HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Update and Proposed Expansion of the UGB AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 7/22/2013
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Linda Pauly/DPW
Staff Phone No: (541)726-4608
Estimated Time: 75 minutes
JOINT WORK SESSION: S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L AND LANE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Council Goals: Encourage Economic
Development and Revitalization
through Community Partnerships
ITEM TITLE: SPRINGFIELD 2030 REFINEMENT PLAN (SRP) UPDATE AND PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB) TO ADDRESS A
PORTION OF SPRINGFIELD’S 20-YEAR EMPLOYMENT LAND NEEDS, AND TO
ADD PUBLICLY-OWNED LAND FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES. (METRO PLAN AMENDMENT FILE NO. LRP 2009-00014)
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Staff will provide an overview of proposed amendments to the Metro Plan that will:
1. Adopt the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Economic Element (ATT2);
2. Adopt the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Urbanization Element including
an amendment of the Springfield UGB adding approximately 634 acres of suitable
employment land and approximately 445 acres of public land, parks and open space (ATT 3);
3. Adopt Metro Plan diagram amendments to designate lands added to the UGB Urban Holding
Area-Employment (UHA-E), Public Land, and Parks and Open Space.
4. Adopt Springfield Zoning Map amendments to zone lands added to the UGB Agriculture
(AG) and Public Land and Open Space (PLO).
5. Adopt a new subsection of the Springfield Development Code to establish the Agriculture
Zoning District – an interim zone implementing the UHA-E plan designation to allow
continuation of agriculture uses while preserving lands for future employment purposes.
The proposed amendments are scheduled for a first reading before the Board on October 1st and a joint
public hearing on November 4th, 2013.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Economic and Urbanization Elements and
expanded UGB will establish future growth areas for economic development and infrastructure
planning purposes in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development, Goal 14
Urbanization, other applicable land use goals, rules and statutes and local community development,
livability and environmental quality goals. Springfield’s UGB expansion proposal also includes a
public land, parks, and open space component.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council/Board of Commissioners Briefing Memo
2. Maps: Proposed UGB
3. Supplemental Information (from previous Council packets)
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT
The proposed UGB amendment shown in Attachment 3 is the product of a multi-year Springfield
planning process to consider how and where Springfield will grow and where the UGB might be
expanded to designate suitable employment sites, public land, open space and parks. Staff conducted a
UGB Alternatives Analysis — a very thorough step-by-step method required by the Oregon statewide
planning goals, administrative rules and statutes — to consider all lands surrounding Springfield’s
UGB. The UGB Alternatives Analysis was used to identify suitable sites to support development of
employment uses shown in Springfield’s Economic Opportunities Analysis, followed by an
increasingly more detailed suitability analysis of each area including but not limited to:
• evaluation of environmental, social, energy and economic consequences of adding land to the
UGB (ESEE factors);
• transportation and infrastructure engineering feasibility assessments;
• comparative costs of extending infrastructure to new growth areas;
• consideration of public involvement received through the entire SRP planning process to date;
• consideration of testimony received at public hearings conducted 2008-2011 in response to the
2009 Draft Economic Opportunities Analysis, draft SRP policies and preliminary growth
concepts;
• consideration of proposed regulatory changes for developing in flood plains;
• focused outreach to land owners.
The final UGB will be determined by the elected officials after consideration of additional testimony
from the public and additional input from staff that may be requested during the public hearing and
may include or not include lands depicted in Attachment 2 and/or other lands.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 7/22/2013
CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
Lane County Board of Commissioners
From: Len Goodwin, DPW Director
Linda Pauly, DPW Principal Planner
Subject: SPRINGFIELD 2030 REFINEMENT PLAN
UPDATE AND PROPOSED EXPANSION OF
THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB)
TO ADDRESS A PORTION OF
SPRINGFIELD’S 20-YEAR EMPLOYMENT
LAND NEEDS, AND TO ADD PUBLICLY-
OWNED LAND FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE
AND PUBLIC FACILITIES. (METRO PLAN
AMENDMENT FILE NO. LRP 2009-00014)
ISSUE:
Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Economic and Urbanization Elements and
expanded UGB will establish future growth areas for economic development and infrastructure planning
purposes in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development, Goal 14 Urbanization,
other applicable land use goals, rules and statutes and local community development, livability and
environmental quality goals. Springfield’s UGB expansion proposal also includes a public land, parks, and
open space component.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Council Goals: Mandate
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals require cities to maintain a 20-year commercial and industrial land
supply.
DISCUSSION:
A Proposal to Expand the Springfield UGB
At the July 8, 2013 Work Session, staff presented a draft UGB Amendment for the Council’s
consideration. The proposal is mapped in Attachment 2-1 and shown in more detail in the Study Area
Maps in Attachment 2-2 through 2-4. Attachment 2-5 “Springfield 2030 Growth Concept” is a graphic
depiction of where Springfield is planning for the most growth of commercial, industrial and other
employment uses — through redevelopment and infill of sites already in the UGB and in new sites to be
added to the UGB — to maintain a 20-year supply of land planned and zoned to meet the need for 13,000
+ new jobs over the 20-year planning period. The UGB Amendment is one important element in the City’s
community development strategy, as it will expand the land base and create opportunities that do not
currently exist in Springfield for certain types of development.
The draft UGB Amendment identifies three areas proposed to be included in the UGB for employment
purposes:
• Southern portion of the North Gateway Study Area;
• Mill Race /South 28th Study Area;
• Northern Portion of Mahogany Lane/So. Jasper Road Study Area.
The two areas that are proposed to be considered further at this time are:
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3
7/15/2013 Page 2
• Seavey Loop
• North Springfield Highway 126
The draft UGB Amendment is one product of a multi-year planning process to determine Springfield’s
land needs for the planning period ending 2030 (the buildable land inventories and analyses). In the
Economic Opportunities Analysis, the City has determined and documented the types of businesses that it
has a competitive advantage in attracting and growing over the planning period. These businesses have
certain site requirements, primarily in terms of location, size, topography, ownership, and infrastructure
feasibility that determine suitability for development. The results of the City’s analysis show a need to
expand the UGB to add approximately 640 acres of suitable land to create opportunities for development
of industries with land or location needs that cannot be or are unlikely to be accommodated through
redevelopment or infill. Adding suitable large-site industrial land to the City’s land base is one important
component in growing and diversifying Springfield’s economy to increase city and regional prosperity.
