HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Springfield 2030 Plan UGB Study - Results of College View Visioning Process (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LPR 2009-00014)
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/23/2015
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Linda Pauly DPW
Staff Phone No: (541)726-4608
Estimated Time: 30 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 PLAN UGB STUDY: RESULTS OF COLLEGE VIEW
VISIONING PROCESS (METRO PLAN AMENDMENT FILE NO. LRP 2009-00014)
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Council is asked to review the information submitted through the visioning process and
to direct staff to seek ways to integrate the major themes from the visioning (Exhibit A)
or other themes into the City’s draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Urbanization policies.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Staff will provide an overview of the visioning process consisting of four workshops
conducted by the City between January 14 and March 4th, 2015 to seek input into policy
development for the 2030 Plan and the City’s proposed UGB expansion in the College
View Study Area.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memo – Visioning Process, Results and Themes
- Exhibit A. College View Visioning Process Policy Themes
2. Vision and goals statements suggested by working group members
- Attachment 2A. Correspondence
3. A. Themes from Public Input at Visioning Workshop #1
B. Summary of Input from Stakeholder Working Group
4. Complete Summary of Input: Workshop #1
5. Stakeholder Working Group Meeting Notes
6. Map: College View UGB Study Area
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
At the September 8th, 2014 work session, Council directed staff to form a group of
neighbors and other community members/stakeholders to discuss and develop visions
and goals for the College View study area — addressing appropriate and realistic
industrial and commercial development types, preservation of farm land and natural
resources, accessibility, sustainability, and environmental quality.
Staff conducted an open and inclusive visioning process that invited and brought people
with diverse perspectives to the table to share their visions, share information, express
their concerns and seek common interests for moving forward. This process was
focused on the College View/South Franklin corridor — one of several study areas the
City is proposing to include in the employment land UGB expansion — where there is a
diversity of existing land uses and a diversity of opinions about the City’s proposal.
The purpose of the visioning was to seek input from potentially affected stakeholders to
inform policy development for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council is considering options for expanding the UGB to provide employment
opportunity sites that will meet the needs of Springfield’s target industries — as
identified in the 2009 Draft Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and
Economic Opportunity Analysis — for the planning period ending 2030. Springfield’s
final UGB may include some or all land discussed at the work session or other lands
identified through the 2030 Plan public process, consistent with the prioritization
requirements of ORS 197.298 and the Oregon Land Use Goal 14 Administrative Rule.
The next steps in the public process include:
Joint work session with Lane County Board to present Springfield’s proposed
UGB scheduled for September 28, 2015
Open houses and additional outreach
Publish and mail notice of public hearing
Joint Public hearing scheduled for October 19, 2015 on proposed 2030 Plan and
UGB
Council Decision on 2030 Plan and UGB
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 3/23/2015
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, DPW Interim Director
Linda Pauly, Principal Planner
BRIEFING
Subject: SPRINGFIELD 2030 PLAN UGB STUDY: RESULTS OF COLLEGE VIEW VISIONING PROCESS
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: Staff will provide an overview of the visioning process consisting of four workshops conducted by the City between January 14 and March 4th, 2015 to seek input into policy
development for the 2030 Plan and the City’s proposed UGB expansion in the College View Study Area.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan will designate a 20-year land supply for employment and provide
policy support for community economic development and revitalization. The public
involvement process creates opportunities for dialogue between diverse stakeholders and supports the emergence of new community partnerships.
RESULTS OF VISIONING:
Staff prepared Exhibit A— a list of some important policy themes that have emerged through
the visioning process. While the process was too brief to reach stakeholder consensus on
vision statements and goals, these themes express values and agreements shared by many
participants.
Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5 provide documentation of the City’s visioning process
conducted between January 14 and March 4th, 2015. Attachment 2 is a list of vision and
goals statements discussed by members of the Stakeholder Working Group and statements
submitted by individual members of the group. Attachment 3A is a summary of themes from the large January 14th Visioning Workshop, arranged by topic. Attachment 3B is a summary of
input from the Stakeholder Working Group organized by member category. Staff will provide a presentation at the work session to describe and summarize: 1) the discussions of the Stakeholder Working Group; 2) the important input received through the visioning process; and
3) how that input can inform 2030 Comprehensive Plan Urbanization policies and zoning applicable to the College View/South Franklin corridor area. More detailed notes documenting the visioning workshops are in Attachments 4 and 5.
BACKGROUND: At the September 8th, 2014 work session, Council directed staff to form a
group of neighbors and other community members and stakeholders to discuss and develop
visions and goals for the College View area — addressing appropriate and realistic industrial and commercial development types, preservation of farm land and natural resources,
accessibility, sustainability, and environmental quality. This direction stemmed from the
Mayor’s discussions with participants at the August 26th Seavey Loop neighborhood meeting. On October 30, 2014 the City Manager and staff met with several key stakeholders to invite
their participation in this process. Several of them requested additional time to communicate
with their respective groups prior to commencement of the city’s process. The visioning process began on January 14th, 2015.
Attachment 1-1
MEMORANDUM 3/16/2015 Page 2
DISCUSSION: The City conducted an open and inclusive visioning process that brought people
with diverse perspectives to the table to share their visions, share information, express their
concerns and seek common interests for moving forward. This process was focused on the College View/South Franklin corridor — one of several study areas the City is proposing to
include in the employment land UGB expansion — where there is a diversity of existing rural
industrial, commercial, residential and public facility land uses and a range of opinions about the City’s proposal.
Visioning Process and Participants
The purpose of the visioning was to seek input from potentially affected stakeholders to provide
input on the City’s UGB amendment proposal and plan policy development related to the proposed UGB expansion in the College View UGB Study Area, including but not limited to:
• Land use policies applicable to new land added to the UGB
• Springfield Development Code urban transition zoning standards that will be applicable
to land if and when it is included in Springfield’s UGB.
The visioning process was designed to facilitate a series of conversations between Seavey Loop
area neighbors, College View/Franklin businesses, stakeholders and interested parties about the
City’s proposed College View UGB expansion area that would:
• Acknowledge and respect peoples’ concerns
• Identify key issues of concerns and ways to address them
• Identify desired outcomes and ways to achieve them
• Facilitate dialogue between the stakeholders to increase mutual understanding of the
issues
• Invite and encourage participation in policy development (land uses, zoning, land use buffers, water quality protection, etc.)
Given the high amount of interest in this study area, staff designed a series of four workshops, with one large workshop event and 3 workshops with a stakeholder working group appointed by
Springfield’s CCI.
Visioning Workshop #1 and recruitment for stakeholder working group (SWG).
Staff invited potentially affected stakeholders and members of the public to a Visioning
Workshop at City Hall Library Meeting Room on January 14, 2014 to kick off the visioning process and to identify potential working group participants willing to commit their time to the
SWG. Staff mailed an invitation to the workshop to all property owners and residents within the
College View study area boundary. Staff emailed the invitation to the entire College View/Seavey Loop study area email list, a large email list of Seavey Loop area neighbors,
stakeholders and concerned individuals who have participated in previous neighborhood meetings and/or have submitted letters and emails regarding the College View/Seavey Loop UGB Study Area over the past several years. The list includes individuals who provided
testimony about this study area to the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions at their 2010 joint public hearing on the Springfield 2030 Plan and UGB expansion concepts (Planning File No. LRP2009-00014). Staff also recruited agency staff, service providers and
other individuals to serve as resources to the working group. These individuals agreed to share information, maps, etc. to the support the working group process.
An estimated 125 people attended the January 14th.workshop. All input from the workshop was posted on the city’s webpage http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/2030Plan.htm . To recruit participants for the stakeholder working group and a resource group, all workshop attendees
were invited to volunteer. 18 individuals signed up. 4 individuals signed up as resources. From this pool, the Springfield CCI appointed the SWG to ensure balanced perspectives — consistent
Attachment 1-2
MEMORANDUM 3/16/2015 Page 3
with Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 1 Citizen Involvement — at their February 3, 2015 meeting.
Stakeholder working group appointed by the CCI
John Helmer Neighborhood
Rob Castleberry Neighborhood
Normandy Helmer Neighborhood
Gayle Landt Ag business
Ross Pennhallegon, OSU Extension Agriculture expert/Springfield Groundwater Guardians
Jim Straub Study area property owner - EFU
Jeff Schwartz, President Study area business Johnson Crushers Internat’l
Dan Kuske Study area business Latus
Corbin McBride Springfield resident/LCC student/Water Quality program
Betsy Schultz Real estate professional
Tom LoCascio Mt. Pisgah arboretum, neighborhood
Nicole Ankeney Willamalane
Keir Miller/Mark Rust Lane County Planning
Tom Scates Study area property owner - Rural Residential
Ed Moore DLCD
David Helton/David Reesor ODOT
Resource Group
Brett Rowlett LCC & Main –McVay Transit Study SAC Member
Lydia McKinney/Becky Taylor Lane County Transportation Planning
Chris Orsinger, Director Friends of Buford Park
Dan Terrell, Attorney Willamette Water CO
Merlyn Hough, Jo Niehaus, Max
Hueftle, LRAPA
Lane Regional Air Protection Agency
Topics Discussed at the Visioning Workshops
January 14th Visioning Workshop #1 Sharing Your Concerns and Ideas
• Biggest concern about change - today and tomorrow
• Biggest concern about this process
• What’s your experience of College View/South Franklin area today?
• Name one thing that would improve your experience of College View/ South Franklin
Attachment 1-3
MEMORANDUM 3/16/2015 Page 4
Attachment 3 provides a set of policy themes that emerged from Workshop #1.
Attachment 4 provides a full summary of input from Workshop #1.
February 11th SWG Workshop # 2 Sharing Your Visions
• How does future College View/Franklin area development fit into your visions?
• Where is the gateway to Mt. Pisgah and how does that relate to the proposed expansion?
February 25 SWG Workshop #3 Shaping the Future - Plan Policies
• Vision and goals statements to address environmental, social, economic, land use
compatibility, transportation, infrastructure concerns
• Viable commerce and industry types and land uses consistent with visions and goals
March 4 SWG Workshop #4 Shaping the Future - Development Standards
• Permitted uses under the existing Lane County zoning
• Implementing visions and goals through standards for new development
Attachment 5 provides meeting notes from the SWG workshops 2, 3 and 4.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City’s visioning process was successful. Diverse
stakeholders came together to discuss common interests and goals for moving forward.
Integrating major themes from the visioning (Exhibit A) into the City’s 2030 Plan Urbanization Element will ensure that changes in land use eventually enabled by this area’s inclusion in
Springfield’s UGB will protect and improve the livability of the region while adding need employment land for job creation.
Attachment 1-4
College View Visioning Process
Policy Themes
The Council Briefing Memo and Attachments 2,3,4, and 5 provide documentation of the City’s
visioning process conducted between January 14 and March 4th, 2015. The process was
successful in bringing stakeholders with diverse perspectives to the table to dialogue with one
another about possible futures for the UGB study area.
Staff noted some important themes that have emerged through this process that should be
considered as the Council adopts new comprehensive plan policies and zoning that would be
applicable to the College View UGB expansion area. While this list is not intended to be an
inclusive summary of the entire process and the process was too brief to reach stakeholder
consensus on vision statements and goals, staff heard interest and agreement among the
stakeholder working group for:
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Habitat
• Protecting Mt. Pisgah/Buford Park and Confluence area as a regional park for
generations to come
• Improving the experience of the approach to Mt. Pisgah/Buford Park and Confluence
area though wayfinding, truck routing, improved bike/pedestrian/transit access,
preserving the oak trees, future public river access/trailhead at the Confluence
Employment Uses
• Establishing an “Employment“ zone rather than an “Industrial” zone
• Employment uses that aren’t “smokestack” heavy industrial uses
• Targeting employment firms that would be attracted to the adjacent outdoor and rural
amenities for their employees
• Zoning that requires design controls that will result in a more aesthetically pleasing
development
Exhibit A-1
Attachment 1-5
• Zoning that will allow existing uses to be grandfathered in and grow in place, while
requiring new zoning controls (environmental, design standards, etc.) for new
development, expansions and redevelopment
• Zoning that will prevent some undesirable land uses that are currently permitted in the
County zones
District Identity and Uniqueness
• Support for maintaining and improving the “Gateway to Mt. Pisgah/Buford Park/Seavey
Loop area”
Clean Environment
• Support for better control and monitoring for emissions and discharges
Buffering between employment zone and surrounding farms and rural residential areas
• Vegetative buffers along Oxley Slough – the City’s Water Quality Limited Waterway and
riparian area setback requirements would apply to Oxley Slough as a tributary to Coast
Fork Willamette River
• Preserving vegetation along Oxley Slough as buffer and habitat.
• Restricted development in floodway or flood plain could be a de facto buffer to prevent
intrusion of urban development into farmland in the future
Transportation
• Traffic controls that would route heavy trucks to South Franklin and south to the I-5
Goshen interchange/Hwy 58 (instead of north to the Seavey Loop Road and 30th
interchange)
• Pursue Willamalane/City bike/pedestrian connections along Franklin including a future
bike/pedestrian bridge across the river
Exhibit A-2
Attachment 1-6
Draft vision statements from the February 25th meeting:
• Activities in the corridor do not degrade rural landscape character
immediately to the east/Retain the high quality of the landscape
character.
• Activities in the corridor rreserve and enhance the entrance to Seavey
Loop neighborhood and gateway to Mt. Pisgah.
• Promote aesthetically pleasing design (does this restrict ag-related uses)
that enhances the viewshed / rural character.
• There are community-based activities / gathering of minds to
address/mediate land use disputes.
• Activities in the corridor promote good transportation.
o Less polluting
o Less congestion
o Efficient and effective
o Bike paths
o LTD
• Promote industry activities that benefit and complement sustainable
agriculture/good ag practices.
• Promote activities that protect and improve water, air, soil, wildlife habitat.
• My vision is not industry. Wants medical facility, research facility. Property
owners in study area need to put forth their vision.
• My vision is for a more narrowly defined boundary (reduced)
• My vision is for commercial use/smaller buildings / light industrial use that
minimizes footprint and pollution, emission, traffic.
Attachment 2-1
Draft vision statements from the March 4th meeting:
• My vision is that industrial uses not be extended to Class 3 or better soils
• My vision is protect class 3 or better soils for agriculture
• My vision is a preference for “Employment” uses to “Industrial” uses, more
intensive uses vs. warehouses, etc.
Attachment 2-2
Attachment 2A-3
Attachment 2A-4
Attachment 2A-5
Attachment 2A-6
Attachment 2A-7
Attachment 2A-8
Attachment 2A-9
Attachment 2A-10
Visions for the College View/South Franklin Corridor
Workshop #1 Sharing Your Concerns and Ideas
Themes from Public Input
Environmental
• Maintain and protect clean water, soil, and air for farms, homes, visitors, and nature.
• Prevent pollution of air and water. Understanding the existing industrial pollution – how much
is existing industry polluting?/ Reduce pollution from existing industries
• Enforce laws on pollution and toxic emissions
• Impose and enforce water quality standards
• Limit new development in flood plain and wetlands
• Protect and enhance Oxley Slough and Coast Fork Willamette River – they are essential salmonid
habitats and home to other critical species.
• Protect the gateway to Lane County’s largest park and the Willamette Confluence Preserve,
conservation lands, farmlands, and parks
• Protect wildlife habitat and flyways
• Use bio-engineering working with nature, permaculture design
• Protect land with hydric soils connected to sloughs and waterway
• Protect existing open space
• Expand conservation areas
• Protect and improve water, soil, air and wildlife habitat; leaving natural resources cleaner than
we found them.
• Address potential contamination of water, soil and air that will harm farm businesses, wells
serving over 700 families, ecosystems, and critical species.
Economic: Commerce, Industry, Jobs
• Maintain area as a good place for business
• Consider impacts to existing businesses in the expansion area and ag businesses nearby
• Preserve agricultural land/opportunities for working farms close to city/U pick and farm stands/
local food production
• Prevent urban encroachment of industrial and residential development on farm
ground/Maintain a critical mass of farmland to maintain the viability of farming in this location
• Recognizes the long-term value of this area as a rural/ag interface with the cities
• Providing a greener entry into Seavey Loop area / Eugene and Springfield
• Encouraging business compatible with agriculture
• Protect area for its value as parks/nature/open space/recreation/ outdoor education/tourism
• Take advantage of location close to LCC
• Take advantage of good freeway access (Hwy 58 and I-5)
Attachment 3A-1
• Take advantage of natural beauty
• Make Springfield a model for smart and sustainable development
• Redevelop blighted property with suitable development
• Encourage and support more small farms to generate more jobs - there is a market for locally-
grown food
• Support for agricultural jobs and rural income/ Support youth jobs in agriculture
• Protect residential and agricultural land values
• Recognize farms and open space as strong, job-creating economic engines.
Social/Community
• Preserve and enhance the beauty of the Seavey Loop neighborhood as a gateway to Mt.
Pisgah.
• Protect area for its value as parks/nature/open space/recreation/ outdoor education/tourism
/e.g. farm education center
• Maintain the unique identity of the Seavey Loop area/ pride of place
• Seavey Loop area should be considered as a Rural Reserve
• Retain the existing affordable housing in the area
• Connect/ create recreation trails/ Ridgeline trail hike / bike connections
• Reduce odors (from industry or agriculture???)
• Continue to support Turtle Flats – improve and make accessible for recreation
• Expand protected open areas. By believing today’s 8 year olds will need and value open spaces
as much as employment – think of the population pressure in 20, 50, 100 years
Land Use Compatibility
• Preserve and enhance the beauty of the Seavey Loop neighborhood as a gateway to Mt.
Pisgah.
• Providing a greener entry into Seavey Loop area / Eugene and Springfield
• Prevent industrial uses that are incompatible with small family farms and Howard Buford
Recreation Area
• Control noise, especially at night
• Require Smart lighting that keeps the dark night sky/ prevent light pollution
• Reduce/eliminate noise and light pollution to reduce impacts on residents, livestock,
ecosystems, and critical species, agricultural businesses, U-pick and on-farm sales.
• Protect the view from Mt. Pisgah/ prevent obstructive views
• Improve view from I-5
• Look for ways to improve the appearance of existing industry properties
• Higher and better use with design standards
• Require better landscaping such as what EPUD has accomplished
Attachment 3A-2
• Participate in integrated planning for the general area.
• Add regulation before being brought into city
• No development east of Franklin/Keep boundary closer to Franklin/Allow areas closer to
Franklin to be developed but retain eastern portions of parcels as open space/Split property
with UGB if possible
• Restore riparian forest as buffer
• Improve aesthetics of study area
• Maintain and encourage sustainable local agriculture that provides the people of Lane
County with healthy, locally grown food.
• Preserve, increase, and diversify sustainable agriculture.
• Partner with Lane County and Eugene to consider establishment of a regional Rural Reserve.
Transportation
• Providing a greener entry into Seavey Loop area / Eugene and Springfield
• Improve bike/ped connectivity
• Maintain good freeway access (Hwy 58 and I-5)
• Control volume and speed of traffic, especially when shift changes
• Create safe walking/biking/pedestrian areas, especially along Franklin and Seavey Loop.
• Maintain existing roads
• Improve roads to meet increased use and needs ( are already insufficient)
• Provide LTD access to recreational resources
• Make traffic flow changes to improve access to LCC from I-5 southbound (ramp/overpass)
• Improve traffic safety
• Promote bike & LTD access to park and Ridgeline Trail System
Infrastructure
• Providing a greener entry into Seavey Loop area / Eugene and Springfield
• Take advantage of existing water system
• Address high cost of providing services and infrastructure
• Improve infrastructure to meet increased use and needs ( are already insufficient)
• Improve weather power outage response times
Attachment 3A-3
Summary of Input
from Stakeholder Working Group Process by Member Category
Seavey Loop area residents – outside of the College View Study Area
John Helmer. Lived in the neighborhood 27 years, on the border of the study but not in it. Interested in
what this means regarding the value of their property. He’s a big fan of Springfield but would like to see
Springfield grow in natural ways. Also thinks overtime there will continue to be a real gem of a place —
the recreation area, Nature Conservancy and the surrounding farms – serving as a “central park” of the
region.
• There is a remarkable level of agreement about where that gateway to Pisgah is, but even if we
could draw that line and all say this is perfect, and Springfield could say that’s where the UGB
should be, what keeps it from spreading from there.
• This is a great process. Still doesn’t know how what we’re doing is going to make a difference.
