HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan ATT1
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 11/7/2016
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, DPW Director
Linda Pauly, DPW Principal Planner
BRIEFING
Subject: Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendments
File No. LRP 2009-00014
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: Springfield has completed its evaluation of land needed to provide adequate employment opportunities for the 2010-2030 planning period consistent with Oregon Statewide
Planning Goal 9: Economic Development; has prepared Economic and Urbanization comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations to support attainment of community economic development and urbanization objectives; and has evaluated lands to be included in an
expansion of the UGB to address land needs that cannot be met within the existing UGB consistent with ORS 197.298 and Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Council Goals: Mandate
Oregon Law requires cities to accommodate projected urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. The Urban Growth Boundary must be based on demonstrated need for housing,
employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of these need categories. In determining need, local governments may specify characteristics, such as parcel size, topography or proximity,
necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need. Prior to expanding an urban boundary, local governments shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land
already inside the Urban Growth Boundary.
DISCUSSION: On September 12, 2016 the Springfield City Council, Lane County Board of
Commissioners, and Lane County Planning Commission conducted a Joint Work Session and
Joint Public Hearing on the proposed land use plan changes. After hearing the oral testimony given by eight individuals, the elected officials closed the hearing, kept the record open for
public comment until October 14, 2016, and allowed staff until October 21, 2016 to add
information to the record in response to any new information submitted. The audio recording and minutes for the September 12, 2016 meeting provide complete documentation of the oral
testimony presented and the minutes become part of the public record for File No. LRP 2009-
00014. Copies of all written testimony received have been placed in the record.
This memorandum addresses:
1. Response to issues raised in the written and oral testimony submitted at the September 12th hearing and prior to closure of the record on October 14th, 2016;
2. The record of this legislative proceeding; 3. Minor edits to the draft ordinance; and 4. Recommended action and suggested motions for the November 7th meeting.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 76
MEMORANDUM 11/1/2016 Page 2
1. Response to issues raised in the written and oral testimony
submitted at the September 12th hearing and prior to closure of the record on October 14th, 2016
Oral Testimony at September 12, 2016 Public Hearing
George Grier, 1342 ½ 66th Street, Springfield 97478. In his testimony Mr. Grier stated his
opinion that the Lively Dog Park presents a threat to the agricultural use (livestock) of his EFU-
zoned farm property and that rural uses are always asked to adjust to urban uses and not vice-versa. He hopes that bringing the parks into the UGB will result in increased enforcement and
communication between the City and rural neighbors to address how urban uses could modify their activities so they can continue farming. He participated in the CIBL taskforce and was glad to see that the City had reduced the amount of land needed in the UGB expansion. He stated
that expansion into the flood plain is a high risk/low reward strategy and thinks that redevelopment of Main Street and Glenwood are the future of Springfield. Site needs of many target industries could be met though parcel assembly or by intensive redevelopment or by
repurposing underutilized parcels. He also submitted written testimony.
Staff Response: Meeting land needs through redevelopment is an important component of
Springfield’s economic development stategy that is assumed in the CIBL/EOA and comprehensive plan policies, as as explained in the City findings Exhibit F. Parcel assembly is
identified as a development constraint in the Goal 9 administrative rule. Parcel assembly is
possible only when parcels are abutting one another and when ownership is consolidated. The City’s findings Exhibit F provide further discussion of this constraint. Meeting land needs
through redevelopment, including City assistance with parcel assemply in key redevelopment
areas — the Glenwood and Downtown urban renewal districts — continues to be an important component of Springfield’s economic development stategy that is assumed in the CIBL/EOA.
Dan Terrell, Office of Bill Kloos Oregon Land Use Law, 375 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 204, Eugene OR 97401. Mr. Terrell referenced the letter he submitted on behalf of Johnson Crushers
International, a business and property owner operating in the area known as Seavey Loop. He stated that LUBA requires consideration of exception lands and EFU land of lower quality. He stated that the City should bring in Seavey Loop area to meet some of the need. He stated his
opinion that the Seavey Loop area has the greatest amount of exception lands, exception lands have employment, and lands have poorer soils. He asserts that the City’s proposal “leapfrogs” over exception lands to bring in EFU land that has better soil.
Staff response: The City agrees with Mr. Terrell’s assessment of the statutory priorities under
ORS 197.298, thus, unlike Coburg and other cities, the City’s proposed UGB expansion
Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis follows ORS 197.298 precisely, as documented in the Findings of fact in the record - Exhibit F. As explained in the City’s findings, the Seavey Loop
area exception land parcels are not suitable to meet City’s specific employment land needs for
the 2010-2030 planning period. The City considered and rejected the Seavey Loop/College View exception and resource land parcels for inclusion in the UGB after considerable analysis of
the facts. The City determined that extending the UGB to include lands in the Seavey Loop/College View area would result in a “leapfrog” development pattern that would necessitate bringing unsuitable, unneeded, small parcels into the Springfield UGB. The City
determined that such an inefficient expansion and sprawling development pattern is not serviceable in the 20-year planning period, is not required under ORS 197.298, and is contrary to Oregon land use law and the comprehensive plan. See also CBM Exhibits A-1, A-4 and A-5.
Walter Johnson, 89733 Armitage Road, Eugene. Mr. Johnson stated that he has farmed “all the farmable property in the North Gateway area for 50 years” and has lived there his entire life.
The land is a “hopscotch of gravel and alluvial soils”, with the excellent portions of it “bisected
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 76
MEMORANDUM 11/1/2016 Page 3
and trisected” by gravels and other issues, making farming difficult. Portions of it are really
good for agriculture and portions of it are problematic for agriculture. He is a land owner in
support of including the area in the UGB. He generally fights against loss of farmland, but stated his opinion that this is a good place to balance the needs of population growth with
farming. He stated his opinion that the designation for floodway is excessive and unnecessary,
could be accomplished with 150 feet, and that a 3-foot berm would prevent most flooding.
Staff response: The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey maps in the record depict the “hopscotch of gravel and alluvial soils” in the proposed North Gateway UGB expansion area. The City’s findings under Goal 14, Exhibit F (beginning on page 167) explain
how the City’s UGB Alternatives Analysis correctly adheres to the prioritization requirements of ORS 197.298 pertaining to soil capability classification. Mr. Johnson, owner and operator of Johnson Farms, has been actively involved in the 2030 Plan process over its entirety and has
submitted testimony speaking to his many years of experience farming on the mix of alluvial soils in the area and the ongoing challenges to the economic viability of the North Gateway area for agricultural use.
The width of floodway is established by FEMA and the proposed Natural Resource designation
follows the FEMA floodway line. Floodway is identified as an “absolute constraints” in the
CIBL inventory – a constraint that makes land unsuitable for development of urban employment uses. Thus floodway acres are not suitable for the purposes of the CIBL inventory, and are not
counted as developable inventory to meet identified land needs. The floodway acres in the
North Gateway UGB expansion area are not designated UHA-E to allow future development of urban employment uses. Instead, the proposed Natural Resource designation and Agriculture -
Urban Holding Area zoning are applied to the FEMA floodway (53 acres) to provide a
counterbalance and buffer to the urban land uses that would be permitted to the west and southwest of the McKenzie River - by allowing continuation of agricultural uses and activities
allowed in the Natural Resource designation (Exhibit E AG Zoning District).
The development of berms, fill and site grading within the FEMA floodplain area, including the FEMA floodway, are regulated by the Springfield Development Code Flood Plain Overlay
District.
Mike Eyster, Springfield Chamber of Commerce, Springfield 97477. Mr. Eyster stated that the
Springfield Chamber of Commerce supports the proposal. He previously submitted written testimony (by email) in support.
Staff response: Mr. Eyster invited staff to present the City’s proposal to the Springfield Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee. The Committee forwarded their
recommendation to the Chamber to support the UGB amendment.
Richard Proulx, 2777 South M, Springfield OR 97477. Mr. Proulx owns three businesses in
Springfield. His family has lived in the South M Street area since 1957. It’s a quiet area and
since 2005, SUB (Springfield Utility Board) has not been a good neighbor. Fencing by SUB shut off their access to the river. He stated that he sees 30 to 60 to 100 vehicles a day using the
road. New businesses will need more road access. The existing roads can’t accommodate the SUB trucks currently accessing the area. He understands the need, but for personal reasons he is opposed to the Mill Race UGB expansion .
Staff response: Mr. Proulx’s property is within the proposed Mill Race UGB expansion area. He previously submitted written testimony stating opposition to including the Mill Race area in the UGB. Mr. Proulx stated his concern about the existing poor condition of South 28th Street and
the existing use of the rural unimproved roads by heavy SUB trucks accessing the SUB wellfield/sand filtration water treatment facilities. South 28th Street inside and outside the
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 76
MEMORANDUM 11/1/2016 Page 4
existing UGB and South M Street outside the UGB are not improved to urban standards.
Mr. Proulx’s testimony reiterates what staff heard from other neighbors of the area at the
September 8, 2016 open house, as neighbors described the current use of the roads by SUB truck traffic and their questions and concerns about how the proposed UGB and zoning changes would
affect them. For example, neighbors stated that they previously approached the City to propose
paving the gravel road themselves and the City would not permit them do so. Staff explained to the neighbors that future businesses developing in the area will be required to participate in
providing the street and infrastructure public improvements necessary to serve their development. Staff explained that after lands are included in the UGB, plan amendments (including amendments to transportation system plans and public facilities plans) and zone
changes will be required prior to urban development to address infrastructure needs. Those plans will identify the transportation and infrastructure projects need to serve the area. The Urbanization Element policies address how and when such plan changes are triggered.
Mr. Proulx also submitted written testimony expressing his concerns about the condition of the road, traffic, dust, noise, erosion and crime.
Mia Nelson, representing 1000 Friends of Oregon, P.O. Box 51252, Eugene, OR 97405. Ms.
Nelon stated that she is not able to support the proposal completely. She stated her opinion that
Springfield’s proposal is similar to Newberg’s, which was remanded by the state. The City has a lot of vacant and underutilized land. Extending infrastructure to any of the areas outside the
UGB is expensive. She also submitted written testimony on September 12th at the hearing.
Staff response: 1000 Friends agrees about the number of large sites Springfield needs. 1000 Friends disagrees with the some of the data used in the CIBL/EOA and with some of the City’s
policy choices. The City has examined the testimony submitted by 1000 Friends and finds the
arguments and interpretations made to be flawed. Exhibit A-1 provides the City’s response to legal interpretations in 1000 Friends testimony. Exhibit A-2 provides supplemental findings to
address other issues raised in the letter to demonstrate that The City considered the new evidence submitted, and to restate the City’s position.
Ms. Nelson’s comments and exhibits posing questions about the status and classification of
specific industrial and commercial sites in the CIBL inventory and about the CIBL inventory in general were submitted at the hearing on September 12, 2016 and prior to meeting with staff to discuss her questions about these sites. The technical nature of the questions posed about the
inventory required staff to re-engage with ECONorthwest to review technical data with Bob Parker, who prepared the inventory database, to ensure accuracy of staff’s response to Ms.
Nelson’s inquiry. Through a series of phone calls, emails and one meeting, staff provided
answers to her questions about how particular sites within the existing UGB were inventoried. Ms. Nelson indicated that it was her intent to revise her testimony after learning more from staff.
Having received no such revision, staff is providing information into the record to address the
industrial and commercial sites Ms. Nelson has questioned (Exhibit A-3) to set the record straight.
The air photos Ms. Nelson submitted in her attachments actually help tell the critical story about
Springfield’s deficient employment land supply — Springfield lacks suitable large sites to accommodate its target employers in the 2010-2030 planning period. If Ms. Nelson and 1000
Friends were successful in convincing the local officialsor others on appeal that some or all of the sites depicted in her attachment should/must be assumed as the City’s land inventory of sites available to accommodate desired jobs and employment growth for the 2010-2030 planning
period, the City would not be able to meet its objectives of growing and diversifying the local,
regional and state economy. That outcome would be contrary to the intent of Goal 9.
Ms. Nelson is to be commended for reviewing the CIBL/EOA land need determination results,
and for providing thoughtful input into the Springfield planning process. She now asks the elected officals to substitute her judgement and opinions about Springfield’s site needs,
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 76
MEMORANDUM 11/1/2016 Page 5
Springfield industrial and commercial sites, and the how the City should plan its land supply to
meet its economic development objectives — for Springfield’s lengthy and meticulous process
and the results of that process. It is a relatively simple matter to challenge the facts without fully understanding those facts, or in spite of the facts, and such challenges serve to (intentionally or
unintentionally) cast doubt on the City’s CIBL inventory process. The 1000 Friends testimony
does not provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the sites highlighted in Ms. Nelson’s letter and attachments possess the characteristics of needed sites set forth in the CIBL/EOA. The
City and County’s decision must be based on substantial evidence.
More importantly - the sites depicted by 1000 Friends are needed to accommodate the heavy industrial uses for which they are currently and appropriately planned, zoned and developed. It
is common knowledge in the land use planning field that industrial land is in short supply. Market pressures to convert industrial land to other uses is strong and will only increase as Oregon cities keep their UGBs as compact as possible. These heavy industrial uses and sites are
not quites as “interchangeable” as Ms. Nelson seems to be suggesting. It is easy to assert that such sites or portions of sites can easily be re-zoned or up-zoned to allow new or different uses
on existing industrial sites and land uses instead of expanding the UGB to provide suitable land
with the required characteristics of needed sites. It is another thing to establish substantial evidence to demonstrate that such lands can meet the identifed site needs. Exhibit A-2 and the City’s findings in Exhibit F explain why it is not reasonable to assume that Springfield can
entirely meet its identified employment needs on such sites.
Paul Dixon, 1055 S. 28th St, Springfield 97477. Mr. Dixon asked if the elected officials were
aware of the poor condition of South 28th Street and asked what improvements would be needed to develop businesses in the Mill Race area. He stated that over the past 5 years SUB and the
City had purchased most of the major pieces of land in the area and that SUB and City would
benefit the most from its development.
Staff response: Mr. Dixon owns property within the existing UGB designated Medium Density
Residential, along the Mill Race and abutting the proposed Mill Race UGB expansion area. When expanding a UGB, the Goal 14 rule requires a comparative analysis of public services
needs. The City’s findings provide a summary of that analysis in Exhibit F. Mr. Dixon is correct — as stated in the findings, the Transportation System Plan lists South 28th Street improvements as “Beyond 20-year” improvements. After lands are included in the UGB, plan
amendments (including amendments to transportation system plans and public facilities plans) and zone changes will be required prior to urban development to address infrastructure needs. Those plans will identify the transportation and infrastructure projects needed to serve the area.
The Urbanization Element policies address how and when such plan changes are triggered.
The City Attorney prepared a memo in response to Mr. Dixon’s concerns about SUB and City
property ownership. See CBM Exhibit B.
Randy Folkerson, 1052 S. 28th St, Springfield 97477. Mr. Folkerson lives in the proposed Mill
Race UGB expansion area and formerly had permission to raise horses and cows using the
School District’s property behind Agnes Stewart Middle School. The School District asked them to vacate when the path was constructed. He stated that traffic has increased and that
homeless camps, drug use, vagrants and vandalism are increasing and they are not able to get
police protection outside the City limits. He noted ingress/egress to the area is restricted. He stated that fish habitat was lost when the Mill Race project went in.
