HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 04 20 RS DSD Springfield Refinement Plan PC MemoMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF REGULAR SESSION: April 20, 2010
TO: Springfield and Lane County Planning PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissions TRANSMITTAL
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Greg Mott
Linda Pauly
SUBJECT: Metro Plan Amendment: Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan LRP 2009-00014/
PA 09-6018 and Springfield Development Code Amendments LRP 2009- 00015/PA 09-6018
ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commissions are asked to consider the evidence in the record and forward
recommendations to their respective elected officials regarding co-adoption of the proposed Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan (SRP) and proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments. The SRP diagram and
policies must provide sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary to accommodate estimated
housing needs for 20 years to meet the mandate of 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650. Statewide Planning Goal 9
requires that the SRP and urban growth boundary must also include a sufficient inventory of land to provide for at
least a 20-year supply of commercial and industrial sites consistent with Springfield’s community development
objectives. The Planning Commissions are asked to select a preferred alternative for Springfield’s separate Urban
Growth Boundary. Three concepts were prepared by the City’s consultant ECONorthwest. The Planning
Commissions may recommend one or a combination of the three concepts or another concept.
The proposed land use policy package includes 1) Refinement Plan text (Introduction, Residential Land and
Housing Element, Economic Element, Urbanization Element, and Land Use/Urban Design Element and
appendices; 2) a parcel-specific plan diagram that incorporates all existing refinement plans; and proposed code
amendments to implement Land Use Efficiency Measures Phase One. Staff prepared a Decision Matrix
(Attachment 1) to organize specific action items and key decision points for the Planning Commissions
consideration and discussion. If needed, the Planning Commissions may continue their discussion on May 4th.
ISSUE: The City of Springfield and Lane County propose to: 1) Co-adopt amendments to the Eugene-Springfield
Metro Plan to implement 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650 (HB 3337) and ORS 197.295 to 197.314, establishing a
separate Springfield urban growth boundary, demonstrating that Springfield's comprehensive plan provides
sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals and
rules to accommodate estimated needs for 20 years, and adopting related goals, objectives, findings, policies,
designations, measures, analyses, determinations, and inventories for the metropolitan area east of Interstate
Highway I-5. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) includes a site specific plan diagram and plan
provisions applicable to Springfield only. The SRP diagram and text supplements and supports the existing
policies and provisions of the Metro Plan.
2) Co-adopt amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement Land Use Efficiency Measures;
DISCUSSION: On February 17th and March 16th, 2010 the Joint Planning Commissions conducted a public
hearing on the proposed Metro Plan Amendments. The hearing was closed on March 26th, 2010.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Decision Matrix for April 20th meeting
Attachment 2: Memorandum from Greg Mott – Summarized Response to Testimony
Attachment 3: Decision Trees
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Recommendations
Attachment 5: Staff Memorandum –Transportation Impacts of proposed Metro Plan re-designations to resolve
plan/zone conflicts
Decision Matrix for April 20th Joint Planning Commission Meeting
Issue 1
Co‐adopt Eugene‐Springfield Metro Plan Amendment:
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (LRP 2009‐00014/PA 09‐6018)
establishes a separate Springfield urban growth boundary to implement HB 2007 Or
Laws Chapter 650 (HB 3337) and ORS 197.295 to 197.314
creates a new refinement plan of the Eugene‐Springfield Metro Plan for land within the
Eugene‐Springfield Metro urban area east of Interstate Highway I‐5;
adopts related goals, objectives, findings, policies, designations, measures, analyses,
determinations, and inventories to demonstrates that Springfield's comprehensive
plan provides a 20‐year supply of land pursuant to statewide planning goals and rules;
updates the City’s residential, commercial and industrial land inventories
Action Item
Action Item 1: Residential Land and Housing Element
Recommend/not recommend adoption of Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Residential
Land and Housing Element, (incorporating Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis) with
policies to address deficiencies.
Reference: Section A – Residential Land and Housing Element
Mandate/Rationale for Action
Why this action is needed:
House Bill 3337 requires that Springfield demonstrate as required by ORS 197.296 that its
Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years on or before January 1, 2010.
The Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA) prepared for the City by ECONorthwest
completes the residential land inventory, analysis, and housing needs determination required by HB
3337 to provide Springfield with an inventory and analysis of residential land needs for the plan period
2010‐2030. The analysis indicates that 5,980 additional units will be needed to provide a 20‐year
supply of housing to meet Springfield’s needs.
The Low Density Residential designation has a surplus of approximately 72 gross acres.
The Medium Density Residential designation has a surplus of approximately 18 gross acres.
The High Density Residential designation has a deficit of approximately 34 gross acres.
* NOTE The SRP must include policies to address this deficit.
Attachment 1- 1
Decision Points
Q1. Do the proposed plan diagram and policies provide sufficient buildable lands within an
urban growth boundary to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years? YES or NO
Accommodate 5,980 new dwelling units to accommodate growth between 2010 and
2030?
Low density residential?
Medium density residential?
High density residential?
Q2. Do the proposed policies address housing needs? YES or NO
Address the identified shortage of HDR land through redesignation of land to establish
transit‐oriented high density residential neighborhoods in Glenwood and Downtown
nodes through subsequent PAPAs.
Provide sufficient land to accommodate an overall mix of approximately 60 percent new
single family and approximately 40 percent multifamily dwellings.
Provide development options that encourage and facilitate development of attached
and clustered single‐family housing types to accommodate an overall mix of
approximately 53 percent new single family and approximately 47 percent multifamily
dwellings.
Designate land and update zoning ordinances to attain an average residential density of
7.9 dwelling units per net acre over the 2010 and 2030 plan period.
Provide adequate buildable residential land through designation of new high density
residential neighborhoods in the City’s target redevelopment areas, and
implementation of efficiency measures that increase the likelihood that residential
development will occur at densities sufficient to accommodate the projected 20 year
housing needs.
Increase residential density in Nodal Mixed‐Use Centers and along corridors served by frequent
ansit service. tr
Identify and remove regulatory barriers to siting and constructing higher density housing types
in existing MDR and HDR districts. Update building height allowances, and consider increasing
density maximums in existing HDR and Nodal Development areas that served by frequent transit
service. Apply the high density and MUR plan designation to support new housing developmen
in or near Downtown and Glenwood nodes where the existing Urban Renewal Distric
t
t funding
echanism can help fund the infrastructure necessary to support redevelopment. m
Attachment 1- 2
Create new development opportunities and housing choices through establishment of a
Residential Low Moderate (RLM) plan designation and zoning district with a density
14 du/acre to create opportunities for siting and constructing more a more diverse
neighborhood housing type and mix. Consider applying zone to infill opportunity sites identified
in neighborhood planning process. Allow rowhouses, duplexes and cottage clusters as outright
permitted uses (no Dis
range of 8‐
cretionary Use approval required) and establish a Type I ministerial land
se review process.
llow density averaging for split zone/designation parcels.
d‐
where appropriate to support economical higher
ink parking requirements more directly to transportation mode‐split goals where transit
u
A
Correlate parking requirements in mixed‐use districts more directly to the City’s overall mixe
use development vision. Update parking requirements and develop parking management
strategies (such as pay‐in lieu programs)
density development and urban form.
L
systems provide frequent service.
Q3. Do the proposed Implementation Actions address housing needs? YES or NO
net densities:
TC Overlay 28‐60 dwelling units per acre; RMU in
*Note: More restrictive standards apply in the Hillside Development Overlay District where larger lot
stablish building height limits in the RMU and Density Transfer Receiving Areas to implement
‐Moderate (RLM) plan designation that allows the creation of small lots
,000 square feet minimum) to encourage development of more affordable single family
onsider applying the Residential Low‐Moderate (RLM) plan designation to existing LDR land in
in
Development” to “Residential Mixed Use/Nodal”. This
Convert Metro Plan gross densities to
LDR > RL 6‐14 dwelling units per acre & RLM 8‐14 dwelling units per acre
MDR > RM 14‐28 dwelling units per acre
HDR > RH 28‐42 dwelling units per acre; RH with
Glenwood Riverfront & Downtown District >50 dwelling units per acre; Density Transfer Receiving
Areas: Maximum TBD allowed building height.
sizes are required to compensate for slope constraints and engineering requirements.
E
the density ranges.
Create a Residential Low
(3
dwelling housing types.
C
Jasper‐Natron through Jasper‐Natron Specific Area Plan adoption process.
onsider applying the Low‐Moderate Density plan designation to existing LDR land in Glenwood
through the Glenwood Refinement Plan Update process.
Designate land to accommodate a minimum of 213 dwelling units in the high density category
the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District through redesignation of approximately 34.6 gross acres
f land designated “Mixed Use/Nodal
C
o
Attachment 1- 3
action will result in a loss of 270 dwelling units in the medium density category that must be
addressed in the inventory.
mptions (if necessary) of the commercial and industrial land inventory to address
loss of ____ gross acres in the commercial mixed use category and ___ gross acres in the light
d
Plan District to 50 dwelling
ght
uction of affordable housing units, etc. to be determined by the City Council.
ial Low Density
istrict.
tial High Density category to 60 dwelling units per
cre for lands within ½ mile of existing and proposed EmX Transit stations.
reate a Hillside Development Task Force to prepare and evaluate options for constructing more
nt to provide equitable, clear and objective
ments to development of
of a
r
Adjust the residential land inventory to address a loss of 270 dwelling units in the medium
density category in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District.
Adjust the assu
a
medium industrial category in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District (where land is redesignate
for housing)
Increase the minimum density of land in the Glenwood Riverfront
units per acre on approximately 34.6 gross acres of land designated “Mixed Use/Nodal
Development”. Establish a density gradient with corresponding building heights through the
Glenwood Refinement Plan Update planning process.
