 UGB includes sufficient land to meet identified park
needs through the year 2020139. Woodburn has an adopted Parks and Recreation Plan and is in
conformance with Goal 8.140
The City Council concludes that Goal 8: Recreational Needs is applicable to its decision
and has been complied with.
K Goal 10: Housing - OAR 660-015-0000(10)
The overall intent of Goal 10 is to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires jurisdictions to provide the housing needs of its existing and future
residents. Woodburn's population is projected to grow to 34,919 residents by 2020141 There is a
demonstrated need for additional single family and multi-family dwelling units over the planning
period that cannot be totally met within the existing UGB.142 The City has planned on meeting
future needs and established efficiency measures to minimize the amount of lands added to the
UGB.143 It has also updated land use standards to carry out the intent of Goal 10 by providing for
a variety of housing types to meet its future residential needs.144
L. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services - OAR 660-015-0000(11)
Goal 11 requires Woodburn to demonstrate that it can provide adequate public facilities
and services to serve buildable land within the UGB. Woodburn and Marion County have agreed
in their Coordination Agreement that Woodburn shall be responsible for public facilities planning
139 Rec.Item 10,p. 1402(UGB Justification Report,p.34).
141 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp.38-39.
141 Rec.Item 10,p. 614(Woodburn Ordinance No.2391,November 2,2005).
14'Rec.Item 10,pp. 1395-1412(UGB Justification Report,pp.27-44).
143 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1398-1410(UGB Justification Report,pp.30-42).
144 Ordinance 2391 (Woodburn Development Ordinance).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 50
100
within the Woodburn UGB. The Goal 11 rule 145 requires Woodburn to adopt "public facilities
plans" that addresses sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water and transportation facilities necessary
to support planned housing and employment growth. The City of Woodburn has adopted a Public
Facilities Plan, Transportation Systems Plan, Park Master Plan and coordinated with Marion
County, Woodburn Fire District and School District, assuring adequate public facilities are
available to meet the needs of the community.146
The City Council concludes that Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services is applicable to its
decision and has been complied with.
M. Goal 12: Transportation - OAR 660-015-0000(12)
The Transportation Planning Rule(TPR) and the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)implement
Goal 12. The TPR requires local governments to prepare a "transportation systems plan" (TSP)
that meets the requirements of OAR 660-012-020 through 055. The OHP is a component of
Oregon's Statewide Transportation Plan, and includes policies and investment strategies for the
state highway system over the next 20 years.147
Woodburn's periodic review amendment package included an amended 2005 TSP.148 The
adopted TSP establishes a transportation system that is adequate to serve lands within proposed
UGB and URA and is consistent with the Marion County TSP and the Oregon TSP. 149
As Woodburn prepared the TSP, it coordinated with Marion County, ODOT and DLCD.
Other agency plans and policies affecting the TSP were reviewed and considered.150 The City's
plans are consistent with ODOT and Marion County TSPs.151
145 See OAR chapter 660,division 11.
146 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp.40-53.
147 id., p.42.
141 Woodburn Transportation System Plan(CHEM Hill,October 2005).
149 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p.42.
150 Id
151 Id
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 51
101
Woodburn assessed the needs of the road system; public transportation; bicycle and
pedestrian system; air,rail,water and pipeline transportation.152 Woodburn prepared an inventory
of the existing conditions and deficiencies of its transportation system.153 From this information,
Woodburn plan for the transportation system that included road,public transportation, and bicycle
and pedestrian plans and an associated financing program.154
Woodburn, adopted new comprehensive plan policies and zoning code language to meet
the TPR requirements. The City adopted an overlay district intended to preserve planned capacity
improvements to the Woodburn I-5 interchange with Oregon Highway 214. That provision is the
Interchange Management Area(IMA) section of the WDO. 155
The TSP reflect changes in population, employment and land uses adopted as part of this
decision.156 The TSP includes goals and objectives, forecasts traffic growth in the City, and
identifies transportation improvements needed to satisfy the forecasted growth.157
The City has adopted a Public Facilities Plan, Transportation Systems Plan, Park Master
Plan and coordinated with Marion County, Woodburn Fire District and School District, assuring
adequate public facilities are available to meet the needs of the community.158 The City's
Transportation System Plan complies with the requirements of Goal 12 regarding transportation.
The City Council concludes that Goal 12: Transportation is applicable to its decision and
has been complied with.
152 id., p.45.
153 Id.
154 Id.
155 id., p.47.
156 id., p. 52.
157 Id.
151 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp.40-53.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 52
102
N. Goal 13: Energy Conservation - OAR 660-015-0000(13)
Goal 13 Provides as follows:
To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled
so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy,based upon sound economic principles.
There are no known non-renewable sources of energy within the Woodburn UGB.
The 2005 UGB and URA amendments are adjacent to the existing UGB, thus maintaining
a contiguous, compact, energy-efficient urban growth form and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
The UGB amendments rely on gravity flow sanitary sewer collection, thus eliminating the need
for sanitary sewer pump stations.
Goal 13 requirements have been met by using transportation facilities more efficiently,
minimizing vehicle miles traveled by placing housing near employment and providing for the
logical and economical extension of public facilities 159
The City Council concludes that Goal 13: Energy Conservation is applicable to its decision
and has been complied with.
O. Overall Conclusion—Statewide Planning Goals
Based on the foregoing, the City Council concludes that Woodburn's UGB amendment
and URA conform to all applicable Statewide Planning Goals. On remand, Woodburn has reduced
the overall amount of land included in the UGB and established safeguards to ensure efficiency of
land use through the establishment of minimum residential densities and lot size requirements for
industrial development. An Urban Reserve was established to meet future land use needs beyond
the 20 year planning horizon.
159 id., p. 54.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 53
103
P. Findings on Economic Importance of the Agricultural Industry to Woodburn and to
Marion County
Agriculture in Oregon is a multi-billion dollar industry, and Marion County ranks number
one among Oregon counties in gross agricultural sales. Agriculture is also a traded-sector industry-
80 percent of all production leaves the state—and that brings new dollars back into the state and
region. Agricultural exports rank number one in volume and number two in value among all
Oregon exports.160 The agricultural industry has been growing in value in Oregon and in Marion
County for over a decade.
Marion County has some of the best soils in the world, and coupled with an excellent
climate and water conditions the region grows a wide variety of crops. This capacity to grow a
diversity of products is one of the primary attributes of the agricultural soils in the Woodburn area,
and enables farmers to "quick[ly] adapt and respond to market changes and demands. *** The
burgeoning wine and nursery industries are examples of this adaptability."161
Agricultural sales in Marion County alone topped half a billion dollars in 2005.162 In 2004,
Marion County direct agricultural sales posted a record high.163
The County has significant infrastructure and related"cluster"industries that both support
this agricultural economy and contribute to economic growth of the region and state.As the Marion
County Farm Bureau stated, "Agricultural land is industrial land, land that is supporting a
successful portion of our county's economy."164
160 Data from Oregon Department of Agriculture,included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug.23,2006;Rec.
Item 6,p. 101.
161 Letter from Kathleen and Lolita Carl,fifth generation local farmers,August 2006;Rec.Item 6,p. 169.
16'Data from Oregon Department.of Agriculture,included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug.23,2006;Rec.
Item 6,p. 101.
163 Marion County Farm Bureau,letter of August 2006;Rec.Item 6,p. 162.
164 Id.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 54
104
Woodburn is situated in the heart of this agricultural region. Woodburn residents work in
all facets of the agricultural industry.165 Woodburn businesses, such as insurance companies,
banks,and law and accounting firms,provide services to farms and farmers. Woodburn businesses
sell and repair agricultural equipment.166 And, Woodburn businesses process agricultural
products, thereby adding retail value. During the decade of the 1990s, employment in the
agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector grew by 39 percent in the Woodburn zip code.167 No other
sector employs a greater percentage of Woodburn residents.168 Between 1990-1999, employment
in the agricultural services sector in the Woodburn zip code grew by 476 percent, far exceeding
the average growth rate of 57 percent for the same area.169
Woodburn follows the State of Oregon in projecting the agricultural economy of the region
to continue growing and being a significant contributor to the City's and region's economies.
Because unlike any other industry, the agricultural industry is dependent on the rich soils, climate,
and water of the area, the City chooses to focus other employment and residential growth in the
existing UGB,while being conservative in any expansions of that UGB—both in terms of acreage
and in terms of valuable farm land.
The City further recognizes that development of valuable farmland has a"spillover"impact
on surrounding farms and agricultural activities, by creating urban traffic congestion in farming
areas, and increasing conflicts such as vandalism,theft,trespassing,and complaints about common
farm practices, such as night-time harvesting.170 Therefore, the City will work with the Marion
County to minimize the impacts of urbanization at the "edge," including by designing roads and
buffers at the edge that will discourage incompatible urban traffic in and near farming areas.
165 Rec.Item 6,p. 162:Letter of Marion County Farm Bureau,August 22,2006; Woodburn Economic Opportunity
Analysis,May 2001,p.2 -4 Table 2-3;Rec.Item 10,p. 1022.
166 Rec.Item 6,p. 170: Carl family,Pudding River Ranch letter of August 23,2006
167 Woodburn Economic Opportunity Analysis,May 2001,p.2-4 Table 2-3;Rec.Item 10,p. 1022.
161 Id., pp.3-10 Table 3- 8;Rec.Item 10,p. 1040.
169 Id, p.2-2;Rec.Item 10,p. 1020.
170 Letter from Kathleen and Lolita Carl,fifth generation local farmers,August 2006;Rec.Item 6,p. 170.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 55
105
In particular, the areas to the north and northeast of the current UGB and to the west of
Butteville Road NE consist of the highest quality soils and are part of larger and very productive
agricultural regions.
The area north of the current UGB, known as Study Area 2, consists primarily of Class I
and II soils,the most productive and highest capability soils that exist.171 Current agricultural uses
include filberts (a high value crop), grass seed, orchards, and grain.172 The soils are also suitable
for hops, vegetables, berries, and other crops.173 The farming units are large, and are part of a
larger agricultural area of excellent soils sweeping to the north and northeast.174
Similarly, the land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and
some of which is to the west of that Study Area, consists primarily of Class I and II soils.17' Almost
all the resource land in Study Area 8 is also high-value farmland.176 The soils are capable of
growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, hay, vegetables, grass
seed, and more.177 This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an agricultural
production area that stretches uninterrupted west.
The land northeast of the City is in Study Area 3. Agricultural soils in Study Area 3 are
primarily Class II (prime) and high-value.17' These soils are suitable for the wide range of crops
described above.179
Goal 2,Land Use Planning,requires that the Woodburn and Marion County comprehensive
plans, implementation measures, and other land use and transportation actions be both consistent
171 Rec.Item 10,p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15). See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and
Soils Capability Class Map.
172 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1429-1430(UGB Justification Report,pp. 61-62).
173 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1441-1446(Id., pp.73-76 and Table 18).
174 Id.
175 Rec.Item 10 p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15)and Rec.Item 10 p. 1442(UGB Justification
Report,p. 74,Table 18).
176 Technical Report 3,Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis,November 2002,p.9,Table 4b.
177 Rec Item 10,pp. 1442-1444(UGB Justification Report,pp. 74-76).
178 Rec.Item 10,p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15).
179 Rec Item 10,pp. 1442-1444(UGB Justification Report,pp.74-76).
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 56
106
and coordinated with one another. Therefore, Woodburn and Marion County have entered into a
Coordination Agreement.
The Coordination Agreement is "required to be consistent with the Urban Growth
Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan,"180 and it is to be
"[c]oordinate[d]...with...the Marion County Comprehensive Plan."181 The Marion County
comprehensive land use plan includes the Urbanization element.
The Coordination Agreement and Urbanization element of the County's plan all recognize
the primacy of the county's agricultural industry; the need to reduce conflicts between urban uses
and natural resource uses; the desire for compact, diverse and walkable neighborhoods; the need
to efficiently use existing urban land and the adverse impacts of sprawling development patterns;
and the financial necessity to use infrastructure efficiently.
For example, the County's Urbanization policy describes the both the importance of the
agricultural industry and the conflicts that can result from sprawling urban development patterns:
"[T[he problems that sprawl poses to people of Marion County are probably more crucial
than in most other areas because of the importance of natural resources to the local
economy." 182
"The problems associated with a pattern of sprawling development involve both direct and
indirect monetary and social costs, affecting all people of the County, whether urban or
rural. Some of the problems resulting from sprawl are:
a. A land use pattern which is less desirable and less stable than could be achieved by
coordinated,planned development;
b. A land use pattern which is costly to develop and service;
iso Coordination Agreement,p. 6.
Id., P. 1.
isz Marion County Comprehensive Land Use Plan,Urbanization,p.II13-1.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 57
107
c. A greater expenditure of land and energy resources; and
d. A greater disruption of agricultural uses."183
"As urban areas continue to expand, these resource lands are either directly converted to
urban uses or are adversely impacted due to inherent conflicts between rural and urban
activities.*** If agricultural, forestry and other land resource based interests are to remain
sound, then the pattern of urbanization needs to be contained."114
The Urbanization policy recognizes in particular the economic and social reasons for
compact urban development patterns, focused inside existing UGBs:
"Urban Growth Policies
***
"The mutual agreement of the cities and the County to these policies is vital to the effective
coordination and cooperation necessary to implement each urban growth program. The
following are urban growth policies that should guide the conversion of the urbanizable
areas adjacent to each city to urban uses.
***
"2. The provision of urban services and facilities should be in an orderly economic basis
according to a phased growth plan.
3. Development of the urban area should proceed from its center outward.
4. Development should occur in areas of existing services before extending new
services."185
The "purpose of the Urban Growth Management Framework is to":
183 Id.
114 Id., p.IID-2.
185 id., p. 6.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 58
108
"3. Protect farm, forest, and resource lands throughout the County by considering the
existing growth capacity of each community, fostering the efficient use of land, and
evaluating urban growth boundary expansion needs."186
In recognition of the dual goals of protecting the region's agricultural industry and
providing for urban development, the City and County have agreed to the following Framework:
"One of the most important functions of City plans is the ability to plan for urban growth
boundary expansions needed to accommodate projected growth. At the same time, one of
the highest principles of Marion County is to prevent sprawl in order to protect valuable
farm and forest lands. Included in the Framework strategy are land efficiency guidelines
for cities to consider in analyzing land needs."187
To meet its Goal 2 legal obligations under the Coordination Agreement and the Urban
Growth Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan, as well as it Goal
10 needed housing, Goal 9 economic development, and Goals 11 and 14 efficient use of existing
land and infrastructure obligations, this Woodburn UGB decision incorporates the following land
efficiency actions:
• Focus most residential development in the existing UGB, primarily in higher
density, mixed use and walkable areas near schools and services. (See IV B.5 of
the findings)
• Accommodate most commercial employment and much of the industrial
employment inside the existing UGB, on vacant lands and through infill and re-
development. (See IV 3 and 4 of the findings)
• Minimize the amount of any UGB expansion, and direct any expansion to lands
that are of lesser quality agricultural soils and situated where the conflicts between
urban and rural uses can be minimized. (See IV C of the findings)
186 id., P. 8.
187 id.,P. 10.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 59
109
• Incorporate requirements to minimize conflicts between urban and rural uses at the
UGB edge. (See VI of the findings)
• Protect the economy of Woodburn by minimizing the unnecessary extension of
infrastructure — including roads and sewer and water service — through more
efficient use of the existing land and infrastructure inside the UGB. (See IV C of
the findings)
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: UGB in Response to Remand Map.
Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map.
Attachment 3: Urban Reserve Map.
Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map.
Legislative Findings on Remand -Page 60
110
410i
o
N o o
r
n � m
��o4o�s4 m Q Q
p W W.
co 7
In
Hm7mE �I o lo
r
°I
Of D
4-0
M
m
w :d 9
o �
a
> a
a f
s.
Li
a a
..
W y
Q
nl�
hs
� a .,.� �• r,: � h III
W " 7
® a� W—M �.. .
'RIMa
W
EE
t: a
a
� a
z
"
CD
... 11111
v
TFfl
In
f
i
� 9
a �
a � 9
r" o
J •. uoiluq!wi-1 uoisuedx3 eon aeaA-pZ m
av
i
r
o `9
x
O
O L]
O a
O Il p 5Ya
2
N �x
v ra
r Y
a
m
VIII � e e
N
GJ
E
s
V
m
a-4
06 CL
.n
T
e p i
L
Nl M
fC cu �w r
Vf Bp
fQ Q ° "� i r �" N
Nr
r u }p}' r
m Ln
r7ir
V � h
k
O „b ry x IQ
f t
"4v-, L J: i
f�
ly
X
OL
LLJ
a �
ui W au
� W
a�
I Q Og H LAko dJ Nb auQ Lx4-g-a j,, N
co
x � �
co
F—T7
L
�i
z �
a
a �
Q
0
0
x
a
M
� a
V
a
- oa 3»�n3una
a
a
m
1
E 0= �, m j " J
-C H'
f+:. � � Y E3zM
60
N
as o a
njj
U d Q
aEomE
Fpm
O
LL V) C O
C O_
co
ry
Q
Wx Q x
r W
CO W m
CD m CDCD
N
O w C (n O
arEau oR CD" '— cu
au))
a
bo,d
\ a es
17
I�
w,,....»w� M ... IW9 Q
4 "
�WyW
O
It
J
b m
-
V "
� ;
11141111,
I
r
`�IIIIIII
e
�� Im IIS
IIID �I
WW�WWwww � W�w�Wwwww ��WWWWW�.��wwww�w' .
ow
.1„ I
WON) uoImIBI! Im9 UOISUB ' X3 son je;D k-OZ
m
a �o
0 ov
o m q
m a Eor
_
a 3 _
0
c
m
0
x
LL
N
O X a
Eo2
o 1,a
0
1-ti x
i q@q
0 o
�
O
0
q
m
e= a d
U x
ti
O e
E o w
IT v
„„ I E E
MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Board Session Agenda Review Form
0 R E G O N
Meeting date: Monday,December 14,2015 at 7:00 p.m.