Staff response: The proposed Agriculture - Urban Holding Area zoning allows continuation of agricultural uses (Exhibit E AG Zoning District). Bringing the land into the UGB enables
owners to seek annexation to provide urban services, including police protection. The Mill Race project was designed and engineered by the Army Corps of Engineers to improve water quality
and fish habitat for threatened and endangered species.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 76
MEMORANDUM 11/1/2016 Page 6
Written Testimony Received
8-22-16 Bill Kloos/Dan Terrell, Office of Bill Kloos Oregon Land Use Law, 375 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 204, Eugene OR 97401 representing Johnson Crushers International. See
response under Oral Testimony and see CBM Exhibits A-1, A-4 and A-5.
9-11-16 Mike Eyster – Springfield Chamber of Commerce, Springfield, OR 97477. See
response under Oral Testimony.
9-12-16 Mia Nelson representing 1000 Friends of Oregon, P.O. Box 51252, Eugene, OR
97405. See response under Oral Testimony and see CBM Exhibits A-1,A-2, A-3.
9-12-16 George Grier 1342 ½ 66th Street, Springfield 97478. See response under Oral
Testimony.
9-14-16 Puzzle Parts LLC. 840 Beltline Road, Suite 202, Springfield, OR 97477
Mr. Richard Boyles submitted a letter stating his group’s full support of the Springfield UGB expansion and the plan as presented. His group owns land in the North Gateway proposed UGB
expansion area. The City has invested a lot of work and time into this process. The work has
been meticulous and painstaking to prepare the demand estimates and to evaluate location alternatives. In consideration of the political process and likely appeals, the City has had to adapt
good planning to minimize likelihood of appeals. Thus “the demand projections underestimate
the actual likely demand. Not providing adequate land for future business and employment growth will guarantee that Springfield will not grow to its full potential.” Mr. Boyles urges that
as the adoption process move forward, “no further compromises be made with respect to demand
estimates.”
Staff response: Mr. Boyles is correct - the City reduced the demand estimates from 640 acres to 223 acres, after receiving testimony on the 2009 draft CIBL/EOA and after reviewing recent UGB decisions by LCDC and the Court of Appeals. 1000 Friends submitted testimony on
September 12, 2016 with additional challenges to the City’s demand estimates. Staff has provided a response to 1000 Friends in Exhibit A-1, A-2 and A-3.
9-19-16 Richard Proulx, 2777 South M, Springfield OR 97477. See response under Oral Testimony.
10-13-16 Bill Kloos/Dan Terrell representing Johnson Crushers International/Willamette Water Company, Office of Bill Kloos Oregon Land Use Law, 375 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 204,
Eugene OR 97401. Written testimony states an opinion that City’s proposed UGB amendment
is not consistent with ORS 197.298 priorotzation, and City should stop what it’s doing and start over with CIBL/EOA process. City should reconsider Goshen.
Staff response: Willamette Water Company provides water to the Seavey Loop area. See response under Oral Testimony and see CBM Exhibits A-1, A-4 and A-5.
10-14-16 Susan Saul, Trust Administrator, Saul Administrative Trust, 10102 NE 10th Street, Vancouver, WA 98664. Ms. Saul owns property within the proposed Mill Race UGB expansion
area. Her letter describes her family’s deep roots to the land, going back to 1900. She expressed
her opinion that the City’s process has not assessed the impacts of the proposals on current land owners and their quality of life. She is concerned that land owners who choose not to develop
will be subjected to property tax increases,” increased traffic, lights, noise, dust, crime and other
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 76
MEMORANDUM 11/1/2016 Page 7
effects that come with urbanization.” She questions the need for the UGB expansion and states
her opinion that the City’s documents “do not provide any evidence” that the “need for four
additional 5 to 20 acre commercial sites cannot be met by re-designation of surplus industrial sites currently within the city;” citing a statement by 1000 Friends. She states that City should
revisit its inventory of surplus sites and drop the UGB expansion in the Mill Race area.
Staff response: The Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and state land use planning program
establish the policy framework for preparing and evaluating comprehensive plans and Urban Growth Boundary changes. The Oregon program seeks to provide a high quality of life for all Oregon residents. UGB amendments are subject to very prescriptive criteria under Oregon law
(ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 Boundary Location Factors 1-4).
The Goal 14 rule addresses (1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs; (2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; (3) Comparative environmental,
energy, economic and social consequences; and (4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB. (emphasis added) The City’s findings (Exhibit F) provide detailed explanation of the City’s
Boundary Location analysis process and how the selected alternative is based on substantial evidence.
If land in the Mill Race area is added to the UGB as proposed, an owner could seek a plan amendment, zone change and annexation to allow urban development that meets employment
land needs. Annexation to the City occurs when a property owner chooses to be annexed. Only
their property would be annexed and only their tax assessment would be affected by annexation. Localized impacts of urban development activity (e.g. traffic, lights, noise, and dust) are
considered and addressed through the subsequent development review process — (e.g. review
of future plan and zoning amendment proposals and future land use applications), as set forth in the proposed Comprehensive Plan policies and the land use regulations of the Springfield
Development Code.
As explained in Exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3, the City disagrees with 1000 Friend’s testimony
and Ms. Saul’s reiteration of that testimony in regard to the CIBL/EOA inventory of sites and land needs. The CIBL/EOA provides ample data and analysis establishing the need for 223 acres of suitable employment land for the 2010-2030 planning period that is not available within
the existing UGB.
The following exhibits to this Briefing Memo provide response to testimony submitted by 1000
Friends and Johnson Crushers/Willamette Water Company:
EXHIBITS:
A-1: Letter from Jeffrey Condit: Interpretational Issues raised by 1000 Friends and Johnson
Crishers International and the Willamette Water Supply Company
A-2: Memo from staff: Supplemental Findings - Response to 1000 Friends Testimony.
A-3: CIBL Inventory Parcel Data
A-4: Memo from staff: Supplemental Findings - Response to Johnson Crushers/Willamette Water Company Testimony
A-5: Agricultural and Forest Soils ratings – Lane County Land Management Division
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 76
MEMORANDUM 11/1/2016 Page 8
A-6: Letter from Mayor Lundberg in regard to Goshen proposal (January 6, 2015).
B: Memo from City Attorney - Mill Race Area Ownership Information in response to Paul
Dixon testimony
2. Preparing the record of the legislative proceeding for submittal
to DLCD (post-adoption)
An extensive local public record for the 2030 Plan amendment project has been compiled
through the multi-year 2030 Plan public planning process. This record contains the
documentation of the local process and the input into that process provided by members of the public. The record includes information and opinions submitted by citizens, land owners and advocacy groups in the form of oral and written testimony before the Springfield and Lane
County Planning Commissions, letters, emails, maps, reports, memoranda and other evidence. The record contains substantial evidence demonstrating that the City Council has considered a
wide range of policy choices and alternatives for accommodating employment growth within
the existing UGB and in alternative locations around the UGB, and documentation of how the City refined the proposed 2030 Plan amendments in each subsequent iteration after considerable
analysis and consideration of public input. This record has been available to the public upon
request throughout the duration of the multi-year planning process. Given the length of time between the first evidentiary hearings and final hearing on the 2030 Plan and UGB
amendments, and the fact that individuals were submitting input over a long period of time, the record is lengthy. Parties of record were notified of the September 12, 2016 public hearing.
As required by statute, staff and the City Attorney are preparing the record for submittal to DLCD after conclusion of the local adoption process. This entails 1) identifying the materials
that must be included in the record; and, given the large size of this record, 2) preparing an index
of the record. Staff will present the draft index to the Council and Board at the November 7th meeting and will post the draft index on the City website. Staff and legal counsel suggest allowing 7 days for the public to review the draft index and to inform staff by November 14th,
5PM of any omissions. If an omission is noted by an individual who previously submitted information into the record, staff will make corrections as necesssary. This would not be an
opportunity to add new information into the record.
3. Minor edits to draft ordinance
To prepare the ordinance documents for adoption, staff conducted further proofreading of the
ordinance Exhibits B, C, D and E and corrected several minor typographic, grammatical and
document formatting errors and omissions. In doing so, staff found a scrivener’s error in previously adopted 2011 text amendments to the Metro Plan. The Eugene and Springfield 2011
Ordinance numbers listed on Metro Plan Preface page. iv. were reversed. The text changes were forwarded to Eugene Planning staff and Eugene approved of the inclusion of this text correction and change. Lane County staff has reviewed and accepted the changes for inclusion in the
County’s ordinance. Therefore, Exhibit D Metro Plan Text Amendments has been revised to show the correct Eugene and Springfield ordinance numbers and to incorporate the following text to Preface p. iv-v as follows (underlined text shows the addition):
Eugene City Council, Ordinance No. 20519
Springfield City Council, Ordinance No.6304
Lane County Board of Commissioners, Ordinance No. PA 1300
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 76
MEMORANDUM 11/1/2016 Page 9
In 2013, Lane County initiated an amendment of the Metro Plan Boundary east of Interstate
Highway 5 to make the plan boundary coterminous with the Springfield UGB.
Eugene City Council, Ordinance No. 20511
Springfield City Council, Ordinance No. 6288
Lane County Board of Commissioners, Ordinance No. PA 1281
Springfield’s Comprehensive Plan
Springfield has begun a series of Metro Plan amendments to create a city-specific
comprehensive plan. In 2011, the City of Springfield and Lane County adopted the Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element and established a separate UGB for Springfield pursuant to ORS 197.304 (Springfield Ordinance No. 6268 and Lane County
Ordinance No. PA 1274) In 2014, the City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan was adopted to serve as Springfield’s local Transportation System Plan (Springfield Ordinance No. 6314 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1303). In 2016, the Metro Plan was amended to
reflect adoption of the Economic and Urbanization Elements and expansion of the Springfield UGB and Metro Plan Boundary to designate land for employment, public facilities, parks and
open space, and natural resources (Springfield Ord. xxxx and Lane County Ord. PA 1304).
BACKGROUND: Co-adoption by Springfield and Lane County of the proposed Springfield
2030 Plan and Urban Growth Boundary amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) (2030 Plan amendments) is the next step in Springfield-Lane
County’s multi-year land use planning process to address Springfield’s 20-year land needs. A
complete summary of the proposed amendments was provided in the Council’s agenda packet for the September 12, 2016 meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION/SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Conduct joint deliberations with the Lane County Board of Commissioners; make a preliminary decision to adopt/not adopt/adopt with revisions the proposed 2030 Plan amendments as
described in ATT 2 and direct staff to prepare the Final Findings to support Council’s preliminary decision ; allow seven days for review of the 2030 Plan Record Index; conduct a
third reading and make a final decision by adopting the ordinance on December 5, 2016.
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 76
MILLERNASH GRAHAM&DUNNLLP
U.S. Bancorp Tower
111 S.W.Fifth Avenue,Suite 3400
Portland, Oregon 97204
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ()I'HG 503.224.5858
FAi 503.224.0155
JeffreyG. Condit, P.CI
Admitted in Oregon and Washington
jeff.condit@millernash.com
503.205.2305 direct line
October 27, 2016
Linda Pauly, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Subject:Springfield Urban Growth Boundary Proceedings- Interpretational Issues
Raised by 1000 Friends of Oregon and Johnson Crushers International
and the Willamette Water Supply Company
Dear Ms. Pauly:
As you know, we have been retained as special counsel to advise the City of
Springfield (the "City") regarding its urban growth boundary ("UGB") amendment
process. You asked us to address several legal issues raised in the above-notedtestimony.
1.Definition of "Vacant Land" under the Goal 9 Rule.
In testimony dated September 12, 2016, 1000 Friends of Oregon ("1000
Friends") argues that the City should have included three lots contiguous with the
Sundance lumber mill it the City's "vacant land" inventory. The lots are part of the
Sundance mill operation and, as the aerial photo incorporated into the 1000 Friends
testimony demonstrates,are used by the mill for log storage.
OAR 660-09-0005(14)defines "vacant land" as follows:
"(14)"Vacant Land" means a lot or parcel:
(a) Equal to or larger than one half-acre not currently containing
permanent buildings or improvements; or
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Vancouver, WA
Bend, OR
Long Beach, CA
MILLERNASH.COM
70130945.2
10/27/16
Exhibit A 1-1
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 76
MILLERNASH GRAHAM&DUNNLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Linda Pauly, AlP
October 27, 2016
Page 2
(b) Equal to or larger than five acres where less than one half-acre is
occupied by permanent buildings or improvements."
Although acknowledging that some businesses do use adjacent vacant
lots to store materials or products, 1000 Friends argues that "there is no provision in the
Goal 9 rule for excluding such lots from the inventory." 1000 Friends raises this same
interpretation with regard to other industrial sites contain staging or storage areas with
no buildings.
We think 1000 Friends reads the Goal 9 rule too narrowly. Courts
construe a statute or administrative rule based upon its text, its context in the statutory
scheme, and its legislative history. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606,
610-12,859 P2d 1143 (1993) and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160,171-73,206 P3d 1042
(2009). See also Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or 569,578,942 P2d 278 (1997) ("[W]e do
not look at one subsection of a statute in a vacuum; rather, we construe each part
together with the other parts in an attempt to produce a harmonious whole."); Morsman
v. City of Madras, 203 Or App 546,561, 126 P3d 6, rev denied, 340 Or 483 (2006)
(relevant "context" includes provisions in the same chapter or statutory scheme).
Turning first to the text, 1000 Friends assumes for the purposes of
argument that "permanent buildings or improvements" means permanent structures.
That is not necessarily the case. A rule of construction applied by the courts is that
when different words are used, the legislature intended them to have different
meanings.Department of Transportation v.Stallcup, 341 OR 93,101,138 P2d 93
(2006). Neither "buildings" nor "improvements" is defined in the Goal 9 rule. Absent a
special definition, the courts ordinarily resort to the dictionary definitions, assuming
that the legislature meant to use a word of common usage in its ordinary sense. State v.
Murray, 340 Or 599,604, 136 P3d 10 (2006).
Webster's New Third International Dictionary defines "building" as "a
thing built" and "a constructed edifice designed to stand more or less permanently,
covering a space ofland .... " By adding "or improvements" to the rule, the Land
Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC") required consideration of more
than just structures.
Webster's defines "improvement" in the context of property as "a
permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and
that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property
more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs." It is clear from the
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Vancouver,WA
Bend, OR
Long Beach,CA
MILLERNASH.COM
70130945.2
10/27/16
Exhibit A 1-2
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 76
MILLERNASH GRAHAM&DUNNLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Linda Pauly, AlP
October 27,2016
Page 3
aerial photo of the Sundance property that most of the allegedly vacant parcels are
improved for log storage and have been and are being used for storage oflogs in
conjunction with a mill. The largest of the three log storage lots also appears to be
directly adjacent to a rail spur. A mill without adjacent log storage would be less useful
and less valuable. For these reasons,we believe "improvements" can include staging
and storage areas that are designed to serve and are accessory to industrial or other uses
on a site or on an adjacent property.
The Webster's definition of "improvement" is consistent with the City's
definition of "development," which states, in pertinent part:
"Any human-made change to improved or unimproved real estate,
including, but not limited to, a change in use; construction, installation or
change of a structure; subdivision and partition; establishment or
termination of a right of access; storage of materials, equipment or
vehicles on the land; drilling and site alteration due to land surface
mining, filling, grading, dredging, paving, excavation or clearing of trees
and vegetation. " Springfield Development Code Section 6.1-110.