Consider implementation of a Density Bonus Program to provide an economic incentive for
construction of high density development with structured parking in the Downtown and
lenwood Nodal Development areas. The program shall permit variance of the building heiG
limits in specific “density receiving areas” identified in the Downtown and Glenwood District
plans when a developer provides an extra community benefit such as dedication of public open
pace, constrs
Establish a minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre in the Resident
d
Increase the allowed density in the Residen
a
C
affordable housing types on sloped lands.
Change plan designations to resolve existing residential plan‐zone conflicts.
Update design standards for residential developme
standards and development review procedures to reduce impedi
attached housing types, cluster development and multifamily housing. Consider application
simplified and expedient Type I design/development review process (Ministerial decision) fo
of residentreview ial land use permit applications.
Increase opportunities for Mixed Use Nodal Development (ND):
1. Consider expansion of the Glenwood node through the Glenwood Refinement Plan
process.
2. Consider expansion of the Downtown node through the Downtown District Plan
process
3. Consider future work program project: Downtown to Gateway EmX Corridor Plan to
Attachment 1- 4
identify and evaluate nodal development opportunities along the new transit corr
4. Consider future work program projec
idor
t: Main Street Corridor plan to identify and
evaluate nodal development opportunities along the proposed transit corridor
transit
stations.
stablish a staff team and developer focus group to examine barriers that discourage the use of
t density transfers in the Hillside Overlay District;
ddress street design standards that are identified as impediments.
ncy access and traffic concerns.
nities for siting residential and employment density in mixed‐use nodal
evelopment centers and along corridors served by transit. Continue to target mixed‐use nodal
evelopment centers and along corridors served by transit as focus of redevelopment incentives
and focused planning efforts. Match areas o high infrastructure cost needs (e.g Glenwood,
ty siting. Consider shadow platting for
transitional urban centers with low land values (E.g. Franklin Blvd. and Main Street Corridor).
5. Apply TC Overlay District to existing high density housing areas within 1/2 mile of
6. Consider implemention of Jasper‐Natron Specific Plan ND through Jasper‐Natron
Specific Area Plan adoption process.
Consider establishing another Vertical Housing zone in the Glenwood Riverfront District.
E
cluster development; prepare draft code amendments to remove/reduce regulatory
impediments and identify incentives to encourage and reward cluster development; update
Hillside Development Standards to suppor
a
Establish an interdepartmental task team to prepare reduce street width standards to address
efficient land use, potential cost savings, new ways to manage stormwater , climate issues,
emerge
Identify and create opportunities for siting and constructing more diverse higher density
neighborhood housing type and mix in MDR and HDR districts. Prepare neighborhood plans
centered on schools and/or employment centers to update and/or replace existing refinement
plans.
Increase opportu
d
d
f
Main Street) with higher density development opportuni
Attachment 1- 5
Action Item
Action Item 2: Economic Element
Recommend/not recommend adoption of Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Economic
Element, (incorporating Commercial and Industrial Lands Inventory and Economic
Opportunities Analysis) with policies to address deficiencies.
The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Economic Element articulates Springfield’s economic
development goals, objectives, and implementation actions to support Springfield’s
development/redevelopment strategy.
Outlines Goals, Objectives and Implementation Actions to provide land for job
growth 2010‐2030
Designates sufficient land to meet Springfield’s commercial and industrial needs for
the period 2010‐2030.
Identifies a need to expand the UGB (640 acres) to address a shortage of
employment sites larger than 20 acres
Reference: Section A – Economic Element
Mandate/Rationale for Action
Why this action is needed:
OAR 660‐009 requires cities to maintain an inventory of land to provide for at least a 20‐year supply of
commercial and industrial sites consistent with local community development objectives.
Pursuant to LCDC's Economic Development goal and rule in order to carry out mandate of 2007 Or Laws
Chapter 650 requiring Springfield to separately establish its own urban growth boundary pursuant to
statewide land use goals, the City of Springfield chose to conduct a commercial and industrial land study
concurrently with the residential land study. The City of Springfield commissioned ECONorthwest to
prepare a (1) a buildable lands inventory; (2) an economic opportunities analysis; and (3) an economic
development strategy. All of these elements are required to comply with statewide planning Goal 9 and
the Goal 9 rule (OAR 660‐009).
Previous land studies were conducted jointly with Springfield’s Metro Plan partners. Adoption of
Springfield‐specific economic development policies and implementation actions – through adoption of
the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – will allow the City to clearly articulate its desired economic future
and its preferred land use strategies to attain that vision. Adoption of the study will establish a clear
economic development direction that identifies the city’s strengths and opportunities, and its position in
the broader Southern Willamette Valley region. Adoption of the study will facilitate employment
opportunities and job creation in Springfield by identifying industrial/employment land needs and
developing an economic development strategy aimed at selected target industries.
The Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory, Economic Opportunities Analysis
(CIBL) provides 1) an employment forecast for Springfield; 2) identification of target industries; 3) a
Attachment 1- 6
comparison of land capacity and demand; and 4) characteristics of needed sites to determine the
sufficiency of sites available for economic land uses. The key conclusions in the analysis of land
availability and capacity for employment uses in Springfield are:
The City assumes that 52% of new employment growth in Springfield will not require vacant
land.
Springfield will need employment land with sites characteristics that cannot be found within the
existing UGB.
The available supply of commercial and industrial buildable land in Springfield and the metro
urban area east of I‐5 does not fully meet Springfield's projected 20‐year commercial and
industrial land needs under current plan designations and policies.
Springfield will need to add land to its Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate forecast
employment growth and provide larger sites for target industry employers if the City is to meet
local community development objectives.
The Economic Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies updates and builds from previous
economic development planning work by the City and provides the foundation for updated land use
policies to implement the City’s economic development vision. Applicable criteria include 2007 Or Laws
Chapter 650, State Economic Development Planning Goals and Rules OAR 660‐0015, OAR 660‐009‐0020,
OAR 660‐009‐0025 as amended by LCDC in 2007, and applicable comprehensive plan policies.
Decision Points
Q4. Do the proposed economic objectives and strategies affirm Statewide Planning Goal 9
and the Metro Plan Goal with an appropriate emphasis on maintaining and enhancing
Springfield's role, responsibility, and identity within the regional and state economies of
which it is a part? YES or NO
Provide an adequate supply of sites of varying locations, configurations, and size, to
accommodate industrial and other employment over the planning period, as identified
in the Springfield Economic Opportunities Analysis.
Provide an adequate competitive short‐term supply of suitable land to respond to
economic development opportunities as they arise.
Reserve sites over 20‐acres for special developments and industries that require large
sites.
Provide adequate infrastructure efficiently and fairly.
Encourage employers to locate in downtown Springfield, when appropriate.
Encourage redevelopment of Glenwood with a mixed use employment and housing
center.
Redevelop brownfields as the opportunities for reuse arise. Springfield has more than 20
Attachment 1- 7
brownfield sites that will require clean‐up before the sites can be redeveloped. Springfield has
about 20 to 50 more sites that may be brownfields if the sites were available for redevelopment.
The cost of clean‐up will vary, depending on the prior uses and type of contamination on the
site.
Encourage development of commercial businesses in close proximity with residential
uses, where appropriate.
Support and assist existing businesses in Springfield.
Increase the potential for employment in one of the regional industry clusters. The
clusters include: Health Care, Communication Equipment, Information Technology
(Software), Metals (Wholesalers), Processed Food and Beverage, Wood & Forest
Products, and Transportation Equipment.
Increase the potential for convention‐ and tourist‐related economic activities to
generate economic activity, especially in the service industries like retail, food services,
and accommodations.
Attract sustainable businesses and support sustainable development practices.
Q5. Do Springfield’s Economic Opportunities Analysis and local community development
objectives and strategies identify an unmet need for employment land with sites
characteristics that cannot be found within the existing UGB? YES or NO
Q6. Are the conclusions of the CIBL Study supportable? YES or NO
Q8. Is the proposal to expand the UGB by 640 acres adequate to address a shortage of
employment sites larger than 20 acres? YES or NO
Q9. If conclusions of the CIBL Study are not supportable, which assumptions should be
reassessed?
Employment forecast during the plan period? Identification of target industries?
Characteristics of needed sites? Comparison of land capacity and demand? Percentage of
employment growth to be met by redevelopment? Percentage of employment growth not
requiring commercial or industrial zoning? Prohibitive constraints? Other?
Attachment 1- 8
Q10. Does the proposed action (640 acres UGB expansion for employment land and plan
policies establish an inventory of land within an urban growth boundary to provide for at
least a 20‐year supply of commercial and industrial sites consistent with Springfield’s local
community development objectives? YES or NO
Action Item
Action 3: Urbanization Element & Springfield Urban Growth Boundary
Recommend/not recommend adoption of Urbanization Element with policies to address deficiencies
and Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary.
Establish separate baseline Springfield UGB split by Interstate 5 with UGB as shown in 2030 Plan
Diagram
Add 640 acres to UGB to respond to provide land for employment pursuant to CIBL
Select preferred alternative for UGB expansion
Reference: Section A – Urbanization Element & Section F UGB Alternatives Analysis
Mandate/Rationale for Action
House Bill 3337 requires that Springfield demonstrate as required by ORS 197.296 that its
Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. A city’s UGB must also maintain an inventory of
land to provide for at least a 20‐year supply of commercial and industrial sites consistent with local
community development objectives.