To determine how and where the UGB might be expanded to designate suitable large employment sites,
the City staff conducted a UGB Alternatives Analysis, applying the required step-by-step method of the
applicable statewide planning goals, administrative rules and statutes to all lands surrounding Springfield’s
UGB to identify suitable sites to support development of employment uses identified in Springfield’s
Economic Opportunities Analysis. This process refined preliminary growth concepts that were the
subject of public review in 2009-2010 and identified other sites that met the applicable statutory criteria
equally well. Each step in the process required increasingly more detailed suitability analysis of each area
and included:
• transportation and infrastructure engineering feasibility assessments;
• comparative costs of extending infrastructure to new growth areas;
• consideration of public involvement received through the entire SRP planning process to date;
• consideration of testimony received at public hearings conducted 2008-2011 in response to the
2009 Draft Economic Opportunities Analysis, draft SRP policies and preliminary growth
concepts;
• recommendations made and concerns expressed by the Springfield and Lane County Planning
Commissioners during the joint public hearing process conducted Feb-May 2010 in response to
the 2009 Draft Economic Opportunities Analysis, draft SRP policies and preliminary growth
concepts;
• evaluation of environmental, social, energy and economic consequences of adding land to the
UGB (ESEE factors);
• consideration of proposed regulatory changes for developing in flood plains;
• focused outreach to land owners and providers of urban services.
Staff compared and contrasted the opportunities and constraints of each area, narrowed the analysis from
five study areas to three, and are recommending specific parcels to be included/not included in the Draft
UGB Amendment to meet the need for approximately 625 suitable acres. The 640 acre land need has been
adjusted to eliminate a 15-acre retail shopping center site from the site needs analysis (as directed by the
Council). The proposed UGB in Attachment 2 includes approximately 634 suitable acres.
It is staff’s analysis that the three areas included in the draft UGB:
• have the most reasonable likelihood of achieving the future employment growth forecasted for the
planning period; and
• are the best locations for growth to protect and enhance Springfield’s natural and cultural
heritage, while highlighting the advantages and uniqueness of Springfield’s natural assets and
recreation facilities as an important key to our economic growth;
• provide a balanced distribution of new growth area locations in northeast, Mid-Springfield, and
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3
7/15/2013 Page 3
Southeast; and
• provide for the most sites located outside of the flood plain; and
• provide the most efficient extension of public infrastructure (i.e., transportation, wastewater and
stormwater facilities, utilities) and urban services to support land development activity.
Staff will provide a PowerPoint presentation at the work session to present an overview of the three areas
proposed to be included in Springfield’s UGB and the two areas that are not being considered further.
Results of the Focused Stakeholder Outreach (April-June)
Over the past several months, staff conducted a focused outreach to property owners in the five study areas
to listen to their views and concerns and to provide information about the study. Staff also conducted a
series of meetings and presentations to get input from service providers and affected agencies. Attachment
3-7 provides a log of communications with a summary of comments received through June 28, 2013,
including updated comments from Eugene-Springfield Fire, Oregon Department of Transportation and
Lane Transit District.
Next Steps:
Staff will prepare ordinances for submittal to DLCD, public review and adoption and conduct public open
houses leading up to the public hearing scheduled for November 4th, 2013. The County’s first reading on
the ordinances is scheduled for October 1st.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 5
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 5
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 5
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 5
58
126
126
126
5
105
5
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
19. Glenwood
18. Franklin Corridor
17. Downtown District 16. Seavey Loop15. Booth Kelly 14. South Mill Race 13. South Jasper Rd.12. Jasper-Natron
11. Main St. Corridor
10. N Hwy 126
9. Mid-Springeld
8. Marcola Meadows7. Mohawk Corridor6. Mohawk Center/ Hospital District5. Downtown-Gateway Corridor4. RiverBend3. North Gateway
2. International Way
1. Gateway
Te
c
h
n
i
c
al Servi
ce s Division
Develo p m ent & Public
W
o
r
ks
Apr2013
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Users assume all responsibility for
any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
012 Mi.0.5
Current Metro Plan Boundary
‘Suitable’ UGB Expansion Areas
Existing UGB
City Limits
SPRINGFIELD 2030 PLAN GROWTH CONCEPT
D R A F T
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 5
Attachment 3: Supplemental Information
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The following attached materials have been previously
provided to the City Council and are included here to provide the Board with
additional information about the proposed UGB and Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
Economic and Urbanization Elements. More detailed information and draft policy
documents are available on the City’s website at http://www.springfield-
or.gov/DPW/2030Plan.htm
Full packets from past Council work sessions on the Springfield 2030 Plan Nov. 26, 2012;
Jan. 22, 2013; Feb. 25, 2013; March 18, 2013; May 6, 2013; and July 8, 2013 are available
for viewing at: http://www.springfield-or.gov/weblink8/0/fol/28274/Row1.aspx
1. Summary of Springfield Employment Land Need (from Economic Opportunities
Analysis)
2. Estimated Cost and Difficulty of Extending Urban Services
3. Industrial Development Competitiveness (Business Oregon)
4. Suitable Land Summary with Flood Plain
5. Map: UGB Study Areas
6. Growing Springfield: Draft Local Factors for Comparing Equally Suitable Sites for
UGB Expansion
7. Comment Log (responses to focused Stakeholder Outreach May-June 2013)
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 33
Employment Site Needs: Springfield 2030
Type of
employment use
Number and size of
needed sites
Site characteristics
Warehousing
and Distribution
1 site 35-50 acres
On arterial within ½ mile of an I-5
Interchange
Traffic should not be routed through
residential areas
Sites with a maximum of two owners are
preferred to minimize the cost and
uncertainties of land assembly.
Slopes preferably <5%
General Industrial 2 sites 35-50 acres
each
2 sites 80-120 acres
each
1 site 150-180 acres
On arterial within 1 mile of an I-5 or Hwy
126/I-105 Interchange
Traffic should not be routed through
residential areas
Rail access may benefit some users
Sites with a single owner are strongly
preferred to minimize the cost and
uncertainties of land assembly.
Slope preferably <5%, not more than 10%
Office 5 sites 10-15 acres
each
1 site 30-40 acres for
Office Park
On arterial or collector
Traffic should not be routed through
residential areas
Sites with two or fewer owners are
necessary to reduce the cost and
uncertainty of land assembly.
Slope preferably <10%, not more than 15%
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 33
Employment Site Needs: Springfield 2030
Type of
employment use
Number and size of
needed sites
Site characteristics
Retail* 1 site 10-15 acres for
Community
Shopping Center
On arterial or collector
Traffic should not be routed through
residential areas
Sites with two or fewer owners are
necessary to reduce the cost and
uncertainty of land assembly.
Visible from arterial or I-5
Slope preferably <5%, not more than
10%
Other Services 4 sites 10-15 acres
each
On arterial or collector
Traffic should not be routed through
residential areas
Sites with two or fewer owners are
necessary to reduce the cost and
uncertainty of land assembly
Slope preferably <10%, not more than
15%
* Council directed staff to accommodate this retail land need within the existing UGB.
Exact # of acres to be included in Springfield’s UGB amendment TBD.
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 33
Employment site and land deficiency
Springfield UGB, 2010-2030
Source: ECONorthwest Economic Opportunities Analysis, Sept. 2009, page vii
Note: Total sites and total acres needed represent the sites and acres Springfield needs
to add to its UGB.