Department: Public Works Agenda Planning Date: 12/7/15 Time required: 10 min
Audio/Visual aids None
Contact: Brandon Reich Phone: 503-566-4175
Department Head Signature:
TITLE Marion County Ordinance Adopting City of Woodburn Revised Urban Growth Boundary
Issue,Description& The City of Woodburn is in periodic review to consider a revision to its urban growth boundary(UGB).
Background After previously adopting a revised UGB in 2006,the boundary analysis was appealed to the Oregon
Court of Appeals,which remanded the decision back to the Land Conservation and Development
Commission(LCDC). LCDC in turn remanded the UGB to the city and county for further consideration.
The city and county must both consider adopting the revised UGB,which would then be reviewed by
LCDC for consideration in completing the city's periodic review work task.
Financial Impacts: None
Impacts to Department None
&External Agencies
Options for 1.The board of commissioners may adopt the ordinance as provided.
Consideration: 2.The board of commissioners may adopt the ordinance with changes noted.
3.The board of commissioners may ask the ordinance be revised and brought back for its consideration
at a later date.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the board of commissioners adopt the ordinance by emergency procedure.
List of attachments: Ordinance
Presenter: Brandon Reich,Scott Norris,and City of Woodburn staff
[copies of completed paperwork sent to the following: (Include names and e-mail addresses.)
Copies to: Brandon Reich breich@co.marion.or.us
115
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FOR MARION COUNTY, OREGON
In the matter of an Ordinance amending ) LA 06-2
The Marion County Comprehensive Plan )
by adopting amendments to the City of )
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan including )
coordinated population forecasts of 34,919 )
for the year 2020 and 37,295 for the year )
2031, a revised urban growth boundary, )
an urban reserve, expansion limited areas, )
and declaring an emergency. )
ORDINANCE NO.
THE MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Purpose
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted general law counties in the State of
Oregon by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 203, and the comprehensive land use planning and
coordination with local government provisions under Chapters 195 and 197 to amend the Marion
County Comprehensive Plan by adopting amendments to the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
including coordinated population forecasts of 34,919 for the year 2020 and 37,295 for the year 2031, a
revised urban growth boundary, an urban reserve, and expansion limited areas.
SECTION IL Authorization
This comes before the Marion County Board of Commissioners as a result of a remand order
from the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The legislative amendments before the
Board are for concurrence in and adoption of amendments being considered by the City of Woodburn,
as part of its Periodic Review work program to update the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan pursuant to
the planning coordination, concurrence provisions, and urban reserves designation under ORS
Chapters 195 and 197, and the provisions of the executed October 5, 2005 Urban Growth Boundary
Coordination Agreement between Marion County and the City of Woodburn that establishes
procedures for addressing land use matters of mutual concern, including amendments to the
comprehensive plan and urban growth boundary. The Board held a public hearing jointly with the
Woodburn City Council on December 14, 2015 for which proper public notice and advertisement was
given. The Board closed the hearing on December 14, 2015. All persons present during the public
hearing and those provided notice of the hearing, were given the opportunity to speak or present
written statements on the proposed amendments.
SECTION III. Evidence and Findings
The Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in the record. Based on the facts and
findings in the record, as contained in Exhibits A and B, which are incorporated herein by this
reference, the Board determines that the amended City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan conforms
116
with the requirements under ORS Chapter 197 and the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules for the development and revision of comprehensive plans, with ORS Chapter 195
for county coordination with local comprehensive plan activities, with ORS Chapters 195 and 197 for
the designation of urban reserves and amendments to the Marion County Comprehensive Plan
Urbanization Element on coordination regarding the urban reserve and expansion limited areas set
forth in Exhibit C.
The City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments adopt a coordinated population
forecast of 34,919 for the 20-year planning period of the plan (2000 to 2020) and a coordinated
population forecast of 37,295 for the year 2031 for an additional 11-year planning period concurrent
with the designation of urban reserves. The Woodburn Comprehensive Plan update involves a revised
urban growth boundary, as depicted on the map set forth in Exhibit D, the designation of expansion
limited areas, as depicted on the map set forth in Exhibit E, and an urban reserve, as depicted on the
map set forth in Exhibit F.
The Board finds that the adoption of the amendments are consistent with the provisions of the
intergovernmental coordination agreement between Marion County and the City of Woodburn. The
Board further finds that the amendments are in compliance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals
and Administrative Rules, ORS Chapters 195 and 197, and applicable provisions of the Urbanization
Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION IV. Amendments to Marion County Comprehensive Plan
The Marion County Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the adoption of an updated City
of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan for application in the area within the urban growth boundary that
lies outside the city limits. The Marion County Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the
adoption of a coordinated population forecast of 34,919 for the year 2020 and 37,295 for the year 2031
for the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The Marion County Comprehensive Plan Map is
amended to reflect the revised urban growth boundary.
SECTION V. Repeal Of Portions Of Existing Ordinances
Those portions of Marion County Ordinances No. 572 and No. 1233 adopting a City of
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments and revised Urban Growth Boundary and a
comprehensive plan for the area, are hereby repealed or amended as set forth in this ordinance through
the adoption of the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments, which by reference are
incorporated into this Ordinance.
SECTION VI. Severability
Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any
policy, provision, findings, statement, conclusion, or designation to a particular land use or area of
land, or any other portion, segment or element of this Ordinance or of any amendments thereto and
adopted hereunder, be declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity and
continued application of any other portion or element of this Ordinance or amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, as amended herein; and if this Ordinance or any portion thereof should be held to
be invalid on one ground, but valid on another, it shall be construed that the valid ground is the one
upon which this Ordinance of any portion thereof was enacted.
2
117
SECTION VII. Effective Date
This Ordinance amending the Marion County Comprehensive Plan by adopting amendments to
the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, an urban growth boundary amendment, coordinated
population forecasts, designation of urban reserves, and establishment of expansion limited areas,
being necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, an emergency is declared to exist and
this Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage.
SIGNED and FINALIZED this day of December 2015 at Salem, Oregon.
MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Chair
Recording Secretary
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 197.830 provides that land use decisions may be reviewed by
the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by filing a notice of intent to appeal within 21 days from the
date this ordinance becomes final.
3
118
Exhibit A
FACTS AND FINDINGS
BACKGROUND
This matter comes before the Marion County Board of Commissioners as the result of a remand order
from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). In 2006, the city and county
jointly adopted amendments to the city's urban growth boundary (UGB). The amendments were
approved by LCDC and subsequently appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, twice. The most
recent remand from the court caused LCDC to remand to the city and county the UGB amendments for
their further consideration.
The City of Woodburn first adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1979. The Marion County
Board of Commissioners adopted the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary and Comprehensive Plan for
the area outside the city but within the boundary on February 6, 1980 (Ordinance No. 572). The Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) acknowledged the City of Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan on March 20, 1981.
Marion County and the City of Woodburn entered into an urban growth boundary coordination
agreement on October 5, 2005. The agreement established procedures for coordinating land use
matters of mutual concern. The agreement provides for the county to concur in the city's
comprehensive plan and to adopt those provisions for application within the urban growth area(the
area within the urban growth boundary outside the city limits). Such provisions include urbanization
policy changes,plan map amendments affecting properties in the urban growth area, and urban growth
boundary changes.
Subsequent to the most recent remand from the court of appeals, the parties to the appeal entered into
mediation. County staff participated in that mediation and in the drafting and review of findings
pertaining to the amendments and the revised urban growth coordination agreement.
On November 4, 2015, the Board of Commissioners scheduled a joint public hearing with the
Woodburn City Council for December 14, 2015 to receive testimony on the proposed amendments.
CITY OF WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
The City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments involve coordinating a population forecast
for the years 2020 and 2031 for the city and revising the location of its urban growth boundary.
Population Coordination
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 195.025 tasks the county with coordinating comprehensive planning
among the cities in the county. Previously, the city and county coordinated a population forecast for
Woodburn for the year 2020 for use when establishing its urban growth boundary. The county adopted
this forecast in November 2004 (Ordinance No. 1201) and the city also adopted the forecast.
1
119
In 2009, the county adopted coordinated forecasts for all the cities in the county for the year 2030.
This forecast also included an average annual growth rate. The city proposes to project the adopted
2030 forecast using the average annual growth rate to the year 2031 for use in establishing urban
reserves. This is consistent with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) division 660-032, which provides
a means to coordinate a population forecast for a city.
Oreton Revised Statutes, Oreton Administrative Rules and Statewide Land Use Planning Goals
The City of Woodburn is proposing to revise its urban growth boundary. The city demonstrated in its
evidence and findings that the proposal complies with the applicable state statutes and rules and is
consistent with the statewide land use planning goals. The proposal to bring land into the UGB for
residential,public and employment purposes establises a UGB sized to serve a population of 34,919 in
the year 2020. The city also intends to establish an urban reserve that would contain adequate land to
serve additional population for the City of Woodburn to the year 2031. The urban reserve would
remain rural, outside the UGB until such time as Woodburn again considers the amount of land in its
UGB. At that time, the land in the rural reserve would be the highest priority of land for the city to
consider bringing into the UGB to meet the needs of future population growth.
Marion County Comprehensive Plan
The Urban Growth policies contained in the Urbanization section of the Marion County
Comprehensive Plan must also be reviewed against the proposal. The city has demonstrated that it is
able to provide adequate residential, commercial, industrial and public lands to meet the needs of the
city for the next 20 years. The city will continue to be the provider of urban services to land within its
UGB and there will be a sufficient amount of developable land to provide choices in the market place
to residents, employers and employees. The city also considered the impact of nearby agricultural
areas on the city's growth and development and identified, with the county, means to ensure that the
agricultural production on nearby land is not impacted by the UGB expansion. The city's proposal is
consistent with the Urban Growth policies and growth management framework goals in the
Urbanization Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan.
URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT
The existing urban growth boundary coordination agreement will be revised into an urban growth
coordination agreement to address both city/county coordination on issues within the urban growth
boundary and city/county agreements on how to manage rural land within the urban reserve area and
expansion limited areas. The revised urban growth coordination agreement implements the
requirements for urban reserves planning contained in ORS 195.145 and OAR division 660-021. Also
adopted are conforming amendments to the Urbanization Element of the Marion County
Comprehensive Plan recognizing the importance of agriculture near Woodburn as the reason for
implementing urban reserves and expansion limited areas.
DECISION
The Board concurs in the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments by approving
amendments to the Marion County Comprehensive Plan by adopting amendments to the City of
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan including coordinated population forecasts of 34,919 for the year 2020
and 37,295 for the year 2031, a revised urban growth boundary, an urban reserve, and expansion
limited areas.
2
120
Exhibit B
Legislative Findings on Remand
Woodburn Periodic Review Work Task 2 and UGB in Response to Remand Amendment
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter came before the City of Woodburn on remand from the Oregon Court of
Appeals and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). These findings and
the already existing evidentiary record support the City's decision on remand to: expand the
urban growth boundary (UGB), designate an urban reserve area (URA), and establish two long-
term expansion limitations. The UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres.
This includes approximately 190 acres for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406
acres for residential use. The URA is west and south of Parr Road, and consists of
approximately 230 gross acres. The two 20-year expansion limits are Expansion Limit No. 1,
located along Butteville Road, and Expansion Limit No. 2, located east of Highway 99E at Carl
Road.1
As part of completing Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the UGB in Response to
Remand amendment, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the City of Woodburn/Marion
County Urban Growth Coordination Agreement (Coordination Agreement) are amended to
incorporate the two 20-year UGB Expansion Limits, to the west of Butteville Road and to the
east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose
beyond these limits for a period of 20 years from the date this decision is final, including any
appeals.
A. Case History
On July 30, 1997, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
approved the City of Woodburn's Periodic Review Work Program. All Periodic Review Work
Tasks have been completed by Woodburn and approved by DLCD except Work Task 2, the
Commercial and Industrial Lands Inventory. Work Task 2 required Woodburn to evaluate its
See Attachment 1:UGB in Response to Remand Map.
121
commercial and industrial needs over a 20-year period and initiate any changes to accommodate
needs, which could include changes to plan and zone designations and the UGB.
Following is the timeline of relevant events carrying out this Periodic Review:
November 2, 2005: Ordinance 2391 was finally adopted by the Woodburn City Council
approving a UGB expansion and other Periodic Review Work Tasks.
July 19, 2006: Marion County Board of Commissioners co-adopted the UGB expansion.
August 3, 2006: City and County submit Ordinance 2391 and co-adopting ordinance to DLCD.
DLCD determines the submittal is complete on August 4.
August 22 - 24, 2006: Ten objections are timely filed.
January 25, 2007: LCDC held a hearing on Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment and made an
oral decision to approve Woodburn's submittal.
February 14, 2007: LCDC issued written Approval Order 07-WKTASK-001720.
April 12, 2007: 1000 Friends of Oregon, Marion County Farm Bureau, Lolita Carl, Kathleen
Carl, Diane Mikkelson, Carla Mikkelson, and Friends of Marion County petitioned the Oregon
Court of Appeals for judicial review of LCDC's Order.
September 8, 2010: Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC's decision, in 1000
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Woodburn I), 237 Or App 213 (2010). Appellate judgment entered
November 30, 2010.
January 12, 2011: LCDC held a hearing on a draft revised order and heard argument from the
parties on the record. LCDC again orally approved Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 2
122
March 16, 2011: LCDC issued Approval Order 11-WKTASK-001802.
May 12, 2011: 1000 Friends of Oregon, Marion County Farm Bureau, Lolita Carl, Kathleen
Carl, Diane Mikkelson and Friends of Marion County petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals
for judicial review of LCDC's order.
January 2, 2014: Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC's decision in 1000
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC(Woodburn II), 260 Or App 444 (2014).
July 24 - 25, 2014: LCDC unanimously voted to initiate a mediation assessment, to be
conducted by Oregon Consensus, because mediation had "the potential to resolve the City's UGB
amendment."
December 23, 2014: Oregon Consensus submits its Assessment Report to LCDC, concluding:
"While there are significant challenges in mediating a solution to the dispute over the City of
Woodburn's proposal for expanding industrial land within an amended urban growth boundary,
there is a possibility of success if parties are willing to (1) seriously examine their own interests
and objectives, (2) strive to understand the interests of the other parties, and (3) seek solutions
that meet multiple interests and avoid the significant economic and social costs of alternative
forums. It is suggested that the parties use the selection of a mediator as an opportunity to
practice collaboration."
March 30, 2015: All parties to Woodburn II enter into mediation.
April and May, 2015: All parties to Woodburn II sign a Framework for Mediation Settlement
Agreement.
May 21, 2015: LCDC passed a motion to "remand the City of Woodburn's Periodic Review
Work Task 2 and UGB amendment for further action and establish a resubmittal date of
December 1, 2015."
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 3
123
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 4
124
B. Oregon Court of Appeals Decisions
On remand to LCDC the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded:
"Because we conclude that LCDC again did not adequately explain why the City's
expansion of its UGB to include an additional 409 acres for industrial use is consistent
with pertinent law, we reverse the order and remand for reconsideration."
Woodburn II, 260 Or App at 446.
"We have carefully reviewed LCDC's entire order on remand, and we conclude that
LCDC did not adequately explain the reasons that led it to conclude the City's UGB
amendment complied with applicable law."
Woodburn II, 260 Or App at 460.
C. Mediation Process
All parties to Woodburn II entered into mediation on March 30, 2015 to resolve issues
and continued litigation related to the City's UGB amendment. This mediation was successful
and a Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement was approved by 1000 Friends of
Oregon, Friends of Marion County, Theodora Schrier (as personal representative for Lolita Carl,
deceased), Kathleen Carl, Diane Mikkelson, Marion County Farm Bureau, DLCD, Marion
County and the City of Woodburn.
For purposes of transparency and legal defensibility, it is important to place in context
how the Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement relates to the land use decision that is
explained and justified by these Legislative Findings on Remand. This matter — the City of
Woodburn's Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the related urban growth boundary amendment -
is on remand from the Court of Appeals to LCDC and from LCDC to the City of Woodburn and
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 5
125
Marion County. Any subsequent land use decisions made by the City of Woodburn, and Marion
County, and work task approval decisions made by LCDC pursuant to that remand must comply
with Oregon land use law, including the decisions of the Oregon Court of Appeals, as well as
laws regarding land use decision-making processes.