Decision Points
Q11. Does the SRP include policies that demonstrate Springfield’s use of existing and
supplemental efficiency measures help meet needs for housing and other urban needs
efficiently? YES or NO
Q12. Are SRP policies that demonstrate Springfield’s emphasis on focused district specific
plans (e.g. Downtown and Glenwood plans) to facilitate efficiency of land use and
urbanization through redevelopment supportable? YES or NO
Q13. Should “newly urbanizable” lands be added to Springfield’s UGB? YES or NO
Attachment 1- 9
Q14. Have the proposed “newly urbanizable” lands shown in the three UGB Concepts been
selected in accordance with ORS 197.298, LCDC Goal 14, and LCDC's Urban Growth Boundary
Rule, OAR Chapter 660, Division 24? YES or NO
Q15 Does the preferred UGB concept add “newly urbanizable” areas to the Urban Growth
Boundary of sufficient size and location to provide land that meets specific employment site
needs identified in the Springfield Economic Opportunities Analysis consistent with the
Springfield Economic Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies? YES or NO
Q16 Does the preferred UGB concept add “newly urbanizable” areas to the Urban Growth
Boundary of sufficient size and scale to be integrated efficiently into the urban area as
complete neighborhoods or other community elements rather than as isolated individual
parcels? YES or NO
Q17. Does/should the preferred UGB concept provide an adequate supply of sites of varying
locations, configurations, and size, to accommodate industrial and other employment uses
over the planning period? YES or NO
Q18. Does/should the preferred UGB concept provide an adequate supply of land to allow
for choice of sites and to allow for sufficient market competition between sites? YES or NO
Q17. Select preferred concept for a 640 acre UGB expansion
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Other
Q18. Is the City’s proposal to designate “newly urbanizable” areas added to the UGB as Urban
Holding Areas that require a plan amendment (PAPA) process required to remove UHA and
allow designation for urban development supportable? The Springfield Refinement Plan
diagram assigns the Urban Holding Area designation to the newly urbanizable lands as an
interim plan designation that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle
trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary.
YES or NO
Q19. Shall all master plans for urban development on “newly urbanizable” lands require that
development of such lands is consistent with the Urban Holding Area designations for such
lands and with the site needs criteria for their inclusion in the UGB as expressed in the
applicable Economic Opportunities Analysis, Residential Lands Analysis, UGB Alternatives
Analysis, and related findings adopted in support of their inclusion? YES or NO
Q20. Is the City’s proposal to preserve large “newly urbanizable” sites supportable? The
proposal would place limits on land division on employment land parcels 20 acres and larger
sufficient to ensure that large parcels of land are available for businesses that need large
parcels. The City proposes to preserve sites over 20‐acres in areas identified as
Attachment 1- 10
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ‐ URBAN HOLDING AREA (E‐ UHA) for special developments and
industries that require large sites. Large sites, especially sites with access to I‐5 shall be
designated to increase the potential for employment in one of the regional industry clusters
such as but not limited to: Health Care, Communication Equipment, Information Technology
(Software), Metals (Wholesalers), Processed Food and Beverage, Wood & Forest Products,
and Transportation Equipment or development of industrial/technology/business parks to
provide opportunities for development of business clusters of related or complementary
businesses and industries identified in Springfield’s Economic Development Objectives and
Implementation Strategies. The City proposes to work with property owners and their
representatives to ensure that prime development and redevelopment sites throughout the
City and Urban Growth Boundary that are designated for employment use are preserved for
future employment needs and are not subdivided or used for non‐employment uses. YES or
NO
Action Item
Action 4: Land Use & Urban Design Element.
Recommend/not recommend adoption of Land Use & Urban Design Element
Includes an accurate, up‐to‐date plan map of Springfield land use designations and a detailed
description of plan designations to guide future changes in land use over the plan period
Parcel specific Plan Diagram
Reference: Section A – Land Use & Urban Design Element
Mandate/Rationale for Action
House Bill 3337 requires that Springfield demonstrate as required by ORS 197.296 that its
Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. A city’s UGB must also maintain an inventory of
land to provide for at least a 20‐year supply of commercial and industrial sites consistent with local
community development objectives.
Decision Points
Q21. Establish parcel‐specific diagram? YES or NO
Q22. Prepare findings to support and incorporate redesignations to resolve plan‐zone
conflicts where feasible? YES or NO
Attachment 1- 11
Proposed changes to SRP text to be included in the next draft to address DLCD
comments.
1. SRP Introduction page 8. Staff recommends deleting the first sentence of the last
paragraph so that the 2030 Refinement Plan is not described as the “guiding policy
document for all land use decisions within Springfield’s urban growth boundary.” We
will also recommend that the first sentence in the second paragraph on Page 9, which
currently reads “The Springfield 2030 Plan replaces the Metro Plan as Springfield’s
primary land use plan for the plan period ending in 2030.” be rewritten to describe our
belief that there will be a greater reliance on the 2030 Refinement Plan than on the
Metro Plan on a daily basis because the level of specificity provided in the 2030
Refinement Plan is far more likely to be relevant to the typical issues raised, if the past
20 years is any indication.
2. General comment. The final document will be formatted to distinguish policies from
implementation actions.
3. Urbanization Element, Pages 10‐12. Although Implementation Actions 41‐50 speak to
limiting division of land to preserve these sites for their intended use, land division does
not limit use. If we propose to maintain existing County zoning on these sites, then
presumably we intend to allow use consistent with those zones; if that approach does
not protect these sites for intended future urban use, then the UHA must also include a
prohibition on these uses. We also agree that the Springfield Development Code,
Chapter 3 Land Use Districts, and Chapter 5 Development Review Process and
Applications should be amended to incorporate the relevant components of these SRP
Urbanization Element Implementation Actions.
4. Urbanization Element, # 28 is incomplete. In the last sentence it states: “Add Goal 10
definition of constraints.” The city also needs to also add the definition of “buildable
land” in OAR 660‐008‐0005(2) before adoption.
5. Urbanization Element, # 29 Table: “Assumed Constraints – Residential Land.”
The City adopted ordinances in 2003 establishing inventoried wetlands and code
amendments to protect those wetlands as part of our Goal 5 compliance. The City
adopted ordinances in 2004 protecting riparian resource areas adjacent to Class A
streams (waterways capable of providing anadromous fish habitat). We will clarify that
this refers to wetlands and riparian areas on our inventory or otherwise qualifying based
on our acknowledged Goal 5 compliance. We will evaluate the impact of this situation;
we believe that vestigial parcels created by right‐of‐way dedications, lot line
adjustments and other activities have created “lots” that may technically be entitled to
develop, but realistically have very marginal futures as legitimate buildable inventory.
Attachment 1- 12
6. Urbanization Element, # 30, the 2010 UGB Expansion Areas table is incomplete, missing
data. We won’t know what information to include in the UGB Expansion Areas table
until the elected officials have made this decision some time later this year or next. We
included this formatting as a place‐holder. We will make the appropriate changes to
this table as an element of adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan.
7. Urbanization Element, #38. We will propose to add the following text: “In addition, the
following sections of Goal 14 and OAR 660‐0024‐0060 are applicable to the evaluation
and determination of needed land:
(2) 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 the need
categories in this subsection (2). In determining need, local government may specify
characteristics, such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable
for an identified need. (Land Need, Goal 14)
2. The size of the parcels of urbanizable land that are converted to urban land should be of
adequate dimension so as to maximize the utility of the land resource and enable the logical and
efficient extension of services to such parcels. (Guidelines, A. Planning, Goal 14); and,
(5) If a local government has specified characteristics such as parcel size, topography, or
proximity that are necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need, the local government
may limit its consideration to land that has the specified characteristics when it conducts the
boundary location alternatives analysis and applies ORS 197.298.”
8. We previously responded to the question about protecting UHA land from inappropriate
development; this applies to sites 20‐acres in areas identified as E‐UHA: We agree with
that part of this comment regarding “sufficient protection from development that does
not match the land needs identified in the EOA and HNA.” Although Implementation
Actions 41‐50 (SRP Urbanization Element, Pages 10‐12) speak to limiting division of land
to preserve these sites for their intended use, land division does not limit use. If we
propose to maintain existing County zoning on these sites, then presumably we intend
to allow use consistent with those zones; if that approach does not protect these sites
for intended future urban use, then the UHA must also include a prohibition on these
uses. We also agree that the Springfield Development Code, Chapter 3 Land Use
Districts, and Chapter 5 Development Review Process and Applications should be
amended to incorporate the relevant components of these SRP Urbanization Element
Implementation Actions.
9. Urbanization Element, # 38: Valid site need characteristics from employment land are
controlled by Goal 14 and division 24, not just division 9. The city needs to add the
relevant text in the “Land Need” section of Goal 14, and the text of OAR 660‐024‐
0060(5).
10. Urbanization Element, #42 and #43. This policy needs to be supported with an
Attachment 1- 13
implementation action that will protect these sites for this purpose.
11. Urbanization Element,# 45, this policy needs to explain what is meant by the statement,
“designated and zoned predominantly for needed employment uses.”
12. Urbanization Element,#46 Amend Springfield Development Code to exclude “big box
retail or other regional commercial uses” in the E‐UHA.
13. Urbanization Element,#47 The provision allowing the balance of land to be zoned for
residential is not consistent with the need identified in the EOA and will be
recommended for deletion. Unless substantial evidence is included in the record of the
public hearing process on the SRP to justify a UGB expansion for residential purposes,
these implementation measures should be deleted.