A broader interpretation of "improvement" is also supported by the
context of the Goal 9 rule. The purpose of the inventory of vacant land is to determine
whether there is sufficient land to meet the projected economic lands needs during the
planning period. See OAR 660-009-0010 and 0015. If the Goal 9 rule is interpreted to
require improved storage or staging areas necessary to serve the primary existing
economic use to be counted as "vacant," it would defeat the underlying purpose of the
analysis. 1000 Friends appears to acknowledge that this would be a flaw in the Goal 9
rule that should be fixed, but the flaw only exists under a too narrow interpretation.
2. Application ofORS 197.298 as interpreted in theMcMinnville case.
In their letter of October 13,2016, and earlier testimony dated February 5,
2014, Johnson Crushers International and Willamette Water Company (collectively
"JCI" for convenience) argue that the City Council has essentially no choice but to
include the Seavey Loop area within the UGB under the ORS 197.298 (the "Priorities
Statute") because it contains higher priority exception lands and because, citing
1000 Friends v.LCDC and the City of McMinnville,244 Or App 239, 259 P3d 1021
(2011), the Priorities Statute prohibits consideration of the cost of providing public
Portland, OR
Seattle,WA
Vancouver, WA
Bend,OR
Long Beach,CA
MILLERNASH.COM
70130945.2
10/27/16
Exhibit A 1-3
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 76
MILLERNASH GRAHAM&DUNNLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Linda Pauly, AlP
October 27, 2016
Page 4
facilities in determining whether higher priority lands can be excluded in favor of lower
priority lands. JCI misreads the statute and the McMinnville decision.
We represented the City of McMinnville during the proceeding that led to
the McMinnville decision. After the Court of Appeals issued its opinion remanding the
decision based upon a new interpretation of the statute that none of the parties had
argued, I participated in a number of speaking engagements and post mortem analyses
on the long term implications of the decision.Here is how I analyzed the three primary
opinions involving the relationship between the Goal 14 locational factors and
ORS 197.298.
City of West Linn v. LCDC,201 Or 419, 119 P3d 285 (2005). In West
Linn,the court agreed with LCDC that the Goal 14 locational factors are relevant in
determining whether land of a particular priority in ORS 197.298(1) is "inadequate to
accommodate the amount of land needed"
"The operative term is 'inadequate.' Whether there is adequate land to
serve a need may depend on a variety of factors.In particular, the
adequacy of land may be affected by locational considerations that must be
taken into account under Goal 14.As LCDC correctly noted,
ORS 197.298(1) expressly provides that the priorities that it describes
apply '[i]n addition to any requirements established by rules addressing
urbanization,' such as the locational factors described in Goal 14. As a
result, the fact that other, higher priority land may exist somewhere
adjacent to the UGB does not necessarily mean that that land will be
,[]adequate to accommodate the amount ofland needed,' if using it for an
identified need would violate the locational considerations required by
Goal 14. In other words, the statutory reference to 'inadequate' land
addresses suitability, not just quantity, of higher priority land." West
Linn, 201 Or at 439-440.
Hildenbrand v. the City of Adair Village,217 Or at 623, 177 P3d 40
(2008). Citing to West Linn, the Hildenbrand court held that the locational criteria of
Goal 14 applied to the determination of whether there is inadequate land to serve a need
within the meaning of the priorities statute, not just upon the constraints in
ORS 197.298(3). 217 Or at 634. The court held
"The statutory reference to 'inadequate' land [In ORS 197.298(1)]
addresses suitability, not just quantity, of higher priority land. [citing
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Vancouver, WA
Bend,OR
Long Beach, CA
MILLERNASH.COM
70130945.2
10/27/16
Exhibit A 1-4
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 76
MILLERNASH GRAHAM&DUNNLlP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Linda Pauly, AlP
October 27,2016
Page 5
West Linn]. Thus the ranking ofland under ORS 197.298(1) is a function
of its prior classification as urban reserve land, exception land, marginal
land or resource land, as well as the application of the qualitative factors
under Goal 14 and ORS 197.298(3)." 217 Or at 634-635.
Based on this analysis, the court rejected the petitioners' argument that
lower-priority lands could only be added to the UGB ifthere was an insufficient quantity
of higher-priority lands to meet the need. 217 Or at 634. The court also held that the
City's comprehensive plan policies about community form, growth management,and
transportation needs were relevant considerations under the Goal 14 location factors.
217 Or at 635-636.
1000 Friends v.LCDC and the City of McMinnville,244 Or
App 239, 259 P3d 1021 (2011). The City of McMinnville conducted its locational
analysis as provided in West Linn, excluding some higher priority exception lands in
favor of lower priority resource lands under the Goal 14 factors due to various service
and suitability issues. LCDC acknowledged the City's decision. On appeal, 1000 Friends
argued that the Goal 14 factors only applied to prioritize land within a single priority
classification and that the City could not include lower priority lands until it exhausted
all of the higher priority lands. LCDC and the City argued that the Goal 14 factors were
relevant to determination of the adequacy of lands for the purpose of prioritization
under ORS 197.298(1), relying on West Linn and Hildenbrand. Concluding that
"neither party has it quite right," the court articulated a new three-step analytical
framework. 244 Or App at 254-266.
1.Step One: Determine the land need under ORS 197.298(1).
According to the court, this is done by applying Goal 14 factors 1 (determination of
overall land need to accommodate population growth) and 2 (subcategorization of that
need into land needed for "housing, employment opportunities, and livability.") 244 Or
App at 256. ORS 197.296(3) then requires determination of specific housing needs by
type and density range. The court concludes that ORS 197.298 was intended to operate
on this same inventory of needs, given that both statutes were adopted as part of the
same bill in 1995. 244 Or App at 256-257, n.6. (In a footnote, the court differentiates
these kinds ofland needs from the more specific types ofland needs in ORS 197.298(3),
which the court postulates are limited to needs for land of a particular quality or
situation, "such as size, site characteristics, service levels or proximity to other land
uses." 244 Or at 257 n.z.)
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Vancouver, WA
Bend,OR
Long Beach, CA
MILLERNASH.COM
70130945.2
10/27/16
Exhibit A 1-5
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 76
MILLERNASH GRAHAM&DUNNLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Linda Pauly, AlP
October 27, 2016
Page 6
2.Step Two: Determine the adequacy of candidate lands under
ORS 197.298(1) and (3). In this step, the court articulated its new interpretation of the
application of ORS 197.298(1) and (3), together with Goal 14, to locate and justify
inclusions of lands to fill that quantified need. 244 Or App at 257-265. The court notes
that (old) Goal 14, factors 3 (provision of public services) and 4 (maximum efficiency of
land uses) cover similar territory but are more flexible than ORS 197.763(3)(b) and
197.298(3)(c). While acknowledging its decisions in West Linn and Hildenbrand,the
court concluded that application of factors 3 and 4 during prioritization under
ORS 197.298(1) would effectively render ORS 197.298(3) without practical effect.
244 Or App at 263. Applying the maxim of statutory construction that the legislature
does not intend its enactment to be "meaningless surplussage," the court held "that the
more specific limitation in ORS 197.298(3) displaces the application of their more
generic and flexible Goal 14 counterparts in the application of ORS 197.298(1)." 244 Or
App 2263-264. The court concludes that for purposes of determining whether higher-
priority lands are "adequate" to meet the identified land need under ORS 197.298(1), a
local government applies ORS 197.298(3) and those Goal 1410cational factors (factors 5
and 7) that are not counterparts to the ORS 197.298(3) factors. 244 Or App 264-265.
3.Step Three: Determine which candidate lands should be included
in the UGB under Goal 14. The court concludes that remaining factors of Goal 14 not
applied during step two are applied at step three, after land has been prioritized under
ORS 197.298(1) under step 2. 244 Or App at 265.
"ORS 197.298 operates, in short, to identify land that could be added to
the UGB to accommodate a needed type ofland use. Thereafter, Goal 14
works to qualify land that, having been identified already under
ORS 197.298, should be added to the boundary."
***
"It is at this point in the analysis that cost efficiencies in the provision of
public facilities and services become relevant. Consideration of Goal 14,
factor 3 (provision of public facilities and services) and factor 4 (efficiency
ofland uses), at this point - in combination with the other Goal 14
location factors - may prompt the discarding of candidate land identified
under ORS 197.298, and the selection ofland otherwise consistent with
the Goal 14 factors." 244 Or at 256-257 (emphasis in the original).
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Vancouver, WA
Bend, OR
Long Beach, CA
MILLERNASH.COM
70130945.2
10/27/16
Exhibit A 1-6
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 76
MILLERNASH GRAHAM&DUNNLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Linda Pauly, AlP
October 27,2016
Page 7
Based upon this new interpretation,the court remanded the decision
because the City of McMinnville had not followed this newly-minted three-step process.
A city therefore can select lower priority lands over higher priority lands if
the higher priority lands are not suitable for the identified land need under the Goal 14
factors,and can reject higher priority lands in favor of lower priority lands based upon
the cost and difficulty of provision of public facilities and services and considering the
maximum efficiency of land use.This last inquiry is just the last step in the analysis.
See ORS 197.298(3).If the City adds the lower priority lands ahead of higher priority
lands, the justification for so doing has to be set forth in the findings to survive scrutiny,
but it can be done.Notably, JCl does not submit any evidence contesting any of the
City's conclusions about the cost or efficacy of providing urban services to the Seavey
Loop area.
JCI's argument that the City must take all higher priority lands before
selecting lower priority lands is essentially 1000 Friends'argument in McMinnville.
That interpretation was rejected by the McMinnville court.'
3. Studying all ofthe Goshen area.
JCl suggests that the City should expand its study area to include the
Goshen area south of Seavey Loop, implying that such is required by the priorities
statute.The priorities statute does not apply to the determination of the study area; it
only applies to inclusion oflands within a UGB. ORS 197.298(1).The City must
I JCI also argues that the City improperly requires that all facilities be served by City services, and cites to
LCDC's Bend UGB decision for the proposition that lands cannot be excluded based upon service by other
water providers. JCI does not point out where in the draft findings the City imposes or relies on this
alleged requirement to include or exclude lands from the UGB.JCI also does not cite to a specific
reference in the Bend decision supporting its proposition.The January 8,2010,document attached to its
2014 testimony is actually the Director's report on Bend's submittal,not LCDC's final order. LCDC issued
its final order on November 3,2010 (io-Rernand-Part Acknowledgment-oorzcg). That order remanded
the Bend submittal for several reasons. Those relating to water had to do with inadequacy of the water
facilities master plan (pages 97 to 1OS)and the failure of the plan to address how two private water
services providers that would provide water to areas within proposed expansion area would comply with
the Goal 11 rule (pages 10S to 110).We were unable to find anything in the decision that stands for the
proposition that the City must consider lands served by private water providers for inclusion in the UGB
or that the City cannot consider how private water providers would affect the overall cost and adequacy of
service.In fact,OAR 660-024-0060(8)and OAR 660-011-001S require a city to address cost and
adequacy of water service regardless of service provider.That Bend had not done so was one of thereasonsthatits water facilities' master plan was remanded.
Portland, OR
Seattle,WA
Vancouver,WA
Bend,OR
Long Beach,CA
MILLERNASH.COM
70130945.2
10/27/16
Exhibit A 1-7
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 76
MILLERNASH GRAHAM&DUNNLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Linda Pauly, AlP
October 27, 2016
Page 8
establish its study area in compliance with OAR 660-024-0065(2)or (3) (for particular
industrial uses). The City could always elect to amend the study area to include all of
Goshen, but that would require reanalyzing all of the study areas in context of therevised study area.
Please let us know if you have any further tions.
cc: Mary Bridget Smith, City Attorney
Portland,OR
Seattle, WA
Vancouver,WA
Bend,OR
Long Beach,CA
MILLERNASH.COM
70130945.2
10/27/16
Exhibit A 1-8
Attachment 1, Page 17 of 76
Staff Report and Supplemental Findings
Springfield 2030 Metro Plan Amendments
November 7, 2016
This report and findings address testimony received at the September 12, 2016 public hearing and prior
to closure of the record (October 14, 2016).
Exhibit A-2 Response to 1000 Friends
Since prior to the first evidentiary hearing on the commercial and industrial lands inventory and
economic opportunities analysis (2010) Springfield staff have provided ample opportunities for 1000
Friends representatives, including Mia Nelson, to give input into the process. Throughout the process,
City staff met with Ms. Nelson upon request, and responded to phone calls and emails requesting data
and information about sites and the CIBL/EOA. In addition to the September 12, 2016 letter, submitted
at the hearing, the record includes memoranda submitted by 1000 Friends (Mia Nelson and her
predecessor Sid Friedman) and corresponding memoranda from the City in response to the earlier 2008
and 2009 drafts of the CIBL/EOA. The City has responded to concerns previously raised by 1000 Friends
and others and the Final CIBL/EOA 2015 reflects significant changes to the land need determination —
resulting in a reduction of land needed in the UGB expansion from 640 to 223 acres of suitable
employment land.
Mia Nelson, representing 1000 Friends of Oregon (1000 Friends) presented oral testimony at the hearing
and submitted written testimony (letter dated September 12, 2016 and attachments) at the hearing.
1000 Friends raised three issues, all related to the need for employment sites as identified in the City’s
CIBL/EOA and the City’s policy response to those needs. Ms. Nelson disagrees with the City’s land need
determination and asserts that other sites should be considered available to reduce the amount of land
needed in the UGB expansion.
The list of sites in the 1000 Friends and “Attachments labelled 1-14”) depict examples of existing
developed Springfield sites, with parcel lines, site development and improvement as they exist in 2016.
It is important to note that the maps and parcel size information submitted is current information, while
the CIBL/EOA reflects the parcel lines and improvement values as of July 2008 for the purposes of the
2010-2030 planning period of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Thus Ms. Nelson’s testimony sets up an
apples-to-oranges comparison of some parcels or tax lots as they existed in the 2008 inventory vs.
conditions as they exist today and has potential to confuse decision makers because development, land
divisions and property owner transfers have occurred since July 2008. Exhibit A-3 provides correct
information from the CIBL database to address sites identified in the 1000 Friends letter and
attachments. This information was shared with Ms. Nelson at a meeting with staff Pauly on October 6,
2016. Ms. Nelson was also given a digital copy of the CIBL database, along with information to help her
read the data fields in the MS Access file.
Exhibit A 2-1
Attachment 1, Page 18 of 76
1000 Friends asserts that the City’s inventory did not properly assess or quantify sites or portions of sites
within the UGB as required under the Goal 9 rule. Subsequently, more land should be assumed
available to meet Springfield’s identified employment land needs via redevelopment on such lands,
reducing the number of sites and overall amount of land needed in the UGB expansion. The letter poses
questions about how specific sites inside the UGB were classified and counted in the CIBL inventory and
provides attachments illustrating sites 1000 Friends thinks should be re-considered and counted as
vacant inventory to meet Springfield’s identified employment land needs.
1000 Friends agrees about the number of large sites Springfield needs, but disagrees with the City’s
proposal as follows:
1. CIBL/EOA assumes excessive size requirements for needed sites in the 20 acres and larger
category;
2. City failed to re-designate surplus industrial sites to meet its commercial deficit/large
commercial and industrial sites are interchangeable.