• There needs to be a way to look farther out and say we can do this but we can also find a long
term way to preserve what we value in this other area. One of the things that would help a lot
of people out would be (and may be outside the scope of what the City of Springfield can do) is
when the line is drawn the City can also put a rule and insuring there is some kind of buffer
there – something that helps insure that line doesn’t get moved in another 20 years. They can
have a vision to look beyond the boundaries of the UGB and look a little farther out in the
future. Maybe a very narrow UGB makes sense – but is that just creep having been established
and then it grows and grows for many years. Is there a rule for the City of Springfield to help
make that happen or is it just Springfield is going to define the boundaries and this is what they
care about end of story. He thinks it takes community and takes the two cities and county and
thinking about things like reserves and trusts and if Springfield is solely interested in getting
what it needs to fulfill this function it’s not very satisfying at some level.
• One of the issues is the impact on the property value of properties that are not within the UGB
but are adjacent. If you have a residence it makes a difference to the value of that residence.
Like looking at the back of a Walmart.
Rob Castleberry. Has lived adjoining the study area for almost 35 years. Has operated his own business
from there in a rural residential setting and has been involved in various neighborhood activities inlcudin
Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah Arboretum over the years trying to protect the livability. Rob
values very highly the open space and proximity to the park. Sees possibilities for connectivity to
ridgeline trails and to Willamalane’s activities on the other side of the river and also feels very protective
of the farm community and what’s there in terms of residential.
• Feels the gateway to Mt. Pisgah is when you’re approaching the trestle and Franklin/Seavey
Loop, but as you are coming back he thinks what’s happening to the west and south is
significant to your experience. What’s done to buffer is important. Looks at map and sees the
industrial area comes up to where a lot of people are living in the trailer park (Hoya, Roble) and
the neighborhood there. Concern is these people think they are living in the Seavey Loop area
what will they think of living next to industrial?
• Has concerns on what the impacts of industrial areas have been, and the effectiveness of
monitoring and enforcement of environmental restrictions. What kind of assurances could we
have about impacts of this industrial zone from an air quality standpoint?
Attachment 3B-4
• When having visitors from out of town he wants to show them a special place – Pisgah is a
tremendous asset in that way in terms of our showcasing our special qualities and letting people
experience what is special about this place.
• When would design review and criteria kick in?
• Prefers “employment” to “industrial” and prefers employment intensive uses vs. warehouses,
etc. He is concerned about parking lots.
Normandy Helmer. Along with her husband John own a small farm on Seavey Loop. She is active in
Friends of Buford Park and the arboretum and has always valued the natural area around them. She
patronizes all the local farmers, have livestock of their own, and two kids. She is really interested in
seeing the values of the Seavey Loop area and Mt. Pisgah parks protected for the generations to come.
• Our neighborhood has this amazing parkland resource. It bothers her to not have a way for all
those invested to come together to really integrate the UGB goals and vision with the Seavey
Loop neighborhood goals and vision, then the parkland goals and vision, and County goals and
vision. It shouldn’t be on the backs of a few landowners to be running around at meetings.
Farmers and agricultural businesses in the Seavey Loop area
Gayle Landt, Ag business. Agriculture business owner of 33 acres on South Seavey Loop. Her business
plan for investing in property and being able to keep it really depended on the rural character of Seavey
Loop. She boards horses and one reason is close proximity to urban areas.
• Is there a precedent to be met for zoning it that is binding so that over time the area is able to
maintain the kinds of restrictions that you assume. There are precedents for people such as
conservation easements that are something that seems to hold up over time even though all
kinds of things can change around it. If later we were able to think of ways that some of the land
in the UGB could be developed and used and there could be restrictions on pollution, emissions,
etc., how durable could an agreement be if we really looked at that?
• Will it be urban with 15 stories or urban with 3-4. She realizes that industrial means
development and hardscape and parking lots, cement and all.
• If you have a vision statement it may be useful 20 years from now as people try to figure out
what the rules are going to be and why.
• Some buildings have plants all over them, that would be interesting to see.
Ross Pennhallegon, OSU Extension Agent, Agriculture expert.
• How effective is Exclusive Farm Use? It used to be extremely strong and if that is the case, to
him, here’s the line (referring to the UGB map), here is the good ag land, here’s Buford park –
you don’t touch it forever. That becomes the critical portion that’s fairly agreeable. But where
the line is drawn it becomes arguable. How do we make this “fence” that it cannot be crossed.
As the UGB expands how do we get insurance because this is some of the best soil in the world.
• Soils were surveyed in 1952. He said the soil survey is 99.5% accurate – he hasn’t seen one
inaccuracy in 30 years. Ours is amazingly accurate.
College View Study Area Commercial and Industrial Businesses
Jeff Schwartz, President Johnson Crushers. Understands there’s opposition and concerns about their
potential expansion. Is concerned about what people think of his operation, how to make it better.
Attachment 3B-5
• They are physically constrained on their existing site. In 2012 they had to restripe parking lot to
fit everyone in.
• Doesn’t have plans for their EFU parcel. But if it were zoned differently he has considered
possibility of putting an admin. building or parking across the street (on the EFU parcel), so he
could expand on the existing site.
• Interested in how the UGB expansion will affect his business the value of JCI property.
• He is responsible to help feed the 270 families that work there.
• I-5 is a must for his business.
• Hwy 58 is nice to have but not a must have.
• It’s very hard to find reasonably priced 10-20 acre property on I-5. It doesn’t exist.
• They have to store materials and goods off site, increasing their cost $1500 each time.
• Open to any ideas. The closer they are to the existing site the better. The more they have to
relocate, the farther they have to go the harder it will be. Doesn’t want to leave Lane County.
• They strictly monitor their emissions and have a person dedicated to that now. We fall well
below the permissible limits now.
Dan Kuske, Latus (was appointed but unable to participate in SWG). By phone he told staff he wants to
expand his business.
College View Study Area property owner large EFU parcels
Jim Straub. Represents the Straub Family Trust as well as Oak Management LLC and third generation
property owner in that area. The family started collecting property in the Seavey Loop area over 60
years ago and resided there in various form and functions. He and his father were raised there and
parents still reside on one of the larger parcels. Only have about 50ish acres or so that is included in this
study.
• he always traditionally considered the gateway to Pisgah to be at the intersection at Seavey and
Franklin on the NE side – he owns the land there on the corner where the welcome sign is. The
house burned down in ’83 and they chose not to rebuild. Idyllic setting and last remaining oak
trees - it’s very picturesque.
• By Walsh and Brooks- he doesn’t really connect that to Mt. Pisgah. It is what it is. That whole
corridor there – he doesn’t see that as that Gateway. Doesn’t see further industrialization of
that area as conflicting with what he sees as the gateway to Pisgah.
• People visualize industrial as being a smokestack basically but what he was hearing Linda saying
and asked whether an example that has been in the news lately, like a call center, would that fit
into this niche perhaps.
• He is hearing that the local area neighbors want to preserve the gateway access, scenic corridor,
and Seavy Loop. Also he sees that conservations easement as being a buffer because there are
neighbors that are worried about creep; if they allow the UGB to come to this area now what’s
to say 15 years from now they don’t slowly start creeping into the area that we see as the scenic
corridor. But within that area that UGB if it were agreed upon could expand too is looking at
what the allowable uses would be that fits the character of the neighborhood. Smokestacks is
something nobody wants to necessarily see but if there was some type of commercial enterprise
that people could agree upon that would be compatible maybe that’s workable.
• Likes the idea of the vision statement because it starts a path. You may not have the manpower,
funding, resources to implement that vision right now. In politics there is that rule you can’t
legislate future legislation. But vision statements get around that; says this is the collective view
Attachment 3B-6
of what we would like to see this area become. He sees that if there is a vision statement for
Seavey Loop/Buford Park area that tells people in the future of what we hoped would be here
and of what the general population would like to see so if there was the opportunity 5 years
from now to pass a bond measure to obtain more property to expand the park that fits the
vision and that becomes an action item. He finds this very intriguing and we can’t necessarily
solve all the problems today as a single group but if we can provide input in a vision statement
that creates a lasting impression and gives people in future generations to look back upon and
perhaps get some direction from.
• If land was within the UGB then Willamalane passes a bond measure and they have money set
aside for open space or park space. There’s all sorts of different options have popped up in
different scenarios that could come to fruition.
• Closer to Seavey Loop his recent purchase of 25 acres is Type 2 soils. It’s planted right now in
grass seed and growing well if they can keep the geese off of it. The stuff south of that Carl
Druse - a farmer who lives on the loop -has been farming all his life. He’s been trying to farm this
land for him for 30 years. He said, Jim it’s a waste of diesel. I can’t get anything to grow out
there without pumping fertilizer and a lot of it. He’s talked to Ross a number of times about his
different parcels of Ag land over the years for advice about what he should do, fertilizers, etc.–
he can’t pay farmers to farm this for him. How does he use this land and Ross gave him some
excellent resources in how to reach out to different farmers and different venues and how to
make it appealing to them, but it’s difficult to own land and not let it go fallow.
• All you have to do is look across the river and see about the public input process and how
effective that can be to alter a proposed development plans. He’s said he has seen many things
that have come out of the Springfield office that once they have a public hearing about it the
neighbors will impact what the future design of it. There are all sorts of processes that can
influence what the eventual design is and he thinks the hard thing is us looking at what current
industries need but looking out 20 or 30 years from now. Back then we could envision what’ s
happening now. Who would have thought of a green roof on an industrial building back then?
• Having a long vision statement that incorporates the values of this entire area and that allows
the public to rally behind some funding source to preserve that area would be useful. This is less
risk than if Evonuk plunks down a few houses.
• He reviewed the proposed Ag zone. To justify this to the state the City needs large parcels for
large campus style businesses. They want a contiguous tract of 50 acres or more. They don’t
want him to chunk it off. Won’t want him to sell off 7 acres in the middle of it. But they are
willing to consider design standards.
• Vision statement is like a will. Once we’re gone, it tells what the intent was…what we like, what
we value.
• If I were to intensively farm my land it would impact far more than anything Jeff (JCI) would do.
If a Symantec type use went in, the codes are much more restrictive. Farming it – he can put
straight urea and phosphorus on it.
College View Study Area ag property owner Rural Residential
Tom Scates. Lives within the proposed urban growth boundary at the south end of Twin Buttes Road
and main reason for being here is to find out what other people were thinking about. He too was
originally was interested because there was an awful lot of information out there that he felt might be
misinformation. He came to be part of the meeting to find out why he thought was misinformation. Like
to be corrected or if he is right then ok. Would like to know what’s going on. Say we’re in the system
Attachment 3B-7
economically for him so go for it – build up out there. His land isn’t good for much of anything except for
growing grass.
• He agrees with the folks on Seavey Loop and Pisgah area that that needs to be preserved but at
the same time Springfield has to grow somewhere. This looks like a reasonable area to come to,
it would serve their purposes because it’s the state government that says to have UGB enlarged;
how it progresses he doesn’t know. He agrees no one is going to know what’s going to happen
in 50 years down the road. People down the road – it will be left to them so how do you protect
that. Doesn’t think you can go out 50 or 20 years and say this is the way it’s going to be – should
be this is the way we think it’s going to be because in your politics you could get a whole one
side change the other.
• Is there anything that would prevent a high rise building of some sort in this UGB.
• One thing he noticed on the soils diagram is that his property has hard rock on the surface. How
does he get to that #3 soil? That’s part of the reason why he is for this is because we know that
he doesn’t have very good soil, so in a way he is sacrificing his area to protect better quality soils
in your area.
• He’d like to see something prettier than tin buildings.
Lane Community College
Corbin McBride
LCC Student/ Springfield resident. A student at LCC in the watershed and science program. Loves the
area.
• Thinks the gateway to Mt Pisgah area starts at the gas station on College View
Real estate professional
Betsy Schultz, Springfield Board of Realtors. Realtors care deeply about homeownership and protecting
private property rights and also want to see Springfield be a thriving community.
• from east Springfield McKenzie side, entrance into the area is confusing and she always gets
lost
• Following up on conversation she had with Commissioner Stewart about his thoughts of having
a greenspace or some sort of buffer she is curious what would that look like and how would it
impact future growth in the area or keep future growth from happening.
Buford Park/Mt. Pisgah
Tom LoCascio. Site manager for Mt. Pisgah Arboretum and caretaker of the park. He is also a local
property owner on Seavey Loop Road. Has been involved with organizations that have been trying to put
together a place that really vibrates a lot of the Oregon values that he thinks people who move here find
important and cherish. As a community we’ve been able to preserve that little iconic piece of Oregon.
His experience with industrial land is it tends to be the worse – the most polluting, have the most impact
on the place and quite often are not very pretty places. People can start off with a lot of good intents
but in the end when the economy changes or things turn, history speaks for itself.
• starting right at the train trestle bridge BRING side/Turtle Flats/Confluence he thinks there is
going to be a lot of public things happening around that area within the next 10-20 years.
• The experience of leaving the park and heading west on Seavey Loop and what it would be like
to look out over Franklin, you’d be looking into that whole industrial zone. Right now is very
Attachment 3B-8
open and pastoral. all of that ground drains right into all the channels and places where
people irrigate from now. Realizes that water quality is something that is monitored but
you can’t say that putting in more pavement and industry and every level of truck
pollution and everything that goes with it is all going that way, it is going to have an
impact visually and environmentally.
• it’s a thin strip with already active commercial businesses, there isn’t much industry along it. He
said he could see commercial activity there. This is where he feels really challenged in finding
compromise here. Just doesn’t seem like the laws fit a model that really can take it all in.
• Wonders when City says industrial zone what does that mean? Is that smokestacks or is it a
whole food processing plant? How much parking capacity needed? You talked about allowable
emission, why would I want any emissions in the neighborhood I live or grow food in. If we
could start to take a scalpel and really look at that, maybe there is hope. But without that it
would be silly to say industrial zone is great.
• If we looked at this area as a kind of the “Central Park” of our region with the amount of growth
that we are seeing happening in Springfield, Eugene, Goshen, Pleasant Hill and Creswell - all
these cities surround Pisgah. So if we really could have the vision to recognize that if we could
cultivate that and put together a smart plan about how our communities interact with that
space people will look back at this planning process and say “Wow, those guys had the right
vision, they really made it happen.” If you want to start talking about economic drivers that kind
of plan will really bolster all of these communities and the people who live in it and that’s the
kind of vision he wants to see.
• It’s frightening to him that we focus on a need right now but Springfield is going to come back in
a year or so and say we need more residential land and then farmland might look desirable so
it’s a complicated thing.
• He is having a really hard time finding how to engage in a productive discussion when knowing
that in order to say okay this could work if we had this kind of industry but yet if somebody
comes along 5 or 10 years from now and makes another proposal that could totally change it.
• What he has heard is Seavey Loop area is mostly floodway – really not going to put too many
houses on it. What he’s heard is industrial land we’re talking about a little spit which really is not
that many acres that College View Rd and a portion of Hwy 99 up to Goshen.
Willamalane
Nicole Ankeney. Willamalane’s vision is parks and recreation and open space.
• Right now Willamalane District does not enter that area; the only thing they have in their
comprehensive plan now is the potential study of a future bike/pedestrian bridge which would
only be the joining of agencies to figure out if, how, and where.
• Presented maps from Willamalane Comprehensive Plan. She pointed to multi- use path and trail
projects that Willamalane has in its 20-Year Comprehensive Plan. She spoke about the bridge
that connects the Middle Fork Path and Mt. Pisgah. Willamalane will need team-up with other
agencies to see if the bridge is feasible and if so, where it should go, and does it work
environmentally. They are also looking at bringing in a path on the south side of the river in the
Glenwood area. Finally a bridge connecting Glenwood with Dorris Ranch however currently
there is no funding for these projects but still need to do long-range planning.
• The Willamalane boundary is not directly tied with the UGB however it is directly tied with
annexation. If the UGB did occur and one of the land owners decided to sell and go ahead and
annex that property would automatically get put into the Willamalane boundary.
Attachment 3B-9
Lane County Planning Staff
Mark Rust. Provide infor about the existing county zoning and the answered questions about the
County’s Goshen G.R.E.A.T. plan.
• Gateway to Pisgah is when you turn off Franklin and on to Seavey Loop Rd. Thinking about it
from the I-5 perspective driving down I-5 and looking off to that direction Pisgah can be seen.
What really hits him is how developed and industrialized that corridor is. For the last 5-6 years
having driven the southern part of Franklin Blvd. down to Goshen and back up through there it
feels like together with the freeway and power lines and railroad and development that is there
it is very impacted. It’s not until he turns on to Seavey Loop that he feels that transition into
farm land and getting into the rural part of the land.
• Floodplains and floodways are also big drivers from his perspective of what could potentially be
developed. Right now there is a federal lawsuit and it’s only going to get more complicated and
difficult to develop in the floodplain.
• Identifying acceptable types of uses that could be allowed in the corridor, he prefers the term
“employment land” rather than “industrial land.” Employment land can mean different types of
employment, different types of uses. It might be different employment types of opportunities
in this corridor that don’t qualify in other people’s minds as industrial that can create jobs or
utilize land in a way that doesn’t impact the area as negatively as a smoke stack kind of
development that people might really fear for polluting.
• There is definitely a precedent (for zoning) as Linda mentioned about the Glenwood area – they
created a very custom zone for fitting within what their vision was for Glenwood. In terms of
their ability there is always a process to propose to change a zone or allowable uses in a zone.
That wouldn’t be as rigorous as UGB expansion process but it would go out for public notice,
there would be public hearings, opportunity for appeals etc. Not only can you specify what you
would allow but also what would not be allowed.
• The Rural Commercial (RC) zone is essentially an urban commercial zone now. New code
regulations can make it look a lot better over time.
DLCD staff
Ed Moore. Explained the Goal 14 process and responded to questions about urban and rural reserves.
ODOT staff
David Helton. ODOT does not have any specific plans for any improvements in this portion of I-5 or the
associated roadways so he doesn’t have much to say in terms of ODOT’s future vision for the area. He
noted that as transportation planners we look to the local governments – in this case the cities and the
county – to establish the land uses that will be allowed in the area and then ODOT plans the
transportation system to serve those land uses.
• Thinks not many people connect College View area with Pisgah very much. Didn’t realize it was
there because he always went to Pisgah. Didn’t associate College View with Mt. Pisgah.
• ODOT doesn’t have any detailed plan for changes to any of the state facilities in that area. The
law requires that if the City is going to have to bring this area in it will have to look at
transportation demand that will be generated as it develops plan for transportation system.
That detailed planning doesn’t have to be done until after they bring that land into the area.
Attachment 3B-10
• As far as he knows the City has not done detailed planning nor has ODOT, but their preliminary
conclusion from experience at looking at these types of things is ODOT doesn’t think that this
expansion area by itself is going to generate the need to make major improvements on I-5 or the
interchanges. They know congestion can be an issue especially when LCC is in session, and
ODOT would expect much of the traffic particularly in the southern end of the expansion area
would be using the interchange at Goshen which does not have a capacity constraint.
SWG Resource Group and Guests
LRAPA
Merlyn Hough, Director of LRAPA office in Springfield and Jo Niehaus. Merlyn has also commented on
some UGB concerns of boundary expansions under considerations by the City of Eugene and South
Eugene and Lane Community College. .In addition to stringent pollution controls on industrial sources
that LRAPA is directly involved with they also have an interest in efficient transportation systems so
people have choices walking, biking, driving, transit and making sure those are friendly places which
ever mode people choose.
• The requirements for a new facility are stricter than what is required to retro-fit existing
facilities. Any new facility would be required to put on best available control technology so
emissions would be lower for a new industry compared to a comparable existing one. He
explained ss JCI increased its production over time the amount of painting they were doing and
solvent evaporates as part of that process crept above the threshold that a permit was required
and JCI did not apply for a permit when that first happened. They were reporting their emissions
and that’s where it was identified that they crept above the threshold where they should have
applied for a permit. Actually USEPA and LRAPA were involved and the settlement dealt with all
of that. Since that time he believes that JCI has reduced their emissions by going to other paints
and solvents so that they would be below that threshold. The way the permit works is once you
are required to have a permit you are always required to have it. JCI is still required to have a
permit. There were fines involved.
• The compliance people in their office consider JCI to be a model permittee, they are on top of it
and communicating frequently and we consider that an unfortunate historical event.
Max Hueftle.
• Air quality has typically more stringent requirements for industry and residential use – backyard
burning and home heating. Industrial would have additional controls and more monitoring if
located in UGB.
Friends of Buford Park
Chris Orsinger, Director. Submitted maps and a report with information about about the Confluence
Area.
College View Study Area property owner Rural Residential
Cecile Haworth. Property owner with husband in the proposed UGB study area, near Tom Scates. They
are living on property that husband grew up on and his parents owned. Cecile grew up in Eugene so
she’s had the opportunity to see lots of change and feels that planed and controlled change is preferable
so she is very interested in this process. Also feels there has been a lot of misinformation that she’s
heard since the process began and she is confused about what the truth is. She also feels like from the
Attachment 3B-11
beginning of the process it sounded like the land would not necessarily have to be used for industrial
purposes so she is thinking that there is a possibility to allow for growth but not necessarily industrial.