14. Urbanization Element # 48 – 50 address policies related to locations designated
Residential Urban Holding Areas (R‐UHA). Based on the Residential Lands and Housing
Needs Analysis that supports the establishment of the Springfield UGB, and lacking the
2030 Land Use Diagram, we assume that no R‐UHA areas have been or will be
designated. The provision allowing the balance of land to be zoned for residential is not
consistent with the need identified in the EOA and will be recommended for deletion.
Unless substantial evidence is included in the record of the public hearing process on
the SRP to justify a UGB expansion for residential purposes, these implementation
measures should be deleted.
15. Urbanization Element Special Master Plan Requirements for Urban Holding Areas. The
SRP and the Development Code need to include provisions and standards that prevent
inappropriate development of any holding areas. We will propose language that will
accomplish this requirement should the elected officials decide to include land into
Springfield’s UGB.
16. Urbanization Element Findings. Amend Finding #8 to read “Springfield’s Urban Growth
Boundary has been established based on consideration of the following:
1) Statewide Goal 14
a. The text of the current 2 land need criteria and
b. The text of the current 4 boundary location factors.
2) The ORS 197.298 priorities to add land to a UGB; and
3) The OAR 660, division 024 urban growth boundary rules.”
17. Land Use and Urban Design Element. Overview. The second sentence in the first
paragraph should be revised as follows: “The Springfield 2030 Plan Diagram is a parcel‐
specific plan designation map that refines the general plan land use designations within
the urban growth boundary shown in the Metro Plan Diagram.” In the event the
elected officials take an action that results in a change to the UGB that goes beyond the
Attachment 1- 14
existing Plan Boundary, language will be recommended for inclusion in this chapter.
18. Land Use and Urban Design Element. Springfield Plan Designations.
a) Lands within current UGB:
19. This section makes reference to conforming the 2030 Plan Diagram to all adopted Metro
Plan and refinement plan land use designations, with exceptions. The 2030 Plan needs
to document these exceptions and explain how they affect the land needs identified in
the EOA and Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. In the next draft staff will
identify exceptions whether through footnote or text elsewhere, and an accompanying
explanation of the relationship of these sites and the two land use evaluations.
20. Land Use and Urban Design Element. Springfield Plan Designations. b) Newly
urbanizable lands: first sentence. The first sentence was changed subsequent to the
submittal to read: “...and may require addition of land to Springfield’s UGB...” instead of “...and
will therefore some additional land.”
21. Land Use and Urban Design Element. Springfield Plan Designations. Table LU‐2
Preliminary Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Land Use Map Designations.
The RLM and SLR are interchangeable; we will recommend that one be selected.
We agree that descriptions and implementation measures need to be added for “Transit
Corridor” Employment Center Opportunity” and “R‐UHA” this latter only if needed to
reflect a decision by the elected officials.
22. Land Use and Urban Design Element. Policies and Implementation Actions #4. The RLM
has replaced the SLR as a proposed additional zoning district that implements the Low
Density Residential Plan diagram designation. Since this is a new development model
there are some question about universal appropriateness; we believe the hearing
process will make a better determination of applicability than staff‐level discussion.
The district can’t go forward without concurrent amendment to the Springfield
Development Code. Upon a final decision by the elected officials the specifics of this
zoning district, if adopted, can be developed and included in the Development Code.
23. Land Use and Urban Design Element. Policies and Implementation Actions #9. needs to
be rewritten to clarify how density averaging works. This proposal does not include any
statements about the SLR or duplex development.
24. Economic Development Element. Goals. The elected officials have not adopted this
Economic Framework Plan into the Metro Plan. The City is proposing to incorporate
some of these strategies into the SRP to help implement this initiative of the joint
Attachment 1- 15
elected officials. We believe these strategies are consistent with existing Metro Plan
policies and with our EOA; these strategies certainly are endorsed by all of the
governing bodies that have jurisdiction of the Metro Plan. The EOA was completed
months before the JEO Economic Framework Plan therefore the latter is not reflected
by the former. We will prepare findings that establish consistency between these
documents as well as the Metro Plan.
25. Economic Development Element. Implementation Action 4.1. re Designate and zone
land to provide sites that meet the site characteristics and site sizes described in the
Economic Opportunity Analysis. The suggestions made by the Department are more
appropriate to a broader perspective of all land needs for commercial and industrial
development. However, the intended beneficiary of Action 4.1 could benefit further by
amendment to the Code regarding use and development standards. We will
recommend that such language be included in this Action. The City will identify where
these large sites are and how they will be protected and reserved for their intended use.
26. Economic Development Element. Implementation Action 4.15. “As appropriate” as it
appears in Action 4.15 should be revised to say “as appropriate and as permitted by the
Springfield Development Code.”
27. Economic Development Element. Implementation Action 5.1. Rather than define the
meaning of “relatively easily and at a comparatively low cost” Action 5.1 should be
rewritten to identify priority based on capital improvement programming and
availability of funding such as SDCs or urban renewal funding.
28. Economic Development Element. EO‐10. The bullets under EO‐10 should be deleted;
they are findings, not implementation actions. We also agree that “grayfield” sites
should be included in this Objective.
29. Economic Development Element. We agree that nodal development should play a
larger role in economic development. We will recommend such language be included in
this section.
Attachment 1- 16
Issue 2
Adopt amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement Land Use
Efficiency Measures – Phase One
(LRP 2009‐00015/PA 09‐6018)
Creates a Small Lot Residential District
Establishes a minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre in the LDR District
Requirement a mix of housing types in SLR developments
Action Item
Action Item 1: Adopt Springfield Development Code Amendments
Recommend/not recommend adoption of Springfield Development Code Amendments: Land
Use Efficiency Measures Phase One Implementation
Reference: Section
Mandate/Rationale for Action
Why this action is needed:
House Bill 3337 requires that Springfield demonstrate as required by ORS 197.296 that its
Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years on or before January 1, 2010.
The Springfield City Council and Planning Commission have directed staff to prepare policies and
implementation tools to meet Springfield’s future land use needs. The Residential Lands Stakeholder
Committee and Planning Commission reviewed and prioritized potential Land Use Efficiency Measures
for Springfield and recommended that the City Council consider implementing these measures or
consider changing existing policies to increase the land‐use efficiency derived from these measures.
Two public open houses were conducted in April‐May 2009 to gather input on the proposed measures.
In April 2009, the City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to develop the
planning tools necessary to implement Phase One measures. The proposed code amendments
implement existing Metro Plan policies and are further supported by proposed SRP policies and plan
designations.
Section Proposed to be Amended Reason for Amendment
3.2‐100 Adds Small Lot Residential District (SLR) to the base zoning
district list
3.2‐205 Establishes a minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre
in the LDR District
Adds the SLR District description
Amends other residential district descriptions
Attachment 1- 17
Attachment 1- 18
3.2‐210 Adds uses for the SLR District
3.2‐215 Adds base zone development standards for the SLR District
3.3‐825 References SDC residential densities for Future Development
Plans in the UF‐10 Overlay District (see also 5‐12‐120/130)
4.7‐140 Adds Type I design standards for duplexes on corner
lots/parcels and for certain duplex development in the
MDR/HDR Districts
4.7‐233 Adds a new Section with requirement for a mix of housing types
in SLR developments
5.4‐100 Adds a Type I process to Table 5.4‐1, Development Applications,
for duplex design standards
5.12‐120 References SDC residential densities for Future Development
Plans in the land division process (see also 3.3‐825)
5.12‐130 Adds a condition of approval for recording a Future
Development Plans with the Plat (see also 3.3‐825)
6.1‐110 Adds/revises definitions pertaining to “dwellings” in support of
the SLR District
Decision Points
Q1. Are the proposed code amendments supportable? YES or NO
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
To: Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions
From: Gregory Mott, Planning Manager
Date: April 20, 2010
Subject: Responses to testimony entered into the record of the Joint Planning Commission Hearing
on the Proposed Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Package
Issue
The City of Springfield initiated several post-acknowledgement plan amendments to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Springfield Development Code (SDC)
that are collectively referred to as the proposed Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Package. The public
hearing before the planning commissions on this matter was conducted on February 17, 2010 and
continued to March 16, 2010.1 The written record of this hearing was extended until March 26, 2010.
The City received 52 documents on this matter from interested parties and 22 persons appeared at the two
public hearings; both oral and written testimony was entered into the record during the hearings. The
purpose of this memorandum is to provide responses to the issues raised in this testimony.
Background
In general, the testimony in the record can be sorted into the following topic categories:
1. Requests for specific action on privately owned land (both owners and advocates);
2. Objections to information contained in supporting materials (Residential Lands and Housing Needs
Analysis; Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Analysis; Economic Opportunities Analysis);
3. General objections or specified deficiencies in the proposed 2030 Refinement Plan, including the
proposal to expand the UGB for commercial and industrial purposes, and not expanding the UGB for
residential purposes; and,
4. General comments about quality of life, preserving that quality of life in an uncertain future, future
challenges needing to be addressed, etc.
In addition to the preceding issues raised during the public hearing, the planning commissions identified a
number of issues they wished to be answered or clarified in time for the April 20th joint planning
commission work session. Those issues are:
1. What distinguishes suitable from unsuitable land when considering a UGB expansion;
2. How will Springfield fund infrastructure into UGB expansion areas;
3. Isn’t UGB expansion for warehousing and distribution a waste of land given the low number of
employees per acre for such uses;
4. How do you preserve a site for its intended use;
5. Are there legal restrictions against promoting growth in the floodplain;
1 A joint planning commission work session on this proposal was conducted on February 2, 2010, and a Lane
County Planning Commission work session discussion was held on March 2, 2010; however public testimony is
not accepted or entered into the record of work sessions.