Through mediation, the parties have agreed to a map and substantive elements of Work
Task 2 and the UGB decision, reflected in the framework for the anticipated future land use
actions. If the anticipated future land use actions conform to this framework, the parties have
agreed to forego any future legal challenges regarding Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the
related UGB amendment.
Pursuant to the Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Court of
Appeals' decisions, LCDC remanded the underlying decision to the City.
IL PROCEDURAL MATTERS ON REMAND
A. City Procedure on Remand
Absent specific instructions from a reviewing tribunal or applicable local regulations, a
city is entitled to limit the scope of a remand proceeding to that of addressing the legal
deficiencies articulated by the appellate opinion ordering the remand. In the instant case, it is
completely appropriate for the City to adopt a revised Work Task 2 and related UGB in
Response to Remand amendment, relying upon relevant portions of the already existing record to
better explain and justify its UGB action. Having already afforded extensive opportunities to
present evidence over the course of these UGB proceedings, the City is not obligated, on remand,
to afford an opportunity to present new evidence, but may proceed on the already existing
record.
B. Record on Remand
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 6
126
The remand proceedings were conducted based on the existing evidentiary record
submitted by the City of Woodburn to DLCD on August 3, 2006, as part of its submission of
Periodic Review Work Tasks 1-4, 7-11, and a related UGB amendment. In particular, these
Legislative Findings on Remand rely on and incorporate by reference the Woodburn UGB
Justification Report (Winterbrook Planning, October 2005), and Buildable Lands Inventory
(Winterbrook Planning, July 2005). Much of the Justification Report and Buildable Lands
Inventory provide the basis for this decision. In any instances where these documents conflict
with, or are inconsistent with, these Legislative Findings on Remand, the language of Legislative
Findings on Remand shall prevail.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
A. General
Evaluation and expansion of a UGB requires application of several interrelated statutes,
statewide land use Goals, and administrative rules: ORS 197.298, Goal 14, and OAR chapter
660. Woodburn opted to complete its Periodic Review under the new Goal 14.2 As part of its
Goal 14 UGB analysis, Woodburn must address capacity needs under Goal 9 (Economic
Development) and Goal 10 (Housing), and related statutes and administrative rules, OAR chapter
660, divisions 8 and 9.
LCDC's administrative rules implementing Goal 9 were adopted on December 1, 2005
and do not apply. The division 9 rules "Industrial and Commercial Development" adopted by
LCDC prior to that do apply.
B. Amount of Land
A key issue that was extensively briefed in both Woodburn I and Woodburn II is whether
the City included more employment land in its original UGB expansion proposal than was
necessary to accommodate its needs over the 20-year planning period in violation of Goals 9 and
2 Rec.Item 10,p. 1372;ER-4;Remand Rec. 0006.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 7
127
14. This issue, with the same applicable legal standards, must also be addressed in justifying the
UGB in Response to Remand.
The Oregon Court of Appeals has explained how ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 are to be
applied to a UGB expansion. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC(McMinnville), 244 Or App 239
(2011). Although that case was based on the old Goal 14, the new Goal 14 and OAR chapter
660, division 24 were designed to clarify and streamline the existing Goal 14, not change it
substantively.3
The applicable legal requirements are found in ORS 197.712, Goal 9, OAR chapter 660,
division 9 (2005), and Goal 14. The first step is to determine the "amount of land needed" and a
"differentiation of land use types according to their land consumption attributes," under Goal 14.
McMinnville, 244 Or App at 256.
Goal 14 requires that(emphasis added):
"Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the following:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a
20-year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; and
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as
public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of
the need categories in this subsection (2).
"In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel size,
topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need."
The Goal 9 rule provides that "[t]he total acreage of land designated in each site category
shall at least equal the projected land needs for each category during the 20-year planning
s Goal 14 was amended,effective April 28,2005.As stated on DLCD's website,the new Goal 14 and OAR chapter
660,division 24 were designed"to clarify and streamline the UGB amendment process,"not to change it
substantively 1-ittp-://www.oregon.gov/LCD/nilemaking
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 8
128
period." OAR 660-009-0025 (2005) To accomplish that, compatible employment uses with
similar site characteristics are combined into "broad site categories." OAR 660-009-0025(1)
Jurisdictions should limit incompatible uses on and adjacent to sites as necessary to protect them
for their intended employment function.
Under Goal 10 and the Goal 10 rule, Woodburn must ensure there is sufficient capacity to
meet its housing needs for the planning period, meaning "housing types determined to meet the
need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent
levels." OAR 660-008-0005(6). This requires that "[s]ufficient buildable land shall be
designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as
determined in the housing needs projection." OAR 660-008-0010.
If there is a need to accommodate population or employment growth, the jurisdiction
must first look to land inside the existing UGB to accommodate that need. Goal 14;
McMinnville, 244 Or App at 255-57; 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains, 27 Or
LUBA 373, 390, aff'd 130 Or App 406, 882 P2d 1130 (1994).
C. Alternative Sites Analysis
If some or all of the identified need cannot be accommodated inside the UGB, the
jurisdiction then moves to the second step: "application of ORS 197.298 (1) and (3), together
with Goal 14, to locate and justify inclusion of land to fill that quantified need." McMinnville,
244 Or App at 257. This starts with the identification of buildable land contiguous to the UGB.
Id. at 26-27. The jurisdiction must follow the priority statute, ORS 197.298, sequentially. City
of West Linn, 201 Or App 419, 440 (2005); D.S. Parklane Development, Inc. v Metro, 165 Or
App 1, 20-21 (2000).
As applied here, the City, when seeking a UGB expansion, must look first to any lands
designated as urban reserves, none of which exist around Woodburn.4 The City must then look
4 The Urban Reserve Area adopted with this decision is not an acknowledged urban reserve available for
consideration in this analysis.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 9
129
to "second priority" lands - those designated as exception areas.5 If the amount of land
designated as exception areas is "inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed,"
Woodburn would next look to the third category of "marginal" lands.6 Finally, the City may
consider the "fourth priority" lands — those designated for agriculture or forestry. In selecting
from among agricultural lands, higher priority for inclusion in the UGB must be given to those
lands of lower productive capability as measured by soil classification. ORS 197.298 (2). That
is, agricultural lands with poorer quality soils must be included in the UGB before those with
more valuable soils. Class I and 11 soils are the most valuable agricultural soils.7
If the amount of land within a category exceeds the need, then the jurisdiction must use
the boundary location factors of Goal 14, "consistent with ORS 197.298," to choose among those
"like"lands. The "relevant Goal 14 considerations in assessing the adequacy of land in a priority
class under ORS 197.298 (1)" are what were factors 5 and 7 in old Goal 14, and are now factors
3 and 4 in new Goal 14:
"(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and
(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities
occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB."
McMinnville, 244 Or App at 265.
A decision to include or exclude land from a UGB must be based on a balancing of all
these factors, rather than reliance on any one factor. Parklane, 165 Or App at 25; 1000 Friends
of Oregon v. Metro (Ryland Homes), 174 Or App 406, 409-10 (2001).
It is possible to include in a UGB expansion lands of lower priority ahead of lands of
higher priority under ORS 197.298, but only if one or more of the three narrow reasons described
in ORS 197.298(3)(a)-(c)is found to exist. Those exceptions to the priorities are:
5"Exception areas"are those lands for which an exception to the statewide planning goals for farm or forest lands,
taken under ORS 197.732,has been acknowledged.
6 No marginal lands exist in Marion County.
Statewide Planning Goal 3,Agriculture; ORS 197.298.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 10
130
"(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an
urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to
accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or
more of the following reasons:
(a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on
higher priority lands;
(b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority
lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or
(c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary
requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services
to higher priority lands."
IV. LAND USE DECISION -UGB
A. Summary of Decision
In this decision on remand, the City approves a UGB in Response to Remand expansion,
the designation of an URA, and the establishment of two long-term expansion limitations.8 The
UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres. This includes approximately 190
acres for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406 acres for residential use. The URA
is west and south of Parr Road, and consists of approximately 230 gross acres. The two 20-year
expansion limits are Expansion Limit No. 1, located along Butteville Road, and Expansion Limit
No. 2, located east of Highway 99E at Carl Road.
The 190 acres brought into the UGB for industrial purposes will form the Southwest
Industrial Reserve (SWIR). The City's 2020 Employment Forecast, Industrial Land Needs
Analysis, Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), Economic Development Strategy (EDS),
and Target Industry Site Suitability support this expansion of the UGB for industrial use. In
particular, these inform the City's decisions to plan, zone, and protect the 190 industrial
s See Attachment 1:UGB in Response to Remand Map.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 11
131
expansion acres for future industrial use consistent with the Targeted Industries report. As
explained below, the amount of employment land included in the UGB is justified by the
traditional employee-per-acre method of estimating future industrial land needs.
The expansion areas for residential use consist of the Southwest residential expansion
area (approximately 151 gross acres), the North expansion area (consisting of approximately 79
gross acres), the Northwest area (consisting of approximately 155 gross acres), and two small
areas in the southeast (consisting of approximately 21 gross acres) totaling approximately 406
acres.
As part of the Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment, the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan and the Coordination Agreement are amended to incorporate the two 20-
year UGB Expansion Limits, to the west of Butteville Road and to the east of Highway 99E at
Carl Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose beyond these two limits
identified on Attachment 1 for a period of 20 years from the date this decision (Periodic Review
Work Task 2 and UGB) are final, including any appeals.
B. Need
1. Population Projection to 2020
In accordance with state law, the City of Woodburn's Population Projection is for a total
of 34,919 people by 2020.9 Woodburn is experiencing growth in two major population cohorts:
a young population and an older population, both of which need and are demanding smaller
housing options (small-lot single family, townhouse, and multi-family). 10
Net migration accounted for approximately 63 percent of population growth in Marion
County in the decade prior to the time period for which this UGB is being evaluated." The
9 Rec.Item 10,p. 614(Woodburn Ordinance No.2391,November 2,2005).
10 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1397, 1399(UGB Justification Report,pp.29,31).
11 Rec.Item 10,p. 1024(Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis,p.2-6).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 12
132
hourly wage upon moving to Marion County was less than the statewide average.12 Per capita
personal income in Marion County has also been below the State and national average.13
Employment growth in the 3-county region is projected to be overwhelmingly in the Services,
Retail Trade, and Government sectors.14 These socio-economic trends support the need for more
diverse, smaller, and affordable housing types.
2. Employment Projection to 2020
Woodburn projects 8,374 new employees by the year 2020 (for a total of 18,762 jobs).
Of that, Woodburn projects a total of 2,710 new industrial jobs and 5,664 new commercial and
other jobs by the year 2020.15
Woodburn's consultant, ECONorthwest, analyzed which industries are likely to locate or
expand in Woodburn over the long-term, extending beyond the time period of this UGB
evaluation.16
Woodburn's consultant described 13 industries most likely to locate or grow in
Woodburn, which have a variety of different site size and location preferences, ranging from 1-
acre sites in mixed-use areas to 20+ acre sites, to business parks, to areas restricted to industry.17
The transportation needs also vary, from industries that desire foot traffic and local shoppers to
those that move materials by freight and need good road access for trucks.18
3. Non-Industrial Employment
As described in the UGB Justification Report, the current Woodburn UGB and two
commercial expansion areas comprising 23 acres can accommodate the City's projected non-
12 Id.,pp. 1024-25;pp.2-6,2-7.
13 Id.,p. 1025;p,2-7.
14 Id.,p. 1028;p.2-10.
15 Rec.Item 10,p. 1096,Table 11 (ECONorthwest memorandum,April 29,2002,p. 18).
16 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1054-1075 (Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis,p.4-3 through p.B-4).
17 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1059-1060(Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis,pp.4-8,4-9).
18Id.,pp. 1072-75 (pp.B-1 through B-4).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 13
133
industrial employment growth. The City continues to rely on the UGB Justification Report for
the accommodation of non-industrial employment.
4. Industrial Employment
Woodburn currently has 126 acres of vacant, partially vacant, and redevelopable
employment land within the UGB.19 This land is available for future industrial uses, either by
new employers or by existing employers expanding their businesses. Employment density for
the existing UGB is anticipated at 7.6 employee-per-acre, since much of this land supply is
already partially developed. The existing land supply will accommodate 958 new employees.
After accounting for the industrial use accommodated on the 126 acres inside the UGB, there is a
capacity need to accommodate approximately 1,752 new industrial employees through the UGB
in Response to Remand expansion. The record demonstrates that a reasonable employees-per-
acre ratio for Woodburn is 10 employees per acre.20 Therefore, approximately 175 net buildable
acres are needed for new industrial capacity. The City's addition of 190 acres of industrially
designated lands accounts for the individual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent
to the City limits.
5. Residential and Public/Semi Public Land Needs
On remand, Woodburn has re-examined its residential land need and supply. This
revised analysis is based on the detailed parcel by parcel capacity data in Appendix A of the
Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). The revised acreages and capacities below reflect this more
accurate information. In addition, the City has revised its projected household size to 3.1 persons
per household, reflecting the Woodburn-specific data in the 2000 census.21 Based on
information in the record, the City has also determined that one-third of its projected park need
can be met on constrained land, reducing overall public and semi-public land needs by 21 net
19 Rec.Item 10,p. 1390(UGB Justification Report,p.22).
20 Rec.Item 10,p. 1278,Table 1 (ECONorthwest memorandum of October 20,2003,p.2).
21 Rec.Item 10,p. 1396(UGB Justification Report,p.28 fn 22.);Also Rec.Item No.3 pp.653-665 (See also DLCD
letter dated April 21,2004 stating,"The household size projection used by the consultant[2.9] is not predicated on a
factual basis,but on national trends that do not accurately describe the conditions in Woodburn.")
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 14
134
buildable acres.22 The UGB adopted on remand will have a de minimus one acre surplus of
residential land.
Table 1 identifies vacant, partially vacant and infill residential lands within the exiting
UGB as well as areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB to meet residential needs.
There are 681 gross acres and 466 net buildable acres available to meet residential needs
through the year 2020 in the existing UGB.
Expansion areas total 406 gross acres or 276 net buildable acres available to meet future
needs; totaling 742 net buildable acres, both within the existing UGB and proposed UGB
expansion area.
Table 1 -Vacant Residential Areas (Existing residential areas within the existing UGB and
lands proposed in the UGB expansion)
Residential Areas Gross Acres Net Buildable Acres
Existing UGB (Vacant,partially 681 466
vacant, &infill)23
Southwest(Parr Rd) Residential 151 119
Expansion Area 24
North Residential Expansion 79 37
Area 25
rea25
NW(Butteville Rd) Expansion 155 112.5
Area 26
rea26
SE Expansion Area(Residential 21 7.5
Portion)27
TOTALS 1,087 742
Calculation of Need
22 Rec.Item 10,p. 1402(UGB Justification Report,p.34). Woodburn has an 86 acre surplus of"Natural Areas"
that can partially meet park needs.
23 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1179-1187(Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI),Appendix A,Tables 11, 12 and 13).
24 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1187-1188(BLI,Appendix A,Table 14).
25 Id.
26 Rec.Item 4,p. 1028(Periodic Review(PR)and UGB amendment p. 12);Also Rec.Item 10 pp. 1188-1189 for net
buildable acreage(BLI,Appendix A,Table 15).
27 Rec.Item 4,p. 1028. (PR and UGB amendment p. 12);Also Rec.Item 10 p. 1408 for net buildable acreage(UGB
Justification Report,p.40).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 15
135
Table 2 projects both population and housing needs through 2020. Woodburn is
projected to grow by approximately 14,059 over the planning period, resulting in the need for
4,647 needed housing units, or 2,788 single family housing units and 1,859 multi-family housing
units.
Table 2-Projected Population and Housing Needs 2000 -2020
Population Institutional Net Household Needed Vacancy Total Single Multi-
Increase Population 29 Population Size Dwelling Rate DU's Family Family
(2000-2020)28 Units (5%)30 Needed (60%) (40%)
(DUs) DU's 31 DU's 32
14,059 337 13,722 3.1 4426 221 4,647 2,788 1,859
DU
The UGB Justification Report identified the need for 210 net buildable acres of Public
and Semi-Public (P/SP) lands, intended to accommodate schools, parks, religious institutions,
etc.33 The UGB Justification Report further indicated that P/SP needs are typically met on
residentially designated land because the uses typically serve local residents.34 Evidence in the
record indicates that some park needs can be met on unbuildable (flood plain, wetlands, etc.)
lands.35 Table 3 reduces the amount of buildable land needed for parks by on-third to 42 net
buildable acres, a reduction of 21 acres, to account for the partial accommodation of park needs
on unbuildable land. This results in a total of 189 net buildable acres needed to accommodate
P/SP uses.