3. City failed to inventory all existing 20+acre sites.
Staff response:
1000 Friends disagrees with the assumptions and policy choices used in the City’s CIBL/EOA inventory
work, the results of applying those assumptions to determine Springfield’s employment land needs, and
the City’s land use policy choices in response to those needs. The City has considered the issues raised
by 1000 Friends. It is the City’s position that the assumptions used and policy choices made are
consistent with the applicable Oregon Statutes and Administrative Rules and are based on substantial
evidence as explained in the CIBL/EOA and in the City’s findings under Goal 9 and 14.
A common theme runs through the three issues addressed in Ms. Nelson’s testimony dated September
12, 2016 — the use of industrial land in Springfield (as classified in the City’s 2008 CIBL inventory, as
currently used in 2016 and how such land could/should be used in the future). Thus staff’s response
addresses all three interrelated issues raised by 1000 Friends in these findings to explain their
relationship. Staff’s response also links these issues to concerns previously raised by Ms. Nelson and
1000 Friends in response to earlier iterations of the CIBL/EOA in the 2030 planning process.
Potentially redevelopable sites were identified and evaluated for their likelihood to provide suitable
sites to meet identified land needs in the 2010-2030 planning period. The City’s CIBL/EOA includes a
Redevelopment Analysis. Before expanding the UGB to provide a 20-year supply of suitable land sites for
employment growth, the City examined the capacity of land within the existing UGB to accommodate
employment growth through redevelopment. The City’s database, prepared by ECONorthwest, classified
Exhibit A 2-2
Attachment 1, Page 19 of 76
tax lots as “redevelopable” (CIBL/EOA p. 32 Map 2-6: Potentially Redevelopable Commercial and
Industrial Land City of Springfield).
The City’s CIBL/EOA clearly explains the methodology and criteria ECO used to classify sites in the study
and how “potentially redevelopable” sites were identified for the purpose of the study. (CIBL/EOA pp.
27-38).
As stated in the CIBL/EOA p. 27, only land that is “likely to be redeveloped during the planning period” is
required to be considered as available land to meet the City’s identified site needs, pursuant to OAR
660-009-0005(1) which addresses “non-vacant land that is likely to be redeveloped during the planning
period” as a category of “Developed Land” (emphasis added):
“not all redevelopment is relevant to a buildable land inventory; only redevelopment that adds
capacity for more employment is relevant in the context of Springfield’s commercial and
industrial buildable lands inventory.”
“Redevelopment is development that occurs on a tax lot that creates more employment space
or capacity that the current use, and thus an increase in density on the tax lot.”
The 2030 Plan analysis and policies support accommodation of all needed employment growth requiring
sites smaller than 5 acres within the existing UGB.
Before expanding the UGB to provide needed employment sites 5 acres and larger, the City identified
and evaluated potentially redevelopable land in sites 5 acres and larger land within the existing UGB to
accommodate employment growth through redevelopment. (CIBL/EOA pp. 27-38).
Ms. Nelson disagrees with the results of applying the assumptions and policy choices used in the CIBL
inventory work. The assumptions used and policy choices made are consistent with the applicable
Oregon Administrative Rules and are based on substantial evidence as explained in the CIBL/EOA.
In the CIBL/EOA pages 27-31, the study author explains how “redevelopment potential can be thought
of as a continuum – from more redevelopment potential to less redevelopment potential.” The author
explains how ECONorthwest (ECO) made the determination of lands with redevelopment potential using
data (improvement to land values) as a gross indicator, by analyzing the resultant data, by applying
sound rationale and professional judgement. ECO sought local input and policy direction from the City
Council to discern which assumptions and policy choices within “a continuum – from more
redevelopment potential to less redevelopment potential” to apply to the study. ECO then applied those
results to the inventory process and found only one tax lot over 20 acres with redevelopment potential
(Table 2-11, page 31, which does not deduct constraints). ECO then looked at all potentially
redevelopable sites from Table 2-11 that were 5 acres and larger (page 33) and provided results in Table
2-12 and, with input from city staff, made a determination of which sites can be considered likely to be
redeveloped during the planning period.
One site larger than 20 acres was assumed as available inventory (CIBL/EOA page 33) in the 20 acre and
larger size category, a site in the Jasper Natron area with multiple constraints on it that has been
Exhibit A 2-3
Attachment 1, Page 20 of 76
planned and zoned for Special Heavy Industrial use since the 1980’s. The 2030 Plan amendments
address this site, as explained in the City’s Findings Exhibit F.
Issue 1. CIBL/EOA Table 5-2 Average size of needed sites in the 20 acre and larger category. 1000
Friends takes issue with the average size of needed industrial and commercial and mixed use sites
assumed for needed sites in the 20-acre and larger size category. Ms. Nelson asserts that the City erred
when it relied on historic site size data and confidential Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
(QCEW) data to determine the average size of needed industrial and commercial mixed use sites larger
than 20 acres.
This assertion is contrary to testimony by Ms. Nelson in response to the 2009 Draft CIBL/EOA. In her
letter addressed to Mayor Leiken and the Springfield City Council, dated January 19, 2010, she
requested that the city abandon the more aspirational land need in the 2009 draft CIBL/EOA and stick to
the “historic pattern” of site needs shown in 2009 Draft CIBL/EOA Table C-10. She repeated that same
request in her letter to the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions dated March 14, 2010 (p.
6), commenting on the 2009 Draft CIBL/EOA, which identified a need for a 640-acre UGB expansion:
“Table C-10 on page 141 of the EOA identifies the number of needed sites by size based on
historic employment patterns. The final line, however, presents a range of needed sites that is
far greater than the number of sites based on historic development patterns, both for every
specific site size and in aggregate.; and
“We request that the EOA be revised to assume no greater land need than the historic pattern
shown in Table C-10.”
In consideration of the 2010 and other earlier testimony submitted by 1000 Friends and others, the City
revised the CIBL/EOA, and in doing so, relied on substantial evidence about local historic development
patterns. In the Executive Summary (page i-ii) of the CIBL/EOA Final Report, August 15, 2015, the author
explains the revisions made to address feedback received on the 2009 Draft and to respond to recent
legal cases. Primary changes to the document listed include:
“Revision to the number of needed sites, removing the range of needed sites and using historical
data to identify the number and size of needed sites.” (emphasis added)
“Revision to the categories of needed site size, to combine the largest site sizes into one
category: sites 20 acres and larger.”
The revisions to the CIBL/EOA adjusted Springfield’s overall employment land need from 640 to 223
acres.
Now, in her September 12, 2016 letter, Ms. Nelson asserts that by using “historic” site size data, the City
is inappropriately basing future employment site needs on sites utilized by Springfield’s “legacy”
industries such as “existing paper and lumber mills” or warehouse and distribution uses, and that such
uses are a far cry from Springfield’s target industries and their respective site needs. On p. 3 of her letter
Ms. Nelson states:
Exhibit A 2-4
Attachment 1, Page 21 of 76
“It is clear that most of Springfield’s large industrial sites are home to paper and lumber mills.
The problem is, these are legacy industries that are not among the city’s targeted industries, so
their size is irrelevant to Springfield’s future needs.”
There are several problems with Ms. Nelson’s statement and 1000 Friends' assertion that the
CIBL/EOA’s average site size of sites larger than 20 acres is excessive. First, the City’s policy objective is
to provide suitable large sites for a range of industries to diversify the economy. The City’s choice of
average site size is supported by data in the CIBL/EOA about the need for large sites. Second,
Springfield’s list of target industries,1 includes such ”legacy” – type industries, and that some of these
will require large sites:
food processing manufacturing
wood products manufacturing
furniture manufacturing
recreational equipment manufacturing
specialty foods processing
green construction firms
organic food processing
sustainable logging and/or lumber products manufacturing
alternative energy production
1000 Friends applies the same argument — that “legacy” industries and the size of site they need are
passé — to their assessment of potentially redevelopable heavy industrial sites in Springfield. It seems
that 1000 Friends expects Springfield’s “legacy” industry businesses on sites 5 acres and smaller will all
somehow disappear by 2030, or that industrial uses that require large sites will relocate elsewhere. The
City’s and region’s economic development plans and polices support retention of existing businesses
and growth of existing industrial clusters. This requires retention of existing industrial sites that are
suitable for manufacturing and heavy industry.
Ms. Nelson first raised the issue of “legacy” industries in her January 19, 2010 testimony, p. 3:
“There are a number of “legacy” industries in Springfield, such as the struggling Weyerhaeuser paper
factory and the Rosboro log yard. The mothballed Sony factory is another example…The
future viability of Springfield’s various industries has to be considered when assessing
redevelopment potential.”
1 Target industries are listed in CIBL/EOA p. iii-iv, Table S-1 and explained in CIBL/EOA Chapters, 3, 4 and 5.
Springfield’s economic development Objectives and Strategies are discussed in CIBL/EOA Appendix D.
Exhibit A 2-5
Attachment 1, Page 22 of 76
No one can accurately predict the future, but Goal 9 requires the City to adopt a land needs assessment
and land use policies that are based on an analysis of data about trends to identify economic
opportunities. Springfield’s CIBL/EOA addresses economic opportunities to accommodate job growth
and diversification of the economy.
The 2030 Plan designates land suitable to accommodate a more diverse range of employment uses than
currently exist in the City’s existing inventory of commercial, industrial and mixed use designated land.
The 2030 Plan also maintains a supply of industrially designated and zoned land that is suitable to
accommodate Springfield’s so-called “legacy” industries as they exist today and as they are expected to
operate and grow in the future. This is the portion of Springfield’s land base that is assumed must be
planned and zoned to accommodate existing jobs and forecast growth.
While no one in 2008 may have predicted the substantial local industrial facility re-investments
forthcoming in the so-called “struggling Weyerhaeuser paper factory’, (now International Paper), or in
the complete re-build of the Swanson mill in recent years since the CIBL/EOA, the City’s analysis did
assume that changes in the wood products industry were underway and that the number of jobs in the
industry were in decline. We also knew that the “mothballed Sony factory” had already been
redeveloped to become Oregon Medical Labs, and that the medical and tech cluster in Springfield’s
Gateway/International Way area was growing.
The 2030 land supply must be designated to provide sites suitable to accommodate “target industries”
or the City and region will not be able to provide sites for those jobs the city aspires to. Springfield’s
CIBL/EOA properly balances these more aspirational “target” land needs for specific types, sizes and
locations of sites, with practical and reasonable assumptions about continuation of existing land uses
and redevelopment opportunities within the existing UGB land supply. The CIBL/EOA includes ample
assessment of redevelopment potential. That assessment examined each “potentially redevelopable”
site larger than 5 acres and, based on direction from the City Council in regard to assumptions and based
on the professional judgment of ECONorthwest and local planning staff about each particular site, the
City’s analysis identified sites that are reasonably likely to provide redevelopment opportunities in the
2010-2030 planning period. 1000 Friends now asks the City and County to substitute 1000 Friends
speculative assessment for Springfield’s 8 years of careful data analysis and local policy decisions.
The City’s land base includes so-called “legacy” industrial sites. Unless classified otherwise in the 2008
inventory process, sites that were developed with heavy industrial uses were assumed to be used for
the operation of same or similar uses over the planning period. Springfield’s 2030 Plan maintains the
existing supply of industrial sites larger than 5 acres within the existing UGB to support continued
operational needs of “legacy” industrial uses now and in the future.
1000 Friends seems to be suggesting that the City is required to or should rezone every heavy industrial
site occupied by a use not in the City’s list of “target industries.” She seems to be suggesting that the
City’s analysis must/should assume that those “legacy” use businesses and jobs will disappear and that
Exhibit A 2-6
Attachment 1, Page 23 of 76
every tax lot will be available for redevelopment for “target industries” within the 20-year plan horizon.
The City disagrees and has no substantial evidence to support such a claim. The local government’s
decision must be based on substantial evidence.
Springfield’s CIBL/EOA properly balances reasonable assumptions about aspirational “target industry2”
land needs for specific types, sizes and locations of sites based on 1) site needs data about “target
industries;” and 2) average sizes of commercial and industrial sites in Springfield.
The CIBL/EOA assumes that the commercial and industrial land base will continue to be needed to
support employment use (as it existed at the time of the 2008 inventory) and to support a sizable
portion of the 46% of employment growth that is assumed to not require vacant land3. Springfield’s
CIBL/EOA is based on reasonable but aggressive assumptions about redevelopment opportunities within
the existing UGB land supply. Springfield’s CIBL/EOA is based on substantial evidence, not speculation.
The purpose of the UGB expansion is to provide employment land sites with characteristics that cannot
be found within the existing UGB. 1000 Friends seems to imply that employers will find sites with the
needed site characteristics within the existing UGB, but has not presented substantial evidence to
explain that hypothesis.
1000 Friends asserts that the City erred by basing the average size of 20-acre and larger sites on “legacy”
industry sites and one-off” developments, and in doing so, improperly inflated the site size for needed
sites in the 20-acre and larger size category. Instead of the 63 and 60 acre average, 1000 Friends
asserts:
“we do not agree with the EOA’s assertion that candidate sites actually need to be much larger
than 20 acres in order to meet that need.” (9-12-16 letter, top of p. 2)
CIBL/EOA Table 5-2 Average size of needed site based on average sizes of sites with employment in
Springfield, Springfield UGB shows that the average size assumed for a site in the 20-acre and larger size
category is 63 acres for industrial and 60 acres for commercial.
Use of confidential data in the CIBL/EOA land need determination analysis. Ms. Nelson questions the
data used in Table 5-2. It is important to note that the City requested data from the Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (QCEW) Program to be used by ECONorthwest in the City’s employment land
analysis and the City signed a confidentiality agreement regarding use of that data. The United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics web page4 provides information about QCEW:
“The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Program is a cooperative program involving
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor and the State Employment
Security Agencies (SESAs). The QCEW program produces a comprehensive tabulation of
employment and wage information for workers covered by State unemployment insurance (UI)
laws and Federal workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
2 Ibid. 3 CIBL/EOA, p. vi. Figure S-1. 4 http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewover.htm accessed on October 18, 2016
Exhibit A 2-7
Attachment 1, Page 24 of 76
(UCFE) program. Publicly available files include data on the number of establishments, monthly
employment, and quarterly wages, by NAICS industry, by county, by ownership sector, for the
entire United States. These data are aggregated to annual levels, to higher industry levels (NAICS
industry groups, sectors, and supersectors), and to higher geographic levels (national, State, and
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)).”
“The QCEW program serves as a near census of monthly employment and quarterly wage
information by 6-digit NAICS industry at the national, State, and county levels. At the national
level, the QCEW program publishes employment and wage data for nearly every NAICS industry.
At the State and area level, the QCEW program publishes employment and wage data down to
the 6-digit NAICS industry level, if disclosure restrictions are met. In accordance with BLS policy,
data provided to the Bureau in confidence are not published and are used only for specified
statistical purposes. BLS withholds publication of UI-covered employment and wage data for any
industry level when necessary to protect the identity of cooperating employers. Totals at the
industry level for the States and the Nation include the nondisclosable data suppressed within
the detailed tables. However, these totals cannot be used to reveal the suppressed data.”
(emphasis added)
There is substantial evidence in CIBL/EOA to establish that City’s inventory meets State requirements for
such inventories.
There is substantial evidence in CIBL/EOA and in the record documenting and establishing the need for
sites much larger than 20 acres, and the lack of large sites in Springfield, in the Metro area and in the
Oregon to meet the needs of employers who require large sites. 1000 Friends has not challenged that
evidence.
