Astoria's Buildable Lands Debated

by Carrie Bartoldus

Astoria, Or – The Astoria City Council and Planning Commission met for a joint meeting Monday evening, January 7th. Because the year long process had been paid for with a state grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) it was under a time constraint with a June 2008 deadline looming.

According to the 72 page project summary and analysis that was provided to participants, the purpose of the effort was to comply with state requirements dealing with conducting an Employment and Housing Related Buildable Lands Inventory/Needs Assessment. Ensuring that Astoria has a sufficient supply of both residential and employment land within its Urban Growth Boundary to meet the city’s 20-year land plan.

As discussion got underway it became apparent that a concern with many from both the city council and the planning commission was how easily accessible and monetarily feasible the buildable lands were according to where they were located, the size of the parcels and the constraints surrounding them. Matt Hastie, with Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC (COC), the third planning firm from Portland hired to help the city complete the project, made the initial presentation to the City Council, fielding questions from the mayor and council members.

The COC representative went over the salient points of the voluminous pages of summary, spending time on explaining the methodology of how land was determined to be usable according to the guidelines defined by state in setting out Urban Growth Boundaries in cities. Using the data produced, a total of 408.61 gross acres in the City of Astoria are classified as buildable out of a total 658.29 acres on vacant, partially vacant and redevelopable parcels.

Urban Growth Boundaries Questioned

City Council Member Henningsgaard asked a series of questions dealing with his main concern as soon as he saw an opening to do so. Focusing on questions regarding Astoria’s Urban Growth Boundary and the need to constrict its borders, Henningsgaard asked why a particular study was being conducted only within the Urban Growth Boundary when it appeared that what was not being taken into consideration was what had already been lost because of sprawl. Taking, for instance, what was happening in the Jeffer’s Garden and Miles Crossing area with them getting their own water system. Was the impact of that population and the services provided to them being taken into consideration?

Henningsgaard asked, “Why wouldn’t the city want the largest UGB possible?” Hastie explained that the city would have to justify to the state why such a size was not only needed on a consistent basis (through data) but also how the city would be able to provide ongoing services to the area. Henningsgaard made the observation that Astoria already provides city services (such as library access and swimming pool facility), enabling urban sprawl without the benefits those additional taxpayers would have provided if they were a part of the UGB.

More Info Still Wanted

The answer from Hastie was that while Henningsgaard’s concerns could be understood the state mandated how these types of projects were organized, how a city’s Urban Growth Boundary looked, how it was being used and how much land was still available to be used. At this time Astoria had more than enough buildable land to work with.

City Council member Roscoe asked if an overlay map showing which parcels are constrained by a specific feature could be produced and was assured that one could be done. He felt that in order to make a good determination as to how much viable acreage was available such a map was a necessity. Many dark areas of the map were acreages with distinct constraints while similar acreages next door did not have any noticeable problems.

Flexibility in how property was looked at, used and then zoned (classified or rezoned, as the case maybe) was the challenge not the fewness of acres seemed to be the message Hastie was conveying, per state regulations. In actuality data suggested that there was an abundance of acres available to be used, with rezoning, reclassification and a few policy changes that were being recommended.

Planning Commission Weighs In

Hartill and Cary, Planning Commission members, both expressed their reluctance to maintain status quo or reduce the Urban Growth Boundaries stating that the properties being shown as buildable were not economically feasible to build on, hinting it would be more profitable to go outside of the Astoria city limits to parcels more easily accessible or those that didn’t require as much time or economic effort to develop.

Cary’s predominate concerns with the project was expressed when he said that he felt it was, ”... not a long term solution to Astoria’s building problems,” but would be changed again within the next five year time period. Hasties said that was not a reason to expand the UGB, according to the standards as stated by the state. Time, money expended and desirability of terrain are not measurable standards for setting the Urban Growth Boundaries.

Other Planning Commission members voiced their opinion as well. Connors reflected that a five year plan had to be done per state requirements and the plan could be changed and modified as the need arose. At this time, Connors stated, there was not an emergency for additional acreage. Mckay made the point that policies need to be set in place so that vacant city owned properties could be used.

Mayor Van Dusen also stated his concerns with what appeared to be a paper heavy, land light, assessment of acreage. Frankly vocalizing his unease Van Dusen stated, “Growth is healthy but all growth from expensive homes is not healthy. All the brown spots [on the map] concern me.”

Astorians, builders, investors and planners, who were unable to attend the meeting should take the opportunity to visit the Astoria Planning Commission’s website and obtain a copy of the approved minutes of the meeting as well as the staff report for this project.

While not yet in total sync with one another on this project the planning commission members, city staff and the planning firm have worked diligently on this project, providing data and maps for the citizens’ use as they make their own development plans. Whether an Astorian is looking to build any time in the near future it is a good idea to understand why you, your neighbor, a local business or a local industry will or will not be able to build and where it may or may not be allowed to do so.

Previous Article:
« Coast Guard Rescues 2 Boys behind Seaside Middle School

Next Article:
City must deal with timber blow down quickly »

Links

Local Weather

• Buoy reports
• Forecast Glance
• MSL Forecast Center
• NOAA Satellite Loop
• Pacific Satellite
• Road Conditions
• Tide Book

Local Links

• Astoria Dispatch
• CCFog
• Josephson's Smokehouse
• Local Gas Prices
• OPB Public Newsroom
• Oregon Live-Oregonian
• The Daily Astorian

Local Government

• Astoria-Warrenton Chamber
• Betsy Johnson
• Brad Witt
• City of Astoria
• City of Seaside
• Clatsop College
• Clatsop County
• Port of Astoria
• State of Oregon
• Ted Kulongoski

Clatsop Blog Network

• Jeff Hazen IS Commish
• 33 Days
• Tom Freel's Coastwatch
• Astoria Citizens Journal
• Astoria Kiwanis Blog
• Astoria Mung
• Astoria Rust
• Astorianna
• Auntie L
• Burning Corn
• Dried Salmon Matters
• Dried Salmon Mess. Board
• GrassRootsPeople
• Josh Marquis
• KAST ProBrd Forum
• Life in the Great Northwet
• Mom of Three
• Oregon Guy
• Peter Huhtula
• The Rust Message Board
• Walluski Babble

Oregon Blogroll

• NW Republican
• BlueOregon
• Jack Bog
• Loaded Orygun
• Oregon Catalyst
• Oregon Country
• The Grich

National Blogroll

• DailyKos
• Digg
• EconBrowser
• Lew Rockwell
• Reason Online
• Reds Trading Post
• RedState
• The Oil Drum

Contact Info

• MySpace Page

Article Tags

• WebNews
• Richard Lee
• Clatsop County
• Josh Marquis
• Astoria
• Clatsop Commission
• OpEd
• LNG
• Stipend
• Energy
• Marquis
• Kiwanis
• Recall
• Clatsop County Commission
• Charter Amendment
• Democrats
• Oregon
• photo
• DA Pay
• Sam Patrick