HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Study - Council Discussion and Results of Stakeholder Outreach AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/5/2014
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Linda Pauly/ Len Goodwin/DPW
Staff Phone No: (541)726-4608
Estimated Time: 60 minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: SPRINGFIELD 2030 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB) STUDY: COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH (METRO PLAN AMENDMENT FILE NO. LRP 2009-00014)
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Review Results of Stakeholder Outreach (ATT 1-A) and discuss the Springfield 2030
Plan, potential UGB expansion areas and options for growth.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
At Council’s request, staff compiled a summary document Results of Stakeholder
Outreach to present comments received about Springfield’s UGB study (ATT1- A). The summary organizes input from stakeholders by study area and organizes other public comments about the potential UGB expansion by topic. The City Council’s
2030 Plan UGB proposal and the final UGB may include land within the five study areas or other lands identified through the 2030 Plan process, consistent with the
prioritization requirements of ORS 197.298 and the Oregon Land Use Goal 14
Administrative Rule.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memo with Attachments
2. Study Area Maps
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
This is the second of a series of Council Work Sessions to discuss potential UGB
expansion areas and options for growth to meet the City’s commercial and industrial
land needs. At the first session the Council received information to compare the probable costs of providing urban levels of service to the five study areas. Another
work session is scheduled for May 12, 2014.
At the July 8, 2013 Work Session, the Council packet included a log of public
comment received in response to a focused stakeholder outreach conducted by staff
May-June 2013. The log listed comments by date received. At Council’s request, staff has organized these comments and other comments received since then, by study area
to aid the Council in their discussion and consideration of options for expanding the
UGB.
Staff encourages Council to request any additional information that may be helpful, and when convenient, to continue a conversation among the members of the Council to reach a consensus on what parcels the Council wishes to include in a proposed
expansion. Staff will be available to provide any technical information Council may need to facilitate that discussion.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 5/5/2014
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Len Goodwin, DPW Director
Linda Pauly, DPW Principal Planner
Subject: SPRINGFIELD 2030 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY STUDY: RESULTS OF
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
(METRO PLAN AMENDMENT FILE NO. LRP
2009-00014)
ISSUE:
At Council’s request, staff compiled a summary document Results of Stakeholder Outreach to present comments received about Springfield’s UGB study (Exhibit A). The summary organizes input from stakeholders by study area and organizes other public comments about the potential UGB expansion by
topic. The City Council’s 2030 Plan UGB proposal and the final UGB may include land within these five study areas or other lands identified through the 2030 Plan process, consistent with the prioritization
requirements of ORS 197.298 and the Oregon Land Use Goal 14 Administrative Rule.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Council Goals: Mandate
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals require cities to maintain a 20-year commercial and industrial land supply.
DISCUSSION:
Results of the Focused Stakeholder Outreach
Beginning in April 2013, staff conducted a focused outreach to property owners of lands being
considered for potential expansion of Springfield’s UGB. A letter, 11 x 17” color maps, staff’s contact information and an invitation to provide input were mailed to property owners within five study areas:
North Gateway, North Springfield Highway, Mill Race/ South 28th, Mahogany Lane and Seavey Loop.
Since then, staff has conducted a series of meetings and presentations to neighborhoods groups upon request (Mahogany Lane and Seavey Loop Neighbors), met with individuals, and communicated through
telephone and email to get input from stakeholders, service providers and affected agencies. The City has
also received letters that contain additional information and comments about the study areas and about the UGB study in general (Exhibit B). Service provider comments were previously provided to the
Council in the April 28, 2014 Work Session AIS packet.
EXHIBITS
1. Results of Stakeholder Outreach (Exhibit A) 2. Letters received (Exhibit B) 3. Summary of the 2030 Plan Public Process (Exhibit C)
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 87
Results of Stakeholder Outreach
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan - UGB Study
This summary of input was prepared at the request of the City Council. It includes comments and other information received that are
specific to a particular study area in response to a letter mailed by City staff in May 2013 to property owners and residents within five
study areas. It does not constitute a summary of all public input received through the 2030 Plan process (File No. LRP 2009-00014).
Comments marked with an * are staff’s brief summaries of letters, email or other documents received. Letters are included in Attachment
1-B. Complete documents are available upon request.
North Gateway Study Area
Name Comments (date and form of contact)
Walter & Sandra
Johnson
* In favor of being included in UGB. Large tracts and few land owners. Lived on land 67 years. Area is well
suited to accommodate employment and warehousing. Has farmed all the tillable land within the area (including Wicklund, Knox/Puzzle Parts, Johnson and Duce properties, approx. 140 acres. Has spent several thousand hours tilling, irrigating, planting and harvesting on these properties. Soils are varied. “While these
soils could produce crops for some time to come, all properties within the area have significant restrictive
characteristics which limit the types of crops which our climate allows…as well as restricting productivity (and thus profitability) of those crops the soils still support.
Economic viability is essential for sustainable agricultural use, and I believe approximately 50% of the North Gateway soils are incapable of supporting reasonably profitable agronomic returns.” Coarse sandy soils or
surface rock, competitive weed species, and extra costs associated with more frequent irrigations and expensive fertilization procedures to achieve acceptable results. “The poorer production soils are scattered throughout the
various properties in such a way as to make it unfeasible to merely avoid tilling and planting these zones. I have
been leasing additional land with better soil characteristics all my life as a way to stay in business, together with using N.G. Area soils as judiciously as possible but with very limited selected crops. The easiest way to deal
with the issues the soils present has been to no longer lease them.”
“Competition for water will increase in the future. Higher water inputs on the Area soils will become more of
an issue as time passes.”
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
2
of
87
Floodplain: “My observations over the past 60 years: There has been a natural deepening and widening of the
McKenzie River channel in our area, and is capable of carrying more water than 50 years ago. Dams have been constructed. The last 100 year flood event in 1996 did not inundate the Area except in the floodway located on the Wicklund property, and allowed a slight amount to cross our land as well. A small berm of 2 feet by 40 feet
long would have prevented water from entering our land.”
