Hermiston council directs staff to pursue urban growth boundary amendment to target hyperscale data center sites

City officials in Hermiston moved Feb. 24 to begin the formal process of expanding the city’s urban growth boundary (UGB) to create large industrial parcels suitable for hyperscale data centers.

Consultants told a council work session that Hermiston’s 2024 economic opportunities analysis (EOA) found a shortage of large, contiguous industrial sites—specifically a deficit of nine 100‑acre parcels the analysis says are typically needed for hyperscale data centers. At the regular meeting later that evening, the council approved a resolution directing staff to prepare the paperwork required to initiate a UGB amendment.

The consulting team said the EOA identifies 1,200 acres of buildable industrial land needed over the next 20 years to meet forecasted employment demand, and that the city currently lacks parcels larger than about 40 acres inside the existing boundary. Jesse Winroad of Winroad Planning said the city must follow Oregon’s land‑use priorities and that “the first priority is urban reserve, which Hermiston doesn’t have any, and exception lands,” meaning the analysis must begin with land that is already listed by the county as non‑farmland or suitable for industrial use. Winroad emphasized typical site requirements for hyperscale centers: roughly 100 contiguous acres (with component parcels of at least 20 acres), slopes under about 5%, contiguous developable area (not bisected by rail or highways), and serviceability by utilities.

Winroad’s presentation identified several candidate areas mostly on the city’s south and west sides. One parcel called “S3” is about 379 acres in total but configured such that it would yield only two 100‑acre hyperscale sites because of its shape and an active canal through the property; a portion of that property is owned by Union Pacific, which told planners it would retain the land south of the canal while releasing the north side. At the work session, staff and consultants warned that parcel configurations, soils and other constraints mean acreage totals do not translate directly to nine usable 100‑acre blocks.

Soil class and Oregon’s priority system factored heavily in the analysis. Winroad said one candidate area (labeled “SW”) is in the third priority because the state’s soil evaluation shows it is not predominantly “high value soils,” even though it is farmland; other candidate lands rank lower or higher based on soil class and existing county designations. The consulting team recommended starting with the highest‑priority sites nearest existing urban services—sites that would minimize conflicts and the need to extend utilities across major barriers.

The presentation outlined next steps the city would need to take if it decides to expand: a public facilities plan update to show needed utility projects, a conceptual master plan to illustrate roads and on‑site infrastructure, revisions to the development code to streamline approvals for sites brought in for this specific use, and coordination with Umatilla County, whose co‑adoption of comp plan changes will be required for an UGB amendment.

City staff said the cost of preparing and processing an UGB amendment requires staff and consultant time and is typically covered by developers when large industrial sites are pursued. During later discussion the council voted to direct staff to prepare the UGB amendment application and related documents; the motion carried unanimously (Resolution 23‑57).

The council and consultants repeatedly framed the proposal as targeted: staff would not immediately expand into higher‑quality farmland or across the river before exhausting the higher‑priority exception lands nearest current industrial areas. Councilors asked about competition from neighboring cities, the timeline for state review and whether the city can reserve land for the specific industrial use identified in the EOA. Winroad cautioned that Oregon law limits use of land brought into a UGB for a stated need: land designated for a specific site need generally must be preserved for that use unless it is returned outside the UGB or the city undertakes a new EOA and justification.

Mayor and councilors indicated they want further technical work—utilities capacity studies and a public facilities plan—before any final decisions on specific parcels. City staff will return with the required application materials and technical studies as the process moves toward public hearings and Planning Commission review.

The council vote to initiate the application process does not itself change the UGB; it only directs staff to prepare the materials required for an official amendment request and subsequent hearings.