Table 3 -Public and Semi-Public Land Needs
From UGB Justification Report Revised Public, Semi-Public Need
(net buildable acres) (net buildable acres)
Schools 108 108
Parks 63 42
Institutional 11 11
28 Rec.Item 10,p. 1387(UGB Justification Report,p. 19).
29 Rec.Item 10,p. 1396(UGB Justification Report,p.28).
30 Id.
31 Rec.Item 10,p. 1382. (UGB Justification Report,p. 14).
32 Id.
33 Rec.Item 10,p. 1402(UGB Justification Report,p.34).
34 Id.
35 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1400- 1401 (UGB Justification Report,pp.32-33).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 16
136
Religious 28 28
Total 210 189
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 17
137
Calculation of How Need Will Be Met
The existing UGB can accommodate a total of 3,041 low density residential (LDR) and
medium density residential (MDR) dwelling units if every parcel develops at maximum
capacity.36 New development will necessarily occur at between 80 percent and 100 percent of
maximum allowable density; this analysis assumes a mid-range average of 90 percent.
Table 4 identifies the LDR and Nodal LDR capacity within the existing UGB and
proposed expansion areas. They can accommodate a total of 3224 dwelling units at 90 percent
of maximum allowable density.37
Table 4 -Meeting the need for 2788 LDR dwelling units
Need Existing UGB NW North Total LDR Surplus in Surplus
capacity(90% expansion Expansion supply in dwelling available for
of maximum capacity Area existing units(supply public and semi-
capacity of (90%of (90%of UGB & minus need) public uses in net
3,041 du in maximum maximum NW&N buildable acres
BLI Appendix capacity of capacity of expansion
A,Tables 11, 293 du in BLI 248 du in BLI areas
12, 13) Appendix A, Appendix A,
Table 15) Table 14)
LDR 2,788 1,364 du 264 du 223 du 3,224- 5.5 duper net
dwelling 2,788=436 acre
Nodal units(du) surplus 436/5.5=79
LDR 1,373 du
Total 2,737 du 264 du 223 du 3,224 du 436(DU 79 net buildable
Surplus) acre surplus
Notes: LDR land in the existing UGB is projected at 5.5 dwelling units per net buildable acre.31 The 436 surplus dwelling unit
capacity divided by the assumed density of 5.5 units per net acre in the UGB Justification Report yields a surplus of 79 acres
available for public and semi-public uses. It is assumed that public and semi-public uses will locate on LDR-zoned land in the
existing UGB and the north expansion area,rather than in the highly parcelized Butteville Road exception area.
It is unlikely that all new development will occur at 100 percent of maximum allowable capacity. On the other hand,
Woodburn has adopted measures requiring new development to achieve at least 80 percent of allowable density. It is also
unlikely that development will occur at 80 percent that is the minimum that is legally allowable. So new development will occur
at between 80 percent and 100 percent of maximum allowable density.90 percent is a reasonable mid-range average.It does not
mean Woodburn is committing to hit 90 percent in every development. Some development will occur at over 90 percent of
allowed density and some will be less.
36 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1179-1187(BLI,Appendix A Parcel Tables,including:Table 11 "Vacant Residential Taxlots-
Existing UGB",Table 12"Infill Residential Taxlots-Existing UGB",and Table 13"Partially Vacant Residential Taxlots-
Existing UGB").
37 Rec Item 10,pp. 1179-1187(BLI,Appendix A Parcel Tables,including:Table 11 "Vacant Residential Taxlots-Existing
UGB",Table 12"Infill Residential Taxlots-Existing UGB",and Table 13"Partially Vacant Residential Taxlots-Existing
UGB").
38 Rec.Item 10,p. 1409(UGB Justification Report,p.41).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 18
138
After meeting the need for 2,788 LDR dwelling units there is a surplus of 79 net
buildable acres to meet public and semi-public land needs within the existing UGB and the North
expansion area.
Table 5 identifies the MDR and Nodal MDR capacity within the existing UGB and
proposed expansion areas at 90 percent of maximum allowable density. These areas can
accommodate the needed 1,859 MDR dwelling units with a surplus of 111 net buildable acres
available to meet P/SP needs.
Table 5 -Meeting the need for 1859 MDR dwelling units
Need Existing UGB New SE Total MDR Deficit to Net buildable Surplus available
capacity(90% DDC Expansion supply in be met in acres needed for public and
of maximum & Area(from existing SW(Parr in SW semi-public uses
capacity of NNC UGB UGB &SE Rd Nodal) expansion area in net buildable
1,734 du in zones Justification expansion expansion at assumed acres.
BLI Appendix Report,p. area&new Area Nodal MDR
A,Tables 11, 40) DDC& density of 18
12, 13) NNC zones units/net
acre.39
MDR 1,859 1,123 du 50 du 105 du (1,859 (144 du (SW expansion
dwelling needed divided by area has 119 net
units(du) units assumed buildable acres.
Nodal 437 du minus density of 18 119 net acres
MDR supply of units/net acre) minus 8 net acres
1,715) needed for
housing units
yields a surplus
of 111 net acres)
Total 1,560 du 50 du 105 du 1,715 du 144 du 8 net acres 111 net
(deficit) buildable acre
surplus
Notes: DDC and NNC zones are new mixed use zones in two commercial areas that will accommodate 50 dwelling units with no residential
land. See UGB Justification Report,page 41.
After accommodating needed housing, Table 6 demonstrates that the UGB adopted on
remand has a total of 190 net buildable acres (79 acres plus 111 acres) available to meet the need
for 189 net buildable acres for Public and Semi-Public uses.
39 Rec Item 10,p. 1409(UGB Justification Report,p.41. 143 units- 18 units/net acre=44.4 net acres total
rounded.)
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 19
139
Table 6-Meeting Public and Semi-Public Needs
Surplus School Park Institutional Religious Natural Government Total Remaining
Residential Need Need Need Need Need Need Acres P/SP Surplus
land before Acres Acres Acres Acres Areas Acres Residential
meeting P, SP (surplus) Needed Land
needs Acres
(79+111=190)
190 1 108 1 42 1 11 1 28 0 0 1 189 1 1
Notes: P/SP lands to be met on surplus residential buildable acres(190)and constrained lands-page 33 Woodburn UGB Justification Report.
1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan update identified 129 constrained(unbuildable)riparian,wetland, and floodplain
acres in Woodburn UGB available to meet this generalized need—Woodburn UGB Justification Report—page 33.
C. Alternative Sites Analysis
To summarize, Woodburn needs to accommodate the following residential and industrial
needs through a UGB expansion:
• Commercial. In addition to existing capacity within the UGB, Woodburn will
add 23 acres for non-industrial employment land as identified in the UGB
Justification Report.
• Industrial. Woodburn needs additional capacity to accommodate approximately
1,752 new industrial employees. The record demonstrates that a reasonable
employee per acre ratio for Woodburn is 10 employees per acre.40 Therefore,
approximately 175 net buildable acres are needed for new industrial capacity.
The City's addition of 190 acres industrially designated lands accounts for the
individual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to City limits.
• Residential. Woodburn needs additional capacity to accommodate
approximately 300 dwelling units. In addition to housing, Woodburn projects a
need for approximately 189 net buildable acres of residential land for public and
semi-public uses.
As described in Section III, if some or all of the identified need cannot be accommodated
inside the UGB, Woodburn must then move to the "alternatives analysis" step: "application of
40 Rec.Item 10,p. 1278,Table 1 (ECONorthwest memorandum of October 20,2003,p.2).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 20
140
ORS 197.298 (1) and (3) together with Goal 14, to locate and justify inclusion of land to fill that
quantified need." McMinnville, 244 Or App at 257.
This starts with the identification of buildable land contiguous to the UGB. Id. at 262.
Woodburn examined all the lands contiguous to and within approximately one-half mile of the
existing UGB. It did so by dividing the adjacent lands into eight study areas, defined based on
their geographical integrity and potential transportation connectivity to the existing urbanized
area and other existing routes.41 As described in the UGB Justification Report, every area was
evaluated based on: size, amount of buildable land, and amount of constrained land; soil
classification; relationship to surrounding agricultural areas; proximity and connections to
existing or planned transportation routes and utilities and general serviceability; relationship to
existing urban area; and the economic, environmental, social, and energy consequences of
urbanizing the land.42
In selecting where to expand the UGB from amongst the studied areas, Woodburn must
follow the priority statute, ORS 197.298, sequentially. City of West Linn, 201 Or App 419, 440
(2005); D.S. Parklane Development, Inc. v Metro, 165 Or App 1, 20-21 (2000).
Therefore, Woodburn must look first to any lands designated as urban reserves. Because
the URA adopted with this decision is not an acknowledged urban reserve for purpose of this
decision, there are no urban reserves around Woodburn.43
The City must then look to "second priority" lands - those designated as exception areas.
Woodburn identified four exception areas within the contiguous study areas it examined. Two of
those areas —the Butteville Road exception area and the Southeast exception are included in the
UGB in Response to Remand expansion.
41 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1413-1447(UGB Justification Report,pp.45-79). See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and
Soils Capability Class Map.
42 Id.
43"The urban reserves designated by this decision were not adopted and in place prior to this decision,and thus are
not available for analysis or selection in this UGB decision."
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 21
141
The Butteville Road exception area 44 contains 155 gross acres, which Woodburn intends
to plan for residential use and zone for low density residential. The remaining buildable lands
can accommodate 293 additional dwelling units. 45 The residential portion of the Southeast
exception area 46 contains 7.5 acres of vacant residential land that will be planned residential and
zoned for medium density residential, at a projected density of 14 units/net buildable acre. The
Southeast exception area can thus accommodate 105 additional dwelling units.
The Northeast Exception Area includes MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility which is
owned by the State and operated as a youth correctional facility. Given the use and ownership
the properties are not considered for redevelopment.47
Woodburn evaluated a fourth exception area, the Carl Road area, located northeast of the
current UGB. However, this area has no development potential to meet the needs of the City
within the relevant time period. The Carl Road area "has no remaining development
capacity, , 48 and does not contain land that is "usable for urban purposes."49 Because this area
cannot reasonably accommodate identified land needs and because it would be a significant
unbuffered intrusion into surrounding agricultural land, it has been excluded from the UGB
expansion. Therefore, the exception areas together can accommodate an additional 398 dwelling
units.
Because there is a remaining need for both residential land and industrial land after
including the exception areas in the UGB, Woodburn must next look to the third category of
"marginal"lands, none of which exists in Marion County. Therefore, Woodburn must turn to the
"fourth priority" lands — those designated for agriculture or forestry. In selecting from among
agricultural lands, higher priority for inclusion in the UGB must be given to those lands of lower
productive capability as measured by soil classification. ORS 197.298 (2). As described in
Section 111, if the amount of land within a category exceeds the need, then the jurisdiction must
44 Rec Item 10,p. 1406(UGB Justification Report,p.38).
45 Rec Item 10,p. 1188-1189(BLI,Appendix A,Table 15).
46 Rec Item 10,p. 1408(UGB Justification Report,p.40).
47 Id.
48 Rec Item 10,p. 1431 (UGB Justification Report,p. 63).
49 Id.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 22
142
use the boundary location factors of Goal 14, "consistent with ORS 197.298," to choose among
those "like"lands.
A decision to include or exclude land from a UGB must be based on a balancing of all
these factors, rather than reliance on any one factor. Parklane, 165 Or App at 25; 1000 Friends
of Oregon v. Metro (Ryland Homes), 174 Or App 406, 409-10 (2001).
Woodburn must accommodate approximately 144 dwelling units on residential expansion
land outside the existing UGB and outside of the exception areas included in this expansion.
These 144 units should be the more-affordable, higher-density types. Woodburn also has a need
for approximately 175 net buildable acres of industrial land. The City's addition of 190 acres of
industrially designated lands accounts for the individual parcel sizes and their location
immediately adjacent to City limits.
The remaining portions of the eight study areas are very similar in terms of their soil
classifications; Class 11 soils predominate in all areas. Three of the areas —Study Areas 4, 5, and
6 —contain the largest amount of Class II soils.50 The City therefore ranks these three areas last
in priority amongst the farm land alternative areas, due to the following factors:
• As described in the Goal 9 Findings in section V.A., agriculture is the number one
industry in Marion County; it is the largest employment sector in Woodburn; and
the employment growth rate for agriculture related businesses in Woodburn far
exceeds the state employment growth rate. High quality farm land is essential to
the health of this industry, and the City chooses to protect it, like any other
valuable industrial land.
• These three Study Areas —4, 5, and 6 — are more distant from some of the City's
primary transportation corridors that serve urban industrial uses (I-5, the Highway
214 interchange; planned roadway extensions at Stacy Allison Drive and
Evergreen Road). They are proximate to the Highway 99E corridor, which runs
50 Rec.Item 10,p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15).See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 23
143
through the eastern portion of the City and serves major parts of Marion County
farm land.
• There are suitable, buildable lands in the remaining study areas with larger
amounts of lesser quality soils.
Study Areas 1, 3, and 6 contain exception areas that the City has already evaluated and
determined to include (Butteville Road area in Study Area 1 and Southeast area in Study Area 6)
or exclude (Carl Road area and MacLaren area in Study Area 3).
As described in the UGB Justification Report and supporting documents, Woodburn
evaluated the remaining exception areas under the Goal 14 Locational factors:
(1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
(2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and
(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities
occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.
Following is a brief summary of the performance of each of the remaining Study Areas -
1, 2, 7, and 8 - under the Goal 14 factors, based on the UGB Justification Report and supporting
documents incorporated into it.51
Study Area 1
• The area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it
contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the
existing urbanized portions of Woodburn.
• The area falls within the middle range of cost on serviceability.52
51 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1422-1426(UGB Justification Report pp. 54-58).
51 Id.,p.55,58;Rec.Item 10 at 1423, 1426.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 24
144
• The northern portion of Study Area lcontains Class I agricultural soils. 53
Intensive crops producing high value products are grown in this area, including
hops and berries.54 Urbanizing this land would have an adverse impact on the
agricultural economy of the state and county.
• Due to a lack of human or natural boundaries, urbanization of the northern portion
of Study Area 1 would be an urban encroachment, with no logical boundary, into
a highly productive and intact farming area. This could cause conflicts between
common farming practices in the area (pesticide spray, aerial spraying, and 24-
hour machinery operations) and the movement of farm equipment, and urban uses
such as housing or industrial.
Woodburn included the exception area portion of Study Area 1 in the UGB, but has
determined that based on balancing the Goal 14 factors, the remaining portion of Study Area 1
should be excluded. Recognizing the importance of the agricultural industry to the city, county,
and state,55 the City desires to protect large intact farming areas from encroachment by
urbanization, and looks to reinforce natural and manmade buffers to do so. The Butteville Road
exception area in the southern portion of Study Area 1 is separated from surrounding agricultural
uses by the Oregon Electric Railway and Highway 214.56 Further, the agricultural portion of
Study Area 1 is bisected north to south by a riparian corridor, further limiting the urbanization
potential of the remaining lands.57 On balance, the agricultural portion of Study Area 1 ranks
low for potential inclusion in the UGB.
Study Area 2
• Can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains
relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing
urbanized portions of Woodburn.
53 See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map.
54 Rec.Item 10,p. 1429(UGB Justification Report p. 61).
55 See Section V,A,"Findings on Economic Importance of the Agricultural Industry to Woodburn and to Marion
County."
56 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1428-1429(UGB Justification Report pp. 60-61).
57 Id.,p.61;Rec.Item 10,p. 1429.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 25
145
• Ranks high on serviceability for sewer, water, and stormwater.58
• The southwestern portion of Study Area 2 includes about 79 gross acres,59 lying
both west and east of Boones Ferry Road. It can be distinguished from the rest of
the study area because it does not contain any Class I soils.60 It is partially
developed with the OGC (Tukwila) Golf Course and is further defined in part by a
stream corridor that separates it from the highly productive farm land to the north,
northwest, and northeast. The southern portion's proximity to, and partial
development with, the OGC Golf Course makes it a logical site for residential
development, including parks and other public and semi-public uses.
• The northern portion of Study Area 2 contains Class I soils and is an integral part
of the farming areas and agricultural industry to the north of Woodburn.61
Urbanization of the northern portions of this study area could cause severe
conflicts with farming and would cause a significant loss of excellent farm land to
urbanization.
The southern portion of Study Area 2, in the vicinity of the existing golf course 62 and
proposed for inclusion in this UGB expansion for residential use, contains approximately 37 net
buildable acres.63 Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, the southern portion of
Study Area 2 is suitable for a UGB expansion for residential use.
Study Area 3
• Ranks low on both serviceability and suitability for industrial use.64
• There is no development or service capacity in the existing Carl Road exception
area, located within Study Area 3.
• The study area includes a youth correctional facility, making urban residential use
unsuitable.65
51 Id.,p.55,58;Rec.Item 10 at 1423, 1426.
59 Rec Item 10,p. 1187-1188 (BLI,Appendix A,Table 14).
60 See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 Rec Item 10,pp. 1187-1188(BLI,Appendix A,Table 14).
64 Rec.Item, 10 pp. 1423-1425 (UGB Justification Report pp. 55-57).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 26
146
• The area has poor access to the City's transportation network and is not easily
integrated into the existing urban area because of its distant location across
Highway 99E, a major state highway that physically separates it from the rest of
the City.