“The Area could remain in farming until needed for other uses.” (2-16-14 letter)
“Best land is west of I-5. He has a retail operation so he can make it. Yield is low. (telephone 3-25-14)
Difficult to farm their 17 acres, poor soil, very rocky, growing pumpkins there (7-1-13 telephone)
Army Corps of Engineers placed rip rap in the 1950’s and had to revisit the area to add more rip rap 25 years
later because it was undercut by the river. (JPC public hearing 3-16-10)
Steven Pickert * Not outright opposed to inclusion in UGB but has concerns:
Doesn’t support add’l development of agricultural land, we may need it someday. There appears to be a number of parcels within current UGB that could be revitalized – consider these before
taking more ag land out of production effects on his property taxes if land brought into UGB – “will I be taxed
off my property?” (1-21-14 email)
Earle D. Wicklund * Dorcas L. Wicklund Living Trust supports including the large 110 acre parcel located at 3951 Maple Island
Farm Road in the UGB. Parcel is singularly owned. ”The coarse alluvial nature of the earth makes it
impossible to generate profitable crop yields to sustain reasonable expenses.” (1-15-14 letter) *Submitted letter dated July 8, 2013 to share information about “what a commercial development within the
North Gateway flood plain might look like,” and included illustrated development concepts for his property.
Submitted a second email: “To meet future development on the Wicklund Trust’s flood plain if we assume it
receives a Campus Industrial zoning that today carries a 30% landscape requirement. Very expensive when owner/users look to keep their respective costs per square foot competitive in the market place. However, if the
UGB expands to the McKenzie River then we could orient the buildings as seen on the attachments earlier
today not back from the Floodway line rather at the Floodway line. From the Floodway line to the river that
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
3
of
87
lower valued land could then meet landscape requirements since no improvements can be built in the Floodway
while street alignments would then be closer to the Maple Island Slough. You might want to discuss that tonight in the work session.
As of right now, we are thinking the Floodway would be an excellent location for Nursery stock, sawdust jogging paths and an outdoor amphitheater. “(7-8-13 letter, 7-30-13 email)
“Since the Wicklund property’s 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.” (6-12-13 email)
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, rise in water table. (6-18-13 email)
*Jordan Schrader submittals for this property 2-18-09, 2-23-09 include agronomic suitability analysis by NW
Ag Consulting (file 5)
Richard Hunsaker “The Know property is owned by Puzzle Parts LLC (Richard Boyles, Alan Evans and myself. It is located just
north of the cruise line call center and is 72 acres in size. It abuts Wicklund parcel and the Johnson parcel and is
bordered by the McKenzie River to the NE. It is an area proposed for inclusion into the UGB and subject to future annexation. (5-31-13 email)
Will submit historic photos of river channel. Interested in donating land for bike/ped connectivity if land added to UGB (6-5-13 email)
Jamie Porter,
Superintendent
Rainbow Water District
Partners with SUB to provide water service system. Include I-5 wells site in UGB.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
4
of
87
North Springfield Highway/ N. 52nd Study Area
Name Comments (date and form of contact)
Arlene Dietz, Rice
Farms
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.
Also owns a new orchard at Harvest Lane. (email and met w staff 5-7-13)
Sarah Miller Owns land east of the study areas Thinks the area is good for business. Has live there 50 years. 1996 flood was the biggest she has seen. Pro business. (7-22-13 email)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
5
of
87
Mill Race/South 28th Study Area
Name Comments
(date and form of contact)
Tim Marshall, Knife River
Interested in following process Add to interested parties list (4-29-13 email)
Stephanie Booth
Songchild
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. (6-6-13 telephone)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
6
of
87
Mahogany Lane/South Jasper Study Area
Name Comments (date and form of contact)
Mike Kelly
Yes, the owners in the Mahogany Lane Study Area are definitely interested in discussing the possible inclusion
of our properties into an Urban Holding Area. When the City was undergoing its “needs” study several years ago, the Mahogany owners jointly hired Rick Satre to put together a development plan for our area. It contains
our proposal for annexation (at the time) and likely would be useful for your current study process. 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.
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.(4-27-13 email)
Submitted a Flood Certification document dated 1997 showing that his home structure is not located in the
flood plain. Some neighbors would “welcome some higher density residential development mixed in with future industrial development.” (6-25-13 emails)
Margaret and Had wetland surveyed, will send map to staff. House is 5” above flood elevation.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
7
of
87
William Nagel
Worked with staff Hopkins re 2011 UGB line. 1965 Palaniuk property “water didn’t come in.” (4-3-13
telephone)
Her parcel is split by the existing UGB. Requested info re line location. (8-26-13 telephone)
Randy Hledik
Wildish
Interested in possibility. Protect ability to mine sand and gravel. Concerned about including land for parks and
open space. Nature Conservancy does not own 8.2 and 7.5 ac parcels as shown on map, see 18020900 TL900, Wildish owns. (5-3-13 email)
Melissa Olson,
The Nature Conservancy
Communications to correct TNC ownership of parcels shown in map (email, telephone 5-8-13)
Neighborhood
Meeting 6-19-13
Staff was invited to a neighborhood meeting hosted by Mike Kelly to discuss the UGB study. Attendees who
signed in: Phil Velie, rep. McDougal Bros.