1000 Friends also asserts that the City erred by including large development sites like the Peace Health
RiverBend Medical complex and Gateway Mall shopping center in the historic data used to calculate
average size of needed commercial mixed use sites, because such sites are atypical “one offs that won’t
be recreated during next 20 years.”
While Springfield certainly aspires to create opportunities for more so-called “one off” developments
(such as the PeaceHealth RiverBend Campus) the 2015 Final CIBL/EOA land need determination, the
2030 Comprehensive Plan and UGB expansion amendments do not address such “one-offs.” The
CIBL/EOA clearly states that such “one off” opportunities are not provided for in the land need
determination and if aspiration to provide sites for “one-offs” were to be included, the City would need
a much larger UGB expansion than the modest expansion proposed.
Issue 1 Conclusion. There is substantial evidence in CIBL/EOA to show that average size of needed sites
the City chose is based on substantial evidence about large sites in Springfield and on substantial
evidence about the needs of the City’s target industry employers. 1000 Friends chooses to ignore or
disregard that evidence.
Exhibit A 2-8
Attachment 1, Page 25 of 76
Issue 2: City failed to re-designate surplus industrial sites to meet its commercial deficit. Large
commercial and industrial sites are interchangeable.
Citing CIBL/EOA Table 5-1 and OAR 660-0240050(4), 1000 Friends states “there are no significant
differences between the EOA’s site characteristics for industrial and commercial targeted industries on
site larger than 5 acres” and based on that assertion, and on the assumption that “many probably are
suitable,” concludes that the identified deficit of 4 commercial sites in the 5-20 acres range “could easily
be met by strategic re-designation of 4 of the 18 inventoried industrial sites.”
Ms. Nelson implies that that City’s application of the UHA-E plan designation to the lands added to the
UGB demonstrates that the City considers industrial and commercial site needs to be the same or
interchangeable, and from that infers that “many” existing 5-20 acre industrial sites scattered
throughout the existing UGB “probably are suitable” for designation to either employment type. City
disagrees with this assertion. The UHA-E designation establishes urbanizable employment, protects
suitable large parcels from land division, and requires future planning to assign the appropriate
employment plan designation. This is not analogous to meeting commercial-mixed use land needs
through redesignation and rezoning of existing industrial lots.
The City’s inclusion of suitable employment land in the UGB expansion areas that could potentially
accommodate a range of target employers/employment types does not imply, as 1000 Friends suggests,
that any or some industrial sites within the existing UGB should be assumed suitable to meet
commercial-mixed use site needs in the 5-20 acre site size category. The 2030 Plan designates land
suitable to accommodate a more diverse range of employment uses than currently exist in the City’s
existing inventory of commercial, industrial and mixed use designated land. The 2030 Plan also
maintains a supply of industrially designated and zoned land that is suitable to accommodate
Springfield’s so-called “legacy” type industries as they exist today and as they are expected to operate
and grow in the future. This is the portion of Springfield’s land base that is assumed to be planned and
zoned to accommodate existing jobs and a portion of the forecast growth that will not require vacant
land.
1000 Friends seems to imply that industrial land and commercial land are interchangeable. The City
disagrees. The City’s findings under Issue 1 above begin to explain the difference. The Metro Plan and
Springfield Development Code clearly distinguish different types of land for industrial and other
employment uses by providing multiple and differing industrial, commercial and mixed use land use plan
designations and zoning districts to accommodate such uses.
OAR 660-024-0050(1) states: “For employment land, the inventory must include suitable vacant and
developed land designated for industrial or other employment use, and must be conducted in
accordance with OAR 660-009-0015.”
Exhibit A 2-9
Attachment 1, Page 26 of 76
The City chose to expand UGB to provide suitable land to address this deficit. There is substantial
evidence in CIBL/EOA to set forth the characteristics of needed commercial and mixed use sites and the
City’s findings provide substantial evidence to explain how the proposal meets OAR 660-024-0050(4).
The City’s findings explain how the existing land base in Springfield is assumed to provide sites for
substantial amounts of redevelopment in the 2010-2030 planning period - including land to meet all
residential land needs without expanding the UGB, and sites to provide employment growth that does
not require vacant sites.
See also Exhibit A-1.
Issue 2 Conclusion. 1000 Friends’ suggestion is speculative and does not constitute substantial evidence
the City could rely upon to demonstrate that 4 industrial sites are suitable and could be assumed
available to meet identified need for target industries that require commercial mixed use sites. The
City’s plan must be based on substantial evidence, not speculation.
Issue 3. Failure to inventory all existing 20-acre sites. Citing Table 5-1, 1000 Friends asserts that several
20+ acre sites were not captured in inventory. It is important to note that the materials provided in the
1000 Friends attachments depict tax lots and conditions as they currently exist in 2016, as downloaded
by Mia Nelson from the internet in 2016. The City’s CIBL inventory was completed by ECONorthwest in
July 2008. Some of the lots depicted in the 1000 Friends attachments have changed since the 2008
inventory. See Exhibit A-3. Staff provided the correct inventory information to Mia Nelson, but Ms.
Nelson did not adjust her testimony to reflect the correct inventory data. Thus the correct information
from the CIBL inventory is provided in Exhibit A-3 and explained in these findings.
The CIBL inventory data is based on the tax lot and constraints data available at time of the 2008
inventory. The CIBL is a “snaphot in time” and Springfield is not required to re-inventory previously
inventoried lands to account for changes on or to these sites since the inventory was conducted. The
following information provides response to the testimony submitted.
Wildish Glenwood site. For the purposes of the Commercial and Industrial lands inventory, the
CIBL/EOA concluded that this site does not provide a site in the 20-acre and larger category to meet
identified site needs in the 2010-2030 planning period, based on the lots lines and constraints data as
they existed at the time of the inventory. The FEMA floodway as mapped in 2008 inventory, bisected the
site. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) was approved by FEMA subsequent to the inventory. There have
been lot line and ownership changes since the inventory. The middle parcel was purchased by EWEB.
The best data at the time of the inventory was used in the inventory. The CIBL inventory data base file is
the data set used in the analysis, not maps submitted by 1000 Friends.
Brand S Road, Jasper Natron 29 acre mill site 18021000000900 – For the purposes of the Commercial
and Industrial lands inventory, the CIBL/EOA concluded that this site does not provide a site in the 20-
acre and larger category to meet identified site needs in the 2010-2030 planning period, based on the
data as they existed at the time of the inventory. The CIBL inventory is a snap shot in time. The best
Exhibit A 2-10
Attachment 1, Page 27 of 76
data at the time of the inventory was used in the inventory. The CIBL data base file is the data set used
in the analysis, not maps submitted by 1000 Friends.
Marcola Meadows. For the purposes of the Commercial and Industrial lands inventory, the CIBL/EOA
counted the 44 total commercial acres in the inventory as “master planned,” based on approved
Marcola Meadows Master Plan (CIBL/EOA, pp. 19,74). The CIBL/EOA concluded that this site does not
provide a site in the 20-acre and larger category to meet identified site needs in the 2010-2030 planning
period. Nothing in the approved Master Plan5 requires a 20-acre site to be reserved. Although the site
remains vacant at present, the approved Master Plan is still valid and deed restrictions have been
recorded to ensure implementation of the Master Plan including but not limited to: Condition 13
restricting permitted uses to the uses permitted in the Mixed Use Commercial District; Condition 16
restricting limit of commercial buildings to 30 feet when located within 50 feet of LDR District west of
Martin Drive; Condition 18 restricting permitted uses to those uses permitted in the Nodal
Development Overlay District (SDC 3.3-1010B applicable to the Mixed Use Commercial District). The
property abuts low density residential neighborhoods on 3 sides. Page 1-5 of the approved Master Plan
depicts planned locations of 2 residential villages and 5 commercial villages. The commercial villages are
located in 5 separate areas of the property and are proposed to be developed in Phases 2 and 4.
The Commercial Villages in the Master Plan are identified as follows:
Area 3 “Alder Plaza Professional Office” 4.47 gross acres
Area 4 “Marcola Meadows Neighborhood Retail” 14.87 gross acres
Area 5 “Marcola Meadows Main Street Retail” 6.66 gross acres
Area 6 “Marcola Meadows Community Retail” 5.83 gross acres
Area 7 “Marcola Meadows General Retail” 13.77 gross acres
Total commercial villages 45.6 gross acres, 42.28 net acres.
5 City File No. LRP2007-00028 The Villages at Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan, approved July 3, 2008, recorded
July 25, 2008.
Exhibit A 2-11
Attachment 1, Page 28 of 76
The largest “village” is the General Retail village 13.77 acres, where a home improvement store was
proposed. Even if the two “community” and “general” retail villages were combined, the combined site
size of the two lots would be 19.6 acres gross/18.77 acres net, and would not be counted as a 20-acre
site, and does not account for constraints deductions.
The CIBL inventory is a snap shot in time. The best data at the time of the inventory was used in the
inventory. The CIBL data base file is the data set used in the analysis, not maps submitted by 1000
Friends.
Weyerhaeuser/IP site southern 75 acres. 1000 Friends identities this site as a “grass field with no
improvements.” 1000 Friends asserts that site contains 30 buildable acres on 3 vacant lots and up to 75
acres across all 4 lots, and states “At least 1 20-acre “potentially redevelopable” site should be
counted.”
1000 Friends identified an error in the constraints applied to the site in the CIBL inventory. 1000 Friends
states that ponds/former ponds on the site were erroneously counted as a wetlands constraint in the
CIBL inventory, submitting a 1992 letter from Kenneth Bierly, Oregon DSL Wetlands Program Manager
Exhibit A 2-12
Attachment 1, Page 29 of 76
(re wetland delineation report for T17S, R2W, Section 32) as evidence. The letter states that DSL will
treat the sites listed in the letter as indicated. The 1992 letter lists Sludge ponds 1, 2 and 3 as “not
regulated under Oregon’s Removal-Fill law;” and states “The proposal to utilize the Sludge Basins or log
pond to an aeration basin would not be regulated by the Division of State Lands. You should consult
with the Corps of Engineers on the application of their regulatory program to the sites.”
Map excerpt from 1992 letter from Kenneth Bierly, Oregon DSL Wetlands Program Manager re
wetland delineation report for T17S, R2W, Section 32, annotated by staff to highlight location of
sludge ponds in southern portion of site in red.
Staff reviewed the materials submitted and agrees that the City’s constraints data for this parcel
counted the ponds as wetlands. The 2008 CIBL was based on the best available GIS data at the time,
and these ponds were depicted in the Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) data layer used in the inventory.
Springfield’s LWI was approved by DSL in 1998. Staff consulted the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory
and Natural Resources Study to seek references to the identified wetlands and other absolute
constraints on the site.
Exhibit A 2-13
Attachment 1, Page 30 of 76
Springfield Local Wetland Inventory (Approved by DSL June 15, 1998)
Wetland code M02. “Probable hydrologic source is subsurface flow and surface runoff. DSL has
accepted Woodward-Clyde delineation as log pond—no DSL jurisdiction. 3.12 acres. David
Evans and Associates wetland determination: YES.
Letter from Oregon DSL staff Emily Roth, dated June 24, 1994:
o Review of the draft inventory was based on criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.
o Wetland identifier M02: DSL jurisdiction NO. Weyerhaeuser settlement pond that was
artificially created from uplands. DSL letter 10/6/92 to David Barrows (DSL file #92-
0222).
o Wetland identifier M33: DSL jurisdiction YES/NO. Kizer Slough is jurisdictional; the log
ponds are not as determined by DSL in letter dated 10/6/92 to David Barrows
(Woodward Clyde Consultants).
Exhibit A 2-14
Attachment 1, Page 31 of 76
Goal 5 Natural Resource Study: site M33A 48th St. and WeyCo Channel. OFWAM: provides
diverse wildlife habitat; hydrologic control function is intact. High Quality Wetlands. Inventories
Riparian Resource. High Quality Resource.“M33 is part of the 48th Street Channel. The channel
is a tributary to a water quality limited watercourse (McKenzie River) and is already protected by
a 50-foot setback and a site plan review requirement.”
1000 Friends suggests that any portion of a site without buildings demonstrates that a site is not needed
by the employer, and thus the City could/should assume the site or a portion of the site as available
inventory to meet identified land needs. The City disagrees with this interpretation. See Exhibit A-1.
The CIBL inventory is a snap shot in time. The best data at the time of the inventory was used in the
inventory —the LWI data in GIS. The CIBL data base file is the data set used in the analysis. At the time
of the inventory, this site was part of the larger Weyerhaeuser Springfield Complex infrastructure. The
City has considered the information submitted, but adding the sludge ponds acres to increase the
number of unconstrained acres on the site does not change the conclusions about this property in the
CIBL inventory for the following reasons.
The City assumed the Weyerhaeuser/IP site as one large industrial complex site. In 2006, the previous
owner Weyerhaeuser Company submitted land use permit plans to the City of Springfield (File no.
DRC2006-00015 Final Site Plan Equivalent Map). Drawing SPM-04-4405 – L-01 entitled “Weyerhaeuser
Springfield Complex” depicts air photo and property features of the entire ownership — including the
so-called “sludge ponds” portion of the site and other lands depicted in the altered air photos and tax
lot maps submitted into the record by 1000 Friends. The 2006 “Site Plan Equivalent Map” filed at the
City clearly depicts the large development area of the site as one entirety the “Weyerhaeuser Springfield
Complex.” The drawing/air photo clearly shows industrial site “development” features on the lots
described in Ms. Nelson’s letter (p. 10-13) as land that “has no improvements and is not being used in
conjunction with the paper mill operation; it is a grass field.” These features include a City sewer running
between 42nd and 48th Streets, rail spurs, rail cars, tanks, roads, paved areas, sawdust/wood chip
stockpiles, outdoor storage, ponds/remains of ponds, and stormwater management system outfall and
monitoring points.
Evidence about this site exists in Springfield File No. DRC 2006-00015. Final Site Plan Equivalent Map
Drawing SPM-04-4405-L-01 depicts for property lines, existing development and conditions on the
ground for the full extent of the Weyerhaeuser Springfield Complex — including the tax lots mentioned
in Ms. Nelson’s letter — as of date of submittal March 2, 2006. The file has a copy of the Assessor’s
Maps for the property as configured in 2006: 17022900 tax lots 2900 and 2902 and lots created through
Partition File No. 2000-11-0229 ‘Weyerhaeuser/Sierra Pine Partition.” It is important to note that the
2006 maps clearly shows the property mentioned in Ms. Nelson’s letter as part of the overall
Weyerhaeuser Springfield Complex, even though the tax lots mentioned in Ms. Nelson’s letter had been
partitioned from the parent lot in 2000. Ownership from Weyerhaeuser to current owner IP EAT Three
LLC was not recorded until August 4, 2008 – after the CIBL inventory was completed by ECONorthwest
(July 2008). The Lane County Real Property Tax Lot Record shows the existing IP EAT Three LLC parcel
Exhibit A 2-15
Attachment 1, Page 32 of 76
1702320000105 was created from 17023200 00100 in 2009. The Partition Plat map (File No. 2000-11-
0229) indicates that Parcel 1 “not surveyed.”
The Regional Land Information Data Base provides links to archived tax maps and ownership changes for
Lane County Assessor Map 170232000. A deed (No. 2008-44702) transferring property ownership from
Weyerhaeuser Company to IP EAT Three LLC x was recorded at Lane County Deeds and Records on
August 4, 2008. City’s inventory was based on property configurations and ownerships as of July 2008.