Attachment 2-1
6. Why is the Sony property not included as a redevelopment site;
7. Please provide new FEMA maps or indicate when they may be forthcoming;
8. Why do concept maps continue to identify some UGB expansion areas as suitable for residential
development if there is no proposal to expand for residential purposes;
9. Please indicate what the two blue colors on Map 3 are intended to identify;
10. Why is school capacity an issue in the Seavey Loop expansion area;
11. Can the entire McKenzie River paralleling the UGB be brought in as park and open space to protect
this resource.
12. Where are ODOT’s comments regarding UGB expansions; how much will it cost to upgrade ODOT
facilities to accommodate UGB expansions;
13. Bill Kloos letter said the city needed to prepare a TPR analysis for plan/zone conflict actions, and that
the proposed text did not provide clear and objective standards for residential development; and
14. What occurs to Goal 5 resources in UGB expansion areas and is this addressed in any of the
analysis of these areas.
Discussion
The following is the complete list of individuals who appeared, submitted written testimony, or both, into
the record of this hearing requesting a specific consideration for their property:
12/29/08 Steve and Sheri Tofflemoyer, PO Box 197, Springfield, OR 97477
Request to have TL 1900, Assessor’s Map 18-02-05 included in the Springfield UGB
Submitted a letter that included earlier correspondence from the City of Springfield indicating the
Tofflemoyer property would be considered for inclusion within the UGB during any general evaluation of
the UGB undertaken within 5 years of the date of the correspondence (6/21/05).
Response:
No accompanying information relevant to this property was submitted addressing the requirements and
standards of ORS 197.298, OAR 660-024-0060, or Goals 9, 10 or 14.
This property is in Area 7 of Land Use Concept 2 map.
2/24/09 Greg Harmon, South Dakota
Request to bring 30 acres north of Beltline, west of I-5 into the Springfield UGB
Submitted an email in support of inclusion within Springfield’s UGB even though the property was
located west of I-5.
Response:
No accompanying information relevant to this property was submitted addressing the requirements and
standards of ORS 197.298, OAR 660-024-0060, or Goals 9, 10 or 14.
Land west of I-5 is not included in any of the UGB Land Use Concept proposals.
Attachment 2-2
4/7/09 Ralph Wheeler, 3840 Hayden Bridge Road, Springfield, OR 97477
Request to have TL 103, Assessor’s Map 17-02-19-41 included in the Springfield UGB.
Submitted a letter including a map of the property and the following information: the parcel is 1.5 acres;
the parcel abuts the UGB on two sides; the parcel has received 2,000 yards of fill to raise the elevation
“above flood zone level that is suitable” for building residential property.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
This property is not within any of the expansion areas on the Land Use Concept maps.
5/28/09 Jennifer Gericke, PO Box 22221, Eugene, OR 97402
Submitted a FAX map requesting information about Tax Lot 1701, Assessor’s Map 18-02-05; is
it an exception area.
Response:
No accompanying information relevant to this property was submitted addressing the requirements and
standards of ORS 197.298, OAR 660-024-0060, or Goals 9, 10 or 14.
This property is in Area 7 of Land Use Concept 2 map.
6/25/09 Sandra and Walter Johnson, 89733 Armitage Road, Eugene, OR 97408
Notes from a telephone conversation: own 371 acres north of Gateway; 1954 last flood;
revetment along the McKenzie; area not flooded in 1996; thinks area should have new FEMA
study; alluvium no longer deposited because of flood control measures; too much acreage zoned
EFU in Lane County; the cannery is gone and farms 500 acres need canneries; owns land
connecting to Royal Caribbean.
Response:
This property is in Area 1 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
2/4/10 James Lee Johnson, 85740 Jasper Park Road, 97455
Submitted a letter requesting no UGB expansion in “West Jasper Area ” or “Wallace Creek Road
Area.” Jasper Road is too narrow to accommodate more urban uses; West Jasper has prime
agricultural soils and should be preserved for local sustainable food sources, wildlife habitat and
groundwater recharge; owns Tax Lot 00700, Assessor’s Map 18-02-22-11.
Response:
The property referred to in this letter as Wallace Creek Road Area is in Area 5 on Land Use Concept 1 &
3 maps; West Jasper Area is not included in any of the expansion areas on the Land Use Concept maps.
2/12/10 Hugh and Phyllis Hiller, 3899 Harmon Lane, Springfield, OR 97478
Request not to include Tax Lot 1601, Assessor’s Map 18-02-06 within the UGB.
Attachment 2-3
Submitted a letter opposing inclusion within the UGB; cited increased property taxes, EFU zoning, stay
within the rivers, no funding to maintain existing infrastructure.
Response:
This property is within Area 7 on Land Use Concept 2 map.
2/12/10 Eugene and Emma Murr, 3901 Harmon Lane, Springfield, OR 97478
Request not to include Tax Lot 1604, Assessor’s Map 18-02-06 within the UGB.
Submitted a letter opposing inclusion within the UGB; cited increased property taxes, EFU zoning, stay
within the rivers, no funding to maintain existing infrastructure.
Response:
This property is within Area 7 on Land Use Concept 2 map.
2/13/10 Gregory and Lorrisa Leno, 739 C Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Submitted a letter opposed to the rezoning of Tax Lot 11700, Assessor’s Map 17-03-35-13
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; will disturb the continuity of the
Historical nature of the neighborhood and will increase traffic.
Response:
None of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to the plan designation of
this property; this property is already designated MDR on the Metro Plan; MDR zoning implements MDR
plan designation; follow-up corridor studies and updates to older refinement plans is proposed as a
means to address some of these plan/zone issues.
2/13/10 Frank M. Light, 3515 Valentine Court, Springfield, OR 97477
Submitted a letter requesting the rezoning of Tax Lots 6300 and 6400, Assessor’s Map 17-03-25-
34; and Tax Lots 6200, 6300 and 6500, Assessor’s Map 12-02-14-23 from Low Density
Residential to Community Commercial. The properties are surrounded on three sides by
commercial zoning. The letter included a map of the properties.
Response:
None of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan
designation of this property; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram
amendment and corresponding zone change; follow-up corridor studies and updates to older refinement
plans is proposed as a means to address some of these plan/zone issues.
2/16/10 Walter Johnson, Johnson Farms, 89733 Armitage Road, Eugene, OR 97408
Submitted a letter including personal history of farming in North Gateway for past 38 years; the
soil is rocky, coarse sand with shallow unproductive soils covering 50% of the land area; rock
removal has been unsuccessful as has been soil amendments; the expense of soil enhancements
off-sets any gains in productivity; the land should be considered for future commercial
development.
Response:
This property is in Area 1 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
Attachment 2-4
2/16/10 Marcia L. Sexton, 316 F Street #6, Springfield, OR 97477
Submitted a letter requesting zoning and plan designation of Tax Lots 90000 and 90001-8,
Assessor’s Map 17-03-35-21 be changed to High Density Residential consistent with existing use
of high density condominium development.
Response:
None of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan
designation of this property; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram
amendment and corresponding zone change; follow-up corridor studies and updates to older refinement
plans is proposed as a means to address some of these plan/zone issues.
2/17/10 Ralph Wheeler, 3840 Hayden Bridge Road, Springfield, OR 97477
Submitted a letter requesting Tax Lot 103, Assessor’s Map 17-02-19-41 be included within the
UGB. The letter included personal history of non-farm use for 20 years; 1.5 acre size; no farm
deferral; adjacent to UGB on two sides; no affect to public facilities (“already laid to the
property”); does not require submittal to LCDC because less than 50 acres; rezone to residential.
A letter from the Wheeler’s dated 1/24/92 was included; this earlier letter requested the City to
consider bringing the same property into the UGB.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
This property is not within any of the expansion areas on the Land Use Concept maps.
2/17/10 Richard and Rita Proulx, 2777 South M Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Submitted a letter opposing inclusion of their property within the UGB; opposed to the UGB
coming any closer than current location; opposed to urban development in this area; concerned
about infrastructure costs; concerned about safety, noise, odor and dust; concerned about
condition of road now under light use.
Response:
This property is within Area 8 on Land Use Concept 1 & 2 maps.
2/17/10 Mike Miller, RE/MAX Integrity, 4710 village Plaza Loop, Suite 200, Eugene, OR 97401
Request to include property at 2828 Hayden Bridge Road (20 acres) and property at 3330 Hayden
Bridge Road (88 acres) into the UGB; request to expand UGB to the McKenzie between 2100
block of Hayden Bridge Road to Hayden Bridge for multiple purposes including residential;
disregard the conclusions of the Residential Lands Study and perform a new, non-biased study.
Response:
No accompanying information relevant to this property was submitted addressing the requirements and
standards of ORS 197.298, OAR 660-024-0060, or Goals 9, 10 or 14.
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
This property is not within any of the expansion areas on the Land Use Concept maps.
Attachment 2-5
3/16/10 Donald Grant, 86886 Mahogany Lane, Springfield, OR 97478
Letter submitted into the record during the joint hearing on March 16, 2010; suggests property
owned by Mahogany Neighbors (200 acres) be considered for inclusion within the UGB for
residential development; cites continued interest in residential development in east Springfield
and over-reliance on hillside development in the City’s residential analysis.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
This property is not within any of the expansion areas on the Land Use Concept maps.
Testimony submitted by advocates and representatives of property requested for specific action. Most of
these are multiple submittals and are arranged chronologically by participant:
4/21/09 Randall S. Hledik, Wildish Companies, PO Box 7426/3600 Wildish Lane, Eugene, OR
97401/97408
Request to have Tax Lots 400, 900, 1000, 1401 and 1404, Assessor’s Map 18-02-09; and Tax
Lots 502 and 503, Assessor’s Map 18-02-10, including in any conversations about expanding the
Springfield UGB.