Reesa Wills, rep. Lloyd and Ireta Whiteaker
Richard Randle Grant Spies Mike Kelly
Randy Hledik 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. Stahlbush lease fields, grows
wheat, corn, pumpkins. Kelly and Spies have letters from FEMA re flood elevations. “Rivulets” of flood water
go through McDougal site. (meeting 6-19-13)
Richard and Chris
Holmes
Grant property on Mahogany Lane (5 ac + 15 ac) is in foreclosure, they are in favor of UGB and willing to
transact in the future when they get it back. Please send notice of hearing.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
8
of
87
Seavey Loop Study Area
Name Comments (date and form of contact)
Bill Kloos *(2-7-14 email with link to his firm’s website and all supporting exhibits) filed on behalf of his client Johnson
Crushers International. “Letter and exhibits A through M, explain why the Seavey Loop area must be elevated to the first priority of land in the city’s review of expansion options. It must be first, whereas the most recent
staff recommendation would make it last.” “I will mail the city the entire package on CD for inclusion in the
record.””JCI and a number of other existing industrial and commercial uses inhabit the Seavey Loop area, are contiguous to the existing UGB, have all the basic infrastructure needed for an urban level of use, and have
been chafing for years under rural Lane County regulations that effectively stifle their potential growth and
production of jobs.” Documents are posted on Mr. Kloos’ firm’s website: http://www.landuseoregon.com/projects/project-springfield-ugb-expansion-for-goal-9/
Jim Straub *(7-26-13 letter) Managing member of Oak Management LLC and Straub Family Trust, who own several
parcels in the study area. Supports expansion. Combined parcels in their ownership form one of the larger contiguous parcels. Five tax lots total 59.18 contiguous acres. Owned since 1958. “Have attempted to farm,
but parcels are not high value farm land, yielding only a single crop of hay each year. They are, however,
mostly flat.” The properties have several valuable easements on them, which the owners have maintained over the years in anticipation of possible future development. These non-exclusive access and utility easements
serve any of the properties. Attended Seavey Neighborhood meeting on 6-4-13. “While there is clearly a vocal minority opinion in opposition to the UGB expansion, I did not get the impression that opposition to the UGB expansion was the majority opinion.” Was disturbed by an article in the RG that interviewed only one
neighbor. Did not get the impression that the majority opinion was in opposition to the UGB expansion. “It makes no sense to us to use high value farmland when we have so many parcels… that are not high value farmland.” (letter 7-26-13)
Tom Scates *Supports including his property in UGB (34009 Twin Buttes Rd), believes it would make a good access to the
southern portion of the study area. (5-22-13 email)
Laura Strother
(Strother Trust)
Why is their entire acreage not shown on map?
Land is wet with creek
Randy Jones
Johnson Crushers
Very interested
Wants to expand operations and cannot. 18.8 ac + owns land in the “wedge” (5-3-13 email, telephone)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
9
of
87
International
John Helmer
Seavey Loop Neighbors group organizer
Supportive of process. Has email list, group meets occasionally Invited staff to neighborhood meeting (5-4-13 Email, phone)
Melissa Olson Willamette
Confluence Restoration
Coordinator
Nature Conservancy
Q re ownership of parcels
Minx Ravenwood
and Ira Towell
Asked for criteria used to determine which areas are “Employment Opportunity” sites and asked is there is a
definition of “Employment Opportunity” sites. (5-16-13 email)
Jim Evonuk,[
Scott and Mary Moore, John
Helmer, Normandy Helmer, Chris Orsinger, Dan
Menk, Larry Norris, Paul Rea, Bill and Beki
Montgomery, Ronald and Darlene Gilman, Mary
Chalmers Oak Management ,
Rob Castleberry,
Cristman Lumsden, Minx Ravenwood,
Ralph and Dani
Zack, Charlotte Helmer, Tom
LoCascio
Names of “Seavey Loop Neighbors” group who signed in at a meeting organized by John Helmer, hosted by
Scott and Mary Moore at their “Me and Moore” Farm. Mr. Helmer invited staff to the meeting. (6-4-13). Most attendees are property owners in the study area and in the vicinity of the study area, and some are property
managers associated with Buford Park/Mt Pisgah. Not all attendees signed in, spoke or submitted comments at the meeting.
Many expressed opposition to UGB expansion. Themes: 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 interested in the long term (20 years out) and have cross easements in place to connect their property holdings to infrastructure for future development.
Some attendees submitted individual comment cards at the meeting:
Chris Orsinger, Executive Director Friends of Buford Park and Mount Pisgah: “Thank you for coming. Friends
of Buford Park and Mt Pisgah board of directors have not taken a position on the proposed UGB expansion. It is likely that we would support protection of floodplains and farmlands.
Bill and Beki Montgomery: “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.”
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
10
of
87
Anonymous: “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 the population? Maybe
a better vision for us in our future.” Tom LoCascio, Site Manager Mt Pisgah Arboretum: “Strongly opposed to any development which threatens
agricultural community, Nature Conservancy goals and the Howard Buford Recreation Area.” John F. Helmer: “I am not in favor of the UGB expansion to the Seavey Loop area.”
Cindy and Dan Menk: “Are 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
planning decision.”
Straub family: Owns 50+ acres and access easements. Has interest in being included in UGB.
John F. Helmer:”I am not in favor of the UGB expansion to the Seavey Loop area.”
Jim Straub Gave staff a map showing cross easements on their property holdings and a contact phone # for Willamette
Water Company (DPW front counter 6-5-13)
Cristman Lumsden *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.” (6-6-13 email)
Jeff Demers
Willamette Water
Company
Staff telephoned Mr. Demers, asked him to reviewed the 2/17/2010 testimony submitted by Mr. Kloos; 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. Mr. Demers replied by email “I have had an opportunity to review the letter Bill Kloos submitted on behalf of Willamette Water Co in 2010 and can advise there are no updates to submit into
the record.” (6-21-13 email)* see excerpt from 2/17/2010 in ATT 1-B.
Jeff Elliot,
President Johnson Crushers
International
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. He needs a 15-20 ac site/30,000 sq. ft. bldg., room for outdoor storage of heavy equipment, rental fleet parking. (6-25-13 telephone)
*JCI’s main facilities are across Franklin Blvd to the Northwest and adjacent to subject property at 86470 Franklin. Supports inclusion of subject property TL 18-03-11-30-03500 the UGB. JCI is in the business of
engineering, manufacturing, marketing, selling, supplying aftermarket parts and service for a product line of
rock crushing and screening equipment. Its products are sold worldwide to the mining, construction, energy
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
11
of
87
and recycling industries. Currently employs some 270 people with an annual payroll and benefits in excess of
$19 million, pays $131,330 in property taxes. Wants to add 125-140 labor and professional positions. This requires facility expansion and capital improvements. Wants to maintain a single campus.(6-28-13 letter)
David Wolting
Captain, Goshen
Fire District & Pleasant Hill FD
*Concerned about city taking part of Goshen Fire District response area. District is in the process of spending
1.4 million on infrastructure. (7-3-13 email)
Question about annexation of Franklin Blvd, concerns about change to fire district if Seavey included in UGB. Clearwater Landing area is served by Pleasant Hill FD. (7-11-13 telephone)
Tom Miller Lives on ½ acre. Against being included in UGB, doesn’t want his taxes raised. (7-13-13 telephone)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
12
of
87
General Comments - All Study Areas & 2030 UGB Study in General
Name Comments (date and form of contact)
Mia Nelson
1000 Friends
Concerned about no work 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. (5-28-12 meeting with staff)
*(10-10-12 letter)
State agency staff team 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 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. (meeting 6-26-13)
Gary Van Huffel& Sierra Gardner, Oregon Business Development Department (Business Oregon)
Kirk Jarvie, Department of State Lands (DSL) Tom Hogue,Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
Sandy Lindstrom
Industrial
Development Regional Manager
Union Pacific
Railroad
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. (meeting 6-27-13)
George Grier Concerned about cost of extending infrastructure to new areas (7-9-13 telephone); requested copy of 7-22-13 powerpoint presentation (email 7-23-13).
