By Dora Totoian • Of The News-Register • 

Mix of concern, support expressed at UGB public hearings

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .



I was at the second meeting and I thought the planning director said that there had NOT been an increase in building, it simply APPEARED that way since it was all concentrated in one area. Given that about 99 permits were issued in 2015-6 and more than 900 housing units have been built or are in process just adjacent to Baker Creek Road since 2017, I think it's fair to say building has increased.

There's been about 200 apartments built along Baker Creek as well as a large complex over by Evergreen during this period, but I've not seen any decrease in rent pricing. The Baker Creek South apartments were positioned as affordable housing which justified that level of density on the edge of the UGB, yet a recent rent survey done by planning showed that the BCS apartments are market rate. More apartments were supposed to result in price drops.

Current levels of building is maxing the traffic capacity on Baker Creek already. With covid resulting in school closures and high rates of unemployment, Baker Creek traffic appears acceptable at this moment in time. Once the approved 400 housing units are completed at Baker Creek North, the traffic strain will once again be obvious.

Councilors Garvin and Geary both stressed the need for an updated transportation plan sooner rather than later. While planning and the other councilors appeared to be happy to wait on updating the plan, the remand documents include language that permits R-5 density (up to 30 units/acre) on a LOCAL collector street. Evans Crossing is an example of high density on a smaller road. The BCS apartments are roughly 20 units per acre density at the intersection of two larger roads. Planning decided against having potential transit turnouts built on Hill or Baker at the developers' cost.

We have traffic issues already, based on a decade old plan that has never been updated as required. It seems short-sighted of us to continue to ignore our transportation problems while we pursue the remand.


The argument for affordable housing is noble but in reality, prices continue to escalate for all levels of homebuyers. Hill Road between SW 2nd St. and SW Alexandria and beyond is a narrow road, seemingly unsuitable for the UGB proposal in the area. It's a pipe dream to claim that adding more apartments and homes will truly make anything more affordable for anyone.

David S. Wall

Due to the length of information, there will be several posts.


You can peruse the "DRAFT" Yamhill County Board of Commissioner's [Thursday:(12.10.20)] meeting, [Item J (1); Public Hearings] here:


1. City of McMinnville amendment to expand the urban growth boundary to include 662.40 gross buildable acres (862.4 total gross acres) to accommodate identified residential, commercial and industrial land needs; in response to an LCDC and Court of Appeals 2003 remand order."

"LCDC" is the Land Conservation and Development Commission

You may validate the "DRAFT" Yamhill County Board of Commissioner's (BOC) meeting, [Item J (1); Public Hearings] here:

Go to Post 2

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post 2

***WARNING*** If you read further you assume all risks (extreme anger, raised blood pressure, possible heart-attack, you get the gist of the matter).

Check out:

The "Packet" is for the [Thursday: (12.10.20)] Yamhill County BOC's Meeting Agenda.

The "Packet" contains documents the BOC will use to authorize the UGB Amendment. You must "scroll down the Packet: to Page 84-86."

The "Packet" is not even complete. The "TAX LOTS MAP" is NOT included. Why?

McMinnville City Council has already made their decision so why were Public Hearings held?

Remember, the McMinnville City Council is having the "2nd Reading of the UGB Amendment" during their [Tuesday: (12.08.20)] City Council Meeting. Why bother? The decision was made some time ago and the BOC is primed and ready to use their "rubber-stamp."

Go to Post 3

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post 3

For those that do not have the time or a computer to access the "Packet" here is the...

DOCKET NO.: G-02-20

(Page 86 of the Packet)


1. The request is a Comprehensive Plan amendment to expand the McMinnville Urban Growth Boundary by 662.40 gross buildable acres (862.40 total gross acres) for future residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

2. The applicant has demonstrated that the request satisfies the Yamhill County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.


Yamhill County has reviewed the proposed UGB amendment against the County's comprehensive plan goals and policies and finds that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the county believes the request would be an efficient transition from rural to urban use."

I hope this has been helpful. There is more.

David S. Wall