Exhibit A Legal Description Pages 10-23 of the deed list 97 easements and exceptions on the property
transferred.
Ms. Nelson asserts that the City erred by not counting on one 20-acre site in this complex to meet the
need for one site 20 acres and larger. The CIBL inventory performed by ECONorthwest relied on the
best available data at the time – a data layer depicting Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) wetlands.
Applying that data layer in the CIBL analysis resulted in the aforementioned “sludge pond” wetlands as
“absolute development constraints.” Had the jurisdictional status of the particular wetland in question
been known and accounted for in the GIS data, fewer acres on the site would have been assumed
constrained, potentially pushing one tax lot classified as “vacant” in the CIBL into the “20 acre” size
category. The fact remains that even if that had been the case, the configuration of the “Weyerhaeuser
Springfield Complex” depicted in the 2006 “Site Plan Equivalent Map” filed at the City would have been
the best available information about the Weyerhaeuser Complex site at the time of inventory. The City
did not have substantial evidence to assume that this important industrial complex would be broken up
in the planning period or that the land occupied by filled in sludge ponds would become available for
redevelopment by 2030 to accommodate the site characteristics of target industries. Staff did not and is
not required to conduct analysis to determine if the sludge ponds/former sludge ponds support
redevelopment. The evidence provided by 1000 Friends does not change this fact.
The City’s CIBL/EOA analysis implements comprehensive plan policies intended to preserve the
industrial land supply and to support expansion of existing industrial uses. The comprehensive plan
(Metro Plan and the applicable refinement plan) designate the entire Weyerhaeuser/IP Complex site for
Heavy Industrial land uses6. The Metro Plan Diagram clearly shows the entire Weyerhaeuser/IP
Complex site is designated Heavy Industrial. The Weyerhaeuser/IP Complex site is located within the
East Main Refinement Plan7 area and is designated for Heavy Industrial use. The East Main Refinement
Plan Diagram clearly shows the entire Weyerhaeuser/IP Complex site is designated Heavy Industrial:
6 ORS 197.712(2) ***By adoption of new goals or rules, or the application, interpretation or amendment of existing
goals or rules, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall implement all of the following… (c)
Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable
sizes, types, locations and service levels for industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies; (d)
Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for compatible uses on or near sites zoned for specific
industrial or commercial uses.” (emphasis added) 7 Springfield Ordinance 5432
Exhibit A 2-16
Attachment 1, Page 33 of 76
The Weyerhaeuser/IP Complex site occupies more than 200 acres. The East Main Refinement Plan
(page 13) noted how the growth of residential and commercial development on surrounding lands was
creating conflicts with the industrial use. “As these pressures build it becomes increasingly important to
assure the availability of land for the expansion of industrial uses and the compatibility of those
industrial uses with neighboring residential and commercial property.” The Plan (page 13) provides
Criteria for Industrial Refinement Plan Designation:
East Main Industrial Element Criterion A states:
“Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan Diagram shall be applied in designating land for
industrial use in East Main.”
Metro Plan policies (p. II-G-7) clearly distinguish the difference between Heavy and Light Medium
Industrial uses and plan designations.
“Heavy Industrial
This designation generally accommodates industries that process large volumes of raw materials
into refined products and/or that have significant external impacts. Examples of heavy industry
include: lumber and wood products manufacturing; paper, chemicals and primary metal
manufacturing; large-scale storage of hazardous materials; power plants; and railroad yards.
Such industries often are energy-intensive, and resource-intensive. Heavy industrial
Exhibit A 2-17
Attachment 1, Page 34 of 76
transportation needs often include truck and rail. This designation may also accommodate light
and medium industrial uses and supporting offices, local regulations permitting.”
Light Medium Industrial
This designation accommodates a variety of industries, including those involved in the secondary
processing of materials into components, the assembly of components into finished products,
transportation, communication and utilities, wholesaling, and warehousing. The external impact
from these uses is generally less than Heavy Industrial, and transportation needs are often met
by truck. Activities are generally located indoors, although there may be some outdoor storage.
This designation may also accommodate supporting offices and light industrial uses, local
regulations permitting.”
Applicable Metro Plan policies referenced in East Main Criterion A include:
“B.5 Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion.
B.10 Encourage opportunities for a variety of heavy industrial development in Oregon’s second largest
metropolitan area.
B.12 Discourage future Metro Plan amendments that would change development-ready industrial
lands (sites defined as short-term in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, 1991) to
non-industrial designations.
B.16 Utilize processes and local controls, which encourage retention of large parcels or consolidation
of small parcels of industrially or commercially zoned land to facilitate their use or reuse in a
comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion.”
(Metro Plan page III-B-4)
East Main Industrial Element Criterion B states:
“Encourage large blocks of Heavy Industrial land.”
East Main Industrial Element Goal 1 states:
“Encourage the location of new and expanding industrial development in the East Main area
which is compatible with surrounding uses.” Policy 3 states: “where Heavy Industrial Plan
Designations abut residential uses, a 20 foot wide buffer with vegetative screen shall be
required.
East Main Refinement Plan Implementation Element p. 10 states:
“Redesignate lots 170232 301 and 401 from Light-Medium Industrial in order to allow further
expansion of Weyerhaeuser.”
Exhibit A 2-18
Attachment 1, Page 35 of 76
The City’s policy choices in the CIBL/EOA inventory implement the applicable comprehensive plan
policies of the East Main Refinement Plan in regard to preserving large blocks of land to allow expansion
at the Weyerhaeuser complex heavy industrial uses. In fact, the very parcels identified by Ms. Nelson
were previously redesignated to Heavy Industrial to implement policies enabling expansion of the
Weyerhaeuser heavy industrial complex.
The record provides information about the important rail infrastructure existing at this site.8
OAR 660-009-0015(3)(b) states:
“When comparing current land supply to the projected demand, cities and counties may inventory
contiguous lots of parcels together that are within a discrete plan or zoning district. (Emphasis added)
This provision of the Goal clearly states that the City may inventory contiguous lots or parcels together
that are within a discrete plan or zoning district, but the City is not required to do so. The City has the
discretion to choose.
Definition of vacant applied to log decks and storage yards. See Exhibit A-1.
1000 Friends asserts that log storage yards on an industrial site are not permanent improvements and
thus should be considered “vacant” land and thus must be inventoried as “vacant” per Goal 9 rule
definition.
The City inventoried land in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015. City assessed suitability of “potentially
redevelopable” sites, using criteria based on ECONorthwest professional expertise, and City’s policy
choices, and based on substantial evidence about large sites in Springfield and needs of target industry
employers City hopes to accommodate. CIBL/EOA provides adequate explanation for choices made.
There is substantial evidence in CIBL/EOA and Exhibit F findings to demonstrate compliance with OAR
660-024-0050. Economic Element policies and implementation strategies support the aggressive
redevelopment assumptions used in the CIBL/EOA.
The City made reasonable assumptions about redevelopment potential — and provided adequate
explanation of how those assumptions were made in the 2015 CIBL/EOA. Tax lots identified by Ms.
Nelson were indeed classified as “potentially redevelopable” in the database prepared by
ECONorthwest, as explained in the 2015 CIBL/EOA. Each lot 5 acres and larger and classified as
“potentially redevelopable” in the database was carefully examined.
Maintaining a supply of land designated and zoned to accommodate existing and target Heavy Industrial
land uses. It is important to note that the sites Ms. Nelson says should be counted on as the City’s land
supply are designated and zoned Heavy Industrial (HI). Ms. Nelson seems to be implying that, rather
than expanding the UGB to add large sites to accommodate target industries that require large sites, the
8 Union Pacific Industrial land specialist Sandy Lindstrom provided staff with maps of functional rail lines, spurs and
sidings in Springfield. Ms. Lindstrom noted the excellent rail facilities at the Weyerhaeuser complex and stated
that such facilities are difficult to impossible to replicate today.
Exhibit A 2-19
Attachment 1, Page 36 of 76
City should assume that developed Heavy Industrial-designated and zoned sites or portions of sites
could be re-purposed to accommodate Springfield’s target industry employers. The problem with this
line of reasoning is that it assumes that Springfield does not/should not require a land base suitable for
heavy industrial uses.
Since many of the parcels 1000 Friends has identified (in the 9-12-16 letter and attachments) are
currently designated and zoned for heavy and special heavy industrial use, staff prepared additional
findings to explain uses permitted in these zones, to explain why retention of industrial land — sites
suitable for heavy industrial manufacturing uses, outdoor storage of raw materials and heavy
equipment, rail spur accessibility for freight rail shipments and heavy trucks — is important for
Springfield’s economy. These findings support the City’s policy choice to not assume that all “potentially
redevelopable” sites 5 acres and larger as listed and described in CIBL/EOA will be redeveloped in the
2010-2030 planning period to accommodate the City’s target industry employers that require large sites.
The Metro Plan (p. II-G-7) describes the Heavy Industrial plan designation:
Heavy Industrial
This designation generally accommodates industries that process large volumes of raw materials
into refined products and/or that have significant external impacts. Examples of heavy industry
include: lumber and wood products manufacturing; paper, chemicals and primary metal
manufacturing; large-scale storage of hazardous materials; power plants; and railroad yards.
Such industries often are energy-intensive, and resource-intensive. Heavy industrial
transportation needs often include truck and rail. This designation may also accommodate light
and medium industrial uses and supporting offices, local regulations permitting.
The Springfield Development Code Section 3.2-405C. describes the Heavy Industrial (HI) Zoning district:
Heavy Industrial District (HI). HI Uses are generally involved in the processing of large volumes of
raw materials into refined materials and/or that have significant external impacts. Heavy
industrial transportation needs often include rail and truck. Examples of these uses are: lumber
and wood products; paper; chemicals and primary metal manufacturing; large scale storage of
hazardous materials; power plants; and railroad yards. Less intensive industrial uses that are
permitted in the LMI District are also permitted in this district.
Land currently designated and zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) or Special Heavy Industrial (SHI) in Springfield
is needed to accommodate existing and future industrial land uses that are permitted only in the HI or
SHI zones. In Springfield, lumber, wood and paper products land uses are only permitted in the HI or
SHI zones (SDC 3.-4.10). Businesses operating within this category of land use must buy or lease land or
facilities in the HI or SHI zoning district. Without suitable sites zoned for these uses, lumber, wood and
paper products land uses will not be able to operate in Springfield. Rezoning other lands to
accommodate heavy industrial uses is very challenging for local governments because these operations
typically have significant external impacts. Other manufacturing land uses that require Heavy Industrial
zoned sites include but are not limited to recycling facilities, dairy products manufacturing, marijuana
Exhibit A 2-20
Attachment 1, Page 37 of 76
business production facilities, concrete block and septic tank manufacturing, metal and metal alloy
products, paint products and ice and cold storage plants. Without suitable sites zoned for these uses,
these land uses will not be able to operate in Springfield.
It is important to note that the Springfield Development Code allows “outdoor storage of materials
directly related to a permitted use” only where the permitted use is an allowed use in the zone. Thus,
outdoor storage of raw materials used in the manufacturing uses listed above, including but not limited
to logs, lumber, wood chips, sawdust piles, and the equipment necessary to operate the permitted use
is only allowed in the HI or SHI zone.
The Metro Plan (p. II-G-7) describes the Special Heavy Industrial plan designation:
Special Heavy Industrial
These areas are designated to accommodate relocation of existing heavy industrial uses inside
the urban growth boundary (UGB) that do not have sufficient room for expansion and to
accommodate a limited range of other heavy industries in order to broaden the manufacturing
base of the metropolitan economy and to take advantage of the natural resources of this region.
These areas are also designated to accommodate new uses likely to benefit from local
advantage for processing, preparing, and storing raw materials, such as timber, agriculture,
aggregate, or by-products or waste products from other manufacturing processes.
The Springfield Development Code Section 3.2-405D describes the Special Heavy Industrial (HI) Zoning
district:
Special Heavy Industrial Districts (SHI): These areas are designated to accommodate industrial
developments that need large parcels, particularly those with rail access.
The Metro Plan defines the use of the term “development”:
Development: The construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or
enlargement of any structure; any excavation, landfill, or land disturbance; and any human-
made use or extension of land use. (page V-2)
The Springfield Development Code Section 6.1-110 defines “development” for the purposes of
regulating land use in the Springfield:
Development. Any human-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but
not limited to, a change in use; construction, installation or change of a structure; subdivision
and partition; establishment or termination of a right of access; storage of materials, equipment
or vehicles on the land; drilling and site alteration due to land surface mining, filling, grading,
dredging, paving, excavation or clearing of trees and vegetation. Agricultural uses (including
agricultural structures), when otherwise permitted by the base zoning district, are exempt from
this definition unless agricultural structures are placed within adopted special flood hazard
zones. As used in Section 3.3-400, Floodplain Overlay District, any human-made change to
Exhibit A 2-21
Attachment 1, Page 38 of 76
improved or unimproved real estate located within the area of special flood hazard, including,
but not limited to, buildings and other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving,
excavation, or drilling operations. As used in Section 3.4-280C., any activity within the Glenwood
Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District that would alter the elevation of the land; remove
or destroy plant life; cause structures of any kind to be installed, erected, or removed; or result in
a measurable change of any kind. (emphasis added)
1000 Friends asserts that City erred by not counting portions of developed Heavy Industrial sites as
inventory to meet 2010-2030 employment growth needs. The air photos of the Weyerhaeuser/IP
Complex, Rosboro and Sundance Lumber sites (identified as potential inventory by 1000 Friends) clearly
depict structures, pavement, gravel areas, piles of materials, stormwater management facilities, filled
ponds, and excavated areas, tanks, log decks and outdoor storage on these sites. Outdoor storage is a
permitted use in Heavy Industrial (HI) plan designation and zoning. (Springfield Development Code
Section 3.2-410 Industrial Zoning Districts Schedule of Industrial Use Categories) These areas were
assumed to be necessary for the operations of the heavy industrial employment land use. In fact, such
uses as those depicted choose to buy or lease land designated HI because outdoor storage is integral to
their operations. A business owner purchases, uses, pays taxes, or leases the property it needs to
conduct its business, including the land it needs to accommodate outdoor storage. To assume otherwise
in the inventory would be speculative and poor public policy. The City supports accommodation and
expansion of its existing “legacy” industries and has seen substantial re-investment in local mill facilities
in recent years. The City identified:
wood products manufacturing
furniture manufacturing
recreational equipment manufacturing
specialty foods processing
green construction firms
organic food processing
sustainable logging and/or lumber products manufacturing
alternative energy production
as a target industries and assumes that the developed Heavy Industrial sites shown in 1000 Friends
Attachments will continue to contribute to Springfield’s economy.
The City’s economic development strategy seeks to diversify and grow the economy. To achieve that
goal, the City and partner Lane County are adopting the CIBL/EOA and the Springfield 2030
Comprehensive Plan Economic and Urbanization Element policies and implementation measures to
provide a range of sites for economic development.