• The area has substantial riparian areas that make development challenging.66
Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, Study Area 3 is not as suitable for
urban uses as other alternative sites within the same ORS 197.298(l)priority.
Study Area 7
• The study area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it
contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the
existing urbanized portions of Woodburn.
• The study area falls within the middle range of cost on serviceability.67
• The area is served by Parr Road and by planned extensions of Stacey Allison
Drive and Evergreen Road. This planned road network and the extension of other
urban services will facilitate the future long-range provision of urban services to
the urban reserve area immediately to the south in a cost-effective manner.
• This road network provides excellent access to I-5, to Highway 99, and to the
internal portions of the City, making the site readily integrated into the existing
urbanized area. In particular, the northern portion of this site is well-located
relative to the transportation network for industrial use.
• The Parr Road Nodal Development area, located on the eastern portion of this
site, is particularly well-suited for residential use, because it can be integrated into
both the existing neighborhood that is inside the UGB and the planned nodal
development area within the existing UGB. The residentially designated area
surround two recently constructed schools. The City's Nodal Development plan
65 Id.,pp. 64-65;Rec.Item 10,pp. 1432-1433.
66 Id.,p.65;Rec.Item 10,p. 1433.
67 Id.,pp. 55,58;Rec.Item 10 at 1423, 1426.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 27
147
requires that the area be developed with safe routes to schools and a sidewalk and
bicycle network to ensure safe access to neighborhood stores and services.
Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, the northern portion of Study Area 7
is suitable for a UGB expansion for industrial use, and the Parr Road Nodal Development Area
in the eastern portion of Study Area 7 is suitable for residential use. The northern portion
provides 65 net buildable acres for industrial use.68 The Parr Road Nodal Development Area
contains sufficient land in the appropriate location to meet the land need for the 144 MDR units,
plus approximately 111 net buildable acres for public and semi-public land needs.
Study Area 8
Study Area 8 is comprised of approximately 755 gross acres.69 Butteville Road runs
north-south through the study area and divides it into two distinct blocks. 130 gross acres lie east
of Butteville Road.70 These 130 gross acres include 110 net buildable acres in three tax lots.71
This eastern portion is adjacent to the existing urban growth boundary and City limits and does
not contain any Class I soils.72 In contrast, the larger, more distant area west of Butteville Road
contains a significant block of Class I soils.73 Land to the west of Butteville Road, some of
which is in Study Area 8 and some of which is to the west of it, consists primarily of Class I and
11 soils.74 The soils are capable of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries,
hops, orchards, hay, vegetables, grass seed, and more.75 This farming area is in mostly large
parcels, and is part of an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west.
68 Rec.Item 10,p. 1450(UGB Justification Report,p. 82).
69 Rec Item 10,p. 1414(UGB Justification Report,p.46).
70 Rec.Item 10,p. 1416(UGB Justification Report,p.48).
71 Rec.Item 10,p. 1450(UGB Justification Report,p. 82).
72 Rec Item 10,p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p. 50). See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
73 Rec Item 10,p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p. 50).
74 Rec Item 11,p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils-Non Irrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map,Eight Study Areas
Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
75 Rec Item 10,pp. 1442-1444(UGB Justification Report,pp. 74-76).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 28
148
• The study area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it
contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the
existing urbanized portions of Woodburn.
• The area ranks highest among the study areas on serviceability.
• Butteville Road serves as a significant manmade buffer between the land to the
east and the large expanse of farm land to the west. Therefore, potential conflicts
between urban uses to the east of Butteville Road and farm practices to the west
of the road can be minimized.
• The 130 acres east of Butteville Road are separated from the large farming areas
to the west, south, and north by the manmade buffers of Butteville Road, the I-5
freeway, Highway 214, and the Butteville Road exception area. This allows the
130 acre area to be developed as a unified industrial site, for one or a few
industrial users. It also allows the site to be protected from conflicting uses on
and near the site.
• The 130 acres east of Butteville Road are connected to the urbanized portion of
Woodburn via existing access to the Highway 214 interchange, which will
provide excellent freeway access to freight trucks.
Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, the eastern portion of Study Area 8, to
the east of Butteville Road, is suitable for a UGB expansion for industrial use. This is
conditioned coupled with measures to:
• Provide a legal boundary at Butteville Road, beyond which the UGB will not be
expanded for at least 20 years. See Attachment 4.
• Plan and zone the site for industrial use only, the City has accomplished this
through the SWIR overlay zone which establishes minimum lot sizes throughout
the industrial area and limits the types of uses.
The industrial land proposed to be brought into the UGB in this decision, which totals
approximately 190 acres in Study Areas 7 and 8, meets the identified industrial land need.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 29
149
V. URBAN RESERVE AREA
Pursuant to ORS 195.145(a) and OAR chapter 660, division 21, and in coordination with
Marion County, Woodburn designates approximately 230 acres to the southwest of the UGB for
a URA.76 This will be the first area to which the City expands its UGB in the future, if a need for
a UGB expansion is demonstrated.
The City intends to establish this URA to meet the demand for land beyond that time
period of the UGB which is from 2000-2020. The City will adopt findings specifying the
particular number of years over which the designated URA is intended to provide a supply of
land. Division 21 authorizes cities to identify an amount of land estimated to be at least a 10-year
supply and no more than a 30-year supply of developable land beyond the 20-year time frame
used to establish the UGB.77 The City is establishing a URA out to year 2031, carrying forward
some assumptions of the current UGB and modifying others to reflect likely future development
trends.
Future residential densities of population growth can be estimated by application of a
simple method. In Table 7, assumptions regarding the single- and multi-family residential mix,
dwelling unit density, and persons per household are presumed to carry forward from the
established UGB into the planning period for the URA. Using a straightforward method, an
estimate of the persons per net acre of residential land is made. That net acre estimate is
converted to gross acres applying a weighted average of 60 percent single-family residential and
40 percent multi-family residential. Since the net to gross conversion factors used to establish
the existing UGB primarily address needed roadways (public lands are addressed separately) for
the URA planning period, the 25 percent safe harbor net to gross conversion factor is used
instead. This provides a means to estimate land need(both roadway and public lands) associated
with residential land. The table concludes that, during the URA planning period, residential
densities will be approximately 20.1 persons per gross acre.
76 See Attachment 3:Urban Reserve Map.
77 OAR 660-021-0030.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 30
150
Table 7—Future Residential Density
Average Percent New
Residents Homes in Persons per
per Gross Single/Multi Dwelling Net Acre Net to Gross Persons
Acre Family Units/Net Persons/ (5.5 * 3.1 and Conversion per Gross
Analysis Designations78 Acre 79 Household80 12 * 3.1) Factor" Acre
Single
Family
Residential 60% 5.5 3.1 17.1 25% 13.6
Multi-
Family
Residential 40% 12.0 3.1 37.2 25% 29.8
Weighted
Averages
SFR/MFR 25.1 25% 20.1
Next, the City must estimate its population growth during the URA period. Applying the
adopted growth rate (2.80 percent aagr) for the 2020 UGB population (34,919) yields a
population of over 46,000 by the year 2030, the earliest possible year for the URA planning
period. Because this number is so large in relation to the 2020 City population, it would not be
reasonable to plan for it in the existing process. Therefore, the City Council looks to and takes
official notice of the coordinated population number already prepared by Marion County for
2030: 37,216.82 The average annual growth rate associated with that forecast is 2.04 percent.
This yields a more reasonable population estimate that can be planned for in this current process.
Table 8 shows the population between 2030 and 2035 applying the coordinated average annual
growth rate for each year's growth. The persons per gross acre calculated from Table 7 is
applied to the population increase during the URA planning period to determine an estimate of
the gross acres of residential land needed in each year 2030-2035.
78 Rec Item 10,p. 1410(UGB Justification Report,p.42).
79Id.,p.43.
80 2000 Census.
81 Safe harbor assumption of 25 percent.
82 Marion County Coordinated 2030 Population Forecast.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 31
151
Table 8 -Residential Land Need
Population (Grows People Added
at 2.04% average Since 2020
annual growth Population of Persons per Gross Residential Gross
Year rate)83 34,919 84 Acre 85 Acres Needed
2030 37,216 2297 20.1 114
2031 37,975 3056 20.1 152
2032 38,750 3831 20.1 191
2033 39,540 4621 20.1 230
2034 40,347 5428 20.1 270
2035 41,170 6251 20.1 311
Next, the City must determine the amount of needed employment land during the URA
planning period. The City will estimate the employees per gross acre in a simple method similar
to the residential land need. In Table 9, an analysis is made of the number of employees
assumed at the end of the UGB planning period and the number of acres existing or added to
accommodate that need. It is assumed that moving forward into the URA planning period, the
same mix of commercial and industrial jobs will remain and the same net to gross conversion
factors will apply. In Table 9, the analysis uses a weighted average of the mix between
commercial and industrial jobs, estimating that employment land will contain, on average 17.4
employees per gross acre.
Table 9 -Future Employment Densities
Average Percent
Employees Jobs Employees Net Acres Net Net to
per Gross Commercial Added Available Acres Total Gross Employees
Acre and 2000- Existing Added Net Employees Conversion per Gross
Analysis Industrial 202086 UGB to UGB Acres Net Acre Factors 87 Acre
Commercial 68% 5664 108 88 2389 131 43.2 10% 39.3
83Id.
84 Rec Item 10,p. 1387(UGB Justification Report,p. 19).
85 From Table 7 (in this report).
86 Rec Item 3 p. 167-185 (ECONorthwest memorandum,April 29,2002,p. 18(public and office employees
included with commercial for this analysis).
87 BLI p. 6.
88 Rec.Item 10,p. 1390(UGB Justification Report,p.22-23).
89 Id.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 32
152
Industrial 32% 2710 12690 17591 301 9.0 15% 7.8
Totals 100% 8374 234 198 432 19.4 12% 17.4
To determine the number of employment acres needed, the residential population
estimate is carried over from Table 8 and the population to jobs ratio determined in the UGB
Justification Report is assumed to continue during the URA planning period. The number of
employees added since 2020, the end of the UGB planning period, is calculated and, using the
estimate of the number of employees per gross acres determined in Table 9, a demand for
employment land is identified for during the URA period.
Table 10 -Employment Land Need
Employees
Population Added since Employees Employment
to Jobs 2020 Jobs per Gross Gross Acres
Year Population Ratio 92 Employees 18,76293 Acre 94 Needed
2030 37,216 1.9 19,587 825 17.4 47
2031 37,975 1.9 19,987 1225 17.4 70
2032 38,750 1.9 20,395 1633 17.4 94
2033 39,540 1.9 20,811 2049 17.4 118
2034 40,347 1.9 21,235 2473 17.4 142
2035 41,170 1.9 21,668 2906 17.4 167
Because URAs, outside of the Portland Metropolitan planning area, are not permitted to
identify land separately for a particular type of land (e.g., residential, employment or public), the
land needs for residential and employment land, calculated separately in the tables above, are
combined into one single land need in Table 11. Public land needs, including roadways, are
included within each category of residential and employment land through the use of the net to
gross conversion factors in Tables 7 and 9.
90 Rec.Item 10,p. 1390(UGB Justification Report,p.22).
91 Rec.Item 10,p. 1388(UGB Justification Report,p.20).
92 Id.,p.20.
93 Id., pp.21-22.
94 From Table 9 (in this report).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 33
153
Consistent with the "Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement" dated May 2015,
the City is establishing a 230-acre URA. According to Table 11, this will provide an 11-year land
supply.
Table 11 -Urban Reserve Land Need
Residential Employment
Gross Acres Gross Acres Total Gross
Year Needed Needed Acres Needed
2030 114 47 162
2031 152 70 222
Urban Reserve Alternative Site Analysis
Woodburn is surrounded by high value farm lands and the City carefully considered how
best to expand its future City limits, while minimizing impacts to these valuable lands.
Woodburn evaluated potential expansion in light of ORS 197.298 (2) to determine which areas
contain lower-quality soils than others.95 The URA designation minimized the impacts of
growth on the surrounding agricultural lands.
The portion of Study Area 7, immediately south and adjacent to the adopted UGB, totals
230 gross acres or 20696 net acres, and is predominantly Class III soils.97 Parcels are large,
ranging from 10 —55 acres in size. Development in the lesser soil class in Study Area 7 requires
inclusion of some Class II soils to maximize efficiency of areas with the lesser soil quality.98
Other areas considered for urban reserve are predominantly Class II soils.
Evaluating alternative areas for possible designation as Urban Reserve Area (URA)
found that all areas are relatively flat and have well-drained soils that can accommodate urban
95 Rec.Item 10,p. 1416-1417 (UGB Justification Report p.49-50).
96 Rec.Item 10,p. 1190-1192 (Appendix A of the Building Lands Inventory,Tables 17 and 21). The identified
parcels of land contain 206 net acres.Using the conversion factor from Table 9 of 12 percent,206 net acres is the
equivalent of 230 gross acres. This is approximately 3.6 percent more land than the 222 acres identified as needed
for the urban reserve in 2031.
97 See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map.
98 Rec.Item 10,p. 1416-1417 (UGB Justification Report p.48-49).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 34
154
development.99 The portion of Study Area 7 designated as urban reserve is serviceable at
reasonable costs.100
It has good access to transportation facilities and will help solve long-term
transportation needs.101 From a social and economic prospective, designation of this land as
Urban Reserve minimizes the impact to adjacent farm lands.102
The urban reserve is bisected by a planned southern arterial that will link to Butteville
Road and can be efficiently served by public services.103 Urban uses can be made compatible
and are less sensitive to nearby agricultural practices 104 through development standards.
VI. UGB EXPANSION LIMITS
As described in this decision's findings for Goal 3 and Goal 9,105 agriculture is the
number one industry in Marion County, and is among the top industries in Woodburn.
Moreover, it is growing in value and both the City and County desire to ensure that the land base
and infrastructure on which the agricultural industry depends is protected to support that growth.
The City and County further recognize that urbanization near farmland has an adverse
"spillover" impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities. These conflicts include
urban traffic congestion in farming areas; vandalism, theft, and trespassing; complaints about
common farm practices, such as night-time harvesting; and unwarranted increases in the price of
farmland due to land speculation where the integrity of the UGB is in question.106
Without adequate buffers, measures to reduce conflicts, and long-term certainty for those
farming near the UGB, the agricultural industry in the region and in the state will be significantly
adversely impacted beyond simply the land that is converted from farm to urban uses.107 As
99 Rec.Item 10,p. 1422(UGB Justification Report p. 54).
100 Rec.Item 10,p. 1423 (UGB Justification Report p. 55).
101 Rec.Item 10,p. 1425 (UGB Justification Report p. 57).
102 Rec.Item 10,p. 1428 (UGB Justification Report p. 60).
103 Rec.Item 10,p. 1438(UGB Justification Report p. 70).
104 Rec.Item 10,p. 1447(UGB Justification Report p. 79).
105 Data from Oregon Department of Agriculture,included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug.23,2006;Rec.
Item 6,p. 101.
106 Rec.Item 6,p. 170.
107 Rec.Vol. 5,p. 843: Oregon Department of Agriculture letter to Woodburn,March 19,2004.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 35
155
farm land is converted to non-farm uses or compromised because of conflicts, the region will
lose its ancillary industries, which employ many —including processors, farm equipment dealers,
professional service providers, and the like. This will cause a particularly adverse economic
downturn in the local Woodburn economy. 108
In addition, the City wishes to conserve its financial resources by focusing infrastructure
investment inside the existing UGB and through limited expansion of the UGB, if necessary.
In particular, the areas to the north and northeast of the current City UGB and to the west
of Butteville Road NE consist of the highest quality soils and are part of larger and very
productive agricultural regions.109
The area north of the current UGB, known as Study Area 2, consists primarily of Class I
and II soils, the most productive and highest capability soils that exist.110 Current agricultural
uses include filberts (a high value crop), grass seed, orchards, and grain.III The soils are also
suitable for hops, vegetables, berries, and other crops.112 The farming units are large, and are
part of a larger agricultural area of excellent soils sweeping to the north and northeast.113
Similarly, the land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and
some of which is to the west of it, consists primarily of Class I and II soils.114 Ninety-nine
percent of the agricultural land in Study Area 8 is High-Value farmland.115 The soils are capable
of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, hay, vegetables,
los Rec.Item 6,p. 170: Carl family/Pudding River Ranch letter to Woodburn,August 23,2006.
109 Rec.Vol. 5,p. 843: Oregon Department of Agriculture letter to Woodburn,March 19,2004.
110 Rec Item 11 p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils-Non Irrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map,Eight Study Areas
Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
111 Rec.Item 10,p. 1430(UGB Justification Report,pp. 61-62).
112 Rec.Item 10,p. 1441 - 1446(Id., pp.73-76 and Table 18).
lis Rec Item 11,p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils-Nonirrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map,Eight Study Areas
Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils
Capability Class Map.
114 Id.
115 Rec.Item 10,p. 1255 (Technical Report 3,"Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis,November 2002.p.9
Table 4b).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 36
156
grass seed, and more.116 This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an
agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west.