Less
than 55 to 2020 to 50
Greater
than 50Total
Industrial
Sites needednonenone336
Land need (acres)nonenone150300450
Commercial and Mixed Use
Sites needednone101none11
Land need (acres)none15040none190
Total sites needednone104317
Total acres needednone150190300640
Site Size (acres)
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 33
Estimated Cost & Difficulty of Extending Urban Services
How do Springfield’s UGB study areas compare?
Note: these numbers estimated order of magnitude costs to extend infrastructure to the
boundary of the study area and do not include internal extensions to specific sites
Comparison of Estimated Cost of Service and Difficulty**
UGB
Study
Area
Suitable
Acres
Transportation Stormwater Wastewater Total
Difficulty Cost
Range*
Difficulty Cost
Range*
Difficulty Cost
Range*
Difficulty Cost
Range*
North
Gateway
226 5 $15-
20M
1 $1-5M 1 $5-10M 7 $21-
35M
South Mill
Race
126 3 $5-10M 3 $1-5M 1 $1-5M 5 $7-20M
North
Springfield
Hwy
265 1 $5-10M 1 $1-5M 1 $1-5M 3 $7-20M
Seavey
Loop
152 5 >$20M 1 $1-5M 3-5 $2-10M 8-11 >$23-
>35M
Mahogany
Lane
574 3 $5-10M 1 $1-5M 1 $5-10M 5 $11-
25M
Higher number = higher difficulty
* 2009 Dollars (Millions)** Right-of-way/Easement acquisition costs are not included. With transportation
projects in particular these costs can add significantly to project amounts.
Comparison of Estimated Cost per Suitable Acre Gained by
Expansion**
UGB Study Area Suitable
Acres Difficulty Cost Range*
Service Cost
Per Acre Gained***
(in Thousands of Dollars)
North Gateway
226 7 $21-35M $ 93-155
South Mill Race
126 5 $7-20M $ 55-159
North Springfield
Hwy
265 3 $7-20M $ 26-75
Seavey Loop
152 8-11 >$23-35M > $ 152-230
Mahogany Lane 574 5 $11-25M $ 19-43
*2009 Dollars (Millions)
**Right-of-way/Easement acquisition costs are not included. With transportation projects in
particular these costs can add significantly to project amounts.
***Includes Transportation, Stormwater and Wastewater services
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 33
PROFILEABCDEFGHIJ
CRITERIA
Regionally to
Nationally Scaled
Clean-Tech
Manufacturer
Globally Scaled
Clean Technology
Campus
Heavy Industrial /
Manufacturing
General
Manufacturing Food Processing
High-Tech
Manufacturing or
Campus Industrial
Regional (multi-
state) Distribution
Center
Warehouse /
Distribution
Call Center /
Business
Services
Rural / Frontier
Industrial
1
PHYSICAL SITE
2Total Site** (Acres)Competitive
Acreage*50100251020252002535
3Competitive Slope:Maximum Slope
0 to 5%0 to 5%0 to 5%0 to 5%0 to 5%0 to 7%0 to 5%0 to 5%0 to 12%0 to 5%
WORKFORCE
4 Available workforce
population in 50 mile radius People
150,000750,00030,00030,00020,00060,00075,00020,00025,0001,000
TRANSPORTATION
5TRIP GENERATION: ADT/Acre 50 to 75 (per
)
50 to 75 (per
)
42 to 58 (per
)
76 to 106 (per
)
75 to 100 (per
)
50 to 75 (per
)
64 to 86 (per
)
65 to 86 (per
)
144 to 192
()
5 to 10 (per
)
STATE OF OREGON - Oregon Business Development Department
Industrial Development Competitiveness Matrix
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Use is permitted outright, located in UGB or equivalent and outside flood plain; and site (NCDA) does not contain contaminants, wetlands, protected species,
or cultural resources or has mitigation plan(s) that can be implemented in 180 days or less.
5TRIP GENERATION: ADT/Acre acre)acre)acre)acre)acre)acre)acre)acre)(per acre)acre)
6
MILES TO INTERSTATE OR
OTHER PRINCIPLE
ARTERIAL:
Miles
w/ in 10w/ in 10 w/ in 10 w/ in 20 w/ in 30 w/ in 15
w/ in 5 (only
interstate or
equivalent)
w/ in 5 (only
interstate or
equivalent)
N/A N/A
7RAILROAD ACCESS: Dependency
PreferredPreferred Preferred Preferred PreferredNot Required Preferred PreferredNot RequiredN/A
8 PROXIMITY TO MARINE
PORT: Dependency
PreferredPreferred Preferred Preferred PreferredNot RequiredPreferredPreferredNot RequiredN/A
9 PROXIMITY TO AIRPORT-
REGIONAL(Commercial)): Dependency
CompetitiveRequired PreferredPreferred PreferredCompetitive Preferred PreferredPreferredN/A
Distance (Miles)
w/ in 60w/ in 30w/ in 60w/ in 60w/ in 60w/ in 30w/ in 60w/ in 60w/ in 60N/A
10 PROXIMITY TO AIRPORT-
INTERNATIONAL: Dependency
PreferredCompetitive Preferred Preferred Preferred PreferredPreferredPreferredPreferredN/A
Distance (Miles)
w/ in 100 w/ in 100 w/ in 300 w/ in 300 w/ in 300 w/ in 100 w/ in 300w/ in 300w/ in 300N/A
UTILITIES
11 WATER: Min. Line Size
(Inches/Dmtr)10108" 8"10" 10" 4"4"4"4"
Min. Fire Line Size
(Inches/Dmtr)10"10"10"10"10"10"10"10"8"
6" (or
alternative
source)
High Pressure Water
Demand
Dependency
PreferredPreferredPreferredNot RequiredPreferredPreferredNot RequiredNot RequiredNot RequiredNot Required
Flow (GPD)
250,0001MGD36,10017,00024,90065,30011,70011,7004,600750o(G)
250,0001 MGD36,10017,00024,90065,30011,70011,7004,600750
12SEWER: Min. Service Line
Size (Inches/Dmtr)10" 10" 8" 8"10" 10" 4"4"4"4' (or on-site
source)
Flow (GPD)
250,0001 MGD32,50015,300100,00058,80011,70011,7004,600750
13NATURAL GAS:
Preferred Min.
Service Line Size
(Inches/Dmtr)
6"6"6"4"6"6"2" 2" 2" N/A
On Site
CompetitiveCompetitiveCompetitiveCompetitivePreferredCompetitivePreferredPreferredPreferredPreferred
14ELECTRICITY: Minimum Service
Demand 2 MW10 MW1 MW.25 MW.25 MW.25 MW1 MW.25 MW0.15 MW.1 MW
Close Proximity to
Substation CompetitiveCompetitiveCompetitivePreferredNot RequiredCompetitiveNot RequiredNot RequiredPreferredNot Required
Secondary System
Dependency PreferredCompetitiveRequiredNot RequiredNot RequiredRequiredNot RequiredNot RequiredRequiredNot Required
15TELECOMMUNICATIONS:
Major Communi-
cations
Dependency
RequiredRequiredPreferredPreferredPreferredRequiredPreferredPreferredRequiredPreferred
Route Diversity
Dependency PreferredPreferredNot RequiredNot RequiredNot RequiredRequiredNot RequiredNot RequiredRequiredNot Required
Fiber Optic
Dependency PreferredPreferredPreferredPreferredPreferredRequiredPreferredPreferredRequiredNot Required
Demanding
criteria-driven
site selection.