• She thinks that one thing that could be done is to buffer people on the residential area on the
other side of the slough. Right now there is a wonderful lining of trees and blackberries - habitat
for wildlife and if that was left intact that would do so much for the people on the other side of
the slough. As property owners on the west side of the slough we don’t even have a sense of
who is there other than that little tiny glance into that mobile home park.
• Every one of these pieces of property is owned by someone and she feels like this group is
making the decision about them without their input. She sees the possibility that the UGB has
changed – she’s living there. Somebody comes next to her and puts up some industry. Her
vision is no industry on her property. Has no doubt that someday the UGB will change and
people will come in and buy it.
• In her vision, last summer she was at Peaceheath RiverBend. And was standing on the 3rd floor
and could look across the river she saw people bucking hay and it was so comforting to her and
put her at ease. That’s her vision for her property - that we can get somebody in there – medical
facility, research institute etc., where they keep the property intact, none of us have to worry
about it being sub-divided into individual parcels where we are living next door to a tire factory
or something, where the character of our community is intact. She worries about the right of
individuals to buy up the property because they are going to be individual parcels. Anything
could happen unless in the vision everybody comes together to put forth a vision that she thinks
by and large would be the same vision as the vision here. We are all living there because of the
environment and landscape. We want to maintain the character of it – do not want it to affect
our neighbors because what she knows what it’s like to have an industry right down the street.
Lane Community College rep
Main-McVay Transit Study SAC rep
Brett Rowlett. Government and Community relations for LCC
Lane County Transportation Planning staff
Lydia McKinney/Becky Taylor
Willamette Water Company
Dan Terrell, Attorney. Law office of Bill Kloos representing the Willamette Water Company. He is here
because they have water lines and would likely be providing water service to any future development in
the area. Personally he is also a Springfield resident and is hoping his City can find a way to go through
this process once and do it right. Unfortunately there are certain constraints but he hears everyone at
the table wanting to find a good workable solution that works for everyone within the legal frameworks.
• Wanted to add a point that he thinks one of the concerns people have is – is there a hard line
that gets drawn and basically what this process is doing is drawing a hard line for the next 20
years. This process comes back again in 20 years and the City will have to justify everything
again. But once this line gets drawn, that is it for the next 20 years.
KEY POINTS FOR COUNCIL ABOUT THE PROCESS
• SWG members were not aware of how “industrial” land is defined and what uses fall under the
category of industrial land. Staff provided the definition from Statewide Planning Goal 9,
Economic Development. The rule identifies” industrial and other employment” opportunities
Attachment 3B-12
that are what industrial land means. And other employment as defined in the Organ
Administrative Rule (660-009-0005) is “all non-industrial employment activities including the
widest range of retail, wholesale, service, non-profit, business headquarters, administrative and
governmental employment activities that are accommodated in retail, office and flexible
building types. Other employment uses also include employment activities of an entity or
organization that serves the medical, educational, social service, recreation and security needs
of the community typically in large buildings or multi-building campuses.”
• SWG members were not aware of the existing Lane County zoning in the study area or the uses
currently permitted in the RI, RC, RR, RPF and EFU zones
• SWG members were not aware of how the annexation process works.
• ODOT staff said: “ODOT’s preliminary conclusion from experience at looking at these types of
things is ODOT doesn’t think that this expansion area by itself is going to generate the need to
make major improvements on I-5 or the interchanges. They know congestion can be an issue
especially when LCC is in session, and ODOT would expect much of the traffic particularly in the
southern end of the expansion area would be using the interchange at Goshen which does not
have a capacity constraint.”
Attachment 3B-13
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 1
Visions for the College View/South Franklin Corridor
Workshop #1 Sharing Your Concerns and Ideas
Summary of Public Input – January 14, 2015
Question No. 1. My concerns about change are:
• Loss of rural agricultural area and preservation
o Habitat conservation
o Scenic value – from Pisgah
o Inclusion of Seavey Loop area in “rural reserve” chance lost (?)
o Potential industrial pollution
• In regards to preservation of Ag land – looking at long-term future, 100 + years (?)
• Moving industry from high ground to low lands near important and historic confluence
• Planning should be in the interests of all citizens, industry, and the environment
• Impacts to fire / emergency service and response time
• Development in floodplain and loss Ag lands
• UGB expansion and sewer increase cost to businesses and residents
• Impacts to wells and drinking water
• 6 out of 6 persons at table oppose UGB expansion and have problems with process and this
meeting format
• This planning session too narrow, too many wrong assumptions
• Expectation that all participants arrived fully informed
• Short timelines limit effective public participation, especially for working people
• So much time devoted, so little positive impact so far
• Need long-term solution, not decade-limited process, repeated battles re-fought
• Regional resource needs Rural Reserve planning, protection, solutions
• This is not a legitimate process
• Previously expressed concerns have been discounted
• Springfield / Eugene planners do not seem to be coordinating UGB expansions, the greater
area should be considered
• Not convinced true need to expand
• Problems with light pollution
• Public opinion not considered
• Springfield needs to grow better, not just bigger
• Neighbors are not leading change – “Rural Reserve” did not initiate change
• Concerned about impact on existing businesses in proposed expansion area
• We need to be reducing Springfield’s carbon footprint; and expanding UGB will increase the
carbon footprint
• Concerned about existing wetlands preventing development
• Springfield and Eugene need access to locally grown food
• We need to reuse vacant industrial land first
• Don’t understand why Straub property is still included
• Outside purview of City of Springfield
• Widespread opposition
• Limited to change vs. no change instead of appropriate change
• What does Springfield not understand about NO?
Attachment 4-1
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 2
Question No. 1. My concerns about change are:
• How does Springfield actually profit from this? At a cost of $76 million PLUS I-5 and public
safety?
• Springfield busy with great stuff: downtown, Willamalane, Glenwood. “College View” is an
expensive distraction
• Springfield is not listening – No means No
• UGB will destroy our natural waterways with pollutants from run-off
• Don’t want large buildings in farmland
• Keep farming close to urban areas so citizens understand where value of agriculture and how
it effects their lives directly
• Placing UGB on Oxley Slough will destroy it
• Pisgah is greatest park in Oregon – Howard Buford would be outraged!
• Citizens autonomy is being ignored and rolled over
• Adds more unnecessary pressure to wildlife
• False vision by dictating a false process
• Water
o Pollution, water quality (waste and drinking) i.e. shallow well – concerns of
pollution/contamination
o Sewer capacity
• Transportation – vehicles interfere with homes
o Bicycle riding / traffic – need lanes
o Increased traffic
• Slippery slope – noise pollution, air pollution, water pollution
o Could lead to further development
o Residential development on farmland
o Distrust – come further in
• Impact to ANY farmland
o Willamette watershed impacts
o Don’t want to see any farmland impacted
• Noise and light pollution
• Reverse rule (20-year rule) contact legislators – we do not need to continue 20-year supply
rule for industry and single family houses
• Tourism and agriculture are growing – not industry
• Property used best benefit for everyone
• Human scale for beauty – community
• Ecological use – environment impact
• Keeping area beautiful
• Protecting farmers – locally produced food
• Protection of our natural resources
• Reject the premise that Springfield has the right to conduct a visioning process for our
neighborhood
• No change east of Franklin
• What is Springfield’s legal authority?
• Lack of trust in the process
• Who or what entity stands to profit or benefit from expanding UGB?
• What other areas are considered for UGB?
o Is there public information on studies of other areas?
o Who was involved in these prior UGB studies?
Attachment 4-2
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 3
Question No. 1. My concerns about change are:
• Vocal opponents may interfere cities job to find growth plan for next 20 years. How do we
avoid this (i.e. “small neighborhood group wars?”)
• How change will affect currant residents
• Environmental impacts of development
• Why is change desirable?
• Why is Springfield meddling in this area?
• It could diminish the area’s unique characteristics confined area of small family farms
• Will develop farmland that we’ll never get back
• Many industries will be incompatible with small family farms and HB recreation area
• Why expand UGB and not look at land within Springfield – plenty empty, run-down lots
• Unspoken political and financial arrangements
• Failure for regional planning process for Pisgah and Bloomberg Rd. Eugene/Springfield/County
coordination
• Voices of landowners discounted; public comment not influential
• Inappropriate gateway to conservation lands, farmlands, and parks
• Loss of property value for land with residential or agricultural uses
• Methodology to develop land need
• Loss of farmland
• Services – how to expand infrastructure
• Timeline for zoning change – city vs. county: which will rule?
• Encroachment on important recreation land – too close – “camel’s nose under the tent”
• Effect on wildlife: noise, air quality
• More industrial = more pollution, more traffic and everything that comes with it (speeding,
safety, etc.)
• Noise pollution (impact on animals and families) – a factory 5 times bigger would be much
worse
• Maintenance of roads in the area
• The potential loss of the beautiful gateway to Mt. Pisgah
• Damage to agricultural businesses in area
• Less park traffic to Mt. Pisgah would negatively impact the farms and businesses dependent
on traffic
• More people in area = more crime in neighborhood
• Pollution to the area – water and air
• Increase in traffic
• Aesthetics
• Increased noise
• Fire and police protection
• Decrease in property values
• Forced implementation of public utilities
• High cost to increase road system at I-5 – safety issues
• High cost of new fire house
• Utilize existing “brownfields” industrial in current UGB. Much cheaper
• Use former Wildish crushing plant
• Why are we not talking other UGB sites north and east
• JCI need should not drive this process
• I don’t want to see prime agricultural land with good access to water converted to other uses.
As our population grows climate change and the Pacific Northwest as an area of temperate
Attachment 4-3
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 4
Question No. 1. My concerns about change are:
climate and abundant water we will need local food production even more so. There seems to
be numerous sites in Springfield which in the past were commercial / industrial and are now
vacant. I can think of several that are close to railroad transport. Why not use these sites and
keep the agricultural land preserved? Infill NOT Expansion!! It’s common sense – let’s not
repeat / continue the patterns of our predecessors. Consider Holland where cities are compact
and agricultural land is cherished.
Question No. 2. My experience of the College View / South Franklin area today is:
• The gateway to Lane County’s largest park and the Willamette Confluence Preserve
• Not organized well – uses are mixed – a patchwork without esthetic or design standards
• Poor quality land for farming in “green” area
• It is a distinctive area that could contribute to livability that attracts employers to the larger
Springfield/Eugene area
• Despite proximity to I-5, this area mostly has a classic rural character that I really enjoy
• Refreshing once past the train tracks
• Enjoyed the wetlands in my back yard
• Gateway to Mt. Pisgah
• Going under railroad overpass
• View from I-5
• Blighted by existing development, especially on College View
• Part you can see from Mt. Pisgah is beautiful
• Recreation of both park and roads
• Enjoy the view of the varied landscape
• It feels like a separate “zone” from town – would like to keep it that way
• Existing established businesses seem to be viable and self-sustaining, “in it for the long haul”
• Don’t fix what ain’t broke
• It’s a slippery slope; fear the creep/crawl of urbanization. Use already developed land instead.
• It’s been managed by Lane County very well, does it need to become Springfield’s?
• College View a good place for business
• What’s there is ok – variety
• We don’t go there
• Grazing land an important buffer between common / industrial along Franklin and farmland,
park, wild areas
• Good freeway access (Hwy 58 and I-5)
• Water system already installed
• Close to LCC
• UGB resident – 38 years – planning process in past years very inadequate. Hope this will be
better
• EPUD employee: some customers concerned – traffic concerns
• 40 years of proposed UGB resident – Mt. Pisgah park user and supporter. Concerned about
pollution – residents’ property value will go down, bank financing won’t be available.
(Property owner in proposed UGB)
• Regular customer at Me & Moores – concerned about watershed. Visiting friends on Blossom
Lane – rental – so I’m concerned about retaining low income housing in the area.
Attachment 4-4
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 5
Question No. 2. My experience of the College View / South Franklin area today is:
• Industry in the neighborhood causes noise at all hours, sometimes loud enough to wake
people up
• At shift change, high levels of traffic
• Access is difficult. What would more industry add?
• A lot of asphalt
• Many homes are lived in by families who have been in the neighborhood for generations
• Natural area close to Eugene / Springfield food source
• Blending nature and people
• Not wanting to lose beauty we have
• Fantastic architecture school U of O using this potential
• Area is currently dis-jointed (harmony)
• Historical development pattern – prior to planning related to highway
• Under utilized
• Done right with nature
• We don’t want a Parvin Butte
• Member of Mt. Pisgah and come through there
• Attend EPUD board meetings
• View from I-5 corridor
• Going through area to hike Mt. Pisgah
• Work in the area – JCI
• Farmer in the area – farmland is going away
• Starting urban land trust, concerned about area
• Respect and don’t harm current College Hill business owners who oppose UGB Expansion
(reportedly, a majority oppose)
• Appreciate areas role as an open space buffer to an important natural resource area – rivers,
parkland, wildlife habitat
• Value the mixed rural residential and active agricultural uses
• It is not called College View
• Part of our daily commute is nice today
• Residents
• Beautiful farmland
• Is excellent until Springfield became involved
• College View area right now looks barren, cement is prevalent, nature is not close by. It looks
grey. Development will make it worse.
• Current noise and lights
• Nature and natural experience need to be preserved, enhanced, and cherished
• Place to escape from Eugene so accessible
• Disconnect of bike trails to Eugene / Springfield planned
• Exceptional community strength focused on protection of attractive gateway
• Fear of pollution (microwaves, cell towers)
• Serenity once under Franklin railroad bridge
• Fear of continued creep
• Safe flyway for birds and insects, pollinators
• College View and Oxley Slough are very different areas
• Ridgeline trail connection eagerly awaited
• Spectacular mountain views
• Viewed from freeway
Attachment 4-5
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 6
Question No. 2. My experience of the College View / South Franklin area today is:
• Gateway to Mt. Pisgah, park, farmland, conservation lands
• Part of much larger region, complex land uses, not useful to segregate College View
• Noise and air quality relatively clean, rural tranquility
• What will the zoning end up being – more commercial / industrial – less residential (comment
from long term UGB resident)
• UGB resident concerned about increase in crime
• I live there – I love it
• Rural – nature dominated. Some industry but not overwhelming yet.
• Speed limit too high on Seavy Loop
• Linked closely to farm / rural land on Seavy Loop
• Seavey Loop is a “new world” entering in from industrial areas
• Don’t frequent the College View road area at all
• Very little traffic is a good thing
• Don’t want to expand the existing buffer that College View provides
• We like our septics and don’t want the expense of sewer lines
• We don’t need Springfield services
• It’s a mess. Along Franklin specifically. Parts of this area include beautiful property and good
farmland
• Not many people experience this area
• This is zoned commercial area. We don’t want it changed to industrial – RR to Slough
• Driving through beautiful farmland to get to Mt. Pisgah area
• We live, work and play here
• So many options for infill that needs to be considered first
• Clean up and renovate your “current backyard before ruining ours”
• This plan is not logical fit. Providing infrastructure too expensive for project – Glenwood. $76
million minimum cost too much for jobs creation so will have to continue to expand into
farmland
• I live, recreate and purchase food for myself and my family in the area under discussion
Question No. 3. The College View / South Franklin area could be improved by:
• Honoring goodwill of existing businesses that are not in favor of the UGB
o Costs to them for necessary improvements
• Encouraging rural farm zoned areas
o Predictability for existing farms
o Concerns for larger Seavey Loop area (and future)
o Adjacent farms
• How can farm families plan for future – will their farms even be viable / jeopardy of further
expansion which seems inevitable
• More farmland / keeping existing farmland
• Keep it the way it is as rural Lane County – don’t develop on the floodplain
• Can be improved by having a plan that recognizes the long-term value of this area as a
Attachment 4-6
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 7
Question No. 3. The College View / South Franklin area could be improved by:
rural/Ag interface with the town
• Smart lighting that keeps the dark night sky, water quality standards
• Let Springfield be a model for smart and sustainable development
• Reduce noise, lighting and smells
• Enforce laws on pollution and toxic emissions
o Companies pay fines rather than follow laws
• Create safe walking/biking/pedestrian areas. No shoulder on Franklin or Seavey Loop.
• Maintain existing roads – last to get power etc. restored in weather outages
• Improvements would have to meet increased use and needs and are already insufficient
• Not making it look like South A Street. Clean up what you’ve got.
• Preventing obstructive views and putting halt on expansion
• Allow residential expansion before commercial / industrial zone for lot size
• Continue to support Turtle Flats – improve and make accessible for recreation
• Look for ways to improve the appearance of existing industry properties
• Understanding the existing industrial pollution – how much is existing industry polluting?
• Be sure ODOT has resources to make any needed improvements – they have no $$ now
• A sanitary sewer line requested by one participant at our table
• There is no integrated planning for this general area. Let’s not be like Tualitin (piecemeal,
unplanned growth).
• We have pride of place – we need to protect it
• Make a bike path
• Leave it alone
• Higher and better use with design standards
• Making maps correct
• Less industry
• Less traffic
• No change
• Better landscaping such as what EPUD has accomplished
• City of Springfield going away
• Farm education center with classes like Institute of Bio – Wisdom – Harry MacCormack NR
Corvallis =<S unbow.org>
o Include hemp classes like OSU Corvallis e campus #266 – hemp for building materials,
food, fiber oil, cosmetics, paint and a trillion $ industry – see Hemp Bound Toward the
Next Agricultural Revolution ($15 book by Doug Fine (sp) and Bringing it Home Movie
Hemp is Hope – 1 hour film)
• Use local and permaculture designers to consult with rural land owners
• Future changes be planned and well thought out
• Added regulation before being brought into city
• Pollution affecting residential neighbors
• Concerns for companies future use of land
• Type of change – appropriateness of change with existing conservation work showcasing
Oregon to showcase Oregon and diminishing cultural heritage
• Reasonable growth – make sure done well
• Livability
• Mt. Pisgah as a good resource
• Food access affected
• View shed
Attachment 4-7
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 8
Question No. 3. The College View / South Franklin area could be improved by:
• One change begets another….further development
• Zoning laws change affect farming and green space use
• Affect to valuable agriculture land
• A perceived need for industrial land – is this a real need
• The best way to improve this area is to keep it rural and scrappy, the way it is
• Seavey Loop is College View? (This is very confusing calling it College View.)
• I think the people who own the property should be asked what they want
• What is Springfield’s people first responsibility and discuss their thoughts with the people’s
planet, future
• Collect all data and come to best decision for all and future generations (not jumping to
conclusions)
• Hemp
• Bio-engineering working with nature
• Soil types
• Leaving it along
• Forgetting about expansion
• Containing existing industrial development and enhancing control of pollution (including noise
pollution)
• Leave existing UGB boundaries where they are without expansion, especially eastward and
southward
• Refraining from building a sewer through it
• Limiting new business
• Encouraging business compatible with agriculture
• Providing a greener entry into Seavey Loop area / Eugene and Springfield
• Get rid of polluting industries
• Redevelopment of blighted property with suitable development
• Open space can’t be “improved” with development – protect existing open space
• More farms
• Protection of land with hydric soils connected to sloughs and waterway
• No development east of Franklin
• Keep boundary closer to Franklin
• Allow areas closer to Franklin to be developed but retain eastern portions of parcels as open
space
• Split property with UGB if possible
• Do not include College View area in UGB at all
• More small farms to generate more jobs - there is a market for locally-grown food
• Expanding UGB to another area in Springfield, e.g. “Brown Zones”
• Upgrade to sewers but no extending residential development to Seavey Loop
• Why aren’t Eugene and Springfield coordinating considerations about UGB?
• Reduced speed limit on Seavey Loop – and enforcement
• Better recreational connections, bike and pedestrians
• Restore riparian forest as buffer
• Expanded conservation areas
• LTD access to recreational resources
• Expand protected open areas. By believing today’s 8 year olds will need and value open
spaces as much as employment – think of the population pressure in 20, 50, 100 years
• Beautification / rehabilitation
Attachment 4-8
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 9
Question No. 3. The College View / South Franklin area could be improved by:
• Respect for South Hills drainage
• Agriculture land to be expanded or left alone
• Ridgeline trail hike / bike connections
• Establishment of regional Rural Reserve
• Protection of Gateway to recreation and nature – no eyesores – don’t make it worse
• Protection from noise, light, air, water, soils electromagnetic pollution
• LTD access to Buford Park
• Support for agricultural jobs and rural income
• Protection of residential and agricultural land values
• Support youth jobs in agriculture
• Promote industrial hemp production, permaculture
• Protect local water table and quality
• Traffic flow changes to improve access to LCC from I-5 southbound (ramp/overpass)
Question 4. Concerns about this process
• Only heard about this meeting by word of mouth. Maybe planners don’t really want public
input.
• We reject the assumption of this meeting that UGB will expand south or need expansion
• “World Café” technique is inappropriate for complexity of UGB topic, too fast to discuss
• How do we verify and challenge the assumption that industrial sites are needed – are the
challenges being addressed?