The land northeast of the City and to the east of 99E is in Study Area 3. The agricultural
soils in Study Area 3 are primarily Class II (prime).117 Most of the agricultural land in Study
Area 3 is high-value farmland.118 These soils are suitable for the wide range of crops described
above.119
The MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility and a small fully developed manufactured
home park, are also within Study Area 3. "The Northeast Rural Residential (Carl Road) area has
no remaining development capacity,"120 and this exception area does not contain land that is
usable for urban purposes. Its inclusion within the UGB "would also be a significant unbuffered
intrusion into surrounding agricultural land.,,121 There is no urban land or infrastructure planning
need to bring these two areas into the UGB.
Butteville Road NE on the west, and Highway 99E and the MacLaren Youth Correctional
Facility in the northeast, provide substantial manmade structures that, with management, can
provide fairly effective buffers between urban uses and agricultural uses, and can help to
minimize conflicts between the two. The City has no intention or need to urbanize beyond these
two roadways.
Therefore, the City and County will adopt measures to minimize the impacts of
urbanization at the "edge," to reduce farm and non-farm conflicts, and to not encourage
economic speculation on farm land. These measures are consistent with and serve to fulfill the
City's and County's existing obligations under the Coordination Agreement and the Marion
County Comprehensive Plan.
116 Rec.Item 10,p. 1442 - 1446(UGB Justification Report,pp. 74-76).
117 Rec.Item 10,p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15)and Rec.Item 10 p. 1442(UGB Justification
Report,p.74,Table 18).
118 Rec.Item 10,p. 1442 - 1446 UGB Justification Report,pp. 74-76).
119 Id
leo Rec.Item 10,p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p.40).
121 Rec.Item 10,p. 1441 - 1447(UGB Justification Report,pp. 73-79).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 37
157
1. The City of Woodburn and Marion County will adopt the following language into the
Coordination Agreement:
"For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and acknowledged,122 neither the
City nor County will seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban
growth boundary in the following areas:
• West of the portion of Butteville Road NE depicted in Attachment 4: UGB
Expansion Limitation Map.
• Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as
depicted in Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map.
2. The City of Woodburn, as part of its urban growth boundary decision, will adopt the
following language into its Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Goals 9 and 14:
"For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and acknowledged,123 the City
shall not seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban growth
boundary in the following areas:
• West of the portion of Butteville Road NE depicted on Attachment 4: UGB
Expansion Limitation Map.
• Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as
depicted on Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map.
3. The City of Woodburn, as part of its UGB decision, will adopt the following language
into its Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Goals 9, 12, and 14. Both the City and
Marion County will adopt the following language into the Coordination Agreement:
122 This UGB decision is not final and acknowledged until all appeals and appeal time periods have been exhausted
or passed.
123 Id
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 38
158
"Woodburn intends the UGB expansion area known as the Southwest Industrial
Reserve, comprising approximately 190 acres, located east of Butteville Road and north
of Parr Road, to be used for larger industrial users. Specific lot size standards shall be
established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties. Woodburn
recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both agricultural
practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part of their
regular business practice.124 Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the
west of Butteville Road NE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the region's
agricultural industry.125 Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural
uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest Industrial
Reserve and other urban uses, the City and County will:
• Ensure that the design of and any improvements to the portion of Butteville Road
NE serving the Southwest Industrial Reserve not encourage any urban traffic
unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate area and unrelated to agricultural
uses west of Butteville Road.
• As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial Reserve
consideration shall be given to methods to mitigate impacts from development
and adjacent agricultural activities this can include buffers or increased setbacks
along Butteville Road, provide that any buffers needed to reduce conflicts
between the industrial uses and agricultural activity west of Butteville Road NE
are located inside the UGB.
4. The City of Woodburn, as part of its UGB decision, further recognizes that Highway 99E
and the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility provide a substantial buffer between urban
uses and agricultural lands to the northeast. Both the City and Marion County will adopt
the following language into the Coordination Agreement:
124 Rec.Item 10,p. 1445 (UGB Justification Report,p. 77).
125 See VII,P Other Goal and Statutory Findings herein.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 39
159
"Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the east of Highway 99E and northeast
of the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the
agricultural industry."126
VII. OTHER GOAL AND STATUTORY FINDINGS
A. Applicable Goals
After consideration of the existing record on remand, the City Council finds that the
Statewide Planning Goals applicable to this land use decision are as follows:
• Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
• Goal 2: Land Use Planning
• Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
• Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
• Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
• Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
• Goal 8: Recreational Needs
• Goal 9: Economic Development
• Goal 10: Housing
• Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
• Goal 12: Transportation
• Goal 13: Energy Conservation
• Goal 14: Urbanization
B. Applicable Law
The City adopted its UGB amendment, on November 2, 2005127 and the substantive law
that applied on that date remains applicable to this remand proceeding. LCDC's current rule
126 Id
127 Rec.Item 10,p. 1372(UGB Justification Report,October 2005,p.4).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 40
160
implementing Goal 9 was adopted on December 1, 2005 and consequently does not apply. The
prior division 9 rules, OAR chapter 660, division 9 (2005), are applicable.
The amendments to Goal 14 ("the new Goal 14") were adopted on April 28, 2005, with a
delayed effective date unless a local government elected to apply the new goal. The City elected
to apply the new Goal 14 when it adopted its UGB amendment and the "new" Goal 14 is
applicable. However, OAR chapter 660, division 24 ("the Goal 14 rule") was adopted on
October 19, 2006, but did not become effective until April 2007. Since the City adopted its UGB
amendment on November 2, 2005, almost a year before the date that OAR chapter 660, division
24 was filed, division 24 rules are not applicable.
C. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement- OAR 660-015-0000(1)
The intent of Goal 1 is to ensure that citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate
in land use planning decisions. As stated in the Goal, the purpose is to develop a citizen
involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the
planning process. The City has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and the City
Council finds that nothing in this land use decision amends or affects that program, and no
provisions adopted herein are inconsistent with that program.
Goal 1 has five stated objectives that are relevant to the UGB boundary amendment:
• Citizen Involvement -- To provide for widespread citizen involvement.
• Communication -- To assure effective two-way communication with citizens.
• Citizen Influence -- To provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process.
• Technical Information -- To assure that technical information is available in an
understandable form.
• Feedback Mechanisms -- To assure that citizens will receive a response from
policy-makers.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 41
161
In relation to Goal l: Citizen Involvement, the City Council finds, based on the existing
record, that the City utilized its acknowledged citizen involvement program to engage in an
extensive public outreach efforts regarding the proposed UGB expansion.128 The UGB
expansion project included numerous public hearings, community meetings and ongoing
coordination. More specifically, Woodburn's Periodic Review Program was approved in 1999.
After this approval, there were a series of technical advisory committee meetings, a joint
Planning Commission / City Council work session, a series of public open houses, four Planning
Commission work sessions, and formal public hearings before the Marion County Board of
Commissioners, the Woodburn Planning Commission and the City Council.129
In the several years required to create the existing record, the City Council finds that the
City of Woodburn complied with Goal l: Citizen Involvement. Notice was mailed to all
property owners within the City, the unincorporated area within the existing UGB, and the UGB
study areas. Numerous workshops were held within the community to present proposals, answer
questions and receive comments. In addition to open houses hosted by staff, formal public
hearings were held before the Planning Commission and the City Council.130 All documents
relied upon and the proposed amendments were available on the City's website, Woodburn City
Hall, and the Woodburn City Library. All of the public input received in the hearing processes
was considered and retained. In fact, the existing record shows that during the extensive public
engagement process some modifications were made to the UGB expansion proposal based on
comments received during the City Council's public hearing and deliberation process.131
The City Council finds that, as a direct result of extensive citizen involvement, seven inter-
related Community Planning Objectives were developed. The UGB expansion proposal was
designed so that each of these objectives could be achieved. The Community Planning
Objectives are as follows:
"'City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,p.25 -26.
129 Rec.Item 10,p. 1377(UGB Justification Report,October 2005,p.9).
"0 Citizen Involvement Report,City of Woodburn 2005 p. 1 -4.
131 Rec.Item 10,p. 1372(UGB Justification Report,October 2005,p.4).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 42
162
1. Implement the Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Economic
Development Strategy (EDS)by encouraging higher wage jobs in the community.
2. Improve transportation connections and preserve the capacity of the I-5 Interchange.
3. Provide buildable land for housing, parks and schools while increasing land use
efficiency, connectivity and livability through good urban design.
4. Protect Woodburn's stream corridors, floodplains and wetlands from urban
encroachment.
5. Preserve farmland and minimize impacts on agricultural land.
6. Coordinate with Marion County by using the coordinated population projection that
Marion County allocated to Woodburn.
7. Complete the City's Periodic Review process.132
The Woodburn City Council and Marion County Board of Commissioners conducted a
public hearing on December 14, 2015 and provided an additional opportunity for public input on
the proposed UGB and URA based on evidence contained in the existing record.
The City Council concludes that Goal 1: Citizen Involvement is applicable to its decision and
was complied with.
D. Goal 2: Land Use Planning - OAR 660-015-0000(2)
Goal 2 requires all incorporated cities to establish and maintain comprehensive land use
plans and implementing ordinances. It also requires cities to coordinate with other affected
government entities in legislative land use processes. The purpose of Goal 2 is to establish a
land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to
use of land and to assure an "adequate factual basis" for such decisions and actions. Goal 2 also
requires the City to communicate and coordinate with all affected cities, counties, special
districts, state, and federal agencies. The City must accommodate the needs of those entities "as
much as possible."
132 Rec.Item 10,p. 1377(UGB Justification Report,October 2005,p.9).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 43
163
In approving the UGB expansion and URA, the City Council relies on the following land use
studies, incorporated into the existing record,133 that have been prepared by the City or by firms
contracted by the City:
• Woodburn Local Wetlands Inventory List (Shapiro, 2000)
• Local Wetlands Inventory and Riparian Assessment (Shapiro, January 5, 2000)
• Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (ECO Northwest, May 2001)
• Woodburn Economic Development Strategy (ECONorthwest, June 2001)
• Woodburn Population and Employment Projections 2000-2002 (ECONorthwest, April
29, 2002)
• Technical Report 3 Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis Natural Resource Inventory
(Winterbrook Planning, November 2002)
• Woodburn Occupation/Wage Forecast(ECONorthwest, March 20, 2003)
• Site Requirements for Woodburn Target Industries (ECONorthwest, October 20, 2003)
• Evaluation of 2004 OEA Population Forecast(ECONorthwest, 2004)
• Marion County Comprehensive Plan Amendments Memo (Winterbrook, 2004)
• Marion County Board Minutes (November 10, 2004)
• Marion County Ordinance 1201 and Findings Approving Population Projection
(November 24, 2004)
• Citizen Involvement Report(City of Woodburn, 2005)
• Findings of Fact (City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 2005)
• Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, Update, Explanation of Proposed Plan and Zoning Map
Changes (Woodburn Community Development Department, 2005)
• Technical Report 2 Woodburn Residential Land Need Analysis (Winterbrook Planning,
May 2005)
• Technical Report 1 Buildable Lands Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, July 2005)
• City of Woodburn Public Facilities Plan (October 2005)
• Woodburn Comprehensive Plan (October, 2005)
• Woodburn Transportation System Plan (CH2M Hill, October 2005)
• Woodburn UGB Justification Report(Winterbrook Planning, October 2005)
iss City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,pp.26-28.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 44
164
• Woodburn City Council Agenda Packet(October 31, 2005)
• Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010 —2030
(September 2008)
• Marion County Ordinance 1291 (October 7, 2009)
The City Council finds that the above referenced documents provide the foundation for the
proposed UGB expansion and URA. More specifically, the City prepared, and relies on,
technical analyses for expanding the urban growth boundary area in accordance with applicable
state laws. The City adopted a coordinated population forecast, a Residential Land Needs
Analysis, and an Economic Opportunities Analysis in support of the UGB expansion and URA
proposal.
The City Council further finds, based on the existing record, that the specified studies that the
City has undertaken and information received through the public hearing process has provided
the Council with an adequate factual basis for the UGB expansion and URA.
Finally, Goal 2 requires that the City communicate and coordinate with all affected cities,
counties, special districts, and state and federal agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing
announcing the February 3, 2005, Planning Commission and March 28, 2005, City Council
public hearings, explaining the nature of the proposed amendments and soliciting comments, was
mailed to the following potentially affected units of government and agencies on January 14,
2005:
• Marion County
• Department of Land Conservation and Development
• Department of Environmental Quality
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Water Resources Department
• Division of State Lands
• Oregon Department of Transportation
• Oregon State Health Division
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 45
165
• Woodburn School District
• Woodburn Fire District
• Marion County Planning Department
• City of Hubbard
• City of Gervais
Specifically, in regard to coordination with Marion County, the City has followed the
Coordination Agreement which provides guidance regarding the applicable UGB amendment
process. As coordination with affected cities, Woodburn provided notice and an opportunity to
comment to the cities of Hubbard and Gervais, the Woodburn Fire District, the Woodburn
School District and all affected state and federal agencies.
Notice of Public Hearing announcing the joint City Council/Marion County Board of
Commissioners public hearing was mailed to DLCD 35 days in advance of the December 14,
2015 hearing date. Notices were sent to all of the other agencies noted above 20 days in advance
of the joint hearing.
The City Council concludes that Goal 2: Land Use Planning is applicable to its decision and
was complied with.
E. Goal 3: Agriculture Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(3)
Woodburn is surrounded by lands designated for agricultural use. Compliance with Goal
3 in the context of a UGB amendment relies on satisfaction of Goal 14 requirements and ORS
197.298. Because the Legislative Findings on Remand demonstrate that the proposed UGB
expansion complies with Goal 14, the City Council concludes that is has also complied with
Goal 3: Agriculture - OAR 660-015-0000(3).
This decision further complies with Goal 3 by providing for long-term protection of the
farm land around and outside of the proposed urban growth boundary by adopting an `urban
expansion limit' in two locations. For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 46
166
acknowledged, neither the City nor the County shall seek, consider, or approve an expansion of
the Woodburn urban growth boundary beyond the urban expansion limits described in the
Findings to this UGB decision. These limits are enforced through this decision and through
inter-governmental agreements adopted by the City of Woodburn and Marion County, as further
described in the Findings and in those agreements.
F. Goal 4: Forest Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(4)
Because no land surrounding the City is designated for forestry use, Goal 4 does not
apply.
G. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces - OAR 660-
015-0000(5)
Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR chapter 660, division 23, address protection of
significant natural, scenic and historic resources and open space. Rules in OAR 660, division 23,
specify which resource categories must be protected by comprehensive plans and which are
subject to local discretion and circumstances; the rules provide guidance on how to complete
inventories and protection programs, and when the rule requirements apply. OAR 660, division
23, requires cities to inventory significant riparian areas, wetlands and wildlife habitat.
Goal 5 requires cities to inventory specified resources and to adopt programs to "protect
natural resources" and "conserve scenic, historic and open space resources." The City Council
finds that some of the resources that the goal requires to be inventoried do not exist in Woodburn
(specifically: federal wild and scenic rivers; state scenic waterways; approved Oregon recreation
trails; natural areas listed on the register of natural resources; and federally designated wildlife
areas). The Goal 5 resources that may apply to Woodburn are limited to the following:
a. Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish habitat;
b. Wetlands;
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 47
167
c. Wildlife habitat;
d. Groundwater resources;
e. Mineral and aggregate resources;
f. Energy sources;
g. Cultural areas.
OAR 660-023-0030 through 660-023-0050 contain the requirements for all resources.
For each resource category, the rule contains standard requirements and, in some instances, an
alternative "safe harbor" standard for satisfying Goal 5. There are safe harbor alternatives for
riparian corridors and wetlands. OAR 660-023-090 and 660-023-100. Woodburn followed the
safe harbor provisions and included the safe harbor requirements in the new Riparian Corridor
and Wetlands Overlay District(RCWOD) amended zoning district.
Riparian Corridors and Wetlands (OAR 660-023-0090 and 660-023-01001
Safe harbor provisions allow the City to determine significant riparian corridors by using
a standard setback distance from all fish-bearing streams, based on ODFW maps indicating fish
habitat. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated Mill Creek and Senecal
Creek as fish bearing streams. For streams with an average annual stream flow less than 1,000
cubic feet, the riparian corridor standard setback a distance of 50 feet upland from the top of each
bank defined as the 2-year flood elevation. Where a riparian corridor includes all or part of a
significant wetland, the riparian corridor extends upland 50 feet from the upland edge of the
wetland. Woodburn has adopted plan policies and implementing regulations that satisfy the
riparian corridor safe harbor provisions.
Wildlife Habitat for Special Status Species (OAR 660-023-0110(4))
OAR 660, division 23 contains safe harbor provisions for wildlife habitat areas at that narrow
potentially significant habitats to only the following:
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 48
168
1. Habitat used by a species designated as threatened, endangered or sensitive;
2. Nesting, roosting or watering habitat of osprey or great blue heron;
3. A habitat included in a ODFW adopted management plan;
4. A habitat mapped by ODFW for a species or habitat of concern.
The City Council finds that there are no wildlife habitat resources in the UGB expansion area
that the City is required to protect other than meeting the minimum protection requirements of
the 50 feet riparian corridor and the wetlands protection requirements.