Jeff Ziller & Brian *ODFW 9-20-13: Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
13
of
87
Wolfer
District Fish Biologist, Joy
Vaughan Land Use and Waterways
Alteration Coordinator
Oregon Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife
generations; ODFW Sensitive Species List, federal Endangered Species Act: Spring Chinook salmon, Bull
trout, Oregon chub are known to use aquatic habitat adjacent to locations under consideration for UGB expansion; Avoid reducing the river’s ability to interact with the flood plain, maintain riparian vegetation and
habitat connectivity; other Sensitive Species, many non-listed fish and wildlife species and sensitive bird roosting sites such as heron rookeries may be impacted by growth decisions. (9-20-13 letter)
Mahogany/South Jasper study area: potential to reconnect old river channel, there could be Oregon chub in the side channel habitat. Diversion at south end is unscreened, so fish are present. Blue Water ponds would make a
great public park for family fishing.” (meeting 8-7-13)
Bob Keefer Vince Martorello
Willamalane
Please include the entry to Ruff Park in UGB. Provided input on proposed plan designations and proposed zoning of Willamalane’s sites (7-24-13 meeting, 9-5-13 email)
* There are five (5) parks currently outside the existing UGB that Willamalane is interested in having included within the UGB. These parks are:
1. Weyerhaeuser-McKenzie Natural Area Park (Tax Lots 17022900002901, 1702300000401). These tax lots are approximately 55 acres in size;
2. Jack B. Lively Memorial Park (Lively Park) (Tax Lot 1702270001101). This park is a community park
and is approximately 32 acres in size; 3. Ruff (Wallace M Jr.) Memorial Park (Tax Lots 1702270001502, 1702341115500). This park is a
special use park and is 9.79 acres in size;
4. Clearwater Park (Tax Lots 1802080000300, 1802080000400, 1802080000500, 1802080000600). This park is a special use park and is approximately 66 acres in size.
5. Georgia-Pacific Park (Tax Lot 1802060004501, 180207000801—on their map. There are more TL’s …
are these only ones that need to move into the UGB?). This park is approximately 125 acres in size and is classified as a natural area park. It is jointly owned by SUB, City of Springfield and Willamalane.
Plans include developing the Mill Race Path through the park, connecting to the Middle Fork Path. A
majority of Georgia-Pacific Park is already located within the UGB. Of the 125 acres, approximately 12 acres is outside the UGB. The Comprehensive Plan, and agreements with SUB and the City, calls
for the joint development of a management plan and master plan for the park. Having the entire park included in the UGB will facilitate a joint management approach to the park.
• By including these properties within UGB, the City is increasing Willamalane’s service area within the UGB and within the City’s jurisdiction, which is consistent with Willamalane being the park and
recreation service provider for the City.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
14
of
87
• By incorporating both Clearwater Park and all of Georgia-Pacific Park into the UGB, the City of Springfield incorporates a regional path system within its jurisdiction. The Middle Fork Path and the
Mill Race Path (once completed), will be an eight mile multi-use path that connects downtown to the
Middle Fork Willamette River
• The City is bringing into its jurisdiction an increased amount of natural area parks that offer the
community the opportunity to access nearby waterways, unique vegetative habitats, and an expanding network of trails and paths.
• The UGB line truncates several of these Parks: Lively, Ruff, G-P … moving the UGB so that the entire park is within City of Springfield’s jurisdiction makes sense for land use and park management
considerations (or something)
• Once within the UGB, it is anticipated that the public safety of the parks may increase since the City of Springfield will have jurisdiction over these parks and could provide for quicker response time for
emergency services compared to County enforcement and emergency services. (11-26-13 email)
Mark Rust Lane County
Administration
Community & Economic
Development
In materials for 7-22 meeting, didn’t see discussion about the statutory priorities in terms of what land gets considered first for UGB expansion. Has there been an evaluation done in terms of the prime agricultural soils
that are present within each area? Any information on these issues would be greatly appreciated. (7-19 email)
Bruce Pokarney
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Staff requested employment data and information re typical site characteristics for food processing industries in
Oregon. Provided staff with more contacts and emailed links to reports. (8-2-13 email, telephone)
Springfield Utility
Board
*Requests inclusion of SUB’s properties in the UGB. SUB owns 172.8 ac in the South Mill race area, not
including the 120 acres owned jointly with City and Willamalane. Willamette Well field and Slow sand
Treatment facility, their new corrosion control facility, outdoor pipe storage and indoor equipment storage. Anticipates construction of new facilities in this area.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
15
of
87
SUB is concerned about protecting Springfield’s drinking water quality and quantity and cautions that “the
UGB proposal should include careful consideration of how to promote a new development landscape that is highly protective of our drinking water” such as low-impact development standards and “looks forward to
collaborating with the City to design development standards for these areas that will mitigate against potential adverse impacts to the drinking water supply.” (9-10-13 letter)
Richard Boyles Interested in discussing redesignation of the Patrician site (4-14 telephone)
John Lively Requested update on UGB study schedule. Rep. Johnson Crushers International (4-17-14 telephone)
Previous Requests (pre 2013) to Include Other Sites in UGB
Name Comments (date and form of contact)
Ralph Wheeler 3840 Hayden Bridge 1.5 ac (testimony 4-7-09) (file #5)
Greg Harmon 30 acres in Gateway area south of Beltline (testimony 2-24-09) (file #5)
Michael Farthing Rep. Gordon Webb, asked to consider 18-02-02 TL400 and 18-02-01 TL 100 for residential expansion, large
areas of moderate slopes, poor soils, access to Straub Parkway, single ownership (6-1-09)
Randy Hledik Consider land SE of Area 7 Clearwater, considerate amount of dry land. (open house 5-18-09)
Anonymous Potential to expand commercial development at Marcola Rd/Camp Creek. (open house 5-18-09)
Anonymous East Springfield- logical extension of Thurston. (open house 5-18-09)
Randy Hledik Consider Wildish lots except 1401; mix of flood plain and not; logical addition to UGB; new access road to property from Jasper Rd.; was built in addition to access from Mahogany Lane; consider for residential,
commercial or industrial use. (4-24-09 email)(file 6)
Anonymous Infill Clearwater/Mahogany; go all the way to the river so City can control over Greenway, sloughs, riparian
areas and other natural resources. Easy to serve w public services. Opportunity to protect riverfront; willing property owners. (7-17-09 open house)
Anonymous “The Elbow” poor soils, mod slopes, Webb single owner, access to Straub, Steep areas further east. Better forest land is inside UGB. Outside UGB is “scrub” neither good farm or forest. 50-70 ac “ideal for residential
development.”