• Who has made this assumption? Based on what?
• Springfield and the citizens of Lane County would be better served by demanding that the
legislature eliminate the state mandate to provide a 20-year supply of buildable land. We’ve
long overshot the ability to manage growth – and this proposal reinforces what should be
obvious to anyone with common sense and conscience.
• Please refrain from using toxic markers and use less toxic ones as has been done in some
Eugene schools
• My family lives in the proposed UGB area and is glad that we have had a voice in helping
shape the future of this area
• Are you actually reading this? I hope the planners will listen to us and think outside the box!
• We don’t want you to expand the UGB to ‘College View” at all. Please carefully study Seavey
Loop neighbors’ value statement and help us realize those values rather than that of industrial
sprawl and pollution. There are better ways to develop sustainable jobs and preserve Seavey
Loop
• That you (Springfield) assume that we want what you want. That Springfield has not done a
good job of what they have done, why would we expect them to do a good job with this? That
Springfield is going to ask ODOT to make changes in the future that they do not have money
for.
• Seavey Loop resident 45 years: I never was notified of this meeting via mail. This should be a
county function for meeting, not Springfield. Even if this limited UGB area is approved the
“long vision” to further expand into Seavey Loop would be inevitable and troubling to farms,
residents, park, etc.
• Limited to change vs. no change
• That this is just a process. Springfield meeting its mandate to engage the community to hear
its thoughts and concerns. Knowing that it changes nothing in the city’s intent to develop this
Attachment 4-9
Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary Study January 14, 2015 Page 10
area and bring it into its tax base.
• It is always difficult to get citizens to come out and attend meetings. People with financial
interests are more likely to make their opinions heard. The interests of all citizens should be
heard. I’m concerned that some voices aren’t here.
• You are not listening to the voices who live/work/play in this area. Wetlands delineation has
not been on the list of things that should be done in this area.
• I’m concerned that our opinions will not truly be taken into consideration. I’m concerned that
the PSU study on Lane County growth was not used.
• I am against the expansion into Seavey Loop area and I would like to think that this meeting
included us to help decide if this proceeds. It sounds like Springfield has already decided to
expand thereby leaving Seavey Loop residents out of the loop.
• Appears that many participants have an agenda pre-determined – “No Growth”
• I’m perturbed by what seems like an arbitrary and illogical resolution of the College View /
South Franklin area from adjacent lands. This is county land – how can Springfield co-op it in
opposition to many people who live and farm in the immediate vicinity? Why do there seem
so few people here representing other jurisdictions? City of Eugene, Lane County.
• I don’t like assuming that the UGB expansion is a done deal and all we do now is figure out
how to beautify it.
• You assume your plan will prevail – this is wrong
• Wants stakeholder group to know that only 3 people of those he spoke with actually live
within the UGB proposed boundary – all others live nearby or elsewhere. Group should
include people who live in the area proposed to be in the UGB.
Attachment 4-10
Attachment 4-11
Attachment 4-12
Attachment 4-13
Attachment 4-14
Attachment 4-15
Attachment 4-16
Attachment 4-17
Attachment 4-18
Attachment 4-19
Attachment 4-20
Attachment 4-21
Attachment 4-22
Attachment 4-23
Attachment 4-24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4-
2
5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4-
2
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4-
2
7
1 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
Springfield 2030 UGB Study
College View/South Franklin Study Area Working Group
February 11, 2015 Meeting Notes
Attendance
Staff: Linda Pauly, Loralyn Spiro, Judy Castleman
Working Group: John and Normandy Helmer, Rob Castleberry, Gale Landt, Jim Straub, Jeff
Schwartz, Corbin McBride, Betsy Schultz, Tom LoCascio, Nicole Ankeney, Mark Rust, Tom
Scates, David Helton
SWG Resource Group: Dan Terrell, Jo Niehaus, Merlyn Hough
Public: Cecile Haworth
CALL TO ORDER. Meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by staff Linda Pauly
Linda welcomed the group and noted they were appointed by the Community for Citizen
Involvement, and she thanked them for volunteering. Linda also told the group the meeting is
being recorded. Staff will post the meetings on the website. Linda reviewed the purpose for this
group - the City seeks their input regarding the proposed Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). There
has been a lot of dialog with the neighborhood, including some members of this group, through
previous meetings in the Seavey Loop area. Linda said she didn’t know if there had ever been
meetings like this where there were people at the table that might have different points of view
about the City of Springfield’s proposal. The purpose of this group is to have those
conversations, to allow a place for that to happen in a respectful way and also to learn more from
each other about the study area being considered.
Each member of the group was given a folder containing
• List of group members
• Agenda
• Themes from Public Input
• Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element. She said this policy document
has already been vetted through Springfield City Council (not yet adopted) and a lot of
Attachment 5-1
2 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
work has been done to refine it with perhaps more to come after the final Economic
Opportunities Analyses. This document is included because the group might want to see
what the City’s goals are for economic development and see how they might jibe (or not)
with the goals of members, organizations and businesses.
• Map/ aerial photo that shows the location of the study area as it relates to I-5 in
Springfield and Eugene (College View/South Franklin Corridor)
• Soils map
A Resource Group was also invited to share information. LRAPA, Willamette Water Company,
and others will attend meetings
Most of today’s meeting is for each person to introduce themselves to one another and talk about
what is important to them in terms of their vision and the visions of their organizations/
businesses they represent. Maps provide by Chris Orsinger, Director of Friends of Buford Park
are also available. Chris submitted a study that is also available to those who are interested.
Linda brought the Willamette River Open Space and Rivers to Ridges vision maps that were
endorsed by Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene several years ago. If anyone has maps they
want to share with this group feel free to bring them to the meetings or e-mail to Linda at (lpauly
@springfield-or.gov) and she will bring to the group.
Introductions
Betsy Schultz: Represents the Board of Realtors. Mostly came to learn and listen; realtors care
deeply about homeownership and protecting private property rights and also want to see
Springfield be a thriving community.
Jeff Schwartz: President of Johnson Crushers, International (JCI) on Franklin Boulevard since
July 2014 and is fairly new to this process including several parcels of property that are
potentially affected by this study. Jeff has been trying to get up to speed and is very curious to
know what the feelings are of this group and eventually share some thoughts and ideas.
Normandy Helmer: Along with her husband John own a small farm on Seavey Loop. She is
active in Friends of Buford Park and the arboretum and has always valued the natural area
around them. She patronizes all the local farmers, have livestock of their own, and two kids. She
is really interested in seeing the values of the Seavey Loop area and Mt. Pisgah parks protected
for the generations to come.
John Helmer: Along with wife Normandy have been in neighborhood for 27 years. Their
property is located on the border of the area but not included in the proposed UGB study. They
are interested in what this means regarding the value of their property. John picks up trash on
street, serves on the board of the arboretum, volunteers with the Friends of Buford Park, acts as
tour guide for nature conservancy, chairs the County’s large events task force. Lots of
involvement and cares about the area. He’s a big fan of Springfield but would like to see
Attachment 5-2
3 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
Springfield grow in natural ways. Also thinks overtime there will continue to be a real gem of a
place which is the recreation area, Nature Conservancy and the surrounding farms – “central
park” of the region.
Corbin McBride: A student at LCC in the watershed and science program. When Corbin first
heard about the meeting he decided to come and see what it was about; then saw that it would be
a really awesome educational experience for him. So he signed up and is here to learn, listen, and
give his input where he see is viable.
Nicole Ankeney: Landscape architect for Willamalane Park and Recreation District is here to
learn and find out what the future holds. Willamalane’s vision is parks and recreation and open
space.
David Helton: Transportation planner with ODOT, David is here to represent the agency and
primarily to serve as a resource. ODOT does not have any specific plans for any improvements
in this portion of I-5 or the associated roadways so he doesn’t have much to say in terms of
ODOT’s future vision for the area. He noted that as transportation planners we look to the local
governments – in this case the cities and the county – to establish the land uses that will be
allowed in the area and then ODOT plans the transportation system to serve those land uses.
Gayle Landt: Agriculture business owner of 33 acres on South Seavey Loop. Her business plan
for investing in property and being able to keep it really depended on the rural character of
Seavey Loop. She boards horses and one reason is close proximity to urban areas. Thinks we
have an economic ecosystem that is functioning very well on Seavey Loop right now. Since the
possibility of greater development came up she has talked to lots of people in Lane County and a
large number of people who go to Mt. Pisgah and the park and on their way their or going home
they stop at Me and Moore’s. Her concerns are not destroying economic ecosystem there; its
important and beautiful, an investment in the future. People’s fashioned idea of continuing to
have large amounts of industrial property (such as car plants), she says we need some but thinks
Springfield as well as Eugene already have inventories of that kind of plan. It would be a great
loss to people who live in the area in the future to make decisions that maybe impact the quality
of life. Having said that she is very interested to hear what people can work out – it’s not always
obvious when something is important to a person or what might be possible that can
accommodate a variety of interests and needs. Sincerely wants participate and help.
Jim Straub: Represents the Straub Family Trust as well as Oak Management LLC and third
generation property owner in that area. The family started collecting property in the Seavey Loop
area over 60 years ago and resided there in various form and functions. He and his father were
raised there and parents still reside on one of the larger parcels. Only have about 50ish acres or
so that is included in this study. As lifelong resident he’s here to participate.
Tom Scates: Lives within the proposed urban growth boundary at the south end of Twin Buttes
Road and main reason for being here is to find out what other people were thinking about. He too
Attachment 5-3
4 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
was originally was interested because there was an awful lot of information out there that he felt
might be misinformation. He came to be part of the meeting to find out why he thought was
misinformation. Like to be corrected or if he is right then ok. Would like to know what’s going
on. Say we’re in the system economically for him so go for it – build up out there. His land isn’t
good for much of anything except for growing grass.
Rob Castleberry: Has lived adjoining the study area for almost 35 years. He has operated his
own business from there self- employed in a rural residential setting and has been involved in
various neighborhood activities over the years trying to protect the livability for all creatures 2-
legged and more. Rob values very highly the open space and proximity to the park. He has been
involved in Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah Arboretum. Sees possibilities for
connectivity to ridgeline trails and to Willamalane’s activities on the other side of the river and
also feels very protective of the farm community and what’s there in terms of residential.
Mark Rust: Lane County Planning Department he is here primarily as a resource for the group.
Lane County does have to ultimately co-adopt the UGB expansion together with the City and
Board of County Commissioners. Mark has also been involved with tracking the City of
Eugene’s UGB expansion, their study area on the other side of the freeway and for a number of
years involved with the Goshen area project county has been working on. Grew up here and
raising kids here. Did live in Central Oregon and for a while went through UGB process there.
He worked on both public and private side of that process and continues to track it. UGB
processes in general in Oregon have been very difficult and hopefully this one won’t drag on for
10-15 years. He is happy to offer information and answer questions.
Tom LoCascio: Site manager for Mt. Pisgah Arboretum and caretaker of the park. He is also a
local property owner on Seavey Loop Road. Tom has been involved with organizations that have
been trying to put together a place that really vibrates a lot of the Oregon values that he thinks
people who move here are really important and cherish. Nature conservatory has some great
work going on so when the City came along and started talking about industrial zone his first
thought was his whole life he’s watched one piece of land after another be gobbled up and he has
so appreciated the fact that as a community we’ve been able to preserve that little iconic piece of
Oregon. His experience with industrial land is it tends to be the worse – the most polluting, have
the most impact on the place and are not very pretty places quite often. People can start off with
a lot of good intents but in the end when the economy changes or things turn, history speaks for
itself. His challenge for the City is to really do some deep soul searching and ask is this in fact
the right place for it. He knows there are a lot of reasons why it’s desirable but given everything
that’s going on out there is this the right place?
Resource Group
Dan Terrell: Law office of Bill Kloos representing the Willamette Water Company. He is here
because they have water lines and would likely be providing water service to any future
Attachment 5-4
5 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
development in the area. Personally he is also a Springfield resident and this UGB expansion
process tends to go back and forth and his interest is in hoping his City can find a way to go
through this process once and do it right. Unfortunately there are certain constraints but he hears
everyone at the table wanting to find a good workable solution that works for everyone within
the legal frameworks but only have to get this process once. Thank you for serving
Jo Niehaus: Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA)
Merlyn Hough: Director of LRAPA office in Springfield. Merlyn has also commented on some
UGB concerns of boundary expansions under considerations by the City of Eugene and South
Eugene and Lane Community College (that one in particular). In addition to stringent pollution
controls on industrial sources that LRAPA is directly involved with they also have an interest in
efficient transportation systems so people have choices walking, biking, driving, transit and
making sure those are friendly places which ever mode people choose.
Cecile Haworth: Property owner with husband in the proposed UGB study area, near Tom
Scates. They are living on property that husband grew up on and his parents owned. Cecile grew
up in Eugene so she’s had the opportunity to see lots of change and feels that planed and
controlled change is preferable so she is very interested in this process. Like Tom Scates
mentioned there has been a lot of misinformation that she’s heard since the process began and
she is confused about what the truth is and what is not true at this point. She also feels like from
the beginning of the process it sounded like the land would not necessarily have to be used for
industrial purposes so she is thinking that there is a possibility to allow for growth but not
necessarily industrial.
ROUND TWO
Linda recognized a couple of people who were not in attendance: Ed Moore is with the
Department of Land Conservation and Development. He will be available to help with any
questions that arise about the procedural aspects of UGB decisions. Between Mark Rust and
Linda they can cover that as well. Not really ready to talk about that this session but what rather
what the visions are that different people have; what are the plans for their businesses. Linda had
a hard time getting business people to participate in this because they are working and it’s hard
for them to attend meetings. Dan Kuske who owns the Latus Motors business on College View
said he would like to participate but it is difficult for him to come to meetings so Linda is going
to try to find a way to get his input in this process.
Another missing category that is really important is someone that represents farming. Linda has
not been successful at this point in finding someone that can participate in this. She asked if
anyone knows of someone that might be able to participate or if you can share information with
people that you know that are out there farming that would be great.
Attachment 5-5
6 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
Ross Pennhallegon, OSU Extension: Agriculture expert/Springfield Groundwater Guardians
will be a great resource for the group as well.
Brett Rowlett: Another person that’s on the resource group and also is the public relations
person for LCC wasn’t able to attend. He is serving on the Main-McVay Transit Study
stakeholder group.
Linda feels we don’t have enough representation from the business community – she tried to
make that happen but was not successful. She said if anyone had contacts or anyway to help fill
that gap she would appreciate it. Some commercial business owners just don‘t have time out to
even attend by phone or Skype when they have customers at the door.
John wondered if Linda could explain the status of the idea of including Goshen in the study
which he believed now is off the table. When he spoke with Lane County Commissioner Faye
Stewart about that it looked like a very intriguing idea. Linda replied that back in July at the end
of a work session (a joint meeting between the Lane County Board and Springfield City Council
on another matter), Commissioner Stewart asked the City Council if they would be interested in
considering Goshen GREAT plan area in Springfield’s UGB study. The City considered the
concept but chose not to include Goshen in the study. There are a lot of reasons and it would
add a lot more complications to an already complicated process. The Metro Plan essentially
divides the jurisdictional boundaries of the Metro Plan area between Springfield/Eugene/Lane
County down I-5. The land that is on the west side of I-5 is considered to be in Eugene’s
jurisdiction and the land on the east side of I-5 is considered to be in Springfield’s jurisdiction
for the area that is in the Metro Plan. Policies in the Metro Plan were recently updated because
both cities are now doing their own comprehensive plans. There were unique circumstance with
the Metro Plan – most communities have their own comprehensive plan that plans for their 20-
year land supply for homes and jobs within their own UGB. Springfield and Eugene shared a
boundary for a long time and that is not common in Oregon. The Mayor wrote a letter to the
County and said that Springfield would not be studying an expansion to Goshen at this time.
The land use rule are very complicated –looking at land on that side of the freeway would
probably include everything on that side of the freeway not just Goshen so the way it works is
when you are going to urbanize your community land will be annexed incrementally. How
would you get from Glenwood to Goshen? To annex land it must be contiguous to your city
limits.
John said he’s not trying to put it back on the table, he thought it had a lot of merits and you’d
need that long corridor to get there, but if the prize is Goshen. Springfield could swap that land
with land that is more controversial. Conservation easement could create buffer between
industry and farms.
Mark added that early on when Goshen ideas were explored about how that land could serve a
regional need for industrial land, even discussions with the state and up to the governor’s office
Attachment 5-6
7 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
it would be a very out of the box idea with regulations as they are today. The industrial land in
Goshen could help both the City of Springfield and City of Eugene meet their industrial land
needs. That didn’t really go anywhere. Although all the studies to date have found that there is a
need and specifically a need for large site industrial uses – even a portion of that need could be
found to be met in Goshen even though it were outside the UGBs because it is a regional asset
maybe that would help alleviate the need for the cities land use issues. Food for thought - has
been talked about.
Linda said she often hears questions about “why this area?” Two major reasons why Springfield
is looking at this area: First, it is the law that we have to look at this area because it has
exceptions area, not all exclusive farm use (EFU) land and the rules require that we study this
area first to see if it can meet our need. This is the closest area to the city that has exceptions area
zoning. Most people understand this but don’t want to hear it and say they don’t like the law.
The second reason is the I-5 location. There are other areas the City considered and decide I-5 is
seen to be an important feature to have for economic land supply. Lane County has no sites
along I-5 for economic development. This has been studied since 2008 – when a stakeholders
group met about 10 times and that was one of the things that came out of it as being really
important. Since then the City has had an economic development consultant that specializes in
industrial lands who also confirmed that this area is the kind of site that the City should have in
its inventory if it wanted to attract certain industries. Doesn’t mean necessarily these industries
are going to be coming in from elsewhere – they might be local industries that need a site that
has good freeway access or a good freeway exposure. Linda said she believes that is why our
City Council is focused on two areas primarily – North Gateway site and this area. Council is
also considering land that Springfield Utility Board recently purchased from Knife River which
is in the area of 28th and Main Streets. Pointed to the map of that area and showed the parks and
open space proposal.
Gayle asked if it is the number of stop lights trucks have to stop at as they get to I-5; what are the
factors that make being right by the freeway really important to industry?
Linda replied it is all about time, distance, number of truck turns; cost of transportation is a huge
factor for some of our target industries. She will bring data to the next meeting.
Tom Scates asked John where he considers the gateway to Mt. Pisgah; the river, Franklin Blvd.,
Glenwood. The south intersection by JCI?
John said he considers it everything more or less east of Franklin Blvd., around Seavey Loop,
around JCI. He is personally interested in meeting multiple needs and seeing a way to preserve
what is there while letting some things happen. It’s complicated. It’s difficult for citizens to have
a handle on this rule bound process.
Linda said she lived in the area since 1985 and been to Mt. Pisgah thousands of times. She
thinks it’s a confusing area to know which way to go to go there. She asked around the table to
Attachment 5-7
8 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
say where they think the entrance to this neighborhood or this corridor that goes to Pisgah,
Burford, and all the farms are. What is peoples’ perception of where it starts?
Tom LoCascio said the west end starting right at the train trestle bridge BRING side/Turtle
Flats/Confluence he thinks there is going to be a lot of public things happening around that area
within the next 10-20 years. On south end of that he would define it as most of the properties
including the Straub’s on the eastside of the road at least up to JCI. Look to east towards Pisgah
and rolling farmland.
Tom asked Hwy 58? Tom doesn’t see Hwy 58 as bringing that many of the population density
that the other areas do and considers it secondary entrance. People from Pleasant Hill access
Pisgah from backside. It’s twisty, winding residential area. When you turn by Blossom you start
to take in a sense place.
Tom answered he is concerned where it was; the trestle, the intersection at the top of 30th Ave. or
is it Creswell?
said she comes from Hwy 58 coming from up Pleasant Hill Stuff ___ is jarring, on left is OK,
most on the right is OK.
Tom said he thinks Hwy 58 and south intersection.
Normandy: You’re up and you get that view over the farmland and into the mountains is
incredibly beautiful, really important to that sweep all the way.
Betsy is from east Springfield McKenzie side agrees that it’s confusing and she always gets lost.
Jeff said new to area (4 years) when driving in he views Pisgah when he goes past EPUD and
turns down Seavey Loop it’s a natural spot. Admits it’s nice to drive underneath the trestle and
not see a parking lots of cars like we used to in summer time, now you see that fence. There’s a
vision there. Not as much from 58, but when you come into the lowlands. He added that he is
completely open to the study. Talked to Commissioner Stewart. He said things were written in
the paper about what their expectations are. He is completely open with the process, they are not
cemented into a plan. Is very curious to where it goes.
Corbin said the gateway starts at the gas station on College View.
Nicole lives in south Eugene and said they coming in from the Pleasant Hill sSide.
