The shopping center could be anchored by a potential winery, according to applicant Mark Englander, in addition to a gas station, fast food establishment, grocery store, medical office and pharmacy. The plans are being drawn up by Adkins Engineering of Klamath Falls and are preliminary and subject to change.

Englander, of West Lake, Calif., has spent at least $300,000 toward the proposal since purchasing 23 acres in Klamath County for the project for an undisclosed sum a decade ago.

KCEDA support

One of the project’s most ardent supporters is Klamath County Economic Development Association, led by executive director Greg O’Sullivan. O’Sullivan said KCEDA believes Badger Flats Lifestyle Center is “the epitome of a great project.”

“It has advanced over a number of years and just out of sheer tenacity, the developer has hung in there for a long time,” O’Sullivan said. “During recessions, during downturns in the market, and uncertainties. This particular developer has put a considerable amount of investment into his application.

“KCEDA’s behind this because we think it initiates a new era of understanding between the local municipalities and the private sector and the developers that bring these projects forward,” O’Sullivan said.

O’Sullivan attended Klamath County Planning Commission’s lengthy meeting in 2015, where planning commissioners thoroughly vetted the concept of the project.

“We see a couple of hundred jobs coming out of this minimally, some of those full-time, some of those part-time,” O’Sullivan said.

“That creates opportunity right here in this workforce. We need an upward ladder into living wage jobs …. We think that this creates that. Beyond that, we also believe that the developments out there will benefit, that we’ll spur some opportunity for Ridgewater, for Southview, even as far as Running Y.”

Erik Nobel, planning manager for the city, confirmed the city believes the applicant used suitable criteria to determine the site for development.

Project opposition

Scott Edelman, Central Oregon representative for the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), spoke in opposition to the project.

DLCD submitted two letters to city officials, raising categorical issues with the project. Edelman cited the 2009 Economic Opportunities Analysis, stating there is more than 100 acres in excess of properties available for such a project already available in the UGB.

“In our opinion, this is urban sprawl,” Edelman said. “It has the characteristics of it. It’s not an efficient use of land, because there is already an excess of land in the UGB – vacant buildings as well as vacant properties. This would detract potentially from the use of those properties.

“You can’t get to these sites without driving to them,” he added.

Greg Hathaway, legal counsel to Englander, in rebuttal addressed concerns raised by DLCD, stating he believes the development proposal is consistent with the city’s and Klamath County’s comprehensive plans respectively.

“We looked independently at property inside the city, inside the urban growth boundary,” Hathway said.

“We did the analysis and concluded that those sites inside the city, inside the urban growth boundary that we studied, were not suitable to accommodate the sub-regional need that was identified in your EOA. I think we’ve done exactly what the law requires.”

Appeal opportunity

DLCD has the option to appeal to overturn the project, which Hathaway stated he believes the agency will not do.

“All we’re trying to do is implement your comprehensive plan,” Hathaway said.

Edelman said he is uncertain if DLCD will submit an appeal of the project, but said an appeal process within a certain time frame is available for those who oppose it.

Council members voted 4-1 to accept the UGB expansion, with a no vote cast by Councilman Bill Adams, after a positive recommendation was given by the city’s Planning Commission in the joint meeting held in Council Chambers. An ordinance must now be drafted by city staff for consideration to officially adopt the UGB amendment.

Adams, who cast the sole dissenting vote to welcome the Badger Flats property into the UGB, shared the reason for his vote.

“Somebody has come to us wanting to get property moved into the UGB that they bought,” Adams said. “They’re trying to make our parameter’s fit the use of that property, rather than coming to the community looking for a piece of property that fits the parameters that we would allow development on.

“I don’t feel good about this, I would just assumed see it turned down tonight,” he added.

Developer ‘frustrated’

Englander, who bought the property 10 years ago after viewing it a trip to Oregon, said he was “frustrated”when faced with questions from city officials and questions from the community about the intent of the project.

“Before I even purchased it (the property) we had meetings with ODOT and other city officials to discuss the challenges and the problems that I could anticipate,” Englander said. “I was warned of the issue with the traffic. I was warned of the issue with the UGB. I chose to continue and allocated a large sum of funds to cover the cost of the annexation, the zoning, the UGB amendment … I’ve identified this property as the best property I’ve found to develop in this area.”

Englander believes the more than one dozen other sites within the UGB he reviewed were unsuitable for the project being proposed.

“They weren’t good enough for what I saw as potential development,” Englander said.

“My only mistake was I underestimated how long it would take and how much it would cost.

“I’m not a quitter and I see things through,” Englander added.

Neutral on project

Devin Hearing, a transportation planner for Oregon Department of Transportation, spoke neutrally Monday night on the project.

Hearing said there are shorterm and longterm mitigation requirements which must be met by the applicant in order to move forward, which will help determine how the applicant would fund the longterm improvements included in the project.

“We’re working towards agreement,” Hearing said. “What we’d ask for if is a little bit more flexibility.”

Planning Commissioner Greg Williams asked Hearing to share the kinds of modifications that would need to be included in the planned development.

“There may or may not be some improvements needed at the (Highway) 140 intersection, and I think that’s under revision by the applicant,” Hearing said.

“From what we seen, probably not a (traffic) signal, but we haven’t seen the analysis or the additional site plan.”

Residents’ concerns

Klamath County resident Greg Beckman believes that bringing the more than 20 acres of land into the UGB isn’t required for the development.

“There’s plenty of room within the urban growth boundary existing that can be utilized,” Beckman told council and commissioners.

Beckman believes the applicant hasn’t worked with residents of the area being considered for the development.

Englander’s legal counsel disputed this, saying a public meeting for residents to express concerns with the development was held.

“Do we want the ‘light pollution? Do we want the noise? Do we want the asphalt?” Beckman said.

“We don’t need this …. When I look out there from my porch, I see an open space, I see a beautiful field,” he added. “I don’t want to look up there and see a bunch of lights, and a bunch of buildings.”

Beckman’s wife, Debbie Beckman, also spoke in opposition to the project.

“We need to give thoughtful consideration in how we choose to grow by carefully choosing which projects will benefit Klamath Falls and which are the best locations for such projects,” she said.

“To me, that’s urban sprawl.”

Mitigating impacts

In a rebuttal statement to opposition comments, Greg Hathaway, legal counsel to Englander, directed a solution to residents who are concerned with the development.

“This developer is willing to work with the neighborhood, try to do what we can to mitigate any adverse impacts,” Hathaway said. “And before this development can even take place … we have to go through site plan review, which is a public process, which will be the details of exactly how this development’s going to occur.”

An appeal process for any individual or entity is available to those who oppose the project, according to Edelman.