Dwight Purdy, rep.
Springfield School District
Asked to bring the district’s 19-acre Clearwater property into the UGB to allow it provide for a new school to
serve the Jasper- Natron area. (Minutes JPC hearing 3-16-10)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
16
of
87
Previous General Comments - All Study Areas & 2030 UGB Study in General
Name Comments (date and form of contact)
LandWatch Lane
County
Robert Emmons,
LandWatch Lane County
Protect large employment sites from subdivision and rezoning; use higher jobs/acre in EOA to allocate more
jobs to redevelopment;
Why use scarce land for warehouse and distribution? (staff was invited to 6-17-09 LW meeting)
(Minutes JPC hearing 3-16-10)
Anonymous North Gateway Study Area: “Don’t dilute the growth potential at RiverBend and Gateway Campus Industrial”
(5-18-09 open house comment card)
Mia Nelson Job density issue is a policy choice. Asked if it wise to use the last of Springfield’s buildable land for such a
low job density requirement. (Minutes JPC hearing 3-16-10)
George Grier Lane CO Farm Bureau
Served on the CIBL Stakeholder Committee and SDC CAC. Springfield had experienced growth during the last 20 years that it was unlikely to see again. Much of the remaining land was in flood plain or agricultural land. Concerned that agricultural land continued to be developed as food security and food safety issue grew.
Urged commissioners to look at all alternatives to protect agricultural land before increasing the UGB. It did not make sense to move to constrained areas in the flood plain because it was expensive to provide urban
services and the City did not have the resources to do so. It made more sense to develop within the existing
UGB. (Minutes JPC hearing 2-17-10)
Tom Bowerman Represented property owners owning 400 acres of land. Agrees with testimony of 1000 Friends and George Grier. Advocates for preservation of what was in place. His children moved to smaller communities because Eugene-Springfield was too big for them. Some people moved elsewhere to avoid sprawl, and it had crossed
his mind as well. Mr. Bowerman compared Corvallis downtown to Springfield downtown and suggested Corvallis was more vibrant and he attributed that to public policy. He believed the result would be lower
property values if resource lands were impinged upon. (Minutes JPC hearing 3-16-10)
Rick Satre In favor of the UGB expansion and protection of agricultural lands which he believed could occur at the same
time. Asked commissions to consider implementing measures to protect high value farmland where it occurred
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
17
of
87
within the UGB expansion areas. He suggested that could be accomplished with the application of an
agricultural overlay zone. Acknowledged the existing soils information data bases and the fact that many soil areas designated high value were not necessarily so. Recommended the City could create measures where
property-specific data updates could occur appropriately. (Minutes JPC hearing 3-16-10)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
18
of
87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
19
of
87
Exhibit B-1, Page 1 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 20 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 2 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 21 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 3 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 22 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 4 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 23 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 5 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 24 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 6 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 25 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 7 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 26 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 8 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 27 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 9 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 28 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 10 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 29 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 11 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 30 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 12 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 31 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 13 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 32 of 87
Exhibit B-1, Page 14 of 31
Attachment 1, Page 33 of 87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
34
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
35
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
36
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
37
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
1
9
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
38
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
0
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
39
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
1
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
40
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
2
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
41
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
3
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
42
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
4
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
43
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
5
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
44
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
6
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
45
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
7
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
46
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
8
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
47
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
2
9
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
48
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
3
0
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
49
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
1
,
P
a
g
e
3
1
o
f
3
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
50
of
87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
51
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
52
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
53
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
54
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
55
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
56
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
57
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
58
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
59
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
60
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
61
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
62
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
63
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
64
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
65
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
66
of
87
Exhibit B-2, Page 16 of 18
Attachment 1, Page 67 of 87
Exhibit B-2, Page 17 of 18
Attachment 1, Page 68 of 87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
,
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
69
of
87
534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • www.friends.org
Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 • fax (541) 474-9389
Mid-Willamette Valley Office • 189 Liberty Street NE, Suite 307A • Salem, OR 97301 • (503) 371-7261 • fax (503) 371-7596
Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 520-3763 • fax (503) 575-2416
October 10, 2012
Linda Pauly
Principal Planner
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Re: Proposed UGB expansion
Dear Linda:
Following is our focused review of the September 2009 draft Springfield Economic
Opportunities Analysis (EOA), along with suggestions for how Springfield could move forward
with a 50-100 acre industrial UGB expansion that 1000 Friends would support.
NEED DETERMINATION
The EOA’s fundamental weakness is extremely low assumed job densities. For example:
Industrial on sites over 20 acres .......................................... 0.8 jobs per acre
Industrial overall ................................................................. 1.5 jobs per acre
Retail overall ..................................................................... 11.3 jobs per acre
Office overall .................................................................... 14.8 jobs per acre
Average for all new employment .................. 7.9 jobs per acre
These job densities are plainly unreasonable. Springfield has already achieved job densities far
in excess of these assumptions. For example, while the EOA proposes an overall job density of
just 7.9 employees per acre, Springfield’s current job density is three times higher, at 24
employees per acre.1
The low employment densities lead to absurd results. For example, the EOA claims that 500
acres of large-lot industrial land are needed for just 375 workers. The EOA offers no
explanation or facts to support these outcomes.