High material
andvisitor
Surrounding
environment of
greatconcern
Transportation
routing and
16 SPECIAL CONSIDER-
ATIONS
Acreage
allotment
includes
expansion
space (often an
exercisable
option). Very
high utility
volumes in one
or more areas
common.
Sensitive to
nearby uses.
and visitor
throughput.
Major
Commercial
Airport a must.
Redundency in
trip routes and
utilities vital.
Surrounding
Environmentals
(vibration,
noise, etc).
Buffering and
expansion
space
necessary.
Sensitive to
encroachment
activities of
nearby uses
(residential,
institutional,
commercial).
Adequate
distance from
sensitive land
uses
(residential,
parks, large
retail centers)
necessary. High
throughput of
materials. Large
yard spaces
and/or buffering
required. Often
transportation
related
requiring
marine/rail
links.
Adequate
distance from
sensitive land
uses
(residential,
parks)
necessary.
May require
high
volume/supply
of water and
sanitary sewer
treatment. Often
needs
substantial
storage/yard
space for input
storage. Ons
site water pre-
treatment
needed in many
instances.
great concern
(vibration, noise,
air quality, etc.).
Increased
setbacks may
be required
and/or on-site
utility service
areas. Avoid
sites close to
wastewater
treatment plants,
landfills, sewage
lagoons, and
other such land
uses. May
require high
volume/supply
of water and
sanitary sewer
treatment.
proximity
to/from major
highways is
crucial.
Expansion
options
required. Truck
Staging
requirements
mandatory.
Does not like to
site or have
routing issues
between site
and interstate
that have rail
crossings,
school zones,
airport runways,
or drawbridges.
Transportation
infrastructure
such as roads
and bridges
to/from major
highways is
most
competitive
factor.
Relatively
higher parking
ratios may be
necessary. Will
be very
sensitive to
labor force
considerations
and the
location of
other similar
centers in the
region.
Located in more
remote locations
in the state.
Usually without
direct access
(within 50 miles)
of Interstate or
City of more
than 50,000
people.
Terms:
More Critical
'Preferred' increases the feasibility of the subject property and its future reuse. Other factors may, however, prove more
Group Mackenzie; Business Oregon
'Competitive' significantly increases marketability and is highly recommended by OBD. May also be linked to financing in
order to enhance the potential reuse of the asset in case of default.
'Required' factors are seen as mandatory in a vast majority of cases and have become industry standards
Less Critical
yjppyy,,p
critical
**Total Site: Building footprint, including buffers, setbacks, parking, mitigation, and expansion space
* Competitive Acreage: Acreage that would meet the site selection requirements of the majority of industries in this sector.
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 33
UGB Study Areas with Suitable Employment Land
Springfield’s Employment Land Need = 640 suitable acres
STUDY AREA Gross
Acres*
Suitable Acres
In floodplain Outside
floodplain
Total
Gateway 347.4 225.2 1.1 226.3
N. Hwy 126 569.3 167.5 97.4 264.9
S. Millrace 132.3 33.2 92.9 126.1
Mahogany
Lane
637.3 227.5 346.7 574.2
Seavey Loop 361.5 46.3 105.5 151.8
*Within taxlots (excludes Right-of-Way, open water, and partial lots
outside of study areas)
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 33
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 33
Growing Springfield
Local Criteria for Comparing Equally Suitable Sites for UGB Expansion
[Goal 14 Locational Factor 3: ESEE Analysis]
Alignment with City Council Goals
Provide financially responsible and innovative government services
Supports the most efficient utilization of a scarce land supply.
Provides the most suitable acres per total area of expansion.
Provides the lowest cost per acre of suitable land added to UGB.
Contiguous with City Limits and wastewater system.
Location has greatest potential to increase local tax base while minimizing
public cost of infrastructure construction and maintenance.
Minimizes length of service extensions/distance to service centers.
Encourage economic development and revitalization through community partnerships
Provides the most competitive development sites for industries. (Business
Oregon/Metro study data)
Supports TEAM Springfield shared mission and goals.
Land owner has expressed interested in developing or selling within 1-3 yrs, or
within the next 20 years.
Development could help create better public access to local amenities,
highlight natural beauty of the area and provide nearby park/recreation/open
space amenities for workforce and public.
Location is serviceable from an existing or planned transit system.
Expands existing employment center(s) vs. creating new center(s).
Location provides an opportunity to locate adjacent to an existing industry
cluster.
Strengthen public safety by leveraging partnerships and resources
Supports resilience to natural hazards and emergencies (e.g. flood abatement
by limiting amount or type of new development in the flood plain).
Location is serviceable from existing or planned emergency response facilities.
Maintain and improve infrastructure and facilities
Supports improvement of services to existing neighborhoods by enabling future
improvement/connections of public facilities and infrastructure to serve land
already inside the UGB.
Strengthens City’s ability to protect and ensure the stability of its drinking water
supply to meet current and future needs.
Supports/ Strengthens City’s ability to resolve an identified infrastructure/public
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 33
facilities problem (e.g. public drainage system connection, street connectivity,
septic system failures).
Supports City’s adopted “Key Outcomes for Stormwater” (2004, 2008):
Protect citizens and property from flooding
Ensure compliance with State and federal requirements to reduce risks of third
party lawsuits or enforcement actions
Improve surface and subsurface waters for aquatic life and other beneficial
uses
Preserve and maintain surface waters, wetlands, and riparian areas as
functional and attractive for people, fish, and wildlife
Citizens, businesses, and industries understand the need to protect water
quality
Provide regulatory certainty for the development community while ensuring
that growth is not constrained by lack of planning or facilities
Urban drainageways become community amenities
Promote and enhance our hometown feel while focusing on livability and
environmental quality
Maintains and reinforces community’s identity and sense of connectedness.
Supports community and visitor access to local and regional rivers, parks,
recreation and open space amenities and destinations through an integrated
greenway network weaving nature into the city as Springfield grows.
Supports protection and restoration of natural resources and environmental
services.
Maintains, supports and encourages growth of local agricultural/horticultural
production, innovation and food processing industries and retains land zoned for
farming on the urban fringe as a community benefit with cultural and spiritual
values and value for tourism.
Location supports transportation and land use planning goals for VMT and GHG
reduction.
Location is walkable/bikeable from residential areas, from an existing or planned
transit station or route, or potential future transit route extension.
Closest to I-5/I-105/OR126B.
Increase in traffic congestion is acceptable/manageable without costly
improvements to freeway interchange(s).
Site surroundings have positive aesthetics.