Submitted an email requesting land owned by Wildish Company be considered for inclusion in the UGB
for purposes of residential, commercial or industrial development.
Response:
No accompanying information relevant to this property was submitted addressing the requirements and
standards of ORS 197.298, OAR 660-024-0060, or Goals 9, 10 or 14.
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes. In
December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had enough
residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning period.
This property is not within any of the expansion areas on the Land Use Concept maps.
4/24/09 Randall S. Hledik, Wildish Companies, PO Box 7426/3600 Wildish Lane, Eugene, OR
97401/97408
Request for consideration of Tax Lots 400, 900, 1000, and 1404, Assessor’s Map 18-02-09; Tax
Lots 502 and 503, Assessor’s Map 18-02-10; and Tax Lot 101, Assessor’s Map 18-02-16, for
inclusion within any growth boundary expansion the city may propose.
Submitted an email that included a map of the property and the following information: A portion of the
property is within the floodway; the rest is a mix of land that is both within and outside the 100 year
floodplain and contains a mix of soil types ranging from Class II to Class VII. The property is situated
between CIBL Areas 6 and 7; ask to consider for residential, commercial or industrial urban use.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
Attachment 2-6
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
This property is not within any of the expansion areas on the Land Use Concept maps.
6/1/09 Michael E. Farthing, Attorney at Law, 462 Kodiak Street, Eugene, OR 97401, representing
Gordon Webb, property owner in southeast Springfield
Requesting that approximately 280 acres of the Webb property, Tax Lot 100, Assessor’s Map 18-
02-10 be included within the UGB for residential purposes.
The letter included several maps showing the location of the property; a general description of the
property as a prime candidate for UGB expansion to meet some of the anticipated residential lands needed
for the next 20 years; 100-140 acres are gently sloped; the current UGB location on the property is
impractical and not consistent with Metro Plan factors for determining UGB location that include
protection of forest lands, ridgeline drainage basin and orderly and economic public services.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes. In
December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had enough
residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning period.
This property is not within any of the expansion areas on the Land Use Concept maps.
2/18/09 Jordan Schrader Ramis, Attorneys at Law, Two Centerpointe Drive, 6th Floor, Lake Oswego, OR
97035, representing the Wicklund Living Trust Property in the North Gateway Area
Requesting inclusion of Tax Lot 400, Assessor’s Map 17-03-15-40, approximately 110 acres and
immediately north of Maple Island Slough in the Gateway area, into the UGB.
The letter included email correspondence between the property owner and farmer lessee of the property,
and an agronomist’s report that concludes that the Trust property “consists of soils which are not High
Value Farmland as defined by LCDC rule.”
Response:
At the time of this submittal expansion area concept maps had not been developed; however it is within
Area 1 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
9/4/09 Raedeke Associates, Inc.(by Jordan Schrader Ramis), 5711 NE 63rd Street, Seattle, WA 98115
The letter contains the results of a wetlands and streams reconnaissance of the Wicklund farm; no
streams or watercourses were found; most of the soil on the farm is Newberg fine sandy loam and
Camas gravelly sandy loam; neither of these soils is hydric; no evidence of frequent or regular
flooding; the only areas exhibiting the necessary hydrology, vegetation and soil is a small area
adjacent to the McKenzie River.
1/19/10 Earle D. Wicklund, Trustee, Attorney in Fact, Wicklund Living Trust, 3951 Maple Island Farm
Road, Springfield, OR 97477
Requesting inclusion in the UGB for purposes of development with medical services, high tech,
specialty food processing, green businesses and corporate headquarters for the 110 acre Wicklund
Farm.
Attachment 2-7
The letter was submitted along with a bound document that included sections on agricultural production,
Goal 5 resources, a conceptual site plan of the property showing development with urban uses, and an
explanation of the UGB, annexation and zoning procedures.
Response:
This property is within Area 1 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
3/5/10 Jordan Schrader Ramis, Two Centerpointe Drive, 6th Floor, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, representing
Wicklund Living Trust
Requesting inclusion in the UGB for 110 acre Wicklund Farm, Tax Lot 400, Assessor’s Map 17-
03-15-40.
The letter included email correspondence between the property owner and farmer lessee of the property,
and an agronomist’s report that concludes that the Trust property “consists of soils which are not High
Value Farmland as defined by LCDC rule.” The letter also cites the suitability of the land for inclusion in
the UGB; that this land is more suitable than other lands with different statutory priority; and breaks out
the reasons why this site complies with the four specific requirements of Goal 14.
Response:
This property is within Area 1 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
3/16/10 Earle Wicklund, Trustee, Wicklund Farm, 3951 Maple Island Farm Road, Springfield, OR
Requesting inclusion in the UGB for 110 acre Wicklund Farm, Tax Lot 400, Assessor’s Map 17-
03-15-40.
The letter includes reasons why the property should be brought into the UGB and developed; why a
greenfield site is superior to a redevelopment site, includes an estimate of 2.5m in property tax and 60m in
taxable payroll after build-out; requests endorsement of Concepts 1 or 3; and cites consistency with Goal
9 and Goal 14.
Response:
This property is within Area 1 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
1/29/10 Jeff DeFranco, Director of Communications and Facilities, Springfield Public Schools, 525 Mill
Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Consent and support to rezone District property at Thurston Middle School, Agnes Stewart
Middle School, and the site owned on South 28th Street.
The letter indicated support to redesignate Thurston Middle School and Agnes Stewart Middle School as
Public Land and Open Space and the S. 28th Street property to Medium Density Residential.
Response:
These actions were initiated by the City to reconcile plan/zone/use conflicts and are a component of the
2030 Refinement Plan package.
2/27/09 Dwight G. Purdy, Thorp Purdy Jewett Urness & Wilkinson, Attorneys at Law, 1011 Harlow
Road, Suite 300, Springfield, OR 97477, representing the Springfield School District
Request to have surplus property on Rainbow Drive rezoned from Low Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential; 13.54 acres, Tax Lot 1400, Assessor’s Map 17-03-34-21.
Attachment 2-8
The letter also indicated the property was designated Public Land on the Metro Plan.
At the time of submittal the City’s Residential Lands Study concluded that the residential lands inventory
had a deficit of 766 acres of LDR, 148 acres of MDR and 36 acres of HDR; these figures were
subsequently updated to reveal a 72 acre surplus of LDR, an 18 acre surplus of MDR, and a 34 acre
deficit of HDR. This proposal exacerbated the deficiency of LDR but reduced the MDR deficiency. The
adopted version of the residential lands assessment is only slightly affected by this proposal; the LDR
surplus is reduced marginally and the MDR surplus is increased marginally.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not propose to redesignate land within the UGB to make up this deficit;
none of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan designation
of this property; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram amendment and
corresponding zone change.
3/15/10 Brian J. Millington, Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, Attorneys at Law, 1011 Harlow
Road, Suite 300, Springfield, OR 97477, representing the Springfield School District
Request to redesignate Rainbow property from LDR to MDR (13.54 acres); request to redesignate
former Mr. Vernon School property from Public Land to HDR (725 S 42nd Street, 3.63 acres);
request to bring District property on Clearwater Lane into the UGB ( 19 acres, Tax Lot 1909,
Assessor’s Map 18-02-05)
These requests were the subject of three separate letters. Each letter included statements that the
proposed changes would benefit the City’s residential lands needs by increasing multifamily development
opportunities. Additionally, building more dwellings on the Rainbow property would help attendance
figures at Centennial Elementary and Hamlin Middle Schools, both of which are experiencing declining
enrollments. The District does not include a designation or zoning preference for the Clearwater Lane
property; however, since high schools are not permitted in residential districts, Public Land should be the
preferred designation because it does allow all three school levels. The District cites information from the
District’s updated facilities plan which was submitted into the record of the March 16, 2010 continued
public hearing, and which demonstrates a need to construct a new elementary or K-8 in this area; the
Clearwater property is a good site for either of these schools.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not propose to redesignate land within the UGB to make up this deficit;
none of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan designation
of these properties; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram amendment and
corresponding zone change.
The Clearwater property is located in Area 7 on all three Land Use Concept maps.
3/26/10 Brian J. Millington, Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, Attorneys at Law, 1011 Harlow
Road, Suite 300, Springfield, OR 97477, representing the Springfield School District
Request to redesignate Rainbow property from LDR to MDR (13.54 acres); request to redesignate
former Mr. Vernon School property from Public Land to HDR (725 S 42nd Street, 3.63 acres);
request to bring District property on Clearwater Lane into the UGB ( 19 acres, Tax Lot 1909,
Assessor’s Map 18-02-05)
This letter included maps of all three properties; includes a citation from ORS 195.110 requiring large
school districts (2,500+ enrollment) to address school facility needs by identifying land that is suitable for
school facilities inside the UGB.
Response:
Attachment 2-9
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not propose to redesignate land within the UGB to make up this deficit;
none of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan designation
of these properties; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram amendment and
corresponding zone change.
The Clearwater property is located in Area 7 on all three Land Use Concept maps.
3/10/10 Michael M. Reeder, Arnold Gallagher Percell Roberts & Potter, Attorneys at Law, 800 U.S. Bank
Center, 800 Willamette Street, Eugene, OR 97401, representing Amigos III, LLC
Requesting Tax Lot 202, Assessor’s Map 17-02-34-32 (1.19 acres) be designated Community
Commercial and not Medium Density Residential.