The authors of the EOA were aware of the difference between Springfield’s historic job densities
and what was ultimately proposed. Table C-10 on page 141 identifies the number of needed sites
that would be needed based on “historic employment patterns.” The final line, however, presents
a range of needed sites that is far greater than Table C-10’s tally, both for every specific site size
and in aggregate. This overage is carried over into Table C-11. The following table summarizes
1 See the attached Springfield EOA Job Density Analysis for details.
Exhibit B-3, Page 1 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 70 of 87
Page 2 of 4
the substantial differences between the “historic employment pattern” and the EOA’s presumed
future need.
SITE SIZE
<1 1 to 2 2 to 5 5 20 to 50 >50
Table C-10 “Historic Pattern” 181 38 30 20 2 2
Table C-11
Assumed Future Need 225 60 48 30 5 3
Increase From “Historic” 124% 158% 160% 150% 250% 150%
The EOA offers no evidence in support of such a dramatic departure from the Table C-10
determination. We urge the city not to proceed with the Table C-11 proposal.
Instead, we recommend that the city pursue more the reasonable Table C-10 site needs
determination. This would still be an aggressive departure from past trends, and would still
result in a much higher land need determination than current trends indicate is necessary.
Despite Table C-10’s “historic employment pattern” label, as the attached Springfield EOA Job
Density Analysis shows, the job density that would result from Table C-10 is only 13 jobs per
acre, much lower than Springfield’s current 24 jobs per acre.
While we do have concerns about Table C-10’s conclusions, in the interests of compromise, we
are willing to support a site needs determination that is consistent with Table C-10.
SUPPLY DETERMINATION
There appears to be an error in Table 5-1. As shown below, this table claims there are five 5-20
acre parcels, one 20-50 acre redevelopable parcel, and nothing over 50 acres:
However, as shown below, Table 2-10’s tally of redevelopable land shows eleven 5-20 acre
parcels, two 20-to-50 parcels, and one 50+ acre parcel:
Exhibit B-3, Page 2 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 71 of 87
Page 3 of 4
Below is a comparison of the corrected Table 5-1 land supply determination and the Table C-10
“Historic” site needs. There is a surplus in every category except the >50-acre size range.
SITE SIZE
<1 1 to 2 2 to 5 5 20 to 50 >50
Table C-10 “Historic Pattern” 181 38 30 20 2 2
Corrected Table 5-1 Supply 603 86 72 27 2 1
If the city determines that the needed >50-acre site cannot be created via assembly of smaller
sites, then we would support expansion of the UGB to provide that site, up to a maximum of 100
acres.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERTIONS
First, the city should focus its planning and funding efforts on the industrial site that can be most
easily served with infrastructure. Public facilities must be provided to the new site in a timely
Exhibit B-3, Page 3 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 72 of 87
Page 4 of 4
manner, in order for this expansion to be genuinely helpful to Springfield’s land supply. Our
experience has been that industrial sites without available services are not attractive in the
market. Failure to serve industrial land also sets the stage for conversion to other uses. After
many years without an industrial buyer, frustrated property owners may subsequently request
redesignation to a more marketable use, such as residential.
Springfield should also ensure that the large site is protected from future divisions. Springfield
already has enough employment land in terms of acreage. Since the purpose of the UGB
expansion would be solely to provide a large site, the site must be preserved for that use. It
could take decades for this large site to develop; the city should not allow an impatient
landowner to split the site in the interim. This protection is especially critical in light of
Springfield’s constrained future land supply. There will not be a lot of options for replacing
large industrial sites that are lost to poorly planned development.
Finally, the city should remember that if the new industrial site develops quickly, that use would
be important substantive evidence that can be used to justify another expansion to replace the
site. In addition, work is underway now to reform UGB expansion rules to make it easier to
create and maintain a perpetual regional supply of large industrial sites. Pursuing a more
modest – but defensible – UGB expansion now does not tie the city’s hands regarding future
expansions. The city may revisit its EOA at any time.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Mia Nelson
Willamette Valley Advocate
1000 Friends of Oregon
220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5
Eugene, OR 97452
541.520.3763
Attachment: Springfield EOA Job Density Analysis
Cc: Ed Moore, DLCD
Exhibit B-3, Page 4 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 73 of 87
SPRINGFIELD EOA JOB DENSITY ANALYSIS
FORECASTED JOBS, Table C-9 <1 1 to 22 to 55 to 2020 to 50 >50 TOTAL
Warehousing/Distribution 4621 9 2214112
General Industrial 14116116716820302
Office 1024448400645338632
Retail 1436511676535576
Other Services 817451460869520752
TOTAL FORECASTED JOBS 2171 1146 1152 1979 1454 2274 10176
SITES NEEDED, Table C-11 <1 1 to 22 to 55 to 2020 to 50 >50
Warehousing/Distribution 3 5 1
General Industrial 57 1011 33
Office 1002020 51
Retail 701510 4
Other Services 5018 55
TOTAL SITES NEEDED 225604830 53
AVERAGE SITE SIZE, Table S-3 <1 1 to 22 to 55 to 2020 to 50 >50
Warehousing/Distribution 0.51.5 3 1550100
General Industrial 0.51.5 3 1550100
Office 0.31.5 3 154050
Retail 0.31.5 3 154050
Other Services 0.31.5 3 154050
ACREAGE NEEDED (computed)<1 1 to 22 to 55 to 2020 to 50 >50 TOTAL
Warehousing/Distribution 009 7550 0
General Industrial 3 1130165150300
Office 3030607540 0
Retail 21233060 00
Other Services 15271575 00
TOTAL ACREAGE NEEDED 69901444502403001293
JOBS PER ACRE (computed)<1 1 to 22 to 55 to 2020 to 50 >50 OVERALL
Warehousing/Distribution ****1.02.90.8 **2.6
General Industrial 56.415.35.61.00.11.01.5
Office 14.8
Retail 11.3
Other Services 29.3
AVERAGE JOBS PER ACRE 31.712.78.04.46.17.67.9
^
2008 SPRINGFIELD EMPLOYMENT, Table C-2 41133 |
2008 DEVELOPED EMPLOYMENT LAND, Table 2-5 1710 |
2008 JOBS PER ACRE (computed)24 <--------------COMPARE
USING CLAIMED "HISTORICAL" SITE NEEDS
AVERAGE SITE SIZE <1 1 to 22 to 55 to 2020 to 50 >50 TOTAL
Average of industrial/commercial 0.41.5 3 154575
Need per historical, Table C-10 181383020 22
TOTAL ACRES NEEDED 72579030090150 759
Resutling OVERALL EPA 302013 7 1615 13
Still much lower than existing 24 EPA ^
Exhibit B-3, Page 5 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 74 of 87
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
Exhibit B-3, Page 6 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 75 of 87
Exhibit B-3, Page 7 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 76 of 87
Exhibit B-3, Page 8 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 77 of 87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
3
,
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
78
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
3
,
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
79
of
87
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
3
,
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
1
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1,
Pa
g
e
80
of
87
Exhibit B-3, Page 12 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 81 of 87
Exhibit B-3, Page 13 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 82 of 87
Willamalane Park and Recreation District Parks
Inclusion in Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary
Willamalane Park and Recreation District (WPRD) is designated in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan as the park and recreation service provider for Springfield and its urbanizable area.