Groundwater Resources (OAR 660-023-0140)
At the time of periodic review, the City is required to inventory and protect significant
groundwater resources. Significant groundwater resources are limited to: (1) critical
groundwater areas and groundwater limited areas designated by Oregon Water Resources
Commission and(2) wellhead protection areas if the City chooses to designate such areas.
The Oregon Department of Human Services and Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality have developed a Source Water Protection Plan for the City. The plan inventories
potential sources of contamination, establishes best management practices for industries within
the influence zone of the City's wells, allows the City to develop ordinances to provide
protection of the aquifer, and maps the flow patterns of the aquifers. The City Council finds that
the Troutdale aquifer, from which the City obtains its water is not a critical or restrictively
classified groundwater area.
Mineral and Aggregate Resources (OAR 660-023-0180)
OAR 660-023-0180 addresses identification of significant aggregate resources, approval
of mining activity, and protection of the resource from conflicting uses. The rule sets criteria for
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 49
169
significance and prescribes a process for evaluating potential impacts from the proposed mining
activity. The City Council takes official notice of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and
notes that its inventory does not contain any mineral or aggregate resource sites in the UGB
expansion area. Consequently, the City Council finds that OAR 660-023-0180 is inapplicable to
the UGB expansion.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 50
170
Energy Sources (OAR 660-023-0190)
No natural gas, surface water, geothermal, solar, or wind area resource sites have been
identified in the Woodburn area and the City Council finds that OAR 660-023-0190 is
inapplicable to the UGB expansion and URA.
Inventories Required by Goal 5 Performance
Woodburn inventoried all natural resources, scenic, historic and open spaces, amending
the Comprehensive Plan, Park Master Plan and Woodburn Development Ordinance
accordingly.134 Adopted goals, policies, and land use standards meet state standards and the City
has been found in compliance with Goal 5.135
The City Council concludes that Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas,
and Open Spaces is applicable to its decision and has been complied with.
H. Goal 6: Air,Water and Land Resources Quality -OAR 660-015-0000(6)
Goal 6 requires that "air, water and land resource quality" not be "degraded" because of
planned urban development. DEQ is responsible for administration of the Clear Air Act and the
Clean Water Act at the state level. Cities meet Goal 6 through demonstration of compliance with
Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) air, water and land quality administrative rules.
Water quality standards typically are met through EQC approval of plans for sanitary sewer
systems. DEQ also regulates point and non-point source emissions related to water and air
quality.
134 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 1 -55.
135 Id., pp.32 -34.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 51
171
Along with other affected state agencies, DEQ was notified of the proposed plan
amendment package. Woodburn is in compliance with all applicable EQC requirements.136
The City Council concludes that Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality is
applicable to its decision and has been complied with.
I. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
Goal 7 requires cities to adopt measures to protect people and property from natural
hazards, such as floods, erosion, landslides, earthquakes, and weak foundation soils. Because
Woodburn is relatively flat, it does not have significant land slide hazards or erosion and
deposition hazards. Woodburn has considerable land within the 100-year floodplains of Mill
Creek, Senecal Creek and their tributaries.
Woodburn has adopted National Floodplain regulations through Ordinance 2018.
Woodburn is in compliance with Goal 7.137
The City Council concludes that Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards is applicable
to its decision and has been complied with.
J. Goal 8: Recreational Needs - OAR 660-015-0000(8)
Goal 8 has no implementing administrative rule.
Woodburn adopted an update to its Parks and Recreation Plan in 1999. That plan was
acknowledged to comply with Goal 8 and it satisfied completion of Work Task No. 5 of the
City's periodic review order.
The UGB Justification Report explains how Winterbrook used the 1999 Park and
Recreation Plan to project years 2020 park land needs.138 In projecting the amount of park needs
136Id., p.35.
137Id., pp.36-37.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 52
172
through 2020, Winterbrook applied a ratio of 7 acres per 1,000 population to project need for
neighborhood parks and assumed that 50 percent of the park needs would be satisfied on school
lands. As explained in the UGB Justification Report, Winterbrook applied the ratio to the
projected population of 34,919 and subtracted existing park lands (including 50 percent of school
sites) to determine needed park acreage. The 2005 UGB includes sufficient land to meet
identified park needs through the year 2020139 Woodburn has an adopted Parks and Recreation
Plan and is in conformance with Goal 8.140
The City Council concludes that Goal 8: Recreational Needs is applicable to its decision
and has been complied with.
K Goal 10: Housing - OAR 660-015-0000(10)
The overall intent of Goal 10 is to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires jurisdictions to provide the housing needs of its existing and future
residents. Woodburn's population is projected to grow to 34,919 residents by 2020141 There is
a demonstrated need for additional single family and multi-family dwelling units over the
planning period that cannot be totally met within the existing UGB.142 The City has planned on
meeting future needs and established efficiency measures to minimize the amount of lands added
to the UGB.143 It has also updated land use standards to carry out the intent of Goal 10 by
providing for a variety of housing types to meet its future residential needs.144
L. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services - OAR 660-015-0000(11)
Goal 11 requires Woodburn to demonstrate that it can provide adequate public facilities
and services to serve buildable land within the UGB. Woodburn and Marion County have
138 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1400- 1402 (UGB Justification Report,pp.32-34).
139 Rec.Item 10,p. 1402(UGB Justification Report,p.34).
140 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp.38-39.
141 Rec.Item 10,p. 614(Woodburn Ordinance No.2391,November 2,2005).
142 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1395-1412(UGB Justification Report,pp.27-44).
143 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1398-1410(UGB Justification Report,pp.30-42).
144 Ordinance 2391 (Woodburn Development Ordinance).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 53
173
agreed in their Coordination Agreement that Woodburn shall be responsible for public facilities
planning within the Woodburn UGB. The Goal 11 rule 145 requires Woodburn to adopt "public
facilities plans" that addresses sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water and transportation facilities
necessary to support planned housing and employment growth. The City of Woodburn has
adopted a Public Facilities Plan, Transportation Systems Plan, Park Master Plan and coordinated
with Marion County, Woodburn Fire District and School District, assuring adequate public
facilities are available to meet the needs of the community.146
The City Council concludes that Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services is applicable to
its decision and has been complied with.
M. Goal 12: Transportation - OAR 660-015-0000(12)
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)
implement Goal 12. The TPR requires local governments to prepare a "transportation systems
plan" (TSP) that meets the requirements of OAR 660-012-020 through 055. The OHP is a
component of Oregon's Statewide Transportation Plan, and includes policies and investment
strategies for the state highway system over the next 20 years.147
Woodburn's periodic review amendment package included an amended 2005 TSP.148
The adopted TSP establishes a transportation system that is adequate to serve lands within
proposed UGB and URA and is consistent with the Marion County TSP and the Oregon TSP. 149
As Woodburn prepared the TSP, it coordinated with Marion County, ODOT and DLCD.
Other agency plans and policies affecting the TSP were reviewed and considered.150 The City's
plans are consistent with ODOT and Marion County TSPs.151
145 See OAR chapter 660,division 11.
146 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp.40-53.
147Id., p.42.
141 Woodburn Transportation System Plan(CHEM Hill,October 2005).
149 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p.42.
150 Id
151 Id
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 54
174
Woodburn assessed the needs of the road system; public transportation; bicycle and
pedestrian system; air, rail, water and pipeline transportation.152 Woodburn prepared an
inventory of the existing conditions and deficiencies of its transportation system.153 From this
information, Woodburn plan for the transportation system that included road, public
transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian plans and an associated financing program.154
Woodburn, adopted new comprehensive plan policies and zoning code language to meet
the TPR requirements. The City adopted an overlay district intended to preserve planned
capacity improvements to the Woodburn I-5 interchange with Oregon Highway 214. That
provision is the Interchange Management Area(IMA) section of the WDO. 155
The TSP reflect changes in population, employment and land uses adopted as part of this
decision.156 The TSP includes goals and objectives, forecasts traffic growth in the City, and
identifies transportation improvements needed to satisfy the forecasted growth.157
The City has adopted a Public Facilities Plan, Transportation Systems Plan, Park Master
Plan and coordinated with Marion County, Woodburn Fire District and School District, assuring
adequate public facilities are available to meet the needs of the community.158 The City's
Transportation System Plan complies with the requirements of Goal 12 regarding transportation.
The City Council concludes that Goal 12: Transportation is applicable to its decision and
has been complied with.
152 Id., p.45.
153 Id
154 Id.
155 Id., p.47.
156Id., p. 52.
157 Id.
151 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp.40-53.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 55
175
N. Goal 13: Energy Conservation - OAR 660-015-0000(13)
Goal 13 Provides as follows:
To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and
controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles.
There are no known non-renewable sources of energy within the Woodburn UGB.
The 2005 UGB and URA amendments are adjacent to the existing UGB, thus
maintaining a contiguous, compact, energy-efficient urban growth form and reducing vehicle
miles traveled. The UGB amendments rely on gravity flow sanitary sewer collection, thus
eliminating the need for sanitary sewer pump stations.
Goal 13 requirements have been met by using transportation facilities more efficiently,
minimizing vehicle miles traveled by placing housing near employment and providing for the
logical and economical extension of public facilities 159
The City Council concludes that Goal 13: Energy Conservation is applicable to its
decision and has been complied with.
O. Overall Conclusion—Statewide Planning Goals
Based on the foregoing, the City Council concludes that Woodburn's UGB amendment
and URA conform to all applicable Statewide Planning Goals. On remand, Woodburn has
reduced the overall amount of land included in the UGB and established safeguards to ensure
efficiency of land use through the establishment of minimum residential densities and lot size
requirements for industrial development. An Urban Reserve was established to meet future land
use needs beyond the 20 year planning horizon.
159Id., p. 54.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 56
176
P. Findings on Economic Importance of the Agricultural Industry to Woodburn and to
Marion County
Agriculture in Oregon is a multi-billion dollar industry, and Marion County ranks number
one among Oregon counties in gross agricultural sales. Agriculture is also a traded-sector
industry- 80 percent of all production leaves the state—and that brings new dollars back into the
state and region. Agricultural exports rank number one in volume and number two in value
among all Oregon exports.160 The agricultural industry has been growing in value in Oregon and
in Marion County for over a decade.
Marion County has some of the best soils in the world, and coupled with an excellent
climate and water conditions the region grows a wide variety of crops. This capacity to grow a
diversity of products is one of the primary attributes of the agricultural soils in the Woodburn
area, and enables farmers to "quick[ly] adapt and respond to market changes and demands.
The burgeoning wine and nursery industries are examples of this adaptability."161
Agricultural sales in Marion County alone topped half a billion dollars in 2005.162 In
2004, Marion County direct agricultural sales posted a record high.161
The County has significant infrastructure and related "cluster" industries that both
support this agricultural economy and contribute to economic growth of the region and state. As
the Marion County Farm Bureau stated, "Agricultural land is industrial land, land that is
supporting a successful portion of our county's economy."164
160 Data from Oregon Department of Agriculture,included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug.23,2006;Rec.
Item 6,p. 101.
161 Letter from Kathleen and Lolita Carl,fifth generation local farmers,August 2006;Rec.Item 6,p. 169.
16'Data from Oregon Department.of Agriculture,included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug.23,2006;Rec.
Item 6,p. 101.
163 Marion County Farm Bureau,letter of August 2006;Rec.Item 6,p. 162.
164 Id.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 57
177
Woodburn is situated in the heart of this agricultural region. Woodburn residents work in
all facets of the agricultural industry.165 Woodburn businesses, such as insurance companies,
banks, and law and accounting firms, provide services to farms and farmers. Woodburn
businesses sell and repair agricultural equipment.166 And, Woodburn businesses process
agricultural products, thereby adding retail value. During the decade of the 1990s, employment
in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector grew by 39 percent in the Woodburn zip code.167
No other sector employs a greater percentage of Woodburn residents.168 Between 1990-1999,
employment in the agricultural services sector in the Woodburn zip code grew by 476 percent,
far exceeding the average growth rate of 57 percent for the same area.169
Woodburn follows the State of Oregon in projecting the agricultural economy of the
region to continue growing and being a significant contributor to the City's and region's
economies. Because unlike any other industry, the agricultural industry is dependent on the rich
soils, climate, and water of the area, the City chooses to focus other employment and residential
growth in the existing UGB, while being conservative in any expansions of that UGB —both in
terms of acreage and in terms of valuable farm land.
The City further recognizes that development of valuable farmland has a "spillover"
impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities, by creating urban traffic congestion in
farming areas, and increasing conflicts such as vandalism, theft, trespassing, and complaints
about common farm practices, such as night-time harvesting.170 Therefore, the City will work
with the Marion County to minimize the impacts of urbanization at the "edge," including by
designing roads and buffers at the edge that will discourage incompatible urban traffic in and
near farming areas.
165 Rec.Item 6,p. 162:Letter of Marion County Farm Bureau,August 22,2006; Woodburn Economic Opportunity
Analysis,May 2001,p.2 -4 Table 2-3;Rec.Item 10,p. 1022.
166 Rec.Item 6,p. 170: Carl family,Pudding River Ranch letter of August 23,2006
167 Woodburn Economic Opportunity Analysis,May 2001,p.2-4 Table 2-3;Rec.Item 10,p. 1022.
161 Id., pp.3-10 Table 3- 8;Rec.Item 10,p. 1040.
169 Id, p.2-2;Rec.Item 10,p. 1020.
170 Letter from Kathleen and Lolita Carl,fifth generation local farmers,August 2006;Rec.Item 6,p. 170.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 58
178
In particular, the areas to the north and northeast of the current UGB and to the west of
Butteville Road NE consist of the highest quality soils and are part of larger and very productive
agricultural regions.
The area north of the current UGB, known as Study Area 2, consists primarily of Class I
and II soils, the most productive and highest capability soils that exist.171 Current agricultural
uses include filberts (a high value crop), grass seed, orchards, and grain.172 The soils are also
suitable for hops, vegetables, berries, and other crops.173 The farming units are large, and are
part of a larger agricultural area of excellent soils sweeping to the north and northeast.174
Similarly, the land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and
some of which is to the west of that Study Area, consists primarily of Class I and II soils.175
Almost all the resource land in Study Area 8 is also high-value farmland.176 The soils are
capable of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, hay,
vegetables, grass seed, and more.177 This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of
an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west.
The land northeast of the City is in Study Area 3. Agricultural soils in Study Area 3 are
primarily Class II (prime) and high-value.178 These soils are suitable for the wide range of crops
described above.179
Goal 2, Land Use Planning, requires that the Woodburn and Marion County
comprehensive plans, implementation measures, and other land use and transportation actions be
171 Rec.Item 10,p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15). See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and
Soils Capability Class Map.
172 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1429-1430(UGB Justification Report,pp. 61-62).
173 Rec.Item 10,pp. 1441-1446(Id., pp.73-76 and Table 18).
174 Id.
175 Rec.Item 10 p. 1418(UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15)and Rec.Item 10 p. 1442(UGB Justification
Report,p.74,Table 18).
176 Technical Report 3,Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis,November 2002,p.9,Table 4b.
177 Rec Item 10,pp. 1442-1444(UGB Justification Report,pp. 74-76).
178 Rec.Item 10,p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report,p. 50,Table 15).
179 Rec Item 10,pp. 1442-1444(UGB Justification Report,pp. 74-76).
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 59
179
both consistent and coordinated with one another. Therefore, Woodburn and Marion County
have entered into a Coordination Agreement.
The Coordination Agreement is "required to be consistent with the Urban Growth
Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan,"180 and it is to be
"[c]oordinate[d]...with...the Marion County Comprehensive Plan."181 The Marion County
comprehensive land use plan includes the Urbanization element.
The Coordination Agreement and Urbanization element of the County's plan all
recognize the primacy of the county's agricultural industry; the need to reduce conflicts between
urban uses and natural resource uses; the desire for compact, diverse and walkable
neighborhoods; the need to efficiently use existing urban land and the adverse impacts of
sprawling development patterns; and the financial necessity to use infrastructure efficiently.
For example, the County's Urbanization policy describes the both the importance of the
agricultural industry and the conflicts that can result from sprawling urban development patterns:
"[T[he problems that sprawl poses to people of Marion County are probably more crucial
than in most other areas because of the importance of natural resources to the local
economy." 182
"The problems associated with a pattern of sprawling development involve both direct
and indirect monetary and social costs, affecting all people of the County, whether urban
or rural. Some of the problems resulting from sprawl are:
a. A land use pattern which is less desirable and less stable than could be achieved
by coordinated,planned development;
b. A land use pattern which is costly to develop and service;
iso Coordination Agreement,p. 6.