David: NW entrance of old Franklin Blvd, might be back by the trestle. The turn off from Old
Franklin Blvd to Seavey Loop, but it may be back at the trestle somewhat. He’s never come in
from the Goshen exit because he doesn’t live that way and thinks not many people connect
College View or southern portion of the Goshen area with Pisgah very much. Didn’t realize it
was there because he went to Pisgah. Didn’t associate College View with Mt. Pisgah.
Attachment 5-8
9 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
Gayle: Her 33 acres is on South Seavey Loop and she sees a lot of people on weekends on bikes
and motorcycles, with dogs etc. on that part of Seavey Loop coming from the Hwy 58 direction.
They are thinking it’s a place to come and recreate.
Jim said he always traditionally considered the gateway to be at the intersection at Seavey and
Franklin on the NE side – owns the land there on the corner where the welcome to our world
sign is. The house burned down in ’83 and they chose not to rebuild. Idyllic setting and last
remaining oak trees -it’s very picturesque. Couldn’t take that step to construct a residence there.
From 58 you go through mobile home parks – Hoya where it opens up and has character. By
Walsh and Brooks- he doesn’t really connect that to Mt. Pisgah. It is what it is. That whole
corridor there – he doesn’t see that as that Gateway. Doesn’t see further industrialization of that
area as conflicting with what he sees as the gateway to Pisgah.
Rob agreed saying as you’re approaching the trestle and Franklin/Seavy Loop is the entrance, but
as you are coming back he thinks what’s happening to the west and south is significant to your
experience of Seavey area. What’s done to kind of buffer is important. Looks at map and sees
the industrial area comes up to where a lot of people are living in the trailer park (Hoya, Roble)
and the neighborhood there. Concern is these people think they are living in the Seavey Loop
area what will they think of living next to industrial? Buffering is important.
Linda asked what that area is called.
discussion: The Blossom Mobile Home Park or the Blossom Area.)
Tom said power lines above keep the space open.
Linda said she had telephone conversation from a resident that lives in one of the houses on the
boarder of Straub’s property and Linda sent her a map and some information. The resident said
she wouldn’t see development there because of all the trees along the slough. Vegetation is
mostly deciduous.
Linda next explained the large yellow sections on the map are BPA ROW/easement. She said
she’s had a number of conversations with BPA and their representative did a training with City
staff. One easement (the wider one) is a very restrictive easement and that’s why the city is not
counting on that area as buildable land. Tom Scates asked since nothing can be done with it
because of overhead power lines, can a parking lot be constructed there?
Linda replied some uses (e.g. parking) could occur in the narrower easement only if there is
sufficient line clearance.
Mark: Gateway entrance is when you turn off Franklin and on to Seavey Loop Rd. Thinking
about it from the I-5 perspective driving down I-5 and looking off to that direction Pisgah can be
seen. What really hits him is how developed and industrialized that corridor is. For the last 5-6
years having driven the southern part of Franklin Blvd. down to Goshen and back up through
Attachment 5-9
10 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
there it feels like together with the freeway and power lines and railroad and development that is
there it is very impacted. It’s not until he turns on to Seavey Loop that he feels that transition into
farm land and getting into the rural part of the land.
Linda acknowledged it is hard to get a perspective from freeway. She noted coming from the
south where you can see into this area is right over the Walsh Trucking property area corner and
then you do see into that open space beyond. Coming from the north it’s harder to see anything
because of the jersey barriers in the middle of the road and it doesn’t have very good freeway
exposure. Along College View you can see it as you’re going north but where you really get the
big picture is from the corner of Twin Buttes looking into the Seavey Loop area.
Cecile said that is her property (talking about people on the residential area on the other side of
the slough). She thinks that one thing that could be done as issue of encroachment is addressed
on property owners on the other side. Right now there is a wonderful lining of trees and
blackberries - habitat for wildlife and if that was left intact that would do so much for the people
on the other side of the slough. As property owners on the west side of the slough we don’t even
have a sense of who is there other than that little tiny glance into that mobile home park.
Betsy: Following up on conversation she had with Commissioner Stewart about his thoughts of
having a greenspace or some sort of buffer she is curious what would that look like and how
would it impact future growth in the area or keep future growth from happening.
Linda said the City requires riparian area setbacks and requirements for restoring native
vegetation so those requirements would be in place on anything that would be in our jurisdiction
in terms of development. Other things discussed have been different kinds of conservation
easements which is a whole different category where private property owners make the decision
that they are going to put an easement on their property. She said her understanding is the cost is
about $30,000 to establish one. Another concept that has been talked about is should this be a
rural reserve and that is something that she’d like Ed Moore to talk about that next week because
she is not an expert on that topic. Her understanding of rural reserves is we don’t have that
option in our county right now. This is done in the Portland Metro Area but to get that option
down here would take a legislative action. The reserves process uses the same criteria essentially
as UGB, priority lands, soil types, etc. designed to protect the best resource land. It’s a 50 year,
not a 20-year commitment.
John: There is a remarkable level of agreement about where that gateway is but even if we could
draw that line and all say this is perfect, and Springfield could say that’s where the UGB should
be, what keeps it from spreading from there. John added that he attended a City of Eugene open
house and what he heard was they are talking about both urban and rural reserves.
Linda: Springfield and Eugene used to have urban reserves in the metro area but when rule
changes were made our urban reserves no longer met the criteria. When the UGB is expanded
your first priority to look at are your urban reserves. It uses the same criteria so it’s going to be
Attachment 5-10
11 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
looking at where the exceptions areas are - the zoned industrial, zoned rural industrial, zone rural
commercial, rural residential areas. She told the group many of you own rural residential
property that was divided before the rule came into effect that protected large acres of farmland.
These are the exception areas, high priority for UGB expansion under the rules.
Mark: Floodplains and floodways are also big drivers from his perspective of what could
potentially be developed. He thinks the original study area included additional lands that are in
the floodplain. Right now there is a federal lawsuit and it’s only going to get more complicated
and difficult to develop in the floodplain. Another question is if someone did put conservation
easement on their property would that preclude the City from looking at that or bringing it into
the UGB if it met the priority to bring it in anyway.
Linda: If someone decided to put 100 acres of their land in an easement the next time the City
was looking at potential expansion they would not consider that land is off the table.
Gayle said she has class 1.
Linda: She said we have class 1 and 2 soils in the surrounding area. Another criteria for UGB
planning is when looking at different parcels the City is directed to go to the poorest quality soils
first. And if those lands are not being considered the City would have to justify it. All of the
other land Springfield has looked at in its studies since 2008 everything around Springfield, staff
has to write a finding as to why those sites are not suited to the uses that we need. It’s a very
rigorous process and then the “ESEE factors” are applied at the very end of the process to
compare the environmental, social, economic, and energy consequences of expanding in this area
vs. another one. She said that’s where there is some flexibility under the law, in her opinion,
about one study area over another or one parcel or another. She said if there was very strong
evidence that development would ruin the farming in this area, they have not received evidence
in the record at this point. Those are the kinds of factors that could be considered.
Tom LoCascio: The experience of leaving the park and heading west on Seavey Loop and what
it would be like to look out over Franklin, you’d be looking into that whole industrial zone. Right
now very open and pastoral and all of that ground drains right into all the channels and places
where people irrigate from now. Realizes that water quality is something that is monitored but
you can’t say that putting in more pavement and industry and every level of truck pollution and
everything that goes with it is all going that way, it is going to have an impact visually and
environmentally. Lastly what he finds so difficult about this is the talk about the Metro Plan and
Springfield/County/ Eugene split. Springfield needs industrial ground so you say this rule can
fit this piece of land but if we could step back a minute and say is that really the best place for
the industrial land to be – it’s a thin strip with already active commercial businesses, there isn’t
much industry along it. He said he could see commercial activity there and looking at the history
of Goshen it is an industrial zone the middle spoke of the wheel and suits that purpose very well.
Don’t know how to get beyond that – we do have a unique resource and we have rules that drive
Attachment 5-11
12 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
process and we do need to grow, but is this a smart way to grow? This is where he feels really
challenged in finding compromise here. Just doesn’t seem like the laws fit a model that really
can take it all in.
Rob: Says he has recurrent area of concern on what the impacts of industrial areas have been,
and how effective is any monitoring and enforcement of environmental restrictions. Since that
maybe LRAPA or DEQ licensing industries to do discharges that would have an impact on the
rest of the area but they are really not strictly monitoring or enforcing some of the limits. Asked
LRAPA to respond. What kind of assurances could we have about impacts of this industrial
zone from an air quality standpoint?
Merlyn: The requirements for a new facility are stricter than what is required to retro-fit existing
facilities. Any new facility would be required to put on best available control technology so
emissions would be lower for a new industry compared to a comparable existing one. He
explained ss JCI increased its production over time the amount of painting they were doing and
solvent evaporates as part of that process crept above the threshold that a permit was required
and JCI did not apply for a permit when that first happened. They were reporting their emissions
and that’s where it was identified that they crept above the threshold where they should have
applied for a permit. Actually USEPA and LRAPA were involved and the settlement dealt with
all of that. Since that time he believes that JCI has reduced their emissions by going to other
paints and solvents so that they would be below that threshold. The way the permit works is
once you are required to have a permit you are always required to have it. JCI is still required to
have a permit. There were fines involved.
Jeff said yes that’s an accurate portrayal. They strictly monitor and have a person dedicated to
that now. We fall well below the permissible limits now. It was an unfortunate situation.
Merlyn: The compliance people in their office consider JCI to be a model permittee, they are on
top of it and communicating frequently and we consider that an unfortunate historical event.
Mark: Related to vision – identifying acceptable types of uses that could be allowed in the
corridor, he prefers the term “employment land” rather than “industrial land.” Employment land
can mean different types of employment, different types of uses. It might be different
employment types of opportunities in this corridor that don’t qualify in other people’s minds as
industrial that can create jobs or utilize land in a way that doesn’t impact the area as negatively
as a smoke stack kind of development that people might really fear for polluting. How would
Linda write a zoning code for this area, the types of development that could be allowed in
whatever the ultimate zone for this area could be limited by size, setbacks, heights or
appearances, whether they are allowed to discharge they might get to a place that would be more
appealing to people that don’t want anything to go there. How much authority would that have if
it was done?
Attachment 5-12
13 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
Linda: The economic element of the 2030 Plan included in the packets, on the very first page is a
definition from Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development. The rule identifies”
industrial and other employment” opportunities.” Other employment as defined in the Oregon
Administrative Rule (660-009-0005) is “all non-industrial employment activities including the
widest range of retail, wholesale, service, non-profit, business headquarters, administrative and
governmental employment activities that are accommodated in retail, office and flexible building
types. Other employment uses also include employment activities of an entity or organization
that serves the medical, educational, social service, recreation and security needs of the
community typically in large buildings or multi-building campuses.” That’s the definition of
industrial land that we are fitting this land need under. Thank for bringing that up, it’s really
important that everyone understands that.
Jim: People visualize industrial as being a smokestack basically but what he was hearing Linda
saying and asked whether an example that has been in the news lately, like a call center, would
that fit into this niche perhaps. Linda said yes.
Gayle asked if there is a precedent to be met for zoning it with an addendum or something that is
binding so that over time the area is able to maintain the kinds of restrictions that you assume.
Linda: Zoning does change over time. Right now we can’t think of all the uses that might be
needed in 20 or 40 years so sometimes our zonings – like Heavy Industrial, etc. don’t really fit
what people want to do anymore. Industries that we need and we want to have. We are in a
process now everywhere of updating what those zoning categories are. We just recently updated
the plan and zoning for the entire Glenwood Riverfront area all the way down McVay Highway -
essentially creating custom districts for Springfield that are mixed use districts. Gayle: That
could be cool but is that temporary?
Linda: It’s not temporary, it is the law and when an ordinance is adopted it is the law.
Gayle: There are precedents for people such as conservation easements that are something that
seems to hold up over time even though all kinds of things can change around it. If later we were
able to think of ways that some of the land in the UGB could be developed and used and there
could be restrictions on pollution, emissions, etc., how durable could an agreement be if we
really looked at that?
Mark: From his perspective there is definitely a precedent as Linda mentioned about the
Glenwood area – they created a very custom zone for fitting within what their vision was for
Glenwood. In terms of their ability there is always a process to propose to change a zone or
allowable uses in a zone. That wouldn’t be as rigorous as UGB expansion process but it would
go out for public notice, there would be public hearings, opportunity for appeals etc. Not only
can you specify what you would allow but also what would not be allowed.
Attachment 5-13
14 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
Linda: Existing zoning codes will be brought to the group during the meeting scheduled after the
next one and Mark will help explain land uses that are permitted under the current County
zoning.
Tom LoCascio said it seems like the only kernel he’s been able to grab on to is the idea that if we
could define value and goals he thinks he has been talking to Linda about a vision from the city
and wonders when City says industrial zone what does that mean? Is that smokestacks or is it a
whole food processing plant? How much parking capacity needed? You talked about allowable
emission, why would I want any emissions in the neighborhood I live or grow food in. If we
could start to take a scalpel and really look at that, maybe there is hope. But without that it would
be silly to say industrial zone is great.
John said he appreciates Mark mentioning this area as an employment zone, but he also would
include that whole area we’re talking about that is farm and rural and park as an employment
zone, not the people that work on the farms. When you think about employers trying to bring
people to this region in a competitive market place this is the kind of place that makes a nice
place to live. Like a high tech firm looking for livability. Distinction and character of the place
is an attractor.
Linda said yes that’s a really important point. The industrial analysis addresses all those factors
as well as the capacity of the workforce. We had our consultant look at eight of our target
industries and to do an assessment of which ones might fit in different area.
Rob: when having visitors from out of town and he wants to show them a special place – Pisgah
is a tremendous asset in that way in terms of our showcasing our special qualities and letting
people experience what is special about this place.
Mark joked that Cabela’s is an economic driver and many visitors want to go there.
Tom LoCascio: Thinks John was the one who coined this in the conversation we were having
that he looked at this area as kind of the “Central Park” of our region and he thinks that if you
look at the amount of growth that we are seeing happening in Springfield, Eugene, Goshen,
Pleasant Hill and Creswell there’s one thing about it is all these cities surround Pisgah. So if we
really could have the vision to recognize that if we could cultivate that and put together a smart
plan about how our communities interact with that space people will look back at this planning
process and say “Wow, those guys had the right vision, they really made it happen.” If you want
to start talking about economic drivers that kind of plan will really bolster all of these
communities and the people who live in it and that’s the kind of vision he wants to see. If we
don’t see that vision it’s going to be a fight because we’ve got it. He said he is so encouraged to
hear the discussion today and to hear the people behind it; he is really hopeful that we can figure
this out. He said he has hope right now.
Attachment 5-14
15 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
Jim said he’s hearing a couple of different things; he is hearing that the local area neighbors want
to preserve the gateway access, scenic corridor, and Seavy Loop. He is also is hearing that City
growth happens and as much as we try we can’t stop growth. Two issues: how to preserve the
rural character forever – we can’t legislate future legislation so we can all say we don’t want any
to happen unless we explore other options like conservation easements – something that forever
binds also if the city does expand their UGB area. Also he sees that conservations easement as
being a buffer because there are neighbors that are worried about creep; if they allow the UGB to
come to this area now what’s to say 15 years from now they don’t slowly start creeping into the
area that we see as the scenic corridor. But within that area that UGB if it were agreed upon
could expand too is looking at what the allowable uses would be that fits the character of the
neighborhood. Smokestacks is something nobody wants to necessarily see but if there was some
type of commercial enterprise that people could agree upon that would be compatible maybe
that’s workable.
LoCascio: The other elephant in the room for him has always been once the sewer line goes in
where will it go. And what will that mean. It’s frightening to him that we focus on a need right
now but Springfield is going to come back in a year or so and say we need more residential land
and then farmland might look desirable so it’s a complicated thing.
Linda: She appreciates everyone’s perspectives and they will see the next meeting is really going
to get more into viable land use types and more visioning. Asked Nicole to speak for
Willamalane and open space.
Nicole: can bring maps next week. Right now Willamalane District does not enter that area; the
only thing they have in their comprehensive plan now is the potential study of a future
bike/pedestrian bridge which would only be the joining of agencies to figure out if, how, and
where.
Linda added that the other vision she hopes the group will talk about next week is the skinny
strip of land coming south on Franklin and what are ideas for bike paths and connectivity - some
of its shown in the confluence maps. Invited group to bring maps and info.
Rob wanted to know if in terms of transit and infrastructure is there going to be any discussion of
30th Avenue extension across the tracks and is that part of the contemplated plan? David said he
is prepared to talk about that.
Linda: Have we identified the right theses - are we hitting on the right topics – we want to have
the right people in the room, resource people lined up. She spoke with Lane county sanitarian
yesterday so got some info about septic tanks and permits. We could get people from DEQ if
necessary to talk about water quality issues.
Linda: Our work product is due in March 23rd. She is scheduled to go to the City Council and
report back on the results of the visioning process. She’s hopeful the product of that will be
Attachment 5-15
16 |SWGMeeting Notes Feb. 11, 2015
minutes from the group meetings, what was talked about, what vision statements we’ve decided
are important as a group and just compile all that information for them.
Jim want to know if we are trying to collectively come up with a vision that is then presented as
this group that we either sign on to or choose not to support as individuals?
Linda replied that we’ll see how it goes; she thinks we need to just play it by ear. But the idea
was that we were going to come up with some fairly high level vision statements for the area out
of this process and those vision statements can inform the Springfield 2030 Plan. Just as we have
this Economic Element, adopted policies of the City and Lane County, we will have the
Urbanization Element that is going to describe each area that the City is proposing. Remember
this is a proposal and hasn’t been approved by anyone yet and that each area is going to have
policies that will be related to it. So some of the policies may be overarching for everything but
some may be specifically in tuned with this particular area.
John asked if neighborhood’s vision statement would be include in what goes to Council.
Linda replied yes it would.
Normandy concerned about public safety.
The group agreed that there is a lot discuss about transportation, truck traffic on Franklin.
County transportation staff are invited. County staff have traffic counts.
Meeting adjourned.
Attachment 5-16
1 | Notes 2-25-15
Springfield 2030 UGB Study
College View/South Franklin Study Area Working Group
February 25, 2015 Meeting Notes
Attendance
Staff: Linda Pauly, Loralyn Spiro, Judy Castleman
Working Group: John and Normandy Helmer, Ross Pennhallegon, Gayle Landt, Jim Straub,
Corbin McBride, Betsy Schultz (via phone), Tom LoCascio, Nicole Ankeney, Mark Rust, Tom
Scates, Ed Moore
SWG Resource Group: Dan Terrell (Willamette Water Co., Max Hueftle (LRAPA)
Public: Cecile Haworth (study area property owner)
CALL TO ORDER. Meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by staff Linda Pauly
Linda began the meeting by reviewing objectives for the next two workshops. She said the
Springfield City Council directed staff to work with this group to come up with high level vision
statements for the College View study area. The statements will be provided to the Council
when she reports on the results of this visioning process at the March 23rd Council work session.
Vision and goal statements should address the environmental, social, economic, land use
compatibility and transportation concerns that have been raised. The group will also be talking
about commerce and industry types that would be viable and appropriate in this study area and land uses
that would be consistent with the visions and goals discussed. Linda provided copies of additional
materials to the group:
• Vision for Seavey Loop and Mt. Pisgah submitted by Normandy and John Helmer;
• TadZo Industry Report;
• 2030 Target Industries list
• Minutes from the February 11th meeting
• Examples of visions and goal statements from the Coast/Middle Fork Willamette River
Confluence Assessment: 5 Goals Toward a Positive Future submitted by Chris Orsinger
Attachment 5-17
2 | Notes 2-25-15
She pointed out the TadZo “Industry Intelligence” report. The consultant was asked to look at eight of
the target industries that Springfield had identified in the 2008-2009 Commercial, Industrial buildable
land study to provide more detailed assessment about the site needs of those industries. that the city
commissioned with a consultant. All lot of what this group discussed at last meeting is also about quality
of life, and the types of employment attracted to our area and our region because of our quality of life.
You can see how that relates to how industry looks at sites and thinks you will see a lot of overlap there.
Next Linda asked for introductions from new people.
Ross Pennhallegon: OSU Extension Service involved in Lane County for 24 years and
Agriculture for 15 years.
Max Hueftle: Permit Engineer from LRAPA with Industrial/Commercial permitting sources.
Linda noted at the last meeting a couple of questions came up about urban reserves and rural
reserves. She asked Ed Moore if he could give a brief overview of how that process works and
why we don’t have that reserves here.