Site surroundings have negative aesthetics– could use quality future
development to repair, improve and enhance.
Site surroundings are at risk to resource development that has potential to
detract from City’s physical setting/aesthetics/natural assets and ability to
attract new employers.
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 33
1 | Comment Log
Comment Log: Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan - UGB Alternatives Analysis
April 26th
through June 28th
, 2013
Responses to staff’s focused outreach to UGB property owners and service providers
(LRP 2009-00014, File 14)
Date
Receiv
ed
Form of
Contact
Name Study Area Questions/ Comments Staff
Response/Follow up
4/27 email Mike Kelly
consultingkelly@aol.c
om
Mahogany/So
Jasper
Definitely interested in
discussing the possible
inclusion of our properties into
a Urban Holding Area
Is Satre study in record?
In summary, it highlighted area
attributes including:
1. Over 600 acres were, at
that time, under joint
development agreement. This
would need to be updated
but I do not believe anything
has changed.
2. The average property size
was well in excess of 20 acres
3. Our area has excellent
access/egress with Jasper
Road being a State Highway
under County control and the
new Bob Straub Expressway.
4. A sanitary trunk sewer line
has recently been installed in
our area.
Emailed
w/acknowledge-
ment of info rec’d,
Satre study is
already in the
record and has
been reviewed.
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 33
2 | Comment Log
5. Rail Service is available
6. Jasper Road has two
primary inter- state
Telecommunication Cables
within its R/W
7. The Mahogany Lane Study
site sits just across the street
from the Jasper Natron
Development Area
8. The property owners have
committed to making a storm
drainage easement available
from Jasper Road all the way
to the Willamette River for
drainage from lands in the city
to the north
9; There are sufficient swales,
sloughs and large irrigation
ponds to allow any created
storm water to be retained or
detained on site.
Beyond listing area attributes,
the study detailed soil types for
the various properties, location
of wetlands, flood ways, flood
plains, a proposed street
layout, etc.
4/29 phone Laura Strother
(Strother Trust)
Seavey Why is their entire acreage not
shown on map?
Land is wet with creek
Replied by phone.
Only 14.7 acres of
the tax lot are
suitable.
4/29 email Tim Marshall So Mill Race Interested in following process
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 33
3 | Comment Log
Knife River
Tim.Marshall@Kniferive
r.com
Add to interested parties list
4/30 phone Margaret and William
Nagel
(541) 746-6656
nyscfc@q.com
Mahogany/So
Jasper
Had wetland surveyed, will
send map to staff
House is 5” above flood
elevation
Worked with staff Hopkins re
2011 UGB line
1965 Palaniuk property “water
didn’t come in”
5/2 Email Arlene Dietz, Rice
Farms
dietzal@aol.com
(541)726-7050
Mob (503)508-3205
ricefarmshome@yaho
o.com
33632 McKenzie View
Drive, Eugene OR
97408
N Highway 126 Owns about 75 acres,
currently a productive
hazelnut orchard, off of High
Banks Road.
Most lucrative and productive
orchards.
Are restoring and improving
the orchards now.
Concerned that raising land in
N Gateway would impact
flooding east of river where
they live.
Tax impacts?
Their shops, etc are already in
UGB
Met w staff on May
7
5/3 Email,
phone
Randy Jones
Johnson Crushers
International
rajones@jcieug.com
(541)736-1400 ext 525
Seavey Very interested
Wants to expand operations
and cannot. 18.8 ac + owns
land in the “wedge”
5/3 email Randy Hledik
(541) 683-7712
Mahogany/So
Jasper
Interested in possibility.
Protect ability to mine sand
and gravel.
Forwarded info to
GIS staff (Mike) to
correct our study
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 33
4 | Comment Log
Concerned about including
land for parks and open
space.
Nature Conservancy does not
own 8.2 and 7.5 ac parcels
see 18020900 TL900, Wildish
owns.
Keep him informed and is
available to answer questions.
area map
5/4 Email,
phone
John Helmer
(541) 726-7194
Seavey Seavey Loop Neighbors group
organizer
Supportive of process. Has
email list, group meets
occasionally
Invited staff to neighborhood
meeting
Staff will attend their
meeting June 3rd
or
4th
TBD
5/8 Email,
phone
Melissa Olson
Willamette
Confluence
Restoration
Coordinator
Nature Conservancy
molson@tnc.org
(541) 343-1010 ext.
309
Seavey,
Mahogany
Q re ownership of parcels Staff called to follow
up an email sent to
Tara. Melissa will
look into the matter
to check ownership.
She will forward my
contact info to
other TNC staff. GIS
staff will get
updated tax lot
layer.
5/16 Email Minx Ravenwood and
Ira Towell
Seavey Asked for criteria used to
determine which areas are
“Employment Opportunity”
sites and asked is there is a
definition of “employment
Opportunity” sites.
Emailed response
on May 16th
5/28 meeting Mia Nelson NA Concerned about no work
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 33
5 | Comment Log
1000 Friends session on EOA, will appeal if
we go forward as is, says
assumptions are not justified,
says land need is not
supported by the data in the
EOA, supports historic pattern,
ref’d letter October 10, 2012 re
job densities.
5/31,
6/5
Email,
meeting
Richard Hunsaker N Gateway
“Knox Property”
Will submit historic photos of
river channel
Interested in donating land for
bike/ped connectivity if land
added to UGB
6/4 Neighbor-
hood
meeting
(organized
by John
Helmer)
Seavey Loop
neighbors:
Jim Evonuk
34435 Seavey Loop
Rd Eugene 97405
Scott and Mary
moore
34137 Seavey Loop
memoore54@comcas
t.net
Normandy Helmer
33925 Seavey Loop
Rd
NSH000@gmail.com
Chris Orsinger
director@bufordpark.
org
Seavey See also individual comment
cards
Most are opposed
to UGB expansion
here is
development
threatens
agricultural
community and
natural resource
protections. Keep
Seavey Loop
agricultural. Land
to produce local
food is necessary in
our vision for the
future.
The Straub
family/Oak
Management
(owns 50 acre site) is
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 33
6 | Comment Log
Dan Menk
33883 Seavey Loop
Rd
cdm95@comcast.net
Larry Norris
86160 Hoya Lane,
Eugene 97405
larrynorris4@gmail.co
m
Paul Rea
34204 Seavey Loop
Rd
paultracy33@yahoo.c
om
Bill and Beki
Montgomery
bekibill@comcast.net
Ronald and Darlene
Gilman
86415 Franklin Blvd
gilhooney@hotmail.c
om
Mary Chalmers
Oak Management
2087 Orchard Hills Rd.
NW, Salem OR 97403
marychamness44@ho
tmail.com
interested in the
long term (20 years
out) and have cross
easements in place
to connect their
property holdings to
infrastructure for
future
development.
