KEIZER, Ore. — At a Oct. 14 Keizer City Council work session, city staff briefed councilors on the legal and practical constraints that would govern any change to Keizer’s urban growth boundary (UGB), including state housing laws, soil-quality protections for farmland, a cluster of “exception lands” near River Road and unresolved population and housing-allocation methods.

Mayor Clark opened the session saying, “This felt like a really good opportunity to at least get everybody understanding kind of where we're at in terms of urban growth boundary, what the regulations are currently, and, hear from our staff to bring us up to speed on that.” The presentation was led by city staff members identified in the meeting as Mr. Brown and Shane Witham, the city’s planning director.

Why it matters: Keizer shares a regional UGB with Salem. State rules limit how and where cities expand land for housing and jobs, and give priority to preserving farm and forest soils. Councilors were told those constraints, together with new statewide housing analyses and recent legislation on “middle housing,” change both what Keizer can require locally and how much new land the city must plan for.

Key points from staff briefing

- Shared UGB and decision process: Staff said Keizer’s UGB is jointly managed with Salem, Marion County and Polk County and that the Salem–Keizer Area Planning Advisory Committee (SCAPAC) must resolve changes that affect the combined regional UGB. Witham said a shared UGB gives the region flexibility now, but it also ties Keizer to regional land-supply calculations.

- State housing laws: The presentation reviewed House Bill 2001 and Senate Bill 458. Staff explained that HB 2001 requires cities with populations of 25,000 or more to allow “middle housing” types (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters) in former single-family zones, and that SB 458 permits dividing middle-housing units into separately owned parcels if building-code and utility requirements are met. Mr. Brown said, “House Bill 2,001 is the law that forbade us from saying we just want a single family home subdivision.”

- Definitions and local impacts: Staff defined market-rate, affordable and middle housing as used in state rules and noted overlap among those categories. The city has previously allowed some duplexes and lot-size variations, but staff said state law further limits local controls over allowable housing types and some density rules.

- Farmland/soils limitations: Staff displayed county soils data and said the northeast side of Keizer contains prime farmland. The state directs jurisdictions to add lower-quality soils before higher-quality soils when expanding UGBs; that creates a “hurdle” for northward expansion, staff said. A councilor noted farmers’ local knowledge that some parcels are marginal and might be suitable for development; staff cautioned the state’s soil-type hierarchy would still apply.

- Exception lands: Staff identified a cluster of exception lands (lands already developed inside the UGB but not inside Keizer city limits) between River Road, Clear Lake Road and O'Neil that would be the first candidates for any expansion. Staff estimated those exception lands total about 60–80 acres and include roughly 95 property owners; using the state’s “safe harbor” carve-outs (a small-acreage buffer around existing houses) could leave “a little less than 50 acres” of developable land in that area after accounting for existing homes.

- Population projections, ONA and PSU estimates: Staff said cities must now use population estimates from Portland State University (PSU) and that a new Oregon Housing Needs Analysis (ONA) methodology being developed at the state level may raise the number of housing units Keizer would be expected to plan for. Staff noted the city’s 2013 housing needs analysis showed roughly 267 acres needed; a later draft around 2018–2021 revised that to about 52 acres. Staff cautioned that the ONA’s draft allocations suggested substantially higher unit targets than the city’s earlier HNA.

- Cost of growth and infrastructure: The council reviewed a 2020 transportation-focused cost-of-growth study that modeled alternative development patterns and resulting transportation investments. Staff gave example system-development-charge (SDC) figures from other expansion areas, noting average SDCs in expansion areas cited in the study ranged roughly $43,000–$46,000 per single-family home in the examples reviewed. Staff also said a local SDC methodology is outdated and would need a defensible update if expansion moved forward.

- Governor’s one-time allowance and legislative paths: Staff discussed a one-time statutory allowance enacted last year that temporarily permits certain 20-year UGB additions (including a net maximum of 100 residential acres under the allowance) for qualifying cities; staff said that statute’s application to a shared UGB is unclear. In the briefing, staff said a legislative or political “divorce” from Salem — a separation of the shared UGB — would require unanimous agreement among the four governing bodies (the two city councils and two county boards) and still likely be a multi‑year, expensive process based on other city examples.

Council reaction and next steps

Councilors raised questions about who would be subject to appeals or lawsuits, whether landowners in exception areas want to be annexed, and the speed with which development actually happens even on land that’s already zoned. Council President Starr asked who grants the state-level authority; staff responded that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) implement and administer Oregon land-use policy and rulemaking.

Staff recommended starting public engagement to learn community preferences and the “small-town vs. growth” tradeoffs. Several councilors proposed town-hall–style meetings as an initial, lower-cost approach to “take the pulse” before committing to an expensive, consultant-led study. Mr. Brown told the council staff would return with options, cost estimates and a proposal for public engagement that could include informal town halls or a consultant-assisted campaign.

No formal action requested or taken

The session was informational; there were no motions or votes on UGB changes, annexations or other formal actions at the meeting.

Ending

Staff said the next steps would include returning with options and budgets for public engagement and, if council chooses, a scope for the technical studies required to update Keizer’s housing capacity analysis and SDC methodology. The council did not set a direction at the work session.