Consultants say Cottage Grove faces industrial land shortfall; recommend infill, targeted UGB options

Consultant Beth Mayer told a joint meeting of the Cottage Grove City Council and county commissioners that an updated Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) shows the city will need about 102 acres of new commercial and industrial land over the next 20 years and faces a modest industrial land deficit.

Mayer said the analysis used a growth forecast drawn from state employment projections and local discussion and settled on an upper growth scenario that would produce about 986 new jobs. From that employment forecast the team estimated about 102 acres of land demand overall, with a roughly 13‑acre deficit of industrial land and a very small two‑acre surplus of commercial land.

The study found about 90 acres of vacant, unconstrained commercial and industrial land in the study area, roughly 64 acres inside the city and about 26 acres in the county, with about 42 acres of that inventory designated industrial. Most buildable parcels are small: “most of your land is on sites that are smaller than 5 acres,” Mayer said, and the city has only four sites larger than 5 acres (about 34 acres total) and no sites larger than 25 acres. Mayer also described standard physical constraints that reduce usable acreage, including FEMA floodplain, Willamette Greenway, slopes greater than 15 percent, riparian corridors and locally significant wetlands.

Why it matters: the EOA is intended to inform comprehensive plan policies, rezone decisions and — if necessary — an urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion. Mayer said the EOA can be adopted as an appendix to the comprehensive plan and used to support staff findings when rezoning is proposed and to guide economic development actions.

Mayer walked the meeting through four candidate expansion areas the team analyzed for relative constraint and service cost. Area 1, near the I‑5 interchange to the north, contains about 240 unconstrained acres (mostly farmland) but would require bridge and utility extensions; Area 2 (across the river natural area) has parcel‑assembly challenges with many small rural residential lots; Area 3 is a 154‑acre niche between the city and I‑5 with some existing service extensions (including portions already sized for Project Sparrow); and Area 4, at the southern edge, is roughly 73 acres but would require long water and sewer extensions (Mayer said about 1,700 feet of utility extension for that area).

Mayer emphasized the cost and time hurdles of a UGB expansion: parcel assembly, long utility extensions and, where applicable, bridging infrastructure to cross I‑5. She said those realities make redevelopment and infill in the city core among the more practicable short‑term responses. “Industrial generally likes…closer to 5 to 7 percent [slopes], sometimes 10 percent,” Mayer said, noting many candidate lands exceed those grades and so are less suitable for industrial uses.

Council members and county commissioners discussed whether concentrating development near Project Sparrow or the northern interchange could reduce service costs and increase the chance of attracting industrial buyers. Councilor Heinke reported ongoing conversations with ODOT about interchange priorities. Several elected officials and staff urged the EOA to more explicitly flag the shortage of contiguous industrial parcels and to recommend actions that would strengthen the city’s position if a “larger” industrial opportunity arises.

Policy and next steps: Mayer said the draft EOA recommends policy language to support industrial land provision, keeping industrial areas free from incompatible encroachment, encouraging infill and reuse of underutilized sites, and funding a staff position or capacity for economic development. She told the meeting the Planning Commission will hold a hearing on April 23 and the City Council will consider the EOA on May 12, and asked for direction on whether to add stronger language about seeking larger industrial sites in policies.

The presentation noted legal and procedural context, including the city’s obligation to address Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 9 (economic development) in its comprehensive plan analyses and the need to demonstrate a “safe harbor” growth assumption if the EOA is used for UGB decisions. Mayer said the team chose the higher (state‑department informed) forecast in part because it provides a defensible safe harbor for future land‑need findings.

Mayer and city staff recommended prioritizing downtown and highway corridor redevelopment, pursuing short‑term infill projects and considering targeted UGB expansions only where cost and constraints are manageable. Staff will bring revised EOA text and recommended policy edits back to the Planning Commission and City Council for formal consideration.