The letter includes several attachments, most notably a staff report, findings, and final order by the
Planning Commission from a 2001 action to rezone land immediately south of this property to
Community Commercial because the lot to the north (the Amigos lot) is designated Commercial. The
letter suggests that this previous action, in addition to the well developed commercial on three sides of
this property, is sufficient evidence that the property is properly designated commercial.
Response:
None of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan
designation of this property; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram
amendment and corresponding zone change.
3/16/10 Michael M. Reeder, Arnold Gallagher Percell Roberts & Potter, Attorneys at Law, 800 U.S. Bank
Center, 800 Willamette Street, Eugene, OR 97401, representing Amigos III, LLC
Requesting Tax Lot 202, Assessor’s Map 17-02-34-32 (1.19 acres) be designated Community
Commercial and not Medium Density Residential.
The letter includes several attachments, most notably a staff report, findings, and final order by the
Planning Commission from a 2001 action to rezone land immediately south of this property to
Community Commercial because the lot to the north (the Amigos lot) is designated Commercial. The
letter suggests that this previous action, in addition to the well developed commercial on three sides of
this property, is sufficient evidence that the property is properly designated commercial.
Response:
None of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan
designation of this property; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram
amendment and corresponding zone change.
3/16/10 Michael M. Reeder, Arnold Gallagher Percell Roberts & Potter, Attorneys at Law, 800 U.S. Bank
Center, 800 Willamette Street, Eugene, OR 97401, representing Rosboro, LLC
Request the city not redesignate Rosboro property Tax Lots 1003, 1004 and 1200, Assessor’s
Map 18-02-06 (east side of South 28th Street) from Heavy Industrial to Light Medium Industrial.
The letter cites the City’s proposal to redesignate Agnes Stewart to Public Land and the Rosboro property
LMI zoning as a buffer; cites the company’s reliance on this property for wood products activities; cites
other surrounding uses and zoning as heavy industrial; cites other provisions of the 2030 Refinement Plan
that support the retention and expansion of existing businesses, family wage jobs, industrial diversity, etc.
Response:
Attachment 2-10
This City-initiated amendment was not undertaken to provide additional LMI sites; sole purpose was to
buffer the school property from heavy industrial activities.
3/26/10 Michael M. Reeder, Arnold Gallagher Percell Roberts & Potter, Attorneys at Law, 800 U.S. Bank
Center, 800 Willamette Street, Eugene, OR 97401, representing Rosboro, LLC
Request the city not redesignate Rosboro property Tax Lots 1003, 1004 and 1200, Assessor’s
Map 18-02-06 (east side of South 28th Street) from Heavy Industrial to Light Medium Industrial.
The letter reiterates previous testimony requesting the City not change the Metro Plan designation of the
Rosboro property from HI to LMI; includes an aerial map that shows the property; includes anecdotal
information that the School District does not oppose retention of HI plan designation and zoning;
contends that split-lot designation is not consistent with the goal of a parcel-specific plan diagram.
Response:
This City-initiated amendment was not undertaken to provide additional LMI sites; sole purpose was to
buffer the school property from heavy industrial activities.
2/17/10 James W. Spickerman, Gleaves Swearingen Potter & Scott, Attorneys at Law, 975 Oak Street,
Suite 800, Eugene, OR 97401-3156, representing Puzzle parts, LLC
Requesting Tax Lot 2500, Assessor’s Map 17-03-10 (62.04 acres) be included in the UGB
The letter cites information from the City’s Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) establishing the
need for large parcels to accommodate future employment lands; that such lands suitable for such
inclusion need to be flat, have frontage on collector or arterials, access to rail and freeways, separated
from residential uses; letter attributes this site with such characteristics; cites Oregon Administrative
Rules regarding economic development and urban growth boundary expansion that are satisfied by this
property. The letter included attachments showing aerial photo of the property and list of all properties
and property owners in Area 1 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
Response:
This property is within Area 1 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
The following testimony was submitted by individuals and representatives of various organizations or
businesses without direct ownership of any land proposed for action in the 2030 Refinement Plan
package.
11/25/09 Michael A. Kelly, 86965 Mahogany Drive, Springfield, OR 97478
Does not believe the assumptions in the Residential Lands Study are in the best interests of the
City’s future well being; believes the population forecast is too conservative and was accepted to
avoid political consequences; believes assumed residential density of 7.2 dwellings per acre is too
high, particularly when the majority of inventory is on land that can’t be developed at this
density; believes its unrealistic to think all of the City’s future single family homes can be
accommodated in exiting UGB.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
Attachment 2-11
1/29/10 Ed Moore, South Willamette Valley Regional Representative, Department of Land
Conservation and Development, 644 A Street, Springfield, OR 97477
This letter provides a response to the City’s proposed residential efficiency measures: raising minimum
density by introducing a new LDR zone (SLR-small lot residential) that increases density from 6 units per
acre to 8 units per acre has only a minimal impact;
Response:
The only LDR zone the City has does not have a minimum density standard; including a minimum density
may only have a small effect on current practices but it requires a substantial increase in density for
development approval thereby guaranteeing more efficient land use.
The new SLR should not restrict the location of duplexes if this zone is intended to encourage affordable
housing and more types of housing;
Response:
The intent of the SLR is to encourage a mix of attached and detached single family dwellings for the
purpose of expanding the opportunity for more affordable home ownership; by definition, a duplex is not
an attached single family dwelling because it is not constructed to allow independent ownership of each
unit.
MDR and HDR districts should not allow detached single family housing, including zero lot-line single
family and manufactured housing on individual lots; duplexes should be permitted outright in these
districts;
Response:
Our intent is to pursue the broadest possible range of ownership opportunities; if the minimum density
standard can be achieved in the MDR or HDR through any variety of housing structure we’d prefer not to
close the door on such a design proposal. Duplexes are by practice and definition a single structure with
two dwelling units for rent. This is not a particularly efficient delivery of rental housing, but as we’ve
previously stated, we are less concerned about the type of structure than we are about achieving the
objective of housing choice, location, and cost.
The SLR District does not allow mobile home parks; ORS 197.480(1)(b) requires local ordinances to
allow mobile home parks in zones that require/allow 6-12 units per acre.
Response:
As previously stated, our intent for the SLR is the increased opportunity for homeownership and that does
not occur in mobile home parks; however, the statute is clear so we will make this change in the event the
elected officials adopt this zoning district.
2/15/10 Ted Corbin, Chair, Springfield Historic Commission
Request that the Washburne Historic District not be designated for residential density increases
from LDR to MDR.
The letter cites the need to preserve the existing historic character (low density) within the District;
recalled the defeat of an earlier initiative that would have allowed accessory dwelling units in the District;
understands that such action would follow adoption of the 203 Refinement Plan buts prefers this matter
be addressed now.
Response:
Attachment 2-12
None of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan
designation of this property; follow-up corridor studies and updates to older refinement plans is proposed
as a means to address some of these plan/zone issues.
2/17/10 Bill Kloos, Law Office of Bill Kloos, Oregon Land Use Law, 375 4th Street, Suite 204, Eugene,
OR 97401, representing Willamette Water Company
Requests support of Concept 1 which proposes to expand the UGB to include 235 “suitable
acres” for employment use in the Seavey Loop/Goshen area; includes general description of the
Company’s water supply and distribution system; cites ORS 197.298 regarding priority of land to
be included within UGB; contends that the Seavey Loop/Goshen area has the highest
concentration of exception lands of all sites considered therefore must be first priority; Concept 1
is efficient and defensible; the area has water and fire protection that can “efficiently be continued
into the near-term future.
Response:
This property is within Area 9 on Land Use Concept 1 & 3 maps.
2/17/10 Bill Kloos, Law Office of Bill Kloos, Oregon Land Use Law, 375 4th Street, Suite 204, Eugene,
OR 97401, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County
Cites City’s failure to ensure the 20-year land supply can be developed under clear and objective
standards; if not, existing inventory needs to be debited from the inventory and other land needs
to be added; supports a parcel-specific plan diagram; contends the proposed plan and code
changes require TPR analysis now, not later; suggests language to be added to the 2030
Refinement Plan and Development Code to implement state law requiring clear and objective
standards regulating the development of needed housing; must confirm actual capacity or planned
capacity of infrastructure for existing inventory to confirm the projected development capacity is
achievable.
Response:
The following response is excerpted from the attached memorandum (Attachment C) from Al Johnson,
Attorney at Law, to Greg Mott, dated April 12, 2010:
“The draft 2030 Refinement Plan resolves about 300 of about 900 plan/zone conflicts identified
by staff. The proposed changes would affect about 66 acres of vacant land. Of the 66 acres,
about 41 acres involve a 25.13-acre change from Sand and Gravel to Light Medium Industrial
near the former Blue Water Boats facility and a 15.73-acre change from Campus Industrial to
Park and Open Space that was approved several years ago when the Gateway sports complex
was created. The change was approved at that time but was never shown on the Gateway
Refinement Plan. The remaining 26 acres is comprised of "dozens of small changes, the majority
of which correct the land use designation to reflect the existing zoning or which reflects a change
to fit the context of the neighborhood or reality on the ground." The affected lands have not been
analyzed for constraints, which could reduce the affected buildable acreage further.
Concerns have been raised that resolving these conflicts, and, possibly, meeting other
requirements incident to establishment of the city's new UGB, will be made more difficult by the
recent decision of the Court of Appeals in Willamette Oaks, LLC v City of Eugene, 232 Or App
29 (Nov. 18, 2009) may require the city to perform a fresh "significant impact analysis" under
Attachment 2-13
the LCDC's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) for every 2030 Refinement Plan change to
existing plan diagrams and zoning maps. This memo addresses these concerns in general terms.