Ed Moore- DLCD. Ed replied that there is only one place in the state that can have rural
reserves and that’s Portland Metro area. For the City to pursue a rural reserves with the county
for the Seavey Loop area is something that could be considered but it would require legislative
action and whether or not it would be successful is problematic in that it hasn’t gone that
smoothly in Portland. He said it could be that the experience that Portland Metro area is having
either could help solidify that concept statewide but it could put it off limits throughout the state
so it’s a wait and see, experimental, but is certainly something that could be considered. In terms
of urban reserves the purpose of urban reserves is to look out 50 years of urban land need (20
years inside the UGB and an additional 30 years for Urban Reserve) to identify where the city
can meet its future land need (21-50 years out) and make the urban boundary expansion in the
future easier. (lands designated Urban Reserve are first priority land for adding to a UGB). This
could be done here and the way it would work would be Springfield right now is looking at a
new 20-year UGB for employment land (a Springfield UGB for residential land was established
in 2011). So you almost would have to do and what Eugene is actually doing, which is sort of a
two-step. If you want to consider urban reserves you first want to identify your new UGB
because otherwise your 50-year starts from your current UGB. For example, what Eugene is
going to do is first establish a new UGB for their City and then pursue urban reserves. What
would facilitate that would be they have collected a lot of information about the landscape
around the City that they could then go through a similar process in a UGB alternatives analysis
and identify what land would be included in the next set of lands they would bring in for
employment land or residential land. At this point that’s an option but you are really looking at
what other land would you wanted to take into a UGB in the future. It’s not exclusionary process
(like rural reserves) but more like an inclusionary process which then sets up a more expedited
system for being able to expand the UGB in the future because the first priority land for UGB
Attachment 5-18
3 | Notes 2-25-15
expansion is for an urban reserve area and you really can’t go somewhere else if you have an
urban reserve.
Gayle asked Ed what the source of the struggle is for the rural reserve and why it’s important.
Ed replied missed expectations, the fact that some cities weren’t happy when they got included in
rural reserves. Washington County was probably the biggest problem because when they looked
through the whole entire metro area for where these rural reserves should be and selected them,
some land was put into a UGB that should not have been. Gets down to those local politics and it
was being done at a Regional scale vs. on a local City scale. Probably if cities in Lane County
were to look at rural reserves and what was left they would actually take a big look at the county
and say should we be looking at River Road north toward Junction City, has good soils there. We
want to say these areas are off limits for the next 50 years.
Tom LoCascio: that would be more problematic than just saying one at a time we had our
proposal here this is an area that has some unique values and fits this guideline.
Linda asked if people had reflections from the last meeting because she thought we had really
good discussions last time. What themes they felt came out of that.
Tom LoCascio said he’s still having a hard time. He realizes that the City has a need to grow its
UGB and that geographically and environmentally you are hemmed in on all sides. But at the
same time when he starts talking with neighbors and sees work that has gone on at Pisgah, to
define what are our rural values and look at what we as a group or as a government could do to
try to safeguard those values if UGB does expand there. There doesn’t seem like there is any
mechanism in place that would allow that beyond the political desires of that particular piece – it
seem like it’s all or none. He is having a really hard time finding how to engage in a productive
discussion when knowing that in order to say okay this could work if we had this kind of
industry but yet if somebody comes along 5 or 10 years from now and makes another proposal
that could totally change it.
Tom Scates thought last meeting was productive for him because it got a lot of different views
out and he was able to come to the conclusion that everybody is going the same way on different
paths. He agrees with the folks on Seavey Loop and Pisgah area that that needs to be preserved
but at the same time Springfield has to grow somewhere. This looks like a reasonable area to
come to, it would serve their purposes because it’s the state government that says to have UGB
enlarged; how it progresses he doesn’t know. He agrees no one is going to know what’s going to
happen in 50 years down the road. People down the road – it will be left to them so how do you
protect that. Doesn’t think you can go out 50 or 20 years and say this is the way it’s going to be –
should be this is the way we think it’s going to be because in your politics you could get a whole
one side change the other.
Attachment 5-19
4 | Notes 2-25-15
Gayle said she’s had some thoughts about that since the last meeting. She gave an example about
Glacier National Park and visions to enlarge it. Some people think if you try to preserve
something precious to just a few people isn’t necessarily true. She thinks it would be fabulous if
we around this table could think originally in some way. Thinks Linda is presenting and helping
to bring to this table a wide range of views and that’s valuable. Gayle said she thinks it would be
cool if we could figure something out to meet the interest and needs. Linda’s idea of getting
people around the table and thoughtfully talk is what would make that possible.
John added that like Gayle he’s been thinking a lot about what’s wonderful about Oregon or this
area was actually a vision by the people 40 or 50 years ago and even longer, and people did look
out that far. He thinks it is incumbent on us to be the generation that steps up and looks at least in
broad strokes at the reality of what happens in the next few years. Since last meeting he’s still
feels stuck. During that meeting he asked what our work product is. He’s still a little unclear on
how what we come up with relates to the laws governing the expansion of the UGB which seems
to be a very strict process that does not allow a lot of room for interpretation. When he had a
neighborhood meeting with the City of Springfield some time ago he came away feeling like he
just doesn’t see where this fits into that. This is a great process. Still doesn’t know how what
we’re doing is going to make a difference. What he heard was Linda would be reporting to the
council the results of these discussions so this is strictly to inform their voting? He asked Linda
if she could tell him more about what this group is going to get out of this process.
Linda answered that reporting back to the council is going to be summarizing the meetings. In
the overall context the City of Springfield’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan has an Urbanization
Element and that is a policy element that talks about the new land that’s added to the UGB
through this process, what polices will determine how land will be used before it’s annexed into
the City and after they are annexed into the City of Springfield and what kinds of uses would
permitted under interim zoning before land is annexed. It’s a description of how the land would
be regulated in terms of land uses over the next 20 years. The important policy discussion about
environmental and social values, the group is working on — she is hoping we’re going to capture
in the vision statements. Vision is about what you want it to be, about thinking out 20 years and
closing you’re eyes and saying what would be a perfect scenario. Linda read some example
vision statements from the Main Street Corridor Vision Plan that City of Springfield Council just
adopted. We spent a year having conversations in our community about our Main St. Corridor
which is 7 ½ mile strip of land. The Vision Plan is a picture of what people really want to see,
how they want to live. Then the goal statements are about how you are going to get there.
Visions are pictures of where you want to go and goals describe actions on how you’re going to
get there. Implementation is specific things to be done to achieve the goals.
Tom LoCascio noted that right now we are part of Lane County, a rural area so one potential
goal could be we would like to stay that way because of the obvious reasons that it would mean
we wouldn’t have to deal with the fact that politically there really is no rule that could preserve
cultural values? A goal statement to him is a very concrete thing – if you say to a group of people
Attachment 5-20
5 | Notes 2-25-15
this is what it’s all about then if suddenly something changes you can go back and say wait a
minute this was the objective, so he said he likes goals. Visions are: this is where we want to go
but we’re not exactly sure where it’s going to take us, and then suddenly we’re here instead of
there. Tom asked how much actual legality does the vision statement that was put for Glenwood
Corridor carry, or is it just more words that could be politically changed.
Linda replied that Visioning is where you start in the planning process because if you come in
and ask people what policies do you want, what codes should you have, there is nothing to bring
it all together if you don’t have a picture of where you want to go and how can you create the
right kind of regulations that will make that condition occur.
Jim said he likes the idea of the vision statement because it starts a path. You may not have the
manpower, funding, resources to implement that vision right now. In politics there is that rule
you can’t legislate future legislation. But vision statements get around that; says this is the
collective view of what we would like to see this area become. He sees that if there is a vision
statement for Seavey Loop/Buford Park area that tells people in the future of what we hoped
would be here and of what the general population would like to see so if there was the
opportunity 5 years from now to pass a bond measure to obtain more property to expand the park
that fits the vision and that becomes an action item. He finds this very intriguing and we can’t
necessarily solve all the problems today as a single group but if we can provide input in a vision
statement that creates a lasting impression and gives people in future generations to look back
upon and perhaps get some direction from.
Linda said she just needed to be clear that we’re talking about the City’s proposed UGB area.
We’re not talking creating vision statements for Buford Park which has its own visions. And
where they began 50 years ago was people sitting around a table like this saying we need to have
a vision, here’s my idea, let’s talk about it.
Jim: If land was within the UGB then Willamalane passes a bond measure and they have money
set aside for open space or park space. There’s all sorts of different options have popped up in
different scenarios that could come to fruition.
John: Linda said the area we’re talking about is strictly within the bounds of the current proposed
UGB. The location of that boundary— the potential expansion or reduction —is not within scope
of what we are talking about. Correct?
Linda: Not really – we have people at the table that might have input into that and as we go
through this process if we identify — or example if someone identifies —say a natural resource
on this property that should that really be in the proposed UGB or should that be left out of the
UGB and remain in the County — that’s the kind of information that would be useful. So
refinement of the boundary I would say yes, that is on the table for this group’s discussion.
Everything is really on the table, I can’t tell you what to talk about or what not to talk about, but
I can tell you what I’ve been charged with by my City Council and what I’m hoping to get out of
Attachment 5-21
6 | Notes 2-25-15
this process because I know that I need to produce a final product that’s going to be a draft
policy element for Springfield that can have some really good policies in it that talk about what
the vision for this area is. And when you talk about cultural statements aren’t part of the law,
look at any comprehensive plan – it’s full of cultural statements. Our existing Metro Plan is full
of cultural statements – it’s not just about numbers. Sometimes it seems that way with buildable
land inventories, acres, etc.
Ross told the group he’s been working with cities on UGB expansions for probably 20 years.
From Lane County’s perspective if we look west there is nothing west; look north nothing; look
northeast then that opens up potential but then that runs out fairly quickly. Looking east there’s
some hills before you get to Cedar Flats that becomes questionable, look south not a whole
bunch. From the City aspect they are up the creek because there’s only small opportunities. From
the agricultural perspective what he’s heard is that once a UGB shows up then it takes forever.
Example of River Road and Beacon Drive… How effective is Exclusive Farm Use? It used to
be extremely strong and if that is the case, to him, here’s the line (referring to the UGB map),
here is the good ag land, here’s Buford park – you don’t touch it forever. That becomes the
critical portion that’s fairly agreeable. But where the line is drawn it becomes arguable that
Buford Park, follow the road around Seavey Loop two miles on each side. That becomes fairly
uniform discussion and agreement but again how do we make this “fence” that it cannot be
crossed. And he doesn’t know that process so as the UGB expands how do we get insurance
because this is some of the best soil in the world. River Road example.
Ed responded that Ross that mispoke a little bit. Eugene is not expanding up north River Road
but rather it is going to develop an existing filbert orchard inside the current UGB. He said for
the UGB for residential purposes Eugene is taking a little bit of EFU. For industrial it’s literally
just immediately west of Hwy 99W up to the airport. Part of it’s for a school and part is for a
regional park and wetlands, to meet their industrial need like Springfield’s trying to do. As far as
the state statutes are concerned ag land is sacrosanct, it’s the last land you can bring in. Then
when you look at ag land you take the least productive ag land first class 4, 5 and 6 and then your
prime ag land (the last ones you can consider). Ed said he thinks you still can rest assured about
so many changes in statutes. Eugene like Springfield is having to jerry-meander their UGB so
that it fits the state priority of lands to include.
Gayle asked Ed how far east do you have to go from what’s currently developed along I-5, the
shooting range and JCI and there’s some stuff there already how far do you have to go east of
that to get to Class 3-2- or 1 soil?
Ed replied mostly what Springfield is bringing in has already been identified as exception land.
Basically if you don’t have urban reserves it’s the first set of lands in.
Tom LoCascio One thought about that is when they are so land locked that it seems to him it
wouldn’t go far for them to make an argument that because we have so little land we’re already
Attachment 5-22
7 | Notes 2-25-15
looking at Class 2 or Class 3soil since there is just not enough room for that to grow is his
understanding. How far are they from being able to prevent that argument and have it begin to
erode away?
Ed answered If you’re looking for residential purposes it is incredibly difficult. Residential land
is like sand so Springfield met its residential land need partly because SUB said they could serve
anything. There is some land in the hills above Thurston that literally will be so expensive to
serve the city probably will never bring it in. But it had to count it as SUB wouldn’t say it cannot
be served. But industrial land has a different set of factors. You’ve got to look at your target
industries, what are their site needs, site requirements and then again go through a process where
you first have to look at exception land then if there is nothing there that fits that need then you
start looking at non-resource land then marginal land. Then look at ag land lastly then start again
with the least productive soils and go forward. As part of the analysis Springfield did would take
a look at the soil classes around there. And if they are all Class 1, there isn’t a choice to pick
another class so they have to land on Class 1. Again they basically have to do their due diligence
then their studies have to prove that they are using the land inside the UGB in the most efficient
way possible. We have certain guidelines that they have to follow for that.
Dan Terrell said he wanted to add a point that he thinks one of the concerns people have is – is
there a hard line that gets drawn and basically what this process is doing is drawing a hard line
for the next 20 years. This process comes back again in 20 years and the City will have to justify
everything again. But once this line gets drawn, that is it for the next 20 years.
John: that’s where he feels one of the things that would help a lot of people out would be (and
may be outside the scope of what the City of Springfield can do) have them draw a line if the
City can also put a rule and insuring there is some kind of buffer there – something that helps
insure that line doesn’t get moved in another 20 years. They can have a vision to look beyond the
boundaries of the UGB and look a little farther out in the future. That’s the issue for a lot of
people, they look at that maybe a very narrow UGB makes sense – but is that just creep having
been established and it grows and grows for many years. There needs to be a way to look farther
out and say we can do this but we can also find a long term way to preserve what we value in this
other area. And that’s difficult I think from what you described Linda because that’s in a sense
getting beyond the scope of what you can do.
Linda responded that John is talking about private property and what people’s rights are
John said three jurisdictions are looking.
Linda – when you are looking at preserving land for open space or whatever values of your
group or your interest it all comes down to acquisition. Look at what Buford Park has done and
all the work that’s been done to acquire all that land and Nature Conservancy. That’s really what
makes those kinds of things happen. Gave example of Boulder, Colorado where she lived – they
bought all the land to create that green belt.
Attachment 5-23
8 | Notes 2-25-15
John still wanted to know if there a rule for the City of Springfield to help make that happen or is
it just Springfield is going to define the boundaries and this is what they care about end of story.
He thinks it takes community and takes the two cities and county and thinking about things like
reserves and trusts and if Springfield is solely interested in getting what it needs to fulfill this
function it’s not very satisfying at some level.
Tom LoCasio: has been reflecting on this idea that it started with a group of people that came
together and said that we would like to manage the public land to be for people and then it grew
into another organization that ran the Buford Park, then from there we said we had the Nature
Conservancy, then we have a lot community people working together managing land owned by
the people for the people and the betterment for the people and it has created a culture and an
environment which really you can’t compare it to anything else. It’s very unique, it has created
one of the most valued and loved resources anywhere in the state and we don’t really have any
rule that addresses – when you talk about the expansion, suddenly he realized we could end up
becoming part of the Willamalane Park District. What would that mean? Everything keeps
growing exponentially. The hardest thing that he’s having is that the more government involved
the more rules and the beauty of what’s happening out there has been that it has been something
that has been kind of growing exponentially itself and it really has created a very valued service.
And it’s created a culture that society realizes how special it is to have people working together
and freely contributing together from all ages. That his greatest concern – it’s very unique and he
would like to see the county, City of Springfield, city of Eugene, state all come together and
recognize this and begin to have that discussion because it’s something our culture really needs
right now and he can’t get beyond that because that’s been his whole adult life. If we destroy
that we’ve taken a lot of our soul out of our city and you don’t have to look far to see that we’re
doing a pretty job of that everywhere you look right now.
Gayle: If that were included in a vision statement along with things other people have said, the
vision would be, we’ll be talking about what that corridor might look like. If you’re looking at a
full range of options one is it’s not part of Springfield but other option might make it part of
Springfield. You’d have to be able to talk about protecting Seavey Loop so the vision would
have to have in it activities happening in that strip which do not degrade the quality of the lands
to the east including the ag lands and park.
Jim said he thinks that should be included in the vision but what he heard Linda say is she’s
charged with creating a report and presently Springfield is not looking at touching Seavey Loop
in their UGB expansion at all so that could be incorporated in the vision but in her reporting to
the City he doesn’t think that’s going to impact them very much because if you look at the map it
doesn’t touch anything that we’ve all mutually agreed is the gateway to Pisgah.
Gayle: thinks Jim is the perfect person to have her be more clear than she is on this. She is taking
the time with what she would like as it might be helpful to some other people as well. She feels
the land just east of I-5 already impacts her property to some degree. There’s noise from JCI and
Attachment 5-24
9 | Notes 2-25-15
traffic noise to some degree. People talk about NIMBY. We already have on Seavey Loop
included some things that people need. Her question is what is a reasonable amount.
Jim said what is included on the UGB map isn’t Seavey Loop but we tried to address question.
Gayle: where do you think Seavey Loop begins? Asked Jim if he thinks the UGB doesn’t go
into the farm land at all at this point on S.L.
Jim: specific question does it go into the farmland then of course he can’t argue with the soil
maps yes it would go into the farmland.
Gayle: 3,2 and 1 soils close to town important for locavores.
Jim: the point he was trying to make for Linda is that regardless of what we say we can talk
about what we want to save and preserve that’s not really going to go into her report and not
going to necessarily impact the city’s decision that much. What they are look at is taking in
what’s in this plan. His vision of whether or not the impacted land that may or may not be
brought into the UGB affects the rest he thinks that’s getting argumentative/speculative and his
understanding of the UGB process is pretty black and white – cut and dried. There’s not a lot of
room for public input.
Gayle: in her vision it seems it might be reasonable to shrink those boundaries some and she sees
that with some level of humility but since has some level of precious farmland in it.
Jim: we have an expert can tell us what’s available out there. He might be a very bad farmer, but
the soil map shows types. With a proper amount of chemicals and water you can make a lot of
things (Gayle - horse manure) - thinks the soils maps are close but boundaries could be flexible –
not as much farmable land south - closer to Seavey Loop his recent purchase of 25 acres is Type
2. It’s planted right now in grass seed and growing well if they can keep the geese off of it. The
stuff south of that. Carl Druse a farmer who lives on the loop has been farming all his life. He’s
been trying to farm this land for him for 30 years. He said, Jim it’s a waste of diesel. I can’t get
anything to grow out there without pumping fertilizer and a lot of it. Speaking to Ross, Jim said
he’s sure Ross doesn’t remember him but he’s talked to Ross a number of times about his
different parcels of Ag land and what he was doing wrong. He said over the years he has asked
Ross advice about what he should do, fertilizers, etc.– he can’t pay farmers to farm this for him.
How does he use this land and Ross gave him some excellent resources in how to reach out to
different farmers and different venues and how to make it appealing to them, but it’s difficult to
own land and not let it go fallow.
Tom LoCascio asked for a clarification – worried that the UGB would take in everything to the
river. If that is part of this industrial zone process is defining the boundary as you have drawn as
being the area that would become part of Springfield and everything else doesn’t change.
Attachment 5-25
10 | Notes 2-25-15
Linda replied that’s correct and it wouldn’t become part of Springfield until it is annexed and
developed. It would be part of the Springfield UGB — which means the property owner could
request annexation and they could develop the property after a lot more planning work and
infrastructure is available.
Tom LoCascio said that at some point he would like to have a discussion about that with
anybody who could just educate him about that. It is interesting to hear this and he needs to
learn more.
Jim: Gave an example: he has 30 acres out off of Thurston Rd. in that is within Springfield UGB
for 35-40 years - it’s not annexed, he still tries to grow stuff on it. It’s a beet field and it sits
there, but there isn’t industrialization around it but it has been in the UGB for as long as he has
owned it. His father owned it.
Mark: another good example right now Ed just talked about the filbert orchard on River Road
that it’s been in the Eugene City UGB for a long time. They are just now annexing it to the city
limits so that they can develop it.
Tom LoCascio: So the property owner itself is the one that decides when it gets annexed?
Linda: Yes and we’re counting property like this as buildable lands in our inventories even
though owners may have no intention of doing anything with it in the next 20 years. We’re
counting it if it’s not constrained (by slopes or wetlands or other constraints.)
Tom LoCascio: interesting thing was it had to be annexed before it would even be considered, he
didn’t catch that.
Jim: But also in order to take in Pisgah and the old Wildish into the UGB they would have to
show a need - thinks would be difficult.
Nicole added it’s in a flood plain – look at the flood maps that are going to restrain you a good
deal when you look at the FEMA floodway and floodplain.
Tom LoCascio: at one point a discussion on how difficult. If we could go to the community and
say most likely this is not ever going to be brought in because ….. it would put minds at ease.
Jim: his property is in the floodplain not floodway he hasn’t seen a current maps. Nothing in the
proposed UGB but if you look at the rest of the Loop a large portion of it is in the floodway
which is very restrictive and getting even more restrictive. Nothing they can do to change the
floodway.