Willamalane owns 783 acres of land (recent acquisitions not included), 37 facilities, seven community
recreation and support facilities, and three undeveloped properties in the greater Springfield area.
The planning area for Willamalane’s 20-year Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan is generally
defined by Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB). There are a few minor exceptions to this
circumstance where the district boundary is outside the UGB. In those cases the planning area is
defined by the district boundary. In addition, the district’s boundary generally coincides with the
Springfield city limits, but there are some instances where the district boundary is outside the city limits
and UGB both. It should be noted that developed areas annexed by the City of Springfield are
automatically annexed to the District.
Community Needs Assessment
As part of the update to Willamalane’s Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan)
an extensive community needs assessment was completed (refer to Appendix A of the Comprehensive
Plan). The Community Needs Assessment included public involvement activities such as surveys and
workshops in which community input was solicited from a range of cohort groups. Information on parks
and facilities, recreation services, and maintenance and operations was gathered to identify future
needs for park and recreation services and infrastructure to meet a growing population.
The district population forecast is the same as the forecast used by the City of Springfield for the
residential, commercial, and industrial buildable lands study. Over the next 20 years, the population is
projected to increase by 22 percent within the Willamalane planning area. As such, WPRD will have to
increase services, parks and facilities just to maintain the current level of service for the planning area.
WPRD uses a parkland standard of 14.00 acres per 1,000 residents. Based on this standard, 160
additional acres of parkland are currently needed. By 2030, that total increase to 364 acres. The future
parkland need of approximately 364 acres includes 68 acres of Neighborhood Parks, 102 acres of
Community Parks, and 194 acres of Natural Area.
Recent Planning Activity
WPRD has recently developed Quartz Park, in the Jasper-Natron area of south east Springfield. The land
is owned by Springfield Public Schools. The site is a future location of a school and the park will be co-
managed by the school district and Willamalane once the school is constructed. Until then, Willamalane
has sole management responsibility. Quartz Park is approximately 3.5 acres in size and is classified as a
Neighborhood Park. This past spring, WPRD acquired Pacific Park in north west Springfield, and plans to
develop approximately 3.27 acres of the land acquired into a Neighborhood Park. The remaining
portion will stay undeveloped and assist with storm water conveyance. The development plans will be
consistent with the standards for a neighborhood parks and will include such amenities as a playground,
basketball court, seating areas, and interior concrete pathways.
Exhibit B-3, Page 14 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 83 of 87
Urban Growth Boundary
There are five (5) parks currently outside the existing UGB that Willamalane is interested in having
included within the UGB. These parks are:
1. Weyerhaeuser-McKenzie Natural Area Park (Tax Lots 17022900002901, 1702300000401). These tax
lots are approximately 55 acres in size. The City of Springfield transferred this property to WPRD in
October of 2013. This natural area is one of a few locations in Springfield that offers potentially ADA
accessibility to the McKenzie River. Currently the site is improved with an informal parking area, an
internal access road and bridge, and a well field operated by Springfield Utility Board. Willamalane
has plans to improve the area with a formal parking area and universal access to the water. These
plans are consistent with the McKenzie River Oxbow Natural Area Master Plan (the master plan for
this natural area). This plan was approved by the City of Springfield on June 18, 2001.
WPRD has plans to complete restoration of the property consistent with recommendations in the
Oxbow Natural Area Master Plan. In addition, the use of this property as a natural area park and
creating an accessible connection to the McKenzie River is consistent with the WPRD’s Comprehensive
Plan and its Community Needs Assessment.
2. Jack B. Lively Memorial Park (Lively Park) (Tax Lot 1702270001101). This park is a community park
and is approximately 32 acres in size. A portion of the park is currently outside the UGB. The park is
improved with SPLASH, a regional recreational pool facility, a playground, basketball court, sand
volleyball court, walking trails, two picnic shelters and a dog park. The tax lot proposed to be
included in the UGB is 9.74 acres in size and currently contains soft-surface walking trails, a
footbridge, and the north portion of the dog park, consistent with the 2005, Lively Park Master Plan.
WPRD does not have any plans to further develop this area.
The existing trail system on the 9.74 acre parcel is consistent with the Jack B. Lively Memorial Park
Master Plan and the WPRD Comprehensive Plan and Community Needs Assessment to provide
additional opportunities for walking.
3. Ruff (Wallace M Jr.) Memorial Park (Tax Lots 1702270001502, 1702341115500). This park is a special
use park and is 9.79 acres in size. It is located at 1161 66th Street in the Thurston area of Springfield.
The park can be accessed from 66th Street and via a pedestrian path from Jacob Lane, which is to the
south of the park. The park is currently improved with walking trails, extensive planting of Magnolia
trees, and a foot bridge over Cedar Creek. In the spring of 2013 WPRD acquired Tax Lot
1702341115500, which is 6.1 acres in size and is south of the existing Ruff Park.