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 33
7 | Comment Log
John F. Helmer
33925 Seavey Loop
Rd
helmer.john.f@gmail.c
om
Rob Castleberry
86701 Franklin Blvd
rberry46@hotmail.co
m
Cristman Lumsden
33922 Seavey Loop
Rd
musicxman@hotmail.
com
Minx Ravenwood
33823 Seavey Loop
Rd
Moonmeadow@q.co
m
Ralph and Dani Zack
34596 Seavey Loop
Rd
ralphzack@comcast.
net
site@MountPisgahArb
oretum.org
Charlotte Helmer
helmer.charlotte.m@
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 33
8 | Comment Log
gmail.com
Tom LoCascio
6/4 Neighbor-
hood
meeting
(organized
by John
Helmer)
Chris Orsinger
Executive Director
Friends of Buford Park
and Mount Pisgah
P.O.5266, Eugene
97405
(541) 344-8350
Seavey Comment card: Friends of
Buford Park and Mt Pisgah
board of directors have not
taken a position. “It is likely
that we would support
protection of floodplains and
farmlands.
Added comments
into the record
Neighbor-
hood
meeting
Bill and Beki
Montgomery
34211 Seavey Loop
Rd
Eugene 97405
(541) 736-8955
Seavey Comment card: “ We don’t
think that more commercial
and industrial development
makes sense in the Seavey
Loop area for ecological and
economic reasons. We urge
the City of Springfield to not
encourage further
development in this area.”
Added comments
into the record
Neighbor-
hood
meeting
Anonymous Seavey Comment card: “Thank you
for coming to speak with us.
You mentioned that the cities
are required by Oregon Law
to prove that they have the
capacity to meet projected
growth estimates for housing,
employment, etc. Is there a
similar mandate which
requires the City to provide
local food sources to a % of
Added comments
into the record
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 33
9 | Comment Log
the population? Maybe a
better vision for us in our
future.”
Neighbor-
hood
meeting
Tom LoCascio
Site Manager Mt
Pisgah Arboretum
Pisgah4@q.com
(541) 954-5463
Seavey Comment card: “Strongly
opposed to any development
which threatens agricultural
community, Nature
Conservancy goals and the
Howard Buford Recreation
Area.”
Added comments
into the record
Neighbor-
hood
meeting
John F. Helmer
Seavey Comment card: “I am not in
favor of the UGB expansion to
the Seavey Loop area.”
Added comments
into the record
Neighbor-
hood
meeting
Cindy and Dan Menk
33883 Seavey Loop
Rd, Eugene 97405
Seavey Comment card: “Adamantly
opposed to the proposed
expansion to the Springfield
UGB to the Seavey Loop Area.
We recently chose to
construct our home in this
area and do not wish to see
Businesses in “our” backyard –
as well as all the resulting
traffic. We would like to be
kept informed on all aspects
of this palnning decision.”:
Added comments
into the record
6/4 Neighbor-
hood
meeting
Straub family Seavey Owns 50+ acres and access
easements Has interest in
being included in UGB
Referred them to
Lane County
Assessor’s office re
farm deferral
considerations
6/5 Front
counter
customer
Jim Straub Seavey Gave me a map showing
cross easements on their
property holdings and a
Added infornation
into the record
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 33
10 | Comment Log
contact phone # for
Willamette water Company
6/6 email Cristman Lumsden Seavey Had to leave meeting early to
take son home to bed. “We
(Kate and I) are opposed to
the expansion. We feel the
cost outweighs the gains.
Seavey loop is special and
best kept family farm/
agricultural. It sounds like
larger plots near Jasper make
far more sense for future
development.”
Added comments
into the record
6/6 telephone Stephanie Booth
Songchild
2755 S. M. Street
Springfield OR 97477
(541) 968-8432
So. Mill Race/S.
28th
Owns 10 ac parcel, lots of
noise, trucks, SUB, Knife River,
mill and junkyard activity.
“Not viable as a
neighborhood or as EFU
anymore.” Light industrial OK
with them, they would sell and
move. Shared anecdotal info.
6/11 meeting LTD and ODOT staff:
John Evans, Tom
Schwetz, David
Reesor, Sasha Leftig,
Savannah Crawford
All areas Requested updated
agency comments
re UGB study areas
6/11 meeting SUB: Ray Meduna,
Bart McKee, Sanjeev
King
All areas Requested updated
agency comments
re UGB study areas
6/12 Email Earle Wicklund N Gateway Submitted questions about
Lane County action on the
Metro Pl Boundary, and city’s
process and timelines. “Since
the Wicklund property’s
Replied by phone
and provide an
update on the
planning process
and timelines.
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 33
11 | Comment Log
floodplain designation has
constraints I feel quick and
accurate reaction to
questions or issues raise by the
City in the future is vital to
bringing jobs to the
community in the shortest
period of time.”
6/18 telephone Earle Wicklund N Gateway Discussed flood plain issue.
Recommended we look at
Creekside in Beaverton,
Tualatin Commons developing
in flood plain. Cleanwater
Services vegetated the Fanno
Creek floodway. 1996 flood
water on his site was
groundwater, ride in water
table.
6/18 email Savannah Crawford,
ODOT
All areas Submitted ODOT’s comments
6/19 Neighbor-
hood
meeting
(organized
by Mike
Kelly)
Mahogany Lane
neighbors
Add to email list:
Phil Velie, rep.
McDougal Bros.
philvelie@aol.com
P.O. Box 518 (didn’t
include entire
address)
Reesa Wills, rep. Lloyd
and Ireta Whiteaker
Lcarpenter0830@yah
Mahogany All owners of northern portion
of study area (Whiteaker
family reps, McDougal rep,
Spies, Kelly) are in favor of the
UGB expansion including their
land and would be willing to
transact in planning period.
Wildish want to retain potential
to mine sand and gravel on
their land.
Richard Randle intends to
keep farming and wants to
expand his operations.
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 33
12 | Comment Log
oo.com
5065 Jasper Road
Richard Randle
rrandlemd@yahoo.co
m
86734 Mahogany
Lane
Grant Spies
dngspies@msn.com
36050 and 36088
Jasper Road
Mike Kelly
consultingkelly@aol.c
om
86965 Mahogany
Lane
Springfield OR and
36134 Jasper Road
Randy Hledik
Wildish
Stahlbush lease fields, grows
wheat, corn, pumpkins
Kelly and Spies have letters
from FEMA re flood elevations.
“rivelets’ flood water going
through McDougal site.
6/21 telephone,
email
Jeff Demers
Willamette Water
Company
Seavy Staff reviewed the 2/17/2010
testimony submitted by Mr.
Kloos; telephoned Mr. Demers;
directed him to a web link of
the testimony document; and
asked him to review and
provide any update to
describe the water service in
the area.
6/24 telephone Richard and Chris Mahogany Grant property on Mahogany
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 33
13 | Comment Log
Holmes
4303 SE Pinehurst Av
Milwaukee OR 97267
(541) 228-4497
(503) 744-0868
Lane (5 ac + 15 ac) is in
foreclosure, they are willing to
transact in the future when
they get it back. Please send
notice of hearing.
