Energy: While the addition of industrial employment moderately close to residential areas may decrease <br />energy use from commuter traffic, an isolated employer or two is unlikely to have significant benefits, <br />and is just as likely to draw employees from other parts of the region. Overall energy consequences <br />from expanding onto this site for industrial use would be neutral. <br />Economic: A UGB expansion to include Site P4.1b to serve the City's need for industrial employment land <br />is not likely to actually result in a site that is truly available for economic development during the <br />planning period. Site P4.1b is separated from the current UGB by productive forest land. For Site P4.1b <br />to be developed for the needed urban industrial use, it would first need to be annexed into the city <br />limits. The City would be legally prohibited from annexing Site P4.1b until the site is contiguous with the <br />city limits, either through annexation of the intervening forest land (which would not serve an identified <br />need for the City), or a significant (and arguably unreasonable) "cherry stem" annexation of 30th Avenue. <br />Given that it is therefore highly unlikely that Site P4.1b would be annexable during the planning period, <br />expanding the UGB to include it for industrial employment would create "phantom" capacity, failing to <br />meet the goals of the expansion. Additionally, the cost of extending urban services to this site (including <br />transportation improvements for the connection to 1-5) is disproportionate to the site's benefits. Overall <br />economic consequences of expanding the UGB onto this site for industrial use would be negative. <br />Social: Expanding the UGB for industrial use in this location would have slight potentially negative social <br />consequences for students exposed to traffic and other impacts of such uses adjacent to their school. <br />Overall social consequences from expanding onto this site for industrial use would be neutral. <br />Summary: Due to the economic challenges to developing this site during the planning period, as well as <br />other environmental, energy, economic and social concerns, Site P4.1b is discarded from further <br />consideration. <br />(e) Dismiss Candidate Land if its Inclusion in the UGB to Address the <br />Identified Industrial Land Deficit would be Incompatible with <br />Nearby Agricultural or Forest Activities Occurring on Farm or Forest <br />Land Outside the UGB <br />As explained above, Site P4.1a and Site P4.1b are separated from the existing UGB by productive forest <br />land that is not suitable for the City's industrial land needs. Development of these sites could require the <br />City to also bring that intervening forest land into the UGB and to annex it into the city limits if the <br />lengthy "cherry stem" annexation is determined to be unreasonable. In that way, inclusion of either of <br />these sites in the UGB to address the identified industrial land deficit would be incompatible with the <br />nearby forest activities now occurring on forest land outside the UGB. Even if there was not a sufficient <br />basis for dismissing Site P4.1a and Site P4.1b based on the ESEE consequences discussed above, these <br />sites would be dismissed from further consideration for this reason. <br />Subarea P4.1 Summary. Based on these findings, the City has determined that none of the land in <br />Subarea P4.1 is suitable for industrial expansion. <br />Appendix B to Findings May 2017 Page 69 <br />