Although WPRD does not currently have plans to develop this newly acquired land, any future
development within the park, including the panhandle portion will be consistent with the park standards
for special use parks per the WPRD Comprehensive Plan and the Ruff Park master plan. Currently the
park serves the residents within Levi Landing subdivision, which is immediately south of the park and
within the UGB. Since Ruff Park serves the residents in the UGB, it should be in the UGB
4. Clearwater Park (Tax Lots 1802080000300, 1802080000400, 1802080000500, 1802080000600).
This park is a special use park and is approximately 66 acres in size. The Park has been undergone
many changes in the last 3-5 years. It was recently upgraded with a new boat ramp/landing, parking,
Exhibit B-3, Page 15 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 84 of 87
restroom, park host site, and soft surface trails. The inlet and new channel for the Springfield Mill
Race was developed in 2010. It is also the eastern trailhead for the 4-milie Middle Fork Path. Future
use in the park is planned to include archery range, 9-hole disc golf, a nature play-ground, and
additional soft surface trails.
The park offers a place for recreating with family and friends and connecting with nature. The
combination of the Middle Fork Willamette River, Springfield Mill Race and their diverse habitat types,
presents an opportunity to enhance natural areas, water quality and wildlife habitat while concurrently
providing outdoor education and recreation amenities for the people of Springfield. This is a unique
destination in south Springfield.
Georgia-Pacific Park (Tax Lot 1802060004501, 180207000801—on their map. There are more TL’s … are
these only ones that need to move into the UGB?). This park is approximately 125 acres in size and is
classified as a natural area park. It is jointly owned by SUB, City of Springfield and Willamalane. Plans
include developing the Mill Race Path through the park, connecting to the Middle Fork Path. A majority
of Georgia-Pacific Park is already located within the UGB. Of the 125 acres, approximately 12 acres is
outside the UGB. The Comprehensive Plan, and agreements with SUB and the City, calls for the joint
development of a management plan and master plan for the park. Having the entire park included in
the UGB will facilitate a joint management approach to the park.
Besides developing a portion of the Mill Race Path within Georgia-Pacific Park, Willamalane has no
additional development plans. Willamalane staff has conceptualized this area for soft surface trails, and
habitat restoration. This is a unique destination in south Springfield. By including this entire property in
the UGB, the City is increasing Willamalane’s service area within the UGB and within the City’s
jurisdiction, which is consistent with Willamalane being the park and recreation service provider for the
City.
Conclusions
• By including these properties within UGB, the City is increasing Willamalane’s service area
within the UGB and within the City’s jurisdiction, which is consistent with Willamalane being the
park and recreation service provider for the City.
• By incorporating both Clearwater Park and all of Georgia-Pacific Park into the UGB, the City of
Springfield incorporates a regional path system within its jurisdiction. The Middle Fork Path and
the Mill Race Path (once completed), will be an eight mile multi-use path that connects
downtown to the Middle Fork Willamette River
• The City is bringing into its jurisdiction an increased amount of natural area parks that offer the
community the opportunity to access nearby waterways, unique vegetative habitats, and an
expanding network of trails and paths.
• The UGB line truncates several of these Parks: Lively, Ruff, G-P … moving the UGB so that the
entire park is within City of Springfield’s jurisdiction makes sense for land use and park
management considerations (or something)
• Once within the UGB, it is anticipated that the public safety of the parks may increase since the
City of Springfield will have jurisdiction over these parks and could provide for quicker response
time for emergency services compared to County enforcement and emergency services.
Exhibit B-3, Page 16 of 16
Attachment 1, Page 85 of 87
The public record for the 2030 Plan and UGB study is lengthy. Complete documentation of public input
received through the multi-year process conducted 2008-2014 is available upon request, including:
Public Input from the 2010 Joint Planning Commissions Public Hearing on 2030 Plan
In February-May 2010, the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the 2030 Plan, including three early concepts for expanding the UGB. The following summary lists the testimony received related to the UGB study areas and the commercial and industrial
land supply. Some testimony addressed other issues and aspects of the 2030 Plan proposals.
February 2, 2010 Minutes
February 17, 2010 Minutes and Testimony:
o Johnson
o Kloos – Home Builders o Leno o Light
o Spickerman o Kloos
o Cosette Rees
o Richard Satre
March 16, 2010 Minutes
o Michael Reeder representing Amigos III 3-16-10 o Michael Reeder representing Rosboro 3-16-10
o 1000 Friends 3-14-10 o DLCD 3-14-10 o Michael Reeder representing Amigos III – letter to Greg Mott
o Cynthia Pappas o George Grier o Dwight Purdy – Springfield School District #19
o Wicklund Trust 3-16-10 o Robert Emmons, LandWatch 3-16-10 o Rick Satre 3-16-10 o Donald Grant o Kenneth Schmidt
o Tom Bowerman
April 20, 2010 Minutes and Testimony
o Steve and Sheri Tofflemoyer o Greg Harmon o Ralph Wheeler
o Jennifer Gericke o Sandra and Walt Johnson o Hugh & Phyllis Miller
o Eugene & Emma Murr o Gregory & Lorrisa Leno o Frank M Light
o Walter Johnson
Exhibit C, Page 1 of 2
Attachment 1, Page 86 of 87
o Marcia L Sexton
o Ralph Wheeler
o Richard and Rit Proulx o Mike Miller
o Randy Hledick o Michael E Farthing for Gordon Webb o Jordan Schrader for Wicklund Trust
o Raedeke Associates for Wicklund Farm Property o Earle Wicklund o Jeff De Franco for Springfield School District
o James W Spickerman for Puzzle Parts LLC o Michael A Kelly o Ed Moore, DLCD
o Ted Corbin for Springfield Historic Commission o Bill Kloos for Willamette Water Company o Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon
o Arnold Gallager Percell Roberts and Potter –post hearing testimony of Rosboro
Public Input from Open Houses
Public Input from 2009 and 2010 PC and CC Hearings on Draft CIBL Study
Public Input from 2008-2009 CIBL Stakeholder Committee Process, Community Development Workshop and Community Development Survey
Exhibit C, Page 2 of 2
Attachment 1, Page 87 of 87
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2,
Pa
g
e
2
of
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2,
Pa
g
e
3
of
6
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2,
Pa
g
e
5
of
6
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 6