6/24 meeting Jamie Porter,
Superintendent
Rainbow Water
District
N Gateway
Partners with SUB to provide
water service system. Include
I-5 wells site in UGB.
Requested updated
agency comments
re UGB study areas
6/24 email Mike Kelly Mahogany Submitted a Flood
Certification document dated
1997 showing that his home
structure is not located in the
flood plain.
6/25 telephone Jeff Elliot, President
Johnson Crushers
International
(541) 736-1400
86470 Franklin Blvd,
Eugene OR 97405
Seavey Very favorable to including
their land in the UGB to
expand their 270-employee
company. 5-year company
plan would add 125 new jobs.
Will send a follow up letter.
Asked him what his
ideal site would be:
he needs a 15-20 ac
site/30,000 sq ft
bldg, room for
outdoor storage of
heavy equipment,
rental fleet parking.
6/25 Email Mike Kelly
consultingkelly@aol.c
om
Mahogany Some neighbors would
“welcome some higher
density residential
development mixed in with
future industrial development.”
This would entail
future planning
beyond the factual
basis and scope of
our recently
completed
buildable lands
analyses and our
current action to
expand the UGB.
We’ve adopted our
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 33
14 | Comment Log
UGB and policies to
meet our housing
needs and are not
seeking to add
residential capacity
in the newly
urbanizable
“employment”
lands that will be
added to the UGB.
We do not have a
factual basis to
justify adding more
residential growth
areas at this time.
Our Economic
Opportunities
Analysis
(EOA)(page 59-63)
identifies our
employment land
needs and states
which employment
uses are compatible
and not compatible
with residential
development. It
does identify a
need for 11
“Commercial and
Mixed Use” sites on
190 acres. It says
these office, retail
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 33
15 | Comment Log
and “other services”
uses are compatible
or may be
compatible with
high-density
residential uses. The
need for the large
industrial sites is
described in the
EOA : “the site
should not abut
urban residential,
school or park uses.”
6/26 meeting State agency staff
team: Oregon
Business Development
Department
(Business Oregon),
Department of State
Lands (DSL), and
Department of Land
Conservation and
Development (DLCD)
staff:
Gary Van Huffel
Sierra Gardner
Tom Hogue
Kirk Jarvie
All areas Developing in flood plain
increases cost and risk for
developers, it’s hard for these
sites to compete with sites
elsewhere not in flood plain.
Concurred with staff’s
recommended areas.
Springfield’s natural assets are
economic assets. Grow in
ways that promote our unique
assets. Don’ t leave out the
wetlands and riparian areas
when you draw the line,
developers will need places to
mitigate impacts on site. Look
at South Albany study. Mill
Race/So. 28th
could be an
attractive “tech park” near
the open space amenity of
the Middle Fork Path. Agrees
Attachment 3, Page 25 of 33
16 | Comment Log
with implementing highest
standards for ultra low impact
development. Concurs that
Puget Sound standards are a
good model to look at as we
write ours.
6/27 meeting Sandy Lindstrom
Industrial
Development
Regional Manager
Union Pacific Railroad
222 NE Park Plaza Dr.,
Ste. 125, Vancouver
WA 98684
Phone: 503.249.2717
Fax: 402.501.3034
All areas Most potential for future
industrial growth with freight
rail transportation service:
areas with existing track and
siding: I.P. site, Jasper Natron
site (North of Straub
Parkway/Jasper Rd
intersection), Mill Race/So. 28th
, south of South A St.
Requested input re
UGB study areas re
leveraging existing
and future freight
rail transportation
corridor for
Springfield’s
economic growth
6/28 email Lane Transit District All areas Submitted ratings of areas re
transit service feasibility.
Added comments
into the record
6/28 email Al Gerard
Eugene-Springfield
Fire and Life Safety
All areas Submitted ratings of areas Added comments
into the record
Attachment 3, Page 26 of 33
Springfield UGB Employment Land Suitability Analysis
Public Services Comparison
Fire and Life Safety
Study Area Comments regarding feasibility and cost to serve new suitable
areas (shown in green in attached map)
Ranking
1= Easy to
serve
3=Medium
5=Most
difficult
North Gateway • No street network:
o If access is provided only via
N.Gamefarm/Armitage/Sprague Roads then
response time requirements will not be met resulting
in the need for a new fire station in order to meet
response time at the urban service level.
• Yes, it appears that it can be served if street connectivity is
well designed:
o Area can be served if a direct road network
connecting from International, Maple Island or
Sportsway is built. Actual Travel time study will be
necessary to verify modeling of response times
3
1
North
Springfield
Highway
• Can serve this area at the urban level of service:
o Response time requirements met from Fire Station
14 and Fire Station 16
o Needs street network
1
So. Mill
Race/28th Street
• Can serve this area at the urban level of service:
o Response time can be met from Fire Station 3
o Response time dependant on Street network
o Single railroad crossing will occaisionally cause
response time delay. An additional rail line crossing
may be necessary
1
Mahogany/So.
Jasper Rd
• Can serve this area at the urban level of service:
o Response time can be partially met from Fire Station
14 and Fire Station 16 – if area is limited and street
network is well designed for response time
requirements from existing fire stations.
o Response time dependant on Street network but
may require a 6th station - Actual Travel time study
will be necessary to verify modeling of response
times
1
3
Attachment 3, Page 27 of 33
Note: 57th and Straub Pkwy – we’re not
considering this site as a viable station
location anymore due to the merger of the
two fire departments
Seavey Loop • This area cannot currently be served at the urban level
o The area is outside both initial and secondary current
response capability of the fire department. In order
to serve this area a fire station would need to be
constructed and staffed. Even with an additional
station the delayed response for secondary units
necessary to establish an effective fire fighting force
would not allow this area to receive the fire
department urban level of service. In order to meet
the urban level of service a creative solution would
be necessary with Goshen Fire District (the current
Fire Protection Provider for the area).
5
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 33
From: CRAWFORD Savannah [Savannah.CRAWFORD@odot.state.or.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:23 PM
To: PAULY Linda
Cc: COLE Terry D
Subject: Comments on UGB Study Areas
Hi Linda,
Thank you for the opportunity to review potential UGB expansion areas. Below, I have summarized my comments by expansion
area, in no particular order. If you have any follow up questions, do feel free to contact me.
General Comment
Per Division 24, local jurisdictions can expand the UGB without having to address transportation at the time of expansion.
Provided that annexations and zone changes occur at a later date, the City would benefit from a Transportation System Plan
Update to address expansion areas. The TSP is ultimately the means by which the City and property owners will know what
transportation system improvement actions are needed in order to annex and rezone their property (based upon the land use
designation assigned to that property). Along with roadway improvements, transportation system improvement actions also
include improvements to transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or changes to land use designations. Keep in mind that
the funding of transportation improvements is a critical component to all of these discussions, specifically, who will fund and
build the improvements. Some benefits of a TSP Update:
· As the City continues with the Comprehensive Planning process, including the TSP update, ODOT will continue to
participate and coordinate with the City to determine transportation system impacts, based on land use forecasts, and identify
alternative solutions to deal with those impacts.