Mark said if you want a 100 year or 50 year hard fast line that this isn’t going to be developed, to
him the floodway is a pretty good line, you’ll never to develop to urban density.
Attachment 5-26
11 | Notes 2-25-15
Jim: from a development standpoint even if you could obtain insurance in a floodway its going to
be so astronomical that a business can’t afford it.
Linda: noted the floodway and flood plain are shown on the map in the group’s packet. She
heard Gayle trying to come up with a vision statement when she referred to “activities in the
strip.” Gayle’s starting about one way to start a vision statement for the study area we’re talking
about — shown in green on the map.
Gayle: guess she means yes what you’re proposing for this UGB.
LP: Yes – we are zooming in - not for Buford Park, or your farm — you we’re starting to talk
about the “strip”.
Gayle: but we are talking about the strip and how it relates to my farm.
Linda: Exactly.
Jim suggested referring to the strip as the “corridor.”
Yes agreement about using the term “corridor”.
Gayle: Do not degrade rural character to the east.
Tom LoCascio said maybe this is asking too much but say things like noise, light, run off, etc.
Linda: how can you make those into positive statements rather than negative statements. Zoning
will get into those issues.
Gayle: Activities in the corridor retain the high quality of the rural landscape character.
John: The neighbor’s vision statement includes positive statements that fit into this.
John: Preserve and enhance the beauty of and gateway to Mt. Pisgah.
John: Preserve and diversity sustainable agriculture…
Gayle: Activities in the corridor maintain the option…
Tom: Promote industrial activities that benefit and compliment sustainable agriculture...
John: Promote activities that protect and improve air, water, soil and wildlife habitat.
Ross: Doesn’t like work sustainable – it’s a nice word, but has no definition, overused. “Good
agricultural practices” better
Tom L: Promote alternative, or good transportation…things less polluting, less traffic
congestion, not interfere with farming, less noise.
Attachment 5-27
12 | Notes 2-25-15
Mark: multi modal
Corbin: efficient…
Normandy; bike pathways and LTD
Tom S. We can’t stop noise
Tom L: How will trucking corridor works.
Tom L: Already loud at Pisgah.
John: We have to accept what is there – I-5 is not going anywhere. What are we adding to it.
Clanging metal, lights etc add to it.
Tom S: businesses will have lights
Tom L: promote aesthetic design…don’t want ugly industrial
Jim: No ugly buildings
Jim: Would any of this restrict agriculture use? Fish/tilapia farming, greenhouses. People
complain about noise on their farmland. Farmers start early in the morning. If he started
intensively growing row crops…
Gayle: Or some huge dairy…
Tom L: It’s zoned for farms, so you have to live with it. Use must be compatible with farming.
Ross said there is the right to farm but if it becomes a corridor then that’s another set of
parameters. Until it becomes developed it remains farmland.
Ed responded that actually state statues govern and local ordnance doesn’t matter.
Linda said she was glad this was brought up because a lot of people don’t want to hear this
because they are living in the rural area next to farms. But the research and the data show that it’s
more compatible for agriculture to be next to employment industrial kinds of uses than it is to
have agriculture next to residential uses. Typically people complain about farming practices,
tractors, dust, spraying, noise, etc.
Tom LoCascio: Sadly the industrial run-off usually goes through the ag drainages which I don’t
know that that’s always good.
Linda: there are other threats to agriculture.
John: is this the appropriate place not sure if it’s within the scope but one of the issues is the
impact on the property value of properties that are not within the UGB but are adjacent. If you
Attachment 5-28
13 | Notes 2-25-15
have a residence and it makes a difference to the value of that residence. Like the back of a
Walmart. Is it appropriate to say that the uses enhance or preserve the neighboring properties?
The externalities. Is there a way to state that in a useful way?
Linda said she thinks this starts to get at it, aesthetic pleasing design and vegetative buffers or
other means, if you’re talking about how traffic is going to flow in and out of an area.
Tom LoCascio: You could add viewshed to that…buffers, trees, respecting viewshed…
LP: You would need to define where those viewsheds are. In our Gateway Refinement Plan
there are policies about protecting viewsheds to the McKenzie etc.
Tom LoCascio: Preserving the rural character…
Tom Scates: Is there anything that would prevent a high rise building of some sort in this UGB.
Linda: When we get into the code and the policies - building heights could be addressed. Those
policies wouldn’t come into play until we do more refined level of planning and development
code, but that’s where you indicate how tall buildings could be.
Gayle: she’s been thinking about that, say Springfield does include it into the UGB, if that
happens. It would be possible to have buildings along there that would reflect back some of the
noise from I-5. That would be good in her opinion. Salem has buildings and walls along
highway.
Linda: if this land is included in the UGB it is assumed that it will eventually be urban in
character. It could be a really distinctive area that has special design and development
parameters that have to do with building heights, noise levels, etc. but just wanted to be really
clear it will be urban.
Gayle said she gets that will it be urban with 15 stories or urban with 3-4. She realizes that
industrial means development and hardscape and parking lots, cement and all.
Linda: To give an idea of what industries are looking at now, your packet includes a report called
“Industry Intelligence.” The report identifies typical building heights and sizes, parking needs,
etc. for these different employment uses. You can start to get an idea of the kinds of uses that are
looking for different kinds of sites. Doesn’t mean these will be the ones in 20-years, but this is
what these industries need now and that’s why we’re proposing to bring this area in to provide
sites for those industries.
Jim said all you have to do is look across the river and see about the public input process and
how effective that can be to alter a proposed development plans. He’s said he has seen many
things that have come out of the Springfield office that once they have a public hearing about it
the neighbors will impact what the future design of it. There are all sorts of processes that can
influence what the eventual design is and he thinks the hard thing is us looking at what current
Attachment 5-29
14 | Notes 2-25-15
industries need but looking out 20 or 30 years from now. Back then we could envision what’ s
happening now. Who would have thought of a green roof on an industrial building back then?
Gayle: a point earlier in our meeting if you have a vision statement it may be useful 20 years
from now as people try to figure out what the rules are going to be and why.
Jim: That would be more flexible.
Gayle: Some buildings have plants all over them, that would be interesting to see.
Linda: Visioning asks what if, what could it be?
Gayle: As we get less defensive we can better at what if.
Tom Scates said one thing he noticed on the soils diagram is that his property has hard rock on
the surface. How does he get to that #3 soil?
Jim said he thinks that was their best guess given topographic maps and floodplains. Doubts they
went out and did soil sampling.
Ross responded that actually they did in 1952. He said the soil survey is 99.5% accurate – he
hasn’t seen one inaccuracy in 30 years. Ours is amazingly accurate.
Tom L. Goshen/Twin Buttes has unique geology.
Tom S: that’s part of the reason why he is for this is because we know that he doesn’t have very
good soil, so in a way he is sacrificing his area to protect better quality soils in your area.
Tom L: the other thing that he’s thinking about but don’t know how to phrase it this idea that we
have is idea community group activity i.e. he excited to have JCI on board to dialogue about
conflicts - like lighting. How can we create community based opportunities to help
communicate values and enhance the needs of all involved? Gathering of the minds.
Jim: This process brings people closer together, including JCI.
Tom: Walsh put 10 high intensity lights on their building. He talked to Tom Walsh at Workshop
1 and he turned them off. Particularly in Springfield and thinks Eugene there are codes for light
pollution.
Jim said having a long vision statement that incorporates the values of this entire area and that
allows the public to rally behind some funding source to preserve that area would be useful. This
is less risk than if Evonuk plunks down a few houses.
Normandy: Has a fear that we can have discussion that could be incorporated into what
Springfield does in the UGB but Springfield is still a completely separate entity and those who
live in the Seavey Loop area we don’t have a hand in electing the commissioners or we don’t
Attachment 5-30
15 | Notes 2-25-15
have any direct influence over what the City of Springfield is going to do except we are sitting
here as participants. Can’t control what Eugene is going to do has no voice in Eugene and no
voice Springfield except what she is being offered here and doesn’t have a whole lot of voice in
Lane County because they’ve got the one commissioner who represents their area. She feels
really powerless to make a case to take to someone that’s going to actually do something about
it. Her neighbors are private land owners – good. Doesn’t really want all of SL to become part of
a park – likes having the farms there. We have a very strange character to our neighborhood this
amazing parkland resource but still bothers her to not have a way for all those invested to come
together to address the UGB but really integrate the UGB goals and vision with the SL
neighborhood goals and vision then the parkland goals and vision and county goals and vision.
It shouldn’t be on the backs of a few landowners to be running around at meetings to make
decisions.
Ed noted there is a tool available called City and County Joint Management Agreement and they
are required to have one under state law. His agency reviews those.
Cecile: what is the tool available to her as a property owner to speak out here. Frustrated she has
come to 2 sessions and has not been allowed to speak out at all. To listen to all your concerns
about what’s going to happen. Every one of these pieces of property is owned by someone and
she feels like this group is making the decision about them without their input. Has ideas about
coming together. She sees the possibility that the UGB has changed – she’s living there.
Somebody comes next to her and puts up some industry. She would ask that everyone consider
taking the next step and including all neighbors at least having a session where we can talk. Her
vision is no industry on her property. Has no doubt that someday the UGB will change and
people will come in and buy it. The working group was full and she couldn’t get a place on it but
she has a vision. In her vision, last summer she was at Peaceheath at Riverbend. And was
standing on the 3rd floor and could look across the river she saw people bucking hay and it was
so comforting to her and put her at ease. That’s her vision of her property is that we can get
somebody in there – medical facility, research institute etc., where they keep the property intact,
none of us have to worry about it being sub-divided into individual parcels where we are living
next door to a tire factory or something, where the character of our community is intact and she
worries about the issue that John already brought up of the right of individuals to buy up the
property because they are going to be individual parcels. Anything could happen unless in the
vision everybody that owns that property needs to come together and we need to put forth a
vision that she thinks by and large would be the same vision as the vision here because we are all
living there because of the environment and landscape. Thinks that it would be possible to come
together, maybe work with a real estate person, work with Linda or another city planner, other
resource people and say this is what we see as a property. We want to maintain the character of it
– do not want it to affect our neighbors because what it’s like to have an industry right down the
street. Doesn’t want to see that happen to you. That’s her vision.
Attachment 5-31
16 | Notes 2-25-15
Linda let everyone know all the property owners have been invited to attend all these meetings
that we’ve been doing so from the very beginning of this study. Some of them don’t have a mail
receptacle so the mail comes back.
Tom Lo: she brings a really good point that was touched on the last meeting the idea that what he
has heard is Seavey Loop area is UGB most of it’s floodway – really not going to put too many
houses on it. What he’s heard is industrial land we’re talking about a little spit which really is not
that many acres that College View Rd and a portion of Hwy 99 up to Goshen. City of Springfield
says they need industrial land but how crucial is it for the city to have this industrial land in order
to be a city. When he looks at places such as Creswell and other areas that could grow industrial
plan, begs the question for him do we really need to make sure every city has subscribes to this
or could you as a city just say – we’re not going to grow this way. Or, we’re going to create a
commercial zone through here that’s not going to be an industrial zone. Which will help
preserve the values that he thinks are worth considering. Talk about industry and big buildings
and noise nobody wants industry next to them then when you take a community as unique as the
one we just described it seems doubly offensive to us.
Gayle: she’s planning to study the list of industries.
Tom Scates said Springfield needs to enlarge their UGB because of state laws is that correct? He
can see that – go ahead and get this UGB we’ve done our part – we’re done.
Jim: All of us have seen the studies that show that in order for this area to be developed it would
require incredible amounts of money. The city can bring this UGB and put their mandate but
then the reality of this being developed, who’s going to walk in with $70 million and say I need
something so bad here that I’m going to spend $70M before I even put a shovel in the dirt to
build my building. That doesn’t preserve it forever but that creates a buffer of time before
anything can happen.
Tom LoCascio: From his perspective when he looks at that area it is inevitable that we’re going
to have growth out there – we cannot stop it. The question here is what the appropriate
development is. The city needs industrial ground but putting industry on that stretch of road is
about as offensive as you can get. Commercial ground in a manner that has some evaluation
criteria or something it’s hard.
Gayle: can addition restrict which industrial things or you zone it industrial and if businesses is
an industrial and fits they can just come in and build.
Linda: The zoning would tell which uses could be in and which ones couldn’t. The target
industries list is in your packet. Again that doesn’t mean those are the only industries that we’re
going to get it just means these are some targeted one that we’d like to be able have in our
community. It doesn’t mean that all those uses would be in new land that was added to the UGB.
A lot of those uses could locate within the existing boundary. But some uses do need larger sites,
Attachment 5-32
17 | Notes 2-25-15
some need sites with good access to I-5 and so those are the kinds of uses that would we think
would be interested in that area.
John: If the vision that we come up with is incompatible with the full use of all of that space for
industry that leaves you short, what would the City do with that. John: asked if the line for the
UGB was on the table and you said yes his vision would include probably a smaller footprint
than that. Thinks what’s on the page now is too expansive so a vision would be a more narrowly
defined corridor.
Linda responded that everyone has a map in their green folder so feel free to mark it up where
you think the line should be if you don’t think it’s in the right place and hopefully you will have
a rationale for why you think it should be changed.
John: Can this be on the flip chart? You’ve responded that part of the vision can involve
different boundaries and having proposed a concept of different boundaries is part of the vision
evidently doesn’t qualify to be written on the charts. You really only want to talk about what’s
in the current written boundaries.
John: My vision is for a more narrowly defined corridor.
Tom LoCascio: my vision would be commercial zone instead of industrial zone.
Ed responded, you think that commercial has less affect than industrial – not true. Look
anywhere in the country. He worked in Irvine they have very attractive industrial areas, it doesn’t
pollute. Uses occur inside a building. It is possible to develop attractive industrial buildings;
most of the industry today is not smokestacks. Stuff is going to occur inside a building. The more
critical case is what the view is from a road, how is it landscaped, what it looks like as you drive
through the area. What types of materials? Do we want to have some type of architectural
control, some kind of material requirements? You already have design requirements inside the
city code. City could develop a specific industrial district that has those so it doesn’t affect the
rest of the city. Create a sense place that fits the Mt. Pisgah/Seavey Loop environment.
Gayle: They feel vulnerable. We say ok industrial and we want it to be like Carmel but later get
something that makes us weep. How can we agree to something that meets the needs of a
vigorous economy and get a win-win?
Ed: That’s where you start with the vision statement. It will guide goals and policies embedded
in the Comprehensive Plan. Encourage group to stay involved and work with staff to give input
on policies. Vision informs goals when adopted with UGB.
Max: Air quality has typically more stringent requirements for industry and residential use –
backyard burning and home heating. Industrial would have additional controls and more
monitoring if located in UGB.
Attachment 5-33
18 | Notes 2-25-15
Tom L. asked about Seneca negative impacts.
Tom S. Can we put in vision that we don’t want air polluting industries.
Tom L. Wants commercial and light industry – no giant footprint buildings.
Linda: Next week we’re going to talk about the zoning code.
The following vision Statements were drafted at the February 25th meeting:
• Activities in the corridor: do not degrade rural landscapes character immediately to the
east. Retain the high quality of the landscape character.
• Preserve and enhance the entrance to Seavy Loop neighborhood and gateway to Mt.
Pisgah activities in the corridor.
• Promote aesthetically pleasing design (does this restrict ag-related uses) that enhances the
viewshed / rural character.
• There are community-based activities / gathering of minds to address/mediate land use
disputes.
• Activities in the corridor promote good transportation.
o Less polluting
o Less congestion
o Efficient and effective
o Bike paths
o LTD
• Promote industry activities that benefit and complement sustainable agriculture/good ag
practices.
• Promote activities that protect and improve water, air, soil, wildlife habitat.
• My vision is not industry. Wants medical facility, research facility. Property owners in
study area need to put forth their vision.
• My vision is for a more narrowly defined boundary (reduced)
• My vision is for commercial use/smaller buildings / light industrial use that minimizes
footprint and pollution, emission, traffic.
Attachment 5-34
19 | Notes 2-25-15
Attachment 5-35
1 | Notes 3-4-15
Springfield 2030 UGB Study
College View/South Franklin Study Area Working Group
March 4, 2015 Meeting Notes
Attendance
Staff: Linda Pauly, Loralyn Spiro, Judy Castleman
Working Group: John and Normandy Helmer, Ross Pennhallegon, Gayle Landt, Jim Straub,
Rob Castleberry, Betsy Schlultz , Tom LoCascio, Nicole Ankeney, Mark Rust, Tom Scates, Ed
Moore, Jeff Schwartz, David Helton
SWG Resource Group: Brett Rowlett (LCC &Main-McVay Transit Study SAC), Dan Terrell
(Willamette Water Co.)
CALL TO ORDER. Meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by staff Linda Pauly
Linda began the meeting by reviewing the agenda and telling group this would be the last
scheduled meeting. She encouraged them to review minutes from each of the meetings and to let
her know if corrections need to be made. Linda will send out an e-mail when minutes and audio
recordings are posted on the website.
Normandy appreciated the work and commented that for the record this is the first organized
group she has been in where she did not get the minutes prior to the meeting to have a chance to
review. Normandy added these should be considered notes but they shouldn’t be considered
minutes of this group.
Linda replied that since this group had been meeting on a weekly basis we didn’t have time to
transcribe them fast enough. Please let her know (call or e-mail) if we made any errors and she
will make sure the minutes are corrected.
Linda noted that today’s agenda is about Land Use Zoning and what she wanted to cover was to
make sure everyone understands what the existing Lane County zoning is in the study area that is
being discussed. She will touch on the proposed Springfield zoning that would be imposed if
this land were to be included in the UGB which is being called an Agriculture zone (AG).
• Discuss urban transition zoning concepts and how they work
Attachment 5-36
2 | Notes 3-4-15
• Mark Rust (Lane County Planner) is well versed on how the county zoning code works.
• Nicole from Willamalane brought in and put up on the wall a map of potential bike/ped path
connections from Willamalane’s Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
• Handout passed around to the group included:
o A letter from Cecile Haworth who spoke at the last meeting.
o Email from Ross Pennhallegon who was not able to attend today’s meeting.
o At last week’s meeting Linda invited people that if they had suggestions for
alternative boundaries for the UGB proposal or any other kind of land use buffering
concepts to mark up the map that she gave the group in their green folders and to
share those with the rest of the group today.
o The Vision and Goals statements the group worked on last week
• Linda is hoping to be able to have more discussion on is the Viable Commerce and Industry
types. At the last meeting she passed out that information from the TadZo Industry Report.
As we do visions and goals her task is to include discussion about industry types as well.
Linda asked for a show of hands: how many people feel like they understand what the existing
zoning is in the College View study area that we’re looking at or what land uses are currently
permitted there?
One person raised his hand.
Tom Scates: basically between Franklin Blvd and I-5 is commercial and east of Franklin with
exception of two or three properties is rural residential 5 but there are several businesses on those
(RR5).
Linda said first she would like to walk through what the existing zoning and then Mark can help.
(Mark brought in some zoning maps and passed them around.) She said we have four zones:
exclusive farming, rural residential, rural industrial, rural commercial, rural public facility and
that for this proposal Springfield staff calculated 64 acres of exclusive farm use (EFU) and 185
acres of exceptions land (highest priority for expansion under the law). Mark noted list of uses
come from statewide law. Said County’s hands are tied. Linda read an extensive list of what is
currently permitted in the EFU zone and directly allowed without public hearing or notice and
said there is also a list that requires Director’s approval that would require an application to be
submitted, reviewed and approved by the Director then the Director can decide to conduct a
hearing or to provide notice.
Jim asked if there is a threshold for high valued farm land. Mark answered it was based on soil
type; Mark said he thinks it’s Class 1-3.
Mark added a hot topic right now within the realm of farm use is the legalization of recreational
marijuana. He said there is a lot of debate at the state level on developing the rules for that on
whether or not marijuana growing is considered agricultural product. Currently medicinal
Attachment 5-37
3 | Notes 3-4-15
marijuana is not been considered agricultural crop because it can’t be grown for profit. This
blends into when a house can be placed on EFU land. Medical marijuana cannot be used – an
income tax is the most common way to get a farmhouse on farmland – you have to gross $80,000
a year on farmland to qualify for a house. You can have a 10x12 shed and grow enough
marijuana to gross $80k a year - could mean a lot more houses on EFU land statewide potentially
in this area. The other impact is big grow operations and impacts that go along with that. Mark
mentioned an article in today’s paper about the industrial hemp – the first permit was issued for
that in Southern Oregon. Farmland has the potential even to change drastically in Oregon
depending on some of the way the rules are going to be written.
Jim asked question about dividing EFU dwellings and gross income.
Mark: example: Christmas trees planted to get a dwelling, then built houses, let the trees grow
into a forest.
