Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Helens officials discuss boundaries, utilities and ecology for proposed Woodland Reserve
Summary
City council members, parks commissioners and staff discussed a Woodland Reserve concept for city-owned property along Milton Creek, weighing industrial land needs and ecological values and asking staff to refine boundaries using topo data.
City officials and members of the Parks and Trails and Landmarks and Trails commissions on Wednesday continued a months‑long discussion about a proposed Woodland Reserve on city‑owned land near Milton Creek, stressing the need to finalize boundaries before the city can commit to preservation.
The discussion matters because the parcel sits adjacent to industrially desirable sites and Port property, and the council must decide whether portions should be reserved for park and trail uses or retained as potential industrial land.
During the joint meeting, Parks and Trails commissioners and staff presented aerial maps, parcelization concepts and riparian buffers to show how a Woodland Reserve boundary might be drawn. Daniel April of the Landmarks and Trails Commission told the group that the proposal “has been quietly in the works for a couple of years” and that “the timeliness of preserving the location is paramount” because nearby land is likely to be developed. Commissioners and councilors weighed those preservation goals against economic data and utility access that could make parts of the site attractive for industry.
Staff asked the joint body to consider three roughly drawn areas. One area—near a large wetland and floodplain south of the site—was described by staff as the portion most people would likely agree is suited for reserve status because of its floodplain, wetlands and railroad and berm boundaries. A second and third area farther north contain variable amounts of floodplain, upland meadow and some buildable ground that staff said could be prime industrial land because of proximity to planned utility extensions and a prospective PGE substation.
Scott Jacobson, a city staff member involved in the analysis, summarized the city’s recent economic study and the industrial land question: “We did recently adopt an economic opportunities analysis…we have about 243 acres of buildable acres,” Jacobson said, and “for the 20‑year planning horizon…we need 29 acres. So we have a surplus of 214.” He stressed, however, that the city must ask whether the particular parcels in question qualify as “prime” industrial land despite the overall surplus.
Commissioners noted ecological values in Area 3, including camas meadows that bloom in spring, remnants of old quarries and rare plant species. Parks commissioner Lucas Green (identified in the meeting as a new commission member) was specifically named by speakers as having done site reconnaissance and as a likely resource for identifying high‑value natural features. Several attendees urged site visits at different seasons to see camas in bloom and to assess topography and developability.
Participants also discussed coordination with other stakeholders. Staff reported contact with the Port of Columbia County and said port representatives told them they are willing to allow a trail on the port side and do not foresee near‑term development of that portion. The group noted Project Arcadia’s interest in reacquiring and reusing an old mill nearby and flagged Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) pollution concerns that have affected development planning on the adjacent parcels.
Speakers raised additional planning constraints and next steps: the presence of riparian buffers and a floodplain, potential archaeological sensitivity linked to historic Milton settlement, and the need for survey/TOPO data and LIDAR analysis to refine boundaries. One staff speaker asked the joint body to authorize use of topo and parcel‑level analysis to settle a boundary that could then be used for any legal preservation mechanism (easement, rezoning, parcelization).
No formal vote or ordinance was taken. Instead the meeting closed with a direction to refine the conceptual boundary using topographic data, to coordinate further with the Port and utility providers, and to return to the Parks and Trails Commission and City Council with a proposed, legally describable boundary for formal action.
The city will not yet remove development potential from the site until the council considers a firm boundary and the legal mechanism for preservation. Commissioners and council members requested seasonal site visits and further mapping before any final decision.