· Once areas are proposed for expansion (acreage of land, location, assigned land use designations, etc), they can be
incorporated into traffic modeling work to determine their relative transportation system impact and determine traffic
solutions – instead of the analysis occurring on an individual zone-change-by-zone-change process.
Since another TSP update will take additional time and effort, here are some considerations for your review in examining
potential UGB expansion areas:
Gateway Study Area
ODOT’s primary comment for this study area relates to protecting the recent investment at the I-5/Beltline Interchange, which
is undergoing significant improvements to address safety and operations. Future 2035 analysis, within the existing UGB and
completed as part of the ongoing Eugene and Springfield TSP Update, illustrates that operations at the interchange will begin to
experience congestion along mainline I-5 and at several ramp locations.
To manage the interchange area, we will continue to look at strategies identified in the adopted Interchange Area Management
Plan and Environmental Assessment. These documents developed the framework to address capacity and safety at the
interchange and continue to apply today. If the City chooses this study area for expansion, we would work with the City to
update the Interchange Area Management Plan to address future management and operation of the interchange, this includes,
but is not limited to:
· Updating operational analysis (traffic analysis – safety and operation)
· Policies and strategies to protect the longevity of the interchange (traffic demand management, traffic system
management)
· Management strategies for traffic growth (trip budgets, land use strategies)
Attachment 3, Page 29 of 33
North Highway 126 Study Area
This site is primarily accessed by the OR126/52nd intersection and is currently signalized. Over the past decade, ODOT and the
City have worked on various elements of an Expressway Management Plan to identify improvements along the OR126
Expressway. While not adopted, previous analysis indicates this intersection as exceeding capacity through 2031.
Improvements at this location could be identified through a TSP update and/or through a facility plan (i.e. Expressway
Management Plan). Potential improvements, identified in past analyses, could include:
· At-grade intersection improvements – Signalized intersection with upgraded and expanded infrastructure. Previous
operational analysis indicate that an expanded intersection would just meet ODOT’s mobility target, under existing land
use scenarios.
· Interchange – Grade separated interchange and improvements to High Banks road. Previous analysis indicate that an
interchange may be needed in the future and would have excess capacity.
This analysis did not include the potential UGB expansion area, so further analysis would be necessary to identify full
improvement need with traffic growth.
Mahogany Lane
While this site is served by several local roadways, impacts to the OR126/Main Street intersection should be considered. Over
the past decade, ODOT and the City have worked on an Expressway Management Plan to identify improvements along the
OR126 Expressway, which includes the OR126/Main Street intersection. While not adopted, previous analysis indicate that the
OR126/Main Street (OR126B), Main Street/54th Street, and Main Street/58th Street all exceed capacity by 2031.
Improvements at this location could be identified through a TSP update and/or through a facility plan (i.e. Expressway
Management Plan). Potential improvements, identified in past analyses, could include:
· OR126/Main Street at-grade intersection improvements – Signalized intersection with upgraded and expanded
infrastructure. While this could be a short term improvement, operational analysis has shown that even with significant
at-grade improvements, this intersection will still exceed capacity.
· Interchange – Grade separated interchange and improvements to 54th and 58th Street. Operational analysis shows the
need for a separated interchange at this location. With various forms of interchange designs, operations either just
meet, or exceed, ODOT mobility targets, indicating heavy future traffic volumes. Under either scenario, the Main
Street/58 intersection continues to exceed capacity and will experience significant delays.
This analysis did not include the potential UGB expansion area, so further analysis would be necessary to identify full
improvement need with traffic growth.
South Millrace
My only note is to point out the need for new or improved rail crossings. Obtaining approval for new rail crossings can be
difficult and I suggest working with ODOT and the Rail early on if this is considered.
Seavey Loop
May need to further study capacity at the I-5/30th Avenue interchange and I-5/Hwy 58 Interchange. Improvements at one or
both locations may be needed depending on size and location of expansion area.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide some comments on these expansion study area. If you have any questions regarding
this email, please contact me at 541-747-1354.
Thank you.
Savannah Crawford, Sr. Region Planner
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 33
ODOT Region 2, Area 5
644 A Street, Springfield, OR 97477
(: 541.747.1354 | 7: 541.744.8088
Cell: 503.779.5404
Email: Savannah.Crawford@odot.state.or.us
Attachment 3, Page 31 of 33
From:MUELLER Will
To:PAULY Linda
Cc:MUELLER Will
Subject:Springfield UGB Employment Land Suitability Analysis_LTD Ranking
Date:Friday, June 28, 2013 11:33:46 AM
Attachments:Spfld UGB Employment Land Suitability_LTD Analysis_130628.docx
Linda:
Thanks for giving Lane Transit District staff the opportunity to review and rank the areas being
considered in the City of Springfield’s UGB Employment Land Suitability Analysis. The filled-in
template with LTD staff comments is attached.
First, a couple of overarching comments:
Ø The connecting roadways & streets within the areas would be constructed by the city
to standards that support LTD’s transit buses including sufficient lane width,
intersection curb radii, and sidewalk width at prospective bus stops to meet
whatever ADA standards are in effect at the time of construction (currently
minimum 8-foot sidewalk width at bus stops).
Ø The intensity of development, employee parking provisions, and the project
developer’s decision to utilize (or not) LTD’s group pass program will go a long way
to determining the ultimate transit modal spilt to be expected from these
employment centers and whether or not LTD would provide service to these areas.
~ will
Will Mueller
Lane Transit District
Service Planning Manager
P: 541-682-6194 | C: 541-501-7559 | F: 541- 682-6111
Contact us at ltd.org
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~ Plato
Attachment 3, Page 32 of 33
Springfield UGB Employment Land Suitability Analysis
Public Services Comparison
Lane Transit District
June 28th, 2013
Study Area Comments regarding feasibility and cost to serve new suitable
areas (shown in green in attached map)
Ranking
1= Easy to serve
3=Medium
5=Most difficult
North Gateway
* If only south segment of this study area were to be considered, it
would make the need for a more southerly connection from Eugene
even more essential for effective transit service provision.
2 – with better connections
from Eugene side of I-5*
3 – with existing connections
North
Springfield
Highway
Eastern portion of the study area much easier to serve from existing
(& expected future) LTD service configuration than western portion
of study area.
1
So. Mill
Race/28th Street
1
Mahogany/So.
Jasper Rd ** A Frequent Transit Network (FTN) route is envisioned in LTD’s
future plans if the Jasper/Natron site is sufficiently developed and
becomes a vibrant node. In that case, this area becomes even more
attractive, especially the eastern portion.
2**
Seavey Loop
*** Difficult to serve except via one-directional route variation
from current #92 Lowell/LCC route which only runs three trips per
weekday.
4***
Attachment 3, Page 33 of 33