David H: According to what Linda was reading it sounds like structures associated with
agriculture crop are allowed so he was wondering if marijuana is considered and agricultural
crop would that allow large grow operations to come in and build structures on farmland. Mark
replied that’s a question that is unanswered at the state level right now for recreational marijuana.
The legislature will decide.
Gayle: question about current zoning in this corridor- if Springfield decides they would rather
expand its industrial UGB somewhere else, people can only develop as this is now zoned unless
they go through quite a process to re-zone the land somehow. So if you have Rural Industrial, if
someone wants to develop a plot they have now can do whatever fits under the Rural Industrial
zoning they can begin that process and do it. Mark agreed. Unless City extends its UGB, would
this existing zoning would likely stay the same?
Mark: Yes that is how Lane County would look at it. Unless someone came and proposed to
rezone it.
Mark added with Goshen rural industrial the county is proposing to legislatively change some of
that zoning to allow more urban levels of industrial use, so on the existing Rural Industrial in the
area now there are probably a whole lot of surprising typed of uses that are allowed in Rural
Industrial as well. Say JCI relocates and someone else looks at that site, they could do uses
Gayle: because of more scrutiny and control presumably by Springfield or Eugene.
Mark: from his perspective part of the visioning process this group is doing for this area if it is
brought into the UGB is that we actually have the ability to put some parameters on even the
types of uses that might go into the employment lands if they are brought into the UGB that
might be wholly different and/or depending on your perspective better than the uses that are
allowed today than if it just stayed the same. He said that for example if JCI relocated and their
Attachment 5-38
4 | Notes 3-4-15
building was a vacant site today someone wouldn’t be able to come in and build a facility today
because it might not fit exactly what is allowed. But since JCI is still there they can continue to
operate and continue to expand even beyond the level they are doing today because of the way
the laws are written.
Gayle; and so they can expand on to other lands as long as they are expanding that plant or just
expanding their own land? Mark answered that it depends – there are some real minutia
associated. If they acquired adjacent property they could probably expand.
Linda: the existing rules in Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial zones are pretty strict about
expansion – you pretty much have to stay within your own footprint she believes. If the land
were included in the UGB and if they were to annex it to the City of Springfield they would have
more opportunities to expand and grow those businesses or to put something else there on that
same site than under the current rules. It’s a rural zone now so it is limited by the number of trips
associated with it that are putting impact on the transportation system, limited by the lack of
wastewater facilities and stormwater management facilities, all those urban uses.
Mark said for Lane County zoning there are very few things that are allowed outright like in a
farm zone, farming is outright permitted, don’t have to ask for permission. There are very few
things allowed in Rural Industrial zone that are outright permitted. The majority of them need
some kind of approval – essentially like a site plan approval. Few things that are outright
permitted are maintenance /repair/replacement of existing structures. There are certain provisions
that allow expansions. Read a list of other uses that are permitted in the Rural Industrial zone –
such as primary processing of rural farm and forest products, lumber sales, communication
facilities, etc…expansions of industrial uses (allows small scale 35,000 sq. ft. building
size.)Allows “similar” uses to what’s there.
Jeff: JCI is 130,000 sq. ft.
Mark discussed how those limitations distinguish urban and rural sizes.
Mark pointed to the map and said that a certain portion of Seavey Loop is not in an incorporated
community so it has a lesser size standard. Gayle asked if it’s not in an incorporated community
because there no community or definition there. Mark agreed and said there are actually
boundary lines drawn.
Normandy asked how this designation was arrived. Mark said it was done in Lane County back
in the 1980s adopted in 1984 based on state laws that talk about number of properties, how small
they are exceptions to statewide planning rules etc.
Tom LoCascio: County is proceeding with trying to use that exception with the understanding
that they are going down this road regardless of what happens to the City of Springfield. Mark
said Goshen planning was way out ahead and completely separate from Springfield’s.
Attachment 5-39
5 | Notes 3-4-15
Mark said there is a catch all provision that if a new use comes along that the county does not
specifically list but is similar enough to any of the other uses they allow you make the argument
that it should be allowed just like the other one is.
Normandy: when you talk about communication are you including construction of towers or
would that be a separate aspect of permitted use. Mark replied there is actually a federal law of
the Telecommunications Act that preempts anything the county gets to say about it and is outside
of the county’s hands. But, in terms if it’s not regulated by the Telecommunications Act, such as
a communications facility (radio, television, computer, satellites) that includes towers/ antennas /
dishes etc. it then falls under county code.
Normandy: if someone wants to put something up and it doesn’t fall under the
Telecommunications Act, and it’s a tower, do they have to apply for Special Use. Mark replied
yes, but it is not automatic. Linda said it is the same if it were in our UGB we have in City code,
they are not allowed in every zone and there are restrictions on them.
John asked Mark since he mentioned the Goshen plan, something we touched on in the first
meeting was that whole questions of what is that it does not make sense for this UGB to go down
and encompass that area and he thinks that statement at the time was it’s complicated. John
wanted to know if Mark can make an attempt to explain why that plan that Faye Stewart put on
the table is just not a reasonable way to go.
Mark: it’s really a political call from the City Council and Mayor of Springfield. They were
already way down the road in terms of going back to the starting point to reconsider Goshen as a
potential area. It would essentially reset their whole process; there was a lot of time and
momentum in their process. He said he thinks Linda already touched on the idea that it’s really
almost too far removed; you can connect it via this corridor, a cherry stem expansion, and
facilities come into play too, sewer, water, transportation etc.
Linda said the other things is that Mark had already done a vision processes with the community
of Goshen to work out plan and zoning in great detail. Mark added that Goshen doesn’t want to
be urbanized, the plan that the county came up with for Goshen is hybrid and there is some give
and take. If they were brought into the UGB there would in his mind be even more urban they
the county proposed it to be under their plan.
Tom LoCascio: when you consider $76 million to put this line in and limitation on land etc. was
it ever considered what if we were to go to Creswell and build their sewage and water capability
then from there you can add Cottage Grove or north to Goshen. Suddenly the issue of the land
doesn’t matter, you are putting your into developing infrastructure that’s going to allow growth
in a more effective way and help communities that are probably going to benefit a lot more from
having high value grounds that could really attract industry and not impacting the types of
cultural and historic value that we are fighting and landlocked issues.
Attachment 5-40
6 | Notes 3-4-15
Mark answered they did look at going to Creswell for Goshen and it really boiled down to not
being a feasible option due to the permitting restrictions the City of Creswell has for discharge
from their existing sewer plant.
Tom LoCascio said he is naïve on this but his thought is to put the $76 million into building a
different sewer system in Creswell which could serve south and north and then you don’t have
the limitation and restriction and you’re really growing a community for them in a positive way.
Mark said Creswell has its own issues with their sewer. He said he knows very little about it but
his understanding is that they have two separate treatment systems now one of the eastside of the
highway and one on the west side. The one on the eastside is a private system and they are trying
to figure out how to combine the two and there are very complicated issues with DEQ on
discharge and how deal with the effluent and biosolids.
Jim: would expanding in the UGB prohibit his ability to grow marijuana as a crop? If he was so
inclined and say he wanted to live out there next to his parents and he wanted to get the
exception $80,000 gross. If it was expanding the UGB would he not be able to do that?
Linda replied that would be up to future rule makers and zoning. Right now we’re working on
medical marijuana regulations in the City of Springfield.
Jim: if was declared an agricultural crop then under current code he could.
Linda responded that if his land is in the UGB and he owns the property that has large parcels on
it, if we bring that into the UGB it has to be restricted from land division. That means you
wouldn’t be able to subdivide.
Mark added dividing EFU land is very difficult – the minimum lot size in EFU zone is 25, so if
you had 50 acres you might be able to split into two 25 acre parcels.
Linda noted that code hasn’t been written yet but there is a draft that already went to the
Planning Commission two years ago for the draft Agriculture Zone, you would not be permitted
to subdivide large parcels of farm land until the land is annexed, master planned, know what you
are going to do for future urban use on it. That’s why would bring it into the UGB. We’re not
bringing it in to subdivide; we would never meet the goals and rules that Oregon has set forth.
We’ve been very clear about that from the beginning. What the minimum acreage is she thinks
there is some leeway there because we haven’t decided; right now in the draft it says couldn’t
divide under 20 acres. That will be based on the needs of industries that Springfield is trying to
attract and that we believe are going to be viable in these areas. That’s why we’ve done all this
additional analyses to determine what the site needs are and what size properties are needed,
which industries need I-5, etc.
Jim said he’s heard a lot of opposition to JCI expansion onto their EFU site. What if bought
other lands and expanded there? Like his RR parcel across the road?
Attachment 5-41
7 | Notes 3-4-15
Mark/Linda: Couldn’t put industrial uses in RR zone.
Linda said we can’t resolve everyone’s land use questions today .
Mark referred to Lane Code 16.292 (RI) 16.291(RC)
Mark said the Rural Commercial zone is essentially an urban commercial zone now.
Tom. S said he’d like to see something prettier than tin buildings.
Mark said County doesn’t do “pretty.”
Linda: said new rules, design standard, etc. only come into play when property owner chooses to
annex and develop. Interim zoning will establish thresholds similar to what’s permitted in
County now r transportation impacts, etc.
Mark said new code regulations can make it look a lot better over time.
Brett Rowlett introduced himself. Government and Community relations for LCC.
Tom L. read packet (TadZo report) said there are huge building sizes.
Linda said the report shows a range of uses, buildings and site sizes. The line between office and
other kinds of industrial development is more blurred than in the past. Moving towards more
flexibility in employment zoning districts. If we are bringing in large sites, they must be
protected from division and form interim uses that would preclude use as employment sites.
Some use will have to be restricted – some of the uses we read from the list. Permitted uses list
will be a subset from what’s currently permitted. Existing non-conforming uses can continue.
Jim said he reviewed the proposed Ag zone. Could he rebuild a barn that burns down. To justify
this to the state they need large parcels for large campus style businesses. They want a
contiguous tract of 50 acres or more. They don’t want him to chunk it off. Won’t want him to
sell off 7 acres in the middle of it. Has it in multiple LLC companies because of County’s
previous rules .
Linda said the lands around that would be zoned to support higher value uses over time, like
what City is doing in Glenwood and Franklin Corridor now, while allowing existing uses to
continue. Especially since they will have to extend infrastructure if they have to mitigate
wetlands, provide buffers, etc.
Gayle: the width of the corridor is part of why the City wants it.
Jim: they are willing to consider design standards.
Linda: said different boundaries could be shared with this group – doesn’t mean the City will do
it that way.
Attachment 5-42
8 | Notes 3-4-15
John it should follow 99. Spreading to the east is questionable. Why not south. It makes sense
to include the narrow strip between 99 and I-5.
Linda asked what about Twin Buttes?
Jim: They done exactly what you’ve asked but they need the 50 acre piece. They need mine.
They are not as able or willing to alter the UGB.
John: You’d have to go somewhere else.
Linda: You have to go to the worse soils first when expanding onto ag land.
John: There’s less Jim can do with his land if it’s in the UGB.
Jim: The Register Guard only printed a fraction of his letter. He didn’t understand it at the time
so he said I’d rather not. Eventually it will be worth more money.
Rob: When would design review and criteria kick in?
LP: Additional planning before annexation and zoning code. Important things should be
included the Comprehensive Plan now to create foundation for next level of planning later.
Rob: It’s a component that’s not just forgotten?
Jim: Vision statement is like a will. Once we’re gone, it tells what the intent was…what we like,
what we value. It’s more sweeping, not black and white, capturing the sentiment of the
neighborhood. Carries forward forever. Visioning plants aren’t dropped off. It sticks with it.
Jeff: Understands there’s opposition, concerns about to expansion. What could be improved?
Doesn’t have plans for the EFU. Concerned of what people think of his operation, how to make
it better. Value of thier property How will this affect his business. Responsible to help feed 270
families. Two different perspectives, hopefully we respect each other. They’re physically
constrained.
If it were zoned differently he could park equipment on it. I-5 is a must for his business. 58 is
nice but not a must have. It’s hard to find reasonable priced 10-20 acres on I-5. It doesn’t exist.
Described how they store materials and goods off site, increasing their cost. $1500. Open to any
ideas. The closer they are to the existing site the better. The more they have to relocate, doesn’t
want to leave Lane County. The farther they go the harder. In 2012 they had to restripe parking
lot to fit everyone in. If he could put admin building or parking across the street (on EFU), he
could expand on site. Has pondered that.
Jim asked wouldn’t that be less impactful to neighborhood?
Attachment 5-43
9 | Notes 3-4-15
Tom L: no matter how you slice it, runoff would impact. Can’ t gfet away from th nidea that this
area already has high value. Calling it industrial will devalue those areas and put pressure onto
those lots as more urban uses.
Gayle: Does heavy industry always do what you say?
Jim: If I were to intensively farm my land it would impact far more than anything Jeff (JCI) – or
anybody would do. If a Symantec type use went in, the codes for stormwater discharge are much
more restrictive. Farming it – he can put 100 #/acre of straight nitrogen - straight urea and
phosphorus on it.
Tom: you wouldn’t because of the cost it would be ridiculous. Large paved areas are artificial
and pick that up.
Tom S. Before they bought it Fairchilds had it, they dug a ditch. Runoff from BPA side crosses
Franklin. Even when heavily raining, they are controlling runoff and water runs generally clear.
If they had done not, his land and my lower land would flood more. His understanding of runoff
law if that they will have to put it tertiary treatment bioswales.
Linda: The City requires on site vegetative treatment for parking lots, trees to shade it, etc.
Runoff must be clean.
Gayle: We don’t have enough time to process all this information, check what water testing’s
been…
Jim: Easily provable that existing uses allow far worse than what new development would, so
(air and water pollution argument) is not a convincing argument.
John: His piece wouldn’t be in UGB but close to it. Having that go through affects the value.
What do you see from your front porch – field and mountain or factory? The externalities of
economic model. It probably detracts/devalue.
Jim: Sees nothing that takes that into account.
Linda said compatibility is a factor under the ESEE factors. That’s why we are having these
discussions. We have a real estate person in the room or attorney.
Betsy: There is a bill in the legislature that has to do with all of the disclosure requirements if
you do buy a piece of property. Was surprised to hear what could be done currently.
Normandy: Curious because Linda had met with the Seavey Loop neighbors and talked about
this and put it on their radar. Her memory was that there were five locations and at the time
Linda said she thought this area was going to be at the bottom of the pile because the cost of
providing infrastructure would be horrendous. Springfield got the letter from Bill Kloos and all
Attachment 5-44
10 | Notes 3-4-15
of a sudden this area was back on the radar again. She’s wondering if Malone letter would
rearrange something too.
Linda: This area was always the first consideration and always part of the study because of the
exception areas closest to Springfield. She had shared what the rules and the goals were, showed
them the map of the exception areas. Staff’s recommendation included other, larger areas.
Direction from Council was to keep all areas on the table going into the public hearing process
and so more analysis have occurred. We have this working group because of all the interest in
this area. This area had a working group because there is a lot more interest than in other areas.
Everyone in the five study areas was mailed information with an offer to meet with them. She
had a meeting with Mahogany Lane area also. No request from the other neighborhoods.
Jim: current maps that show floodway/floodplains he doesn’t think reflect what the new FEMA
maps. Linda said the new maps have not yet been accepted, but they have been analyzed to make
sure Springfield was not way off base on the areas being studied.
Dan: is working with the law office of Bill Kloos and in large part responsible for that letter. The
state statutes for UGB expansion are in some respects frustrating because of what makes a lot of
planning sense isn’t always consistent with what the statutes require. Over the past several years
several cities have tried to move forward with a better planner’s approach that was not consistent
with the statutes and every one of those governments got their desired plan pushed back and told
to do it again. Give Springfield credit. Going through this process you have to step back
periodically to see if this is consistent with the statutes. Hasn’t seen Malone letter… may be
challenging the need for land and of what type. Once into the factors, there’s no question that
exceptions are the first areas you have to go to. Jumping over those is a hurdle that no one has
jumped over yet. City wants to do it right and in a way that makes good planning sense. Making
the best of a difficult situation.
Linda added the City has needs for employment uses and having land available along I-5 is seen
as a huge plus for the City of Springfield and for our region. It’s not that we’re studying this area
because we have to, but also because it potentially provides sites that are going to be appropriate
for the types of industries that we want to have as a community.
Jim: since this is the last of the four meetings seems we did a lot of venting. What did we
accomplish?
Linda: we accomplished the vision statements.
Jim agreed but said ideal situation would have been to have brought that back to this working
group to see if it should be refined, expanded. Linda she was hoping that would have happened
during this meeting but the group wanted to have other discussions today.
Attachment 5-45
11 | Notes 3-4-15
Normandy said realizes Linda has to present this to the City council but she would consider it
tremendously problematic and inaccurate if she were to take this piece of paper and say this
represents the feelings of everybody in this room. There are aspects that she thinks everyone
agrees on but if we had to vote on this.
Linda replied that is not her intention, just trying to record a process and to explain what we
talked about in these meetings, what issues people raised, ideas that you had, and to forward that
information on to the decision makers. Not asking anyone to make a decision just asking for
input.
Tom LoCascio: he would have found value in the group getting together and reviewing this and
looking at the vision statement, and discussing it collectively.
Linda said she doesn’t know if we could get much further than we are now.
Jim: as long as you are presenting this not as this is the collective wish of the group but rather a
list of statements that individuals of the group presented.
Linda: and some the statements even say “my vision is….”
Normandy said her vision is:
• Class 3 or better soils be protected and preserved as agricultural or rural residential.
Jim: if UGB expanded he understands that it restricts what he is able to do under current code.
What if he set up a conservation easement across the entire property; how would that affect the
process? He could cloud the title forever and it wouldn’t allow employment use or industrial use
regardless of the zoning nothing could ever be done on it.
Linda responded Springfield would look at that as a constraint.
Jim: if he did that even after the UGB expanded that’s an individual’s right to do it. Linda
agreed.
Dan gave a quick legal analysis of that saying if he did that before the UGB expansion,
Springfield would be in its right to see the property as constrained and not available and is
allowed to look elsewhere potentially going lower in the priority list. If it happens after the UGB
line has been determined, Springfield is stuck with having to consider that land as available until
the next time this process is done. Then they can take it out of potential inventory as available.
Jim: what impact does established wetlands or perceived wetlands on property that’s not a deep
constraint, that’s something that could be mitigated so it probably does factor into their criteria.
Linda: the City is factoring in wetlands as a constraint if they are inventoried wetlands. We don’t
have a local inventory of wetlands in this area – we just know there are soils that may contain
Attachment 5-46
12 | Notes 3-4-15
wetlands – so we would be requiring a wetlands inventory be done prior to any development of
the property. It would be done at the time of a plan amendment (a type 4 legislative action). The
National Wetlands Inventory has identified some that are show in the map and those have been
deducted from the buildable acres in this area.
Rob: Prefers “employment” to “industrial” and prefers employment intensive uses vs.
warehouses, etc. He is concerned about parking lots.
David: ODOT doesn’t have any detailed plan for changes to any of the state facilities in that
area. The law requires that if the City is going to have to bring this area in it will have to look at
transportation demand that will be generated as it develops plan for transportation system. That
detailed planning doesn’t have to be done until after they bring that land into the area. As far as
he knows the City has not done detailed planning nor has ODOT, but their preliminary
conclusion from experience at looking at these types of things is ODOT doesn’t think that this
expansion area by itself is going to generate the need to make major improvements on I-5 or the
interchanges. They know congestion can be an issue especially when LCC is in session, and
ODOT would expect much of the traffic particularly in the southern end of the expansion area
would be using the interchange at Goshen which does not have a capacity constraint.
Linda passed around a hand out from the Department of Revenue showing taxes on farm land vs.
non-farm land.
Nicole presented maps from Willamalane Comprehensive Plan. She pointed to multi- use path
and trail projects that Willamalane has in its 20-Year Comprehensive Plan. She spoke about the
bridge that connects the Middle Fork Path and Mt. Pisgah. Willamalane will need team-up with
other agencies to see if the bridge is feasible and if so, where it should go, and does it work
environmentally. They are also looking at bringing in a path on the south side of the river in the
Glenwood area. Finally a bridge connecting Glenwood with Dorris Ranch however currently
there is no funding for these projects but still need to do long-range planning.
Jim: if Springfield expanded the UGB to include Seavey Loop would Willamalane look at
expanding their park district boundary also? Nicole answered that the Willamalane boundary is
not directly tied with the UGB however it is directly tied with annexation. If the UGB did occur
and one of the land owners decided to sell and go ahead and annex that property would
automatically get put into the Willamalane boundary.
Linda said if anyone had additional information regarding the study they need to get it to her as
soon as possible as the council work session is scheduled for March 23rd. She added the work
session is open to the public but no testimony will be heard.
Attachment 5-47
13 | Notes 3-4-15
Attachment 5-48
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
-
1