Exhibit A 2-22
Attachment 1, Page 39 of 76
Springfield’s target industries have varied site needs. The CIBL/EOA land need determination is based on
the City’s assumptions and policy choices that are centered on accommodating the majority of
employment growth needs within the existing UGB — partly through redevelopment of some sites
inventoried in the CIBL, and in addition to meeting all of the residential growth needs that the City’s
2011- acknowledged plan assumes will be 100% accommodated within the existing UGB. The City
conducted both land inventories and need analyses concurrently and comprehensively. 1000 Friends is
not challenging the City’s aggressive assumptions about accommodating employment growth through
infill and redevelopment. Meeting those assumptions and levels of infill and redevelopment growth
require sites and land. The City’s Comprehensive Plan policies (2030 Plan Residential and Economic
Elements) explain how the City supports redevelopment though planning and zoning, by providing
assistance through the existing Glenwood and Downtown Urban Renewal Districts, and by supporting
other district and corridor planning initiatives.
Issue 3 Conclusion. There is substantial evidence in the CIBL/EOA, the City’s findings and the CIBL data
base in the record to demonstrate the City properly inventoried lands as required by Goal 9. There is
substantial evidence in the CIBL/EOA, the City’s findings and the CIBL data base in the record to
demonstrate the City’s response to land need is consistent with the applicable provisions of Oregon
statutes and administrative rules and applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan.
Conclusion. The City reviewed and considered the information submitted by 1000 Friends and finds that
the information provided does not alter the results of the analysis or the comprehensive policy choices
made based on that analysis.
Exhibit A 2-23
Attachment 1, Page 40 of 76
Staff Report and Supplemental Findings
Springfield 2030 Metro Plan Amendments
November 7, 2016
Exhibit A-3 CIBL Inventory Parcel Comparison, October 3, 2016
(in response to 1000 Friends 9-12-16 testimony )
In a letter and attachments submitted 9-12-16, 1000 Friends submitted air photos and questions about a set of tax lots. The following table lists
the tax lots by as identified by 1000 Friends and provides information about how lands were classified in the 2008 inventory. It should be noted
that some of these tax lots have changed since the 2008 inventory, thus current tax lot numbers in 1000 Friends submittal do not match CIBL tax
lot numbers . The CIBL inventory data is based on the tax lot and constraints data available at time of the inventory. The CIBL is a “snaphot in
time” and Springfield is not required to re-inventory previously inventoried lands at this time to account for changes on or to these sites since
the inventory was conducted. The following table provides information to respond to the testimony submitted by noting the tax lots where lots
lines or constraints data have changed since the July 2008 inventory.
For example, Floodway is identified as an absolute development constraint in the CIBL/EOA. Subsequent to the 2008 inventory, a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) was approved for a portion of the Willamette River. This change is apparent when comparing floodway data layers used in the
2008 CIBL inventory to determine absolute development constraints on the Wildish tax lots along the Franklin boulevard waterfront in
Glenwood. Thus, the current FEMA map submitted into the record by Ms. Nelson shows a revision that did not exist when ECONorthwest
prepared the 2008 inventory.
Exhibit A 3-1
Attachment 1, Page 41 of 76
Parcels in 1000 Friends 2016 Testimony Compared with Parcels in 2008 CIBL Inventory
1000
Friends
ATT #
1000 Friends tax
lot list 9-12-16
and address
Current
Size in
acres
Site name/ID
2008 CIBL
Inventory
Classification
Constrained acres
Site size
Parcel, ownership, status, or constraints data changes since July 2008?
1 1702280000902
800 48th St.
71 Weyerhaeuser/IP
site
Developed
13.25 ac
constrained
>50 ac
Yes
Transferred ownership to Sierra Pine after CIBL (deed)
Constraints: slopes, wetland. (buffer from wetland on abutting property to
North .
NOTE Riparian Resource constraint for 48th St channel WQLW was not
deducted in 2008 CIBL (due to City map error)
2/3/12/13 17022900002903
801 42nd St.
1702320000105
785 42nd St
175.48
117.41
Weyerhaeuser/IP
site
Developed
36.7 ac constrained
>50 ac
Redevelopable
25.07 ac
constrained
>50 ac
Yes
Lot change from two lots to one since CIBL, northern lot line change
Constraints: wetland, floodway, riparian, slope
Yes. Lot change from TL 100. CIBL lot included a strip of land So. 48th to Haul
Rd. Value change after CIBL 2008-2009 (RLID)
see also item #14
Constraints: wetland*, floodway, riparian, slope.
NOTE: Sludge pond wetland is on LWI , but found to be Not Significant (City
LWI GIS data did not reflect this)
NOTE Riparian Resource constraint for 48th St channel WQLW was not
deducted in 2008 CIBL (GIS data did not reflect this)
Exhibit A 3-2
Attachment 1, Page 42 of 76
1702320000401
1702320000501
1702322401500
9.67
25.07
4.91
Vacant
.17 constrained ac
5.00 - 9.99 ac
Vacant
10.00 - 19.99 ac
13.5 ac constrained
Redevelopable
2.00 - 4.99 ac
4.87 ac constrained
No. Constraints: wetland, slope
No. Constraints: wetland*, slope
NOTE: Sludge pond wetland is on LWI , but found to be Not Significant (City
LWI GIS data did not reflect this)
No. Constraints: slope
3 1703350000300 35.66 Swanson Mill
Developed
20.00 - 50.00 ac
.5 ac constrained
Yes. Minor lot change along So. A., mill fire and rebuild underway
Constraints: wetland, riparian, slope, BPA
Exhibit A 3-3
Attachment 1, Page 43 of 76
4 1703360000100 70.39 Rosboro LLC
Developed
>50.00 ac
4.6 ac constrained
No. Constraints: slope
5 1702280000401 46.75 DeFoe “Blue Water
Boats”
Developed
10.00 - 19.99 ac
33 ac constrained
Yes.
Constraints: wetland, floodway, slope
6 1703254200100 28.64 Hammer
Partnership
business park site
a. Developed 10.00
- 19.99 ac
b. Developed 5.00 -
9.99 ac
Yes. Lot change, 3 lots were consolidated since CIBL.
Constraints: wetland, floodway, riparian, slope
Constraints: slope (0 deducted)
Exhibit A 3-4
Attachment 1, Page 44 of 76
c. Redevelopable
1.00 - 1.99 ac
No constraints
7 170322000218
3040 Gateway St.
1703220002200
3000 Gateway St.
1703220002300
3000 Gateway St.
8.78
29.4
11
Gateway Mall
Partners
Developed
Developed
Developed
Yes. Very slight lot line change for LTD transit station
Ongoing mall changes/development since CIBL
8/9/10 1803022003200
5001 Franklin
Blvd
31.27 Wildish –
Glenwood Franklin
riverfront site
a. 3200 Vacant
10.00 - 19.99 ac
7.6 ac constrained
b. 3300
Redevelopable
1.00 - 1.99 ac
c. 3800 Vacant
2.00 - 4.99 ac
1.17 ac constrained
CIBL did not
assume parcel
assembly to create
20-acre site
Yes. Lot changes since CIBL. 3 tax lots in CIBL.
Partition and ownership transfer middle portion of site since CIBL (EWEB).
Constraints: slope, BPA, floodway, riparian
Constraints data change since CIBL: FEMA LOMR approved affects Floodway
constraint.
Constraints: Slope, floodway, riparian
Exhibit A 3-5
Attachment 1, Page 45 of 76
Floodway constraint data pre – LOMR
Wildish parcel
Exhibit A 3-6
Attachment 1, Page 46 of 76
11 1802100000900
36417 Brand S
Rd.
29.63 Person site – Jasper
Natron
Redevelopable
20.00 - 50.00 ac
4.6 ac constrained
Yes. Lot changed -Straub Parkway. Value changed, buildings demolished after
CIBL.
Constraints: wetland, riparian, slope
NOTE ponds were not deducted
14 Questioning
wetland constraint
sludge ponds IP site
See # 2 above
15 1702312100100
1702304301700
1702304304700
4.5
4.66
2.63
Sundance Lumber
site
Developed
2.00 - 4.99 ac
Redevelopable
2.00 - 4.99 ac
Constraints: Slope 0.155 ac
Yes. Drop in land value 2012 since CIBL
Constraints: Slope 0.788 ac
Constraints: Slope 0.386 ac
Exhibit A 3-7
Attachment 1, Page 47 of 76
1702311200100
questions why
log deck/outdoor
storage areas of
site were not
counted as
vacant
6
Redevelopable
2.00 - 4.99 ac
Redevelopable
5.00 - 9.99 ac
Constraints: Slope, Wetlands 0.424 ac
Exhibit A 3-8
Attachment 1, Page 48 of 76
Staff Report and Supplemental Findings
Springfield 2030 Metro Plan Amendments
November 7, 2016
This report and findings address testimony received at the September 12, 2016 public hearing and prior
to closure of the record (October 14, 2016).
Exhibit A-4 Response to Johnson Crushers/ Willamette Water Company testimony
The Law Office of Bill Kloos PC submitted a letter dated August 22, 2016 on behalf of Johnson Crushers
International (JCI). That letter was included in the agenda packet for the September 12, 2016 meeting.
The Law Office of Bill Kloos PC submitted a letter dated October 13, 2016 on behalf of Johnson Crushers
International and Willamette Water Company (JCI/WW). That letter is included in the agenda packet for
the November 7, 2016 meeting. The October 13 letter states that it “summarizes key points from those
letters and discusses evidence submitted during last month’s joint hearing and issues raised during the
course of the UGB expansion process.” Staff’s response to both letters is provided below.
JCI/WW disagrees with the results of the City’s UGB Alternatives Analysis. JCI/WW asserts that the City
erred by not including the Seavey Loop area in the UGB expansion, and thus property owned by Johnson
Crushers International and lands currently served by the Willamette Water Company were wrongly
excluded. JCI/WW asserts that the City’s UGB Alternatives Analysis is not consistent with the ORS
197.298 priority scheme.
The City respectfully disagrees. The City’s findings (Exhibit F) explain and demonstrate how the City’s
analysis and the results of that analysis correctly follow the Commission’s and Court’s interpretation of
the application of Goal 14 factors post McMinnville, following an outline provided by DLCD staff. See
also Exhibit A-1 (letter from Jeffrey Condit). The City’s findings under Goal 9 and Goal 14 (Exhibit F
pages 18-161) provide thorough explanation and ample evidence to justify the need for suitable sites to
meet the City’s economic objectives, including uses with special siting characteristics and the quantity,
type and characteristics of needed sites consistent with the applicable provisions of the law and plan
policies; and how the City’s 2030 plan policies and UGB amendment will provide those suitable sites.
The City’s findings (Exhibit F pages 156-414) provide thorough explanation and ample evidence to justify
the location of the UGB amendment. These findings provide thorough explanation to justify how lands
within the Seavey Loop area were excluded.
All second priority exception parcels were identified, examined and considered.
The City excluded second priority lands that are not buildable:
excluded Slopes >15%
excluded Floodway
excluded Riparian resources
excluded Wetlands
Exhibit A 4-1
Attachment 1, Page 49 of 76
The City considered and excluded second priority lands based upon specific land needs (197.298(3)(a)).
The City excluded exception parcels with less than 5 unconstrained acres.
This step excluded the McKenzie View A; West Jasper/Mahogany; Clearwater; Seavey Loop A, D,
F, and Seavey Loop/Goshen exception parcels from further consideration.
The City considered and excluded second priority lands based upon inability to reasonably provide urban
services due to physical constraints (197.298(3)(b))(Exhibit F, pp. 206-)
This step excluded McKenzie View B; Mohawk A, B and C; Oxbow/Camp Creek; Jasper Bridge A
and B; Far East B; Wallace Creek; Seavey Loop B, C and E exception parcels because these areas
do not provide and cannot reasonably be expected to be provided with the public water,
wastewater, stormwater and transportation infrastructure and services necessary to serve
urban employment uses due to physical constraints. The City determined that these areas are
not serviceable to meet Springfield’s identified industrial and commercial land use needs during
the 2010-2030 planning period. [OAR 660-009-0005(9)]
All fourth priority parcels were identified, examined and considered. The City considered and excluded
fourth priority lands that are not buildable:
excluded Slopes >15%
excluded Floodway
excluded Riparian resources
excluded Wetlands
The City considered and excluded fourth priority lands based upon soil capability classification.
The City excluded unconstrained Seavey Loop lands comprising predominantly Class II, Class III
High Value and Class IV Prime Farmland soils on the basis of agricultural capability classification.
The City’s findings describe the City’s factual basis for addressing soil capability classification (Exhibit F,
page 324-350). See also Exhibit A-5 Agriculture and Forest Soil Ratings, Lane County Land Management
Division, a list of NRCS soil map units that clearly shows Class 3 and 4 soils that are identified as “High
Value Farmland.”
The City considered and excluded fourth priority lands based upon inability to reasonably provide urban
services due to physical constraints (197.298(3)(b)).
This step confirmed exclusion of Seavey Loop on the basis of inability to reasonably provide
urban services due to physical constraints.
The City considered and excluded fourth priority lands based upon analysis of comparative ESEE
consequences (Goal 14,Boundary Location, Factor 3);
This step confirmed exclusion of Seavey Loop (contrary to compact urban form, cost inhibitive
infrastructure upgrades, social, cost/benefit, farmland)
The City considered and excluded fourth priority lands based upon analysis of compatibility with
agricultural & forest activities (Goal 14, Boundary Location, Factor 4)
This step confirmed exclusion of Seavey Loop
Exhibit A 4-2
Attachment 1, Page 50 of 76
The City disagrees with JCI/WW assertions as follows:
“Note that the exception areas within Area 9, Seavey Loop, are more extensive and more diverse
than other exception areas.”
“Extensive and diverse” are not criteria for prioritizing land under ORS 197.298, Goal 14 or Goal 9 rules.
The City’s Findings (Exhibit F) demonstrate that City evaluated all exception lands in the study area.
“Some of the land is EFU land, but as will be discussed momentarily, that land too is of higher priority
than the EFU lands for areas the proposal recommends for inclusion into the UGB.”
“Again, the evidence in the record demonstrates that the resource lands within the Seavey Loop area
contains lands of lower soil capabilities than do those of the Mill Race area and the northern portion
of the North Gateway area. This is plainly demonstrated in the attached Exhibit 4, which shows soils
classifications by shades of brown. The darker the color, the better the soil and the lower priority.
Exhibit 4 is annotated with yellow clouds around three key areas. It is plainly evident that the Seavey
Loop area includes light to medium shades of brown compared to the medium to dark shades of
brown for the areas staff recommend for inclusion into the UGB. That means the agricultural lands
for Seavey Loop have a higher priority for inclusion in the UGB expansion than the other two areas.
No amount of finagled finding is going to persuade an appellate review body to disregard what their
eyes plainly show them from the Soil Capability and Constraints map”
“The findings misapply ORS 197.298(1)(d) and ORS 197.298(2)”… “But those soils are not the same,
at least not for purposes of UGB expansion analysis.” ….“To the ORS 197.298 statutory priority
scheme, this difference is significant and requires one area (Seavey Loop) to be brought into the UGB
before the other area (Mill Race) if additional land is needed to meet the City's employment land
needs after examination of higher priority lands.”… “The findings do not make this distinction clear.”
…“Seavey Loop consists mostly of Class IV soils and is therefore lighter in color than the Mill Race
area which consists predominantly of Class II soils.”
The City’s findings address soil capability correctly. JCI/WW fails to do a deeper reading of the
applicable statutes regarding soil capability classifications. The City’s findings (Exhibit F pp. 324-350)
address and apply the correct statutory definitions of high value and prime farmland soils. The City
analyzed all resource land in the UGB study area by soil capability as required by statute. The City’s
findings clearly identify soils and percentages thereof on each parcel. The City’s findings provide
substantial evidence, based on available Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey data
and distribution of soil units and high value farmland soils on the parcels.