Id., p. 1.
isz Marion County Comprehensive Land Use Plan,Urbanization,p.II13-1.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 60
180
c. A greater expenditure of land and energy resources; and
d. A greater disruption of agricultural uses."183
"As urban areas continue to expand, these resource lands are either directly converted to
urban uses or are adversely impacted due to inherent conflicts between rural and urban
activities.*** If agricultural, forestry and other land resource based interests are to remain
sound, then the pattern of urbanization needs to be contained."iso
The Urbanization policy recognizes in particular the economic and social reasons for
compact urban development patterns, focused inside existing UGBs:
"Urban Growth Policies
***
"The mutual agreement of the cities and the County to these policies is vital to the
effective coordination and cooperation necessary to implement each urban growth
program. The following are urban growth policies that should guide the conversion of the
urbanizable areas adjacent to each city to urban uses.
***
"2. The provision of urban services and facilities should be in an orderly economic basis
according to a phased growth plan.
3. Development of the urban area should proceed from its center outward.
4. Development should occur in areas of existing services before extending new
services.,,185
The "purpose of the Urban Growth Management Framework is to":
"3. Protect farm, forest, and resource lands throughout the County by considering the
existing growth capacity of each community, fostering the efficient use of land, and
evaluating urban growth boundary expansion needs."186
183 Id.
114 Id., p.IID-2.
185 Id., p. 6.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 61
181
In recognition of the dual goals of protecting the region's agricultural industry and
providing for urban development, the City and County have agreed to the following Framework:
"One of the most important functions of City plans is the ability to plan for urban growth
boundary expansions needed to accommodate projected growth. At the same time, one of
the highest principles of Marion County is to prevent sprawl in order to protect valuable
farm and forest lands. Included in the Framework strategy are land efficiency guidelines
for cities to consider in analyzing land needs."187
To meet its Goal 2 legal obligations under the Coordination Agreement and the Urban
Growth Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan, as well as it Goal
10 needed housing, Goal 9 economic development, and Goals 11 and 14 efficient use of existing
land and infrastructure obligations, this Woodburn UGB decision incorporates the following land
efficiency actions:
• Focus most residential development in the existing UGB, primarily in higher
density, mixed use and walkable areas near schools and services. (See IV B.5 of
the findings)
• Accommodate most commercial employment and much of the industrial
employment inside the existing UGB, on vacant lands and through infill and re-
development. (See IV 3 and 4 of the findings)
• Minimize the amount of any UGB expansion, and direct any expansion to lands
that are of lesser quality agricultural soils and situated where the conflicts
between urban and rural uses can be minimized. (See IV C of the findings)
• Incorporate requirements to minimize conflicts between urban and rural uses at
the UGB edge. (See VI of the findings)
• Protect the economy of Woodburn by minimizing the unnecessary extension of
infrastructure — including roads and sewer and water service — through more
186 id., P. 8.
187 id.,P. 10.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 62
182
efficient use of the existing land and infrastructure inside the UGB. (See N C of
the findings)
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment L UGB in Response to Remand Map.
Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map.
Attachment 3: Urban Reserve Map.
Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map.
Legislative Findings on Remand-Page 63
183
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
Growth Management Goals and Policies
Goal
G-1. The City's goal is to manage growth in a balanced, orderly and efficient manner,
consistent with the City's coordinated population projection.
Policies
G-1.1 Woodburn will assure that all expansion areas of the City are served by public facilities
and services with adequate capacity. Consideration of proposals that vary from City
capacity standards and facility master plans shall include mitigating measures determined
to be appropriate the Public Works Department. Other public service providers such as
the School District and Fire District shall also address capacity considerations.
G-1.2 Woodburn will encourage the optimum use of the residential land inventory providing
opportunities for infill lots, intensifying development along transit corridors, and
application of minimum densities.
G-1.3 The City shall provide an interconnected street system to improve the efficiency of
movement by providing direct linkages between origins and destinations.
G-1.4 The City shall assure the provision of major streets as shown in the Transportation
Systems Plan. The City shall hold development accountable for streets within and
abutting the development. In addition, the policy of the City is to emphasize
development outward in successive steps and phases that avoid unnecessary gaps in the
development and improvement of the streets.
G-1.5 The City's policy is to consider the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) when investing
public funds or leveraging private investment.
184
G-1.6 The City shall encourage high standards of design and flexibility that are enabled by the
PUD zone.
G-1.7 The City's policy is to accommodate industrial and commercial growth consistent with
the 2001 Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA).
G-1.8 Woodburn's policy is to diversify the local economy. Woodburn seeks to diversify the
local economy so that the community will prosper and can weather swings in the business
cycle, seasonal fluctuations, and other economic variables. The intent is to provide a
broad spectrum of commercial and industrial enterprises. The variety of enterprises will
not only provide insulation from negative business factors, but a choice in employment
opportunities that in turn allows for the diversification in income types.
G-1.9 To ensure that growth is orderly and efficient, the City shall phase the needed public
services in accordance with the expected growth. Extensions of the existing public
services should be in accordance with the facility master plans and Public Facility Plan in
this Comprehensive Plan.
G-1.10 Woodburn will ensure that land is efficiently used within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) by requiring master development plans for land within Nodal Development
Overlay or Southwest Industrial Reserve overlay designations. Master plans shall
address street connectivity and access, efficient provision of public facilities, and
retention of large parcels for their intended purpose(s).
G-1.11 The City shall pay for public facilities with system development charges from anticipated
growth.
G-1.12 The County shall retain responsibility for regulating land use on lands within the urban
growth area (unincorporated land inside the UGB) until such lands are annexed by the
City. The urban growth area has been identified by the City as urbanizable and is
considered to be available, over time, for urban development.
185
G-1.13 The City and County shall maintain a process providing for an exchange of information
and recommendations relating to land use proposals in the urban growth area. Land use
activities being considered within the urban growth area by the County shall be
forwarded by the County to the City for comments and recommendations. The City shall
respond within twenty days, unless the City requests and the County grants an extension.
G-1.14 All land use actions within the urban growth area and outside the City limits shall be
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the County's land use regulations.
G-1.15 In order to promote consistency and coordination between the City and County, both the
City and County shall review and approve amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
which apply to the portion of the urban growth area outside the City limits. Such changes
shall be considered first by the City and referred to the County prior to final adoption. If
the County approves a proposed amendment to the City's plan, the change shall be
adopted by ordinance, and made a part of the County's plan.
G-1.16 The area outside the urban growth boundary, including the area within the Urban Reserve
Area (URA), shall be maintained in rural and resource uses consistent with the Statewide
Land Use Planning Goals.
G-1.17 The City and County shall strive to enhance the livability and promote logical and orderly
development of the urban growth area in a cost effective manner. The County shall not
allow urban uses within the Urban Growth Boundary prior to annexation to the City
unless agreed to in writing by the City. City sewer and water facilities shall not be
extended beyond the City limits, except as may be agreed to in writing by the City and
the property owner and the owner consents to annex. The City shall be responsible for
preparing the public facilities plan.
186
G-1.18 Conversion of land within the boundary to urban uses shall be based on a consideration
of:
(a) Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services;
(b) Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to ensure choices in the market
place;
(c) LCDC Goals;
(d) Further development of vacant and under utilized residential land within the City's
buildable land inventory before annexing additional territory for conversion to
residential use at urban densities; and
(e) Applicable provisions of the Marion County and City Comprehensive Plans.
G-1.19 Woodburn is committed to working with Marion County to minimize conversion of farm
and forest lands, by achieving a compact urban growth form. The City shall zone
buildable land such that the private sector can achieve 8 units per gross acre, consistent
with the City's housing needs analysis. This efficiency standard represents the average
density for new housing that will be zoned and allowed under clear and objective
standards by the City. Through a combination of infill, redevelopment, vertical mixed
use development and provision for smaller lot sizes and a greater variety of housing
types, Woodburn provides the opportunity for the private sector to achieve at least 8
dwelling units per gross buildable acre (after removing protected natural areas and land
needed for parks, schools and religious institutions). Housing through infill and
redevelopment counts as new units, but no new land consumption, effectively increasing
the density measurement.
G-1.20 Woodburn designates and establishes two 20-year UGB Expansion Limitations as
depicted in Figure G-1.20, which is adopted as part of the Woodburn Comprehensive
Plan. For 20 years from the date the UGB amendment decision is acknowledged, the
City shall not seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn UGB in the
following areas:
187
• West of the portion of Butteville Road NE, as depicted in Figure G-1.20.
• Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing
UGB, as depicted in Figure G-1.20:
Expansion Limitation No.1 Figure G-1.20 Expansion Limitation No.2
<<
�-
x u / Z`
O
p
�'�
.,6•'. °A 1 �� � if _..._—
x
v. w
�LL I
a '' 0 900 u00 Y'eec
C5... Urban Reserve
uR.,'.1.
"j—"I"l UC H I
a
f3p rn
V3 tl ti I U(I1 li p Sia
To further the mutual objective of the City and County to enhance livability and promote
logical and orderly development in a cost effective manner, both UGB Expansion
Limitations shall function as boundaries that shall not be crossed by any UGB expansion
for a period of 20 years.
G-1.21 The City and Marion County have jointly agreed to establish an Urban Reserve Area
(URA) consistent with state law. The URA is designated and established west and south
of Parr Road as specified in Figure G-1.21, which is adopted as part of the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan. Designating a URA achieves the following objectives: (A) It
identifies appropriate lands to be reserved for eventual inclusion in the UGB; (B) In
conjunction with Marion County's adoption of policies and regulations for the URA, it
protects this land from development patterns that would impede long-term urbanization;
and (C) it provides more certainty for jurisdictions, service districts and property owners
188
to undertake longer-term planning for public facilities and services such as transportation,
sewer and water, schools and parks.
..........
Figure G-7.21 �i i i _ i
r /
i
i
I
I
I
/ t �
- --_-__-_--- _D
sm
, I� 'Urdam Reserve
G-1.22 Woodburn shall apply a minimum density standard for new subdivisions and planned unit
developments of approximately 80% of the allowed density in each residential zone.
G-1.23 As specified in the Marion County Framework Plan, the County's preliminary
employment land use needs for Woodburn are replaced by the more detailed employment
forecasts and site suitability analysis found in the 2001 Woodburn EOA.
G-1.24 Woodburn will consider residential and commercial redevelopment and infill potential
for purposes of calculating UGB capacity, prior to expanding the UGB. Woodburn will
also constrain the supply of commercial land to encourage redevelopment along Highway
214 west of Interstate 5, and along Highway 99W.
G-1.25 Woodburn has identified two areas for mixed-use development — Downtown Woodburn
and the Nodal Development District along Parr Road. The UGB Justification Report
189
includes specific estimates of the number of new housing units and commercial jobs that
can be accommodated in these overlay districts.
G-1.26 Woodburn intends the UGB expansion area known as the Southwest Industrial Reserve
comprising approximately 190 acres, located east of Butteville Road and north of Parr
Road to be used for larger industrial users. Consistent with other provisions contained in
the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, all land within the Southwest Industrial Reserve
shall be reserved exclusively for industrial uses identified in the EOA and shall not be
converted to another commercial or residential plan designation. Specific lot size
standards shall be established limiting the size and number of future lots for these
properties.
G-1.27 Woodburn recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both
agricultural practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as
part of their regular business practice. Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the
land to the west of Butteville Road NE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of
the region's agricultural industry. Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and
agricultural uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest
Industrial Reserve and other urban uses, the City and County will:
• Ensure that the design of any improvements to the portion of Butteville
Road NE serving the Southwest Industrial Reserve not encourage any
urban traffic unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate area and
unrelated to agricultural uses west of Butteville Road.
• As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial
Reserve consideration shall be given to methods that mitigate impacts
from development and adjacent agricultural activities. This can include
buffers or increased setbacks along Butteville Road, provided that any
buffers needed to reduce conflicts between the industrial uses and
agricultural activity west of Butteville Road NE are located inside the
UGB.
190
410i
o
N o o
r
n � m
��o4o�s4 m Q Q
p W W.
co 7
In
r „
o lo
4I
Of D
4-0
M
m
w :d 9
,
o �
a
> a
a f
s.
Li
a a
..
W
Q
nl�
hs
� a .,.� �• r,: � h III
Wm�� "
RIM �.. .
a
Z
a
� a f
O � ON
MV
d5ld E REM M F7,MI,I ..,
A`
W _
a
LEY
r
I �I
"
U
z
< rc
CE
W„ wwwww .
i
� 9
a �
a � 9
J •. uoi;ei!wri uoisuedx3 eon aeaA-oz m
av
i
r
o `9
x
Chi
O
O L]
O a
O Ilp�a
av
N �x
v q
r Y
o mU oa` ¢o a
.,.. v av
m
/ x
VIII T U
e
N
GJ
E
v
4-4l-'MQ
Ln
�m k
d
��L r
r.
��( b �. YZ
W Q
JA M
m N
Q N
V
i f
L CL
U
L �*
4,
W
I �
two � � � /,�•�. �Y �, �
® n Q
a�
I Q Og H LAko dJ Nb auQ Lx4-g-a j,, N
co
x � �
co
F—T7
L
�i
z �
a
a �
Q
0
0
x
a
M
� a
V
a
- oa 3»�n3una
a
a
m
1
E 0 m " J
q
`o f+:. � � Y E3zM
�o
N
as o a
U d Q
aEomE
Fpm
O
LL V) C O
C O_
co
ry
Q
Wx Q x
r W
CO W m
CD m CDCD
N
O w C (n O
arEau oR CD" '— cu
au))
a
bo,d
\ a es
17
I�
w,,....»w� M ... IW9 Q
4 "
IW mr ���r
�WyW
O
IU
J
b m
-
V "
� ;
"
I
l*N
e
„I„ II
a All
�IIII� � IIII�I IIS
www wWwww w w wwwww wwwww. uwwww.1w w
ow
.1„ I
WON) U011Bl!Wl7j,, uoisu ,,x39 n je;DA-oz
WQ
m
a a9
a �o
0 ov
o m q
m a Eor
_
a 3 _
0
c
m
0
x
N
X a
Eo2
., "„” LL
_
o �(a
0
�x o
q�
u,
q
m
e= a d
U x
ti
O e
IT v
„„ I E E
Exhibit C
MARION COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
URBANIZATION ELEMENT
[Text that follows is added to the comprehensive plan element.]
WOODBURN URBAN RESERVE AND EXPANSION AREA LIMITATIONS
Pursuant to ORS 195.145(1)(a) and OAR chanter 660, division 21, and in coordination with
Marion County, Woodburn designated approximately 230 acres to the southwest of its
urban growth boundary for an urban reserve. When reviewing its urban growth boundary
in the future, this will be the first area into which the city considers expanding its urban
growth boundary if a need to expand the urban growth boundary is demonstrated. The
urban reserve area will be managed consistent with an urban area coordination agreement
adopted by both the city and the county.
In addition to establishing the urban reserve, Woodburn, in coordination with Marion
County, has identified two areas where expansion of the city's urban growth boundary will
be limited for twenty years. The expansion limited areas are shown on the city's
comprehensive plan map and will be managed consistent with the urban area coordination
agreement adopted by both the city and the county. In establishing these expansion limited
areas, the city and county recognize that urbanization near farmland can have an adverse
impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities. Without adequate buffers,
measures to reduce conflicts, and long-term certainty for those farming near the UGB, the
agricultural industry in this region of Woodburn could be adversely impacted.
11D - 1
195
410
o
o
r
n � m
ey 10
a" W m
co
■_
7
Z —
r o
N s
m.
uj
�• ��Im � d
a
a
o
m�
Z IIIA "ugA " 1.
� C
Ila
®,
W �M y „ II Neu
ri
I n".,,. n..l ..W•.. �® v ®® N.,.,� . ,;, � �4y�4 � III \ ,,,,,..,.
®.
�
" a
a
dsrd
f
cun)W
a
CD
hITM
LL
�� II
n
f
J 4
of
m�
m���Wa�� mmm wmmu mmuu www,
777
z _9
a
J u01;e;iva111-1 uoisuedx3 eon aeakoz N
� q
„ O
O Il:d 5r
u, m
v
2 „
o
„ U a Q O
W
VIII II t
O
LL V) C O
C O_
co
ry
Q
Wx Q x
r W
CO W m
co 0
b
O w C (n O
arEau DR CD" '— cu
' LL O au))
�� � ...... O Q,
a
bo,d
17
I�
»w� , M ... IW9 Q
W
J L
d u
T iv0 u6
W
IN
g ON
4 r olll IIII VIII, ..III II *w "�P �e -
Q�.I��
nl
i
W � ;,. `� �..°. ISI„„ •.,,����.
„III
m � IIII
I �
�I
� �• �"" ..IIII www ��www w W.wwww W. I
WW�W�www �WWWWW�.��wwwwwl ..........
e �
.1„ I
WON) uoijej!wrl uoisusdx3 sin asaJl-OZ
T
m
a a9
lry
„ a �o. o o
„ ” o
m �a
„ m r Eor
t _
`5
3
0
c
m
0
x
N
Eoz
o �(a
0
�x o
2
a
o
�Q
o
�Ii p I
va
rv =
v
IIII I
VIII e
�,.' o I tq���q
a�
I Q Og H LAko do x auQ Lx4-g-a to,, N
co
x � �
L
�i
z �
a
a x
Q
0
0
x
a
LL
co
.� rn
a
LU
- oa 3»�n3una
a
a
0 m o
�2
7 N O v
` O N
a`
aEomE
F m