The statutory definitions address high value and prime farmland soils. ORS 197.298 (1)(b) includes the
reference to ORS 215.710 (High-value farmland description for ORS 215.705) cited in City’s findings
Exhibit F, page 167. This portion of the statute clearly recognizes that resource land with High Value soils
is a factor to be considered when applying the priority scheme in the boundary alternative analysis. The
general NRCS soils classification map does not depict the high value agriculture and prime soils listed in
statute. See also Exhibit A-5 Agriculture and Forest Soil Ratings, Lane County Land Management Division,
a list of NRCS soil map units that clearly shows the Class 3 and 4 soils that are identified as “High Value
Farmland.” The City confirmed that it evaluated soils correctly for this purpose with DLCD farm and
forest land specialist staff.
Exhibit A 4-3
Attachment 1, Page 51 of 76
“That map shows, even with the BPA easement and steep-slope areas excluded, multiple vacant
or near vacant parcels of between 4 and 14 acres, as well as at least one parcel over 30 acres in
size.”
“Note that the findings include the entirety of TL 306, the JCI parcel to the east of S. Franklin
Boulevard, as being 20 acres, whereas Exhibit 5 only includes an 8.8-acre portion of that parcel.
With the full JCI parcel, that would make two individual parcels of at least 20 acres in size
available in Seavey Loop. Each of the above parcels, either individually or collectively for
adjacent vacant parcels”
The City’s analysis as presented in the findings, examined all EFU parcels, in order of priority under ORS
197.298. Constrained acres were deducted from suitable acres. Many UGB expansion concepts and
alternatives were studied, presented for public discussion, evaluated and rejected throughout the multi-
year iterative process, including the concept/concepts depicted in JCI/WW’s attachments. The JCI parcel
east of Franklin is an EFU parcel, not exception land. The “College View” expansion concept was
presented to the Stakeholder Working Group to examine and discuss a concept that would retain a
“buffer” of EFU land west of South Franklin and along the south side of Seavey Loop Road. “The City's
employment land needs have been identified as the need for 4 parcels between 4 and 20 acres totaling
37 acres, and three parcels greater than 20 acres totaling 186 acres.”
“the City and County must first include Seavey Loop before it can look to those other areas to
help meet the City's demonstrated employment land needs. That is what the statutory priority
scheme set forth in ORS 197.298(1) requires.”
“the City cannot leap frog over Seavey Loop simply because it alone cannot meet all of the city's
needs. ORS 197.298 prohibits the City and the County from doing that.”
“if any area is brought into the City of Springfield to meet the identified employment land need,
it must include land in the Seavey Loop area before turning to other areas to bring in the
remaining amount of land needed.”
See Exhibit A-1. The City evaluated these parcels. The City’s findings explain why exception lands and
EFU lands in Seavey Loop are not suitable to meet identified land needs in the 2010-2030 planning
period.
Seavey Loop exception parcels have the same priority as all other exception parcels in the vicinity of the
UGB the City evaluated. Seavey Loop resource parcels, have same or lower priority as all other resource
parcels in vicinity of the UGB the City evaluated. Thus the City is not required to “include land in the
Seavey Loop area before turning to other areas to bring in the remaining amount of land needed.” The
City evaluated and rejected all exception parcels, including Seavey Loop parcels before turning to lower
priority lands resource land under ORS 197.298.
“The findings substantially misrepresent the footprint of the Seavey Loop area under
consideration.
Exhibit A 4-4
Attachment 1, Page 52 of 76
“Why is it that, when examining the exception areas within Seavey Loop, the analysis breaks the
area down into 6, if not 7 different smaller segments identified as Seavey Loop A through F and
Seavey Loop/Goshen? Why are no other areas similarly broken down?”
The City’s analysis as presented in the findings, examined all parcels in the study area, in order of their
priority under ORS 197.298. City did not “gerrymander” defined study areas in its UGB Alternatives
Analysis. Instead, City conducted a thorough parcel – by parcel analysis to identify potentially suitable
lands, in order of their priority under ORS 197.298.
The City’s discussion of soils (p. 336) in “Seavey Loop area” refers to the greater Seavey Loop area, not
to specific parcels. City’s general discussion of soils in the vicinity of Springfield was included to provide
context and “big picture” for the urbanization study, contrary to JCI/WW’s claim.
Geographic areas with multiple groupings of exception land parcels were broken down into units and
numbered to clearly discuss each grouping of parcels (including Seavey Loop, Far East Springfield,
Mohawk and Wallace Creek) for ease of analysis, identification, and documentation.
“The above begs the question why the analysis failed to recognize that there is one industrially
zoned parcel and three adjacent rural residential parcels that are each greater than 6 acres in
size and are minimally developed”
The City’s findings identified the zoning of each parcel in the study area, including all industrially zoned
parcels and all residentially zoned parcels in the vicinity, and found none to be suitable. Other
industrially and residentially zoned parcels in other UGB study area groupings exist in similar
arrangements to configuration identified by JCI/WW. The City identified, evaluated and rejected them
all and provided substantial evidence to explain why lands are not suitable to meet the identified needs.
“Instead of understanding the opportunity that the Seavey Loop area affords the City of
Springfield to meet its demonstrated economic land needs, the analysis dissects the area so
finely as to make the area unrecognizable as a whole.”
City staff spent considerable time studying the potential suitability of the Seavey Loop area. For
example, the record shows that the City conducted open houses, workshops, visioning sessions and
stakeholder working group meetings to solicit information about the College View study area from a
broad spectrum of stakeholders, as directed by the Springfield City Council. As previously stated, other
areas were “dissected” into smaller units for ease of analysis, identification, and documentation. The
City conducted a thorough parcel – by parcel analysis of potentially suitable lands in order of statutory
priority.
“The findings misapply the ORS 197.298(3) exceptions to the statutory priority scheme.”… “those
statements only pay lip service to the requirements of the exception, at least in the instance of
Seavey Loop,”… “distance of the length involved for Seavey Loop is not a physical constraint, it
simply increases the cost of the utility improvements, something appellate bodies have
concluded is not a permissible consideration.”
“There is evidence in the record that the rough costs were evaluated, which begs the question of
whether it has factored into the recommendation.”
JCI/WW suggests that the City rejected Seavey Loop on the basis of cost to serve and asserts that by
examining cost factors, the City erred. See Exhibit A-1. The City’s findings provide substantial evidence
Exhibit A 4-5
Attachment 1, Page 53 of 76
to explain the need to provide suitable unconstrained land in its inventory to site target large employers.
To be suitable, land must possess the characteristics of needed sites, including adequate parcel size and
provision of urban services within the 20-year planning period.
The City’s UGB Alternatives Analysis, as set forth in the city’s findings, clearly follows the correct
prioritization and application of Goal 14 Locational Factors as interpreted by the Court in McMinnville
and as advised by DLCD Urbanization specialist staff Gordon Howard. It is not clear whether Mr. Kloos
disagrees with the City’s application of Goal 14 Locational Factors. It is the City’s position that distance
and topography (Willamette River) are physical constraints that preclude provision of urban services
within the 20-year planning period. It is the City’s position that the Willamette River is a substantial
physical barrier between Springfield and Seavey Loop; and that the length, width and physical
configuration of narrow South Franklin Boulevard corridor and I-5 ramp system linking Springfield to the
Seavey Loop area is a physical barrier that creates a high degree of uncertainty about the City’s ability to
support and deliver urban services, including safe, multi-modal access, to potentially suitable parcels
within the 2010-2030 planning period. The corridor is physically and spatially constrained — squeezed
between the freeway verge, railroad tracks and the Willamette River Greenway and State parkland,
creating substantial physical challenges for safe, logical and efficient delivery of urban services in the
planning period.
In order to justify bringing new employment land into the UGB, Statewide Planning Goal 14 requires the
City to consider — as part of our Urban Growth Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis — how public
facilities and services can be provided to serve the lands to be added. For this purpose, public facilities
and services are defined as water, sanitary sewer, storm water management, and transportation
facilities [OAR 660-024-0060 (7)]. Springfield must evaluate and compare “the relative costs, advantages
and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities
and services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations” [OAR 660-024-0060 (8)]. The
evaluation and comparison must include:
(a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation facilities that serve
nearby areas already inside the UGB;
(b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the UGB as well
as areas proposed for addition to the UGB; and
(c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other roadways, interchanges,
arterials and collectors, additional travel lanes, other major improvements on existing roadways and
the provision of public transit service.
When cities expand UGBs, they must demonstrate that they are bringing in land that can be served with
urban services within the planning period. As part of the Springfield City Council’s review of potential
growth areas to accommodate large site employment needs, Council requested a series of work sessions
to examine many facets involved in expanding the UGB, ability to deliver services being one important
consideration as required by law. In the AIS cover memo for the March 18, 2013 work session entitled
“COMPARING POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES TO ADDRESS 20-YEAR COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL LAND NEEDS, staff stated:
Exhibit A 4-6
Attachment 1, Page 54 of 76
“Statewide Planning Goal 14 requires the City to compare the relative costs, advantages and
disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public
facilities and services. As one necessary step towards completing this requirement, Springfield
engineering and transportation staff prepared rough “planning level” cost of infrastructure
estimates to compare the cost and difficulty of extending the three City services to each study
area.”
For that March 18, 2013 Council work session, staff provided an attachment entitled “Estimated Cost &
Difficulty of Extending Urban Services” comparing five geographic study areas, Seavey Loop being one.
The memo assigned numeric (1-5) rankings — based on the City Engineer’s professional opinion —to
compare difficulty of providing transportation, stormwater and wastewater services and gave cost
range estimates for each service. The estimated total cost range of >$23->35 Million dollars, compared
with $21- 35 Million dollars for North Gateway – a geographic study area that is partially included in the
City’s UGB expansion— show these cost estimate figures are similar in magnitude. Therefore, it is a leap
for JCI/WW to suggest that the City ruled out Seavey on the basis of this comparative cost analysis. A
greater difference appears, however, in the numeric ranking comparison of “Total difficulty”: 8-11 for
Seavey Loop vs. 7 for North Gateway. It is important to note that this difficulty ranking is not based on
delivery of water service and cost of delivering water service was not included in the cost estimates.
OAR 660-009-0005
(9) "Serviceable" means the city or county has determined that public facilities and transportation
facilities, as defined by OAR chapter 660, division 011 and division 012, currently have adequate capacity
for development planned in the service area where the site is located or can be upgraded to have
adequate capacity within the 20-year planning period.
(11) "Site Characteristics" means the attributes of a site necessary for a particular industrial or other
employment use to operate. Site characteristics include, but are not limited to, a minimum acreage or
site configuration including shape and topography, visibility, specific types or levels of public facilities,
services or energy infrastructure, or proximity to a particular transportation or freight facility such as
rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation
routes.
(12) "Suitable" means serviceable land designated for industrial or other employment use that provides,
or can be expected to provide the appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use.
Conclusion. JCI/WW has not submitted evidence that land in Seavey Loop provides or can be expected
to provide the appropriate site characteristics to meet Springfield’s identified land needs.
JCI/WW suggests the City should reconsider Goshen. “Goshen” east of I-5 was considered in the study
and rejected. In 2008 ECONorthwest prepared maps of potential study areas. The area appears in the
maps presented to Council on January 12, 2009 (Attachment 1-3). Lands located west of I-5 were not
considered. More recently, the City was asked by Lane County to reconsider Goshen. See Exhibit B for
the City’s response.
Exhibit A 4-7
Attachment 1, Page 55 of 76
Conclusion. JCI/WW has not submitted evidence that land in Goshen provides or can be expected to
provide the appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use.
Exhibit A 4-8
Attachment 1, Page 56 of 76
Exhibit A 5-1
Attachment 1, Page 57 of 76
Exhibit A 5-2
Attachment 1, Page 58 of 76
Exhibit A 5-3
Attachment 1, Page 59 of 76
Exhibit A 5-4
Attachment 1, Page 60 of 76
Exhibit A 5-5
Attachment 1, Page 61 of 76
Exhibit A 5-6
Attachment 1, Page 62 of 76
Exhibit A 5-7
Attachment 1, Page 63 of 76
Exhibit A 5-8
Attachment 1, Page 64 of 76
Exhibit A 6-1
Attachment 1, Page 65 of 76
Exhibit A 6-2
Attachment 1, Page 66 of 76
From:Mary Bridget Smith
To:PAULY Linda
Subject:Millrace Ownership Information for UGB Packet
Date:Friday, October 21, 2016 4:05:52 PM
Attachments:doc02002720161021150617.pdf
Linda,
The information in this email is in response to Paul Dixon’s question about whether the City owned
property in the proposed Millrace Expansion Area.
The proposed Millrace expansion area includes parcels that would be zoned and designated Urban
Holding Area which could be developed in the future. The remaining parcels are zoned Parks and
Open Space and will not be commercially developed. The following table is a list of the Map & Tax
Lot number and the corresponding owner for properties in the proposed Urban Holding Area. Two
of the parcels in this area are owned by the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and the remaining parcels
are owned by private citizens, but none of the parcels are owned by the City of Springfield. SUB is a
separate entity from the City with its own elected Board Members. However, it was created
through the City of Springfield Charter and as a result, real property conveyances are listed as, “City
of Springfield, acting by and through the Springfield Utility Board” even though the property is
owned by SUB alone. To compound the confusion, reports on the area’s Regional Land
Informational Database (RLID) abbreviate the owner to City of Springfield making it necessary to
check the actual deed to determine the actual owner. The deed for the SUB parcels are attached to
this email.
Map & Tax lot Owner
18-03-01-00-03700 Springfield Utility Board
18-03-01-00-00502 Springfield Utility Board
18-03-01-00-00501 Johnson Family Trust
18-03-01-00-01900 Curtis and Linda Jones
18-03-01-00-02000 Robert and Lisa Jackson
18-03-01-00-01199 Boverlita de Jesus Reynolds
18-03-01-00-01400 Boverlita de Jesus Reynolds
18-03-01-00-01500 Saul Living Trust
18-03-01-00-01600 Saul Living Trust
18-03-01-00-01701 David Bales
18-03-01-00-01702 David Bales
18-03-01-00-01700 Stephanie Songchild
18-03-01-00-01801 Lawrence and Virginia Schmidt
18-03-01-00-02100 Richard and Rita Proulx
Please share this information in the upcoming packet.
Thank you,
Exhibit B-1
Attachment 1, Page 67 of 76
Mary Bridget Smith
Leahy, VanVactor, Cox & Melendy, LLP; 188 W. B St. Bldg. N, Springfield, OR, 97477; Ph: (541)746-9621;
mbs@emeraldlaw.com; emeraldlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE- Attorney Client/Work Product Privilege: This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains
information belonging to Leahy, VanVactor, Cox & Melendy, LLP that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the content of this e-
mail information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
Exhibit B-2
Attachment 1, Page 68 of 76
Exhibit B-3Attachment 1, Page 69 of 76
Exhibit B-4Attachment 1, Page 70 of 76
Exhibit B-5Attachment 1, Page 71 of 76
Exhibit B-6Attachment 1, Page 72 of 76
Exhibit B-7Attachment 1, Page 73 of 76
Exhibit B-8Attachment 1, Page 74 of 76
Exhibit B-9Attachment 1, Page 75 of 76
Exhibit B-10Attachment 1, Page 76 of 76