As to the 2030 Refinement Plan generally, it is my opinion that (a) the new Court of Appeals
decision should generally require the city to address only the "first stage" of the Transportation
Rule and (b) the fact that the 2030 plan largely codifies and relies upon existing acknowledged
comprehensive plan elements will greatly simplify that step.
As to the plan-zone conflicts, the recent decision will require only a "batched" first-stage
analysis to most, if not all of the 300 that are proposed. All conflicts that are resolved in a
manner that is consistent with the Metro Plan Diagram or any acknowledged amendment to or
refinement of that diagram require only a first-stage analysis under the Mason rule discussed
below. Conflicts that are resolved in a manner that is clearly inconsistent with the current
acknowledged plan designation should probably be removed from the "now" list unless they are
simply "codifications" of previous post-acknowledgement plan amendments during which the
TPR was or should have been applied.
The concern arises because Willamette Oaks holds that local governments may not defer
application of Section 60 of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) when
amending a comprehensive plan or implementing regulation. In so holding, the Court of Appeals
indirectly overruled a 2004 Land Use Board of Appeals decision, Citizens for Protection of
Neighborhoods v. City of Salem and Sustainable Fairview, 47 Or LUBA 111 (2004)(Sustainable
Fairview).
In Sustainable Fairview, LUBA allowed deferral if the record showed that full compliance with
the TPR's substantive and procedural requirements would be required before any additional
development authorized by the subject plan or zone change could take place.
Fortunately, compliance with Section 60 of the TPR is not difficult to demonstrate for lands
inside the currently-acknowledged urban growth boundary. In addition the TPR grants a specific
exception for lands added to that boundary if the local government keeps those lands in an
appropriate holding zone pending application of the TPR and other necessary planning steps.
Inside the current UGB, with few if any exceptions, the 2030 Plan simply implements existing
acknowledged comprehensive plan designations that were in place when the region's
acknowledged Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) was adopted. Refinement plan and zoning
map designations interpreting and implementing those designations do not cause "significant
impacts" within the meaning of the rule.
Section 60 is a two-stage regulation. The first stage is a determination whether a plan or zoning
amendment will "significantly affect" a transportation facility. The second stage is the
identification and implementation of one or more different kinds of "mitigation" measures to
prevent the identified significant impacts or to render them no longer significant.
The applicant in Willamette Oaks skipped the first stage and sought deferral of both stages,
relying on Sustainable Fairview. The court said the applicant couldn't do that. It did not,
however, say there was anything wrong with other LUBA and court decisions about what is
required for the first stage in different circumstances.
Attachment 2-14
For example, LUBA has determined that plan and zoning amendments do not have significant
impacts under Section 60 to the extent that those amendments were in place and therefore
necessarily assumed by acknowledged Transportation Systems Plans.
The leading case on this issue is Mason v. City of Corvallis, 49 Or LUBA 199 (2005). In Mason, the
subject decision rezoned land from low-density rural to urban low-density-residential (LDR)
densities allowed under a city comprehensive plan designation that had been assumed in the city's
acknowledged TSP. LUBA found that
"[I]t was appropriate for the city to compare traffic impacts based on the . . . LDR plan
designation, not the county UR zone. The general purpose of OAR 660-12-0060 is to ensure
that allowed uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity and performance
standards of transportation facilities. If the applicable TSP assumes greater development
density for a particular property than allowed under the pre-amendment zoning district, it
seems more consistent with the purpose of OAR 661-010-0060 to compare development
density (and hence traffic impacts) actually assumed by the TSP with the amended zoning
rather than the preamendment zoning." 49 Or LUBA at 218.
In contrast, a local government that does not have an acknowledged TSP or can't show consistency
with plan designations previously adopted in compliance with the TPR has to make a fresh
significant impact analysis. See Just v. City of Lebanon, 49 Or LUBA 181 (2005).
In short, elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan that reflect, interpret, or implement comprehensive
plan designations and other land use measures assumed by TransPlan do not have significant
impacts within the meaning of Section 60 of the TPR.
The same is true of elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan that incorporate or otherwise reflect other
post-acknowledgment plan or zoning amendment decisions that have become final and no longer
subject to appeal. Those decisions are deemed "acknowledged" by operation of law and are
presumed to have been made in full compliance with the LCDC's transportation goal and
interpretive rule. See Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 139 Or App 39, 911 P2d 350,
rev. den. 323 Or 136 (1996). Examples reflected in the draft 2030 Plan include post-acknowledgment
amendments relating to Riverbend, the Sports Complex, and North Gateway.
This reasoning also maintains consistency between the TPR and potentially conflicting requirements
of state land use statutes restricting collateral attacks on acknowledged plans and requiring that
urban lands inventoried for needed housing and "competitive" industrial land supplies be rezoned
and made available without undue regulatory burdens when needed during a planning period.
If the TPR is to remain fully applicable to future rezonings of land inventoried for "needed housing,"
it raises particularly serious--and not easily resolved--issues as to whether affected lands can remain
in the buildable lands inventory. See Bill Kloos letter and Gloria Gardner responses.
See, for example: "competitive land supply" requirements of Goal 9 and Goal 9 Rule ; definitions of
"buildable" and "available" in Goal 10 Housing Rule; 20-year residential land supply requirements
of ORS 197.296; regulatory constraint statute at ORS 197.296(4), requiring cities over 25,000 to
take local, state, and federal regulatory constraints into consideration in determining whether or not
to include otherwise available lands in residential lands inventories; ORS 197.831, requiring local
governments to demonstrate that ordinances required to contain clear and objective standards for
Attachment 2-15
permits involving "needed housing" under ORS 197.307 and 227.175 are capable of being imposed
only in a clear and objective manner.”
2/17/10 Michael A. Kelly, 86965 Mahogany Drive, Springfield, OR 97478, Randall S. Hledik, Director of
General Services, Wildish Land Co. PO box 7428 Eugene, OR 97401
Challenges conclusion of the Residential Lands Study that no additional land is needed for the
next 20 years; believes new jobs created in the west and new housing created in the east is not
efficient and does not provide choice or promote smart growth principles;
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
Although no decisions have been made, Land Use Concept 3 map does identify land adjacent to 52nd and
Highbanks for consideration as a potential expansion area for employment purposes.
2/17/10 Cosette Rees, Chair, Springfield Chamber Economic Development Committee, 101 South A
Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Is concerned the City is not proposing to add any residential land; believes the population forecast
is artificially low; supports proposals to increase residential density; affordable housing cannot be
developed in the Thurston hills and therefore will occur in other jurisdictions; Residential Land
Study assumptions that conclude no UGB expansion is needed are flawed.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
2/17/10 Richard M. Satre, Satre Associates, PC, 101 East Broadway, Suite 480, Eugene, OR 97401
Density assumption of 7.9 dwelling units per acre is too high; infill and sloped ground is not
conducive to affordable housing; market place wants more than just hillside housing or east
Springfield location; real choice will be provided by outlying communities of Veneta, Creswell,
Harrisburg and Lowell; population forecast is too conservative; the plan lacks vision.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
3/10/10 Cynthia Pappas, 1342 ½ 66th Street, Springfield, OR 97478
Disagrees with UGB expansion in Area 3 of Land Use Concept 3 map because of the frequent
flooding; believes emphasis should be placed on redevelopment in Glenwood and Downtown;
consolidation of parcels along east Main Street to create larger employment sites; poor public
Attachment 2-16
policy to place future in floodplain development; letter included an air photo of Area 3 during the
1996 flood.
Response:
Area 3 on Land Use Concept 3 map is identified as having the following opportunities:
Transportation: Potential access to Hwy 126 and High Banks Road; ODOT in planning stages for
improvements at 52nd Street and Main Street, which may make planning for additional capacity easier.
Characteristics: Sites 5+ acres; Type of street access; Slopes less than 15%; Surrounding uses are compatible
with industrial, office, retail, and other service uses.
Other: Potentially a good location for industrial development.
And the following constraints:
Wastewater: May require a pump station for some areas – mostly gravity flow
Transportation: ODOT in planning stages for improvements at 52nd Street and Main Street but UGB
expansion would require additional improvements beyond what is currently under consideration.
Stormwater: Presence of wetlands, riparian areas and natural resources areas. Must maintain natural drainage
system in Cedar Creek.
Other: Some floodplain / floodway FEMA is re-mapping the floodplain in this area, with results due in late
January 2009.
Stakeholder comments: Cedar Creek receives stormwater for parts at UGB. May be at capacity for
stormwater. Concern about development potential in the floodplain; concern that the floodplain shown on the maps is
inaccurate because the 1996 flood covered more area than shown SUB has wells in this area, which may restrict
development.
3/10/10 George Grier, 1342 ½ 66th Street, Springfield, OR 97478
Springfield is asking you to bring an additional 640 acres of land into its UGB for
employment growth. Both the nature and the scope of this request are unnecessary and
ill-advised for several reasons:
1. The predictions for employment growth are inaccurate and overstate the anticipated
job growth for the next 20 years.
2. The number of large sites needed is overstated and not supported by the EOA.
3. The specific sites needed, particularly large industrial sites, is unjustified.
4. Many “Targeted Growth” sectors are unlikely to locate at the identified expansion
locations which are at the urban fringe and within the floodplain.
5. Redevelopment potential is understated and overlooked.
6. Costs to serve the identified expansion areas are disproportionate to the number of
jobs created at these sites.
7. Given the unfunded infrastructure requirements Springfield faces within its existing
UGB, it is extremely difficult to visualize when, or even if, funding will be available to
service new areas outside the present UGB.
Response:
The following response was prepared by ECONorthwest (Attachment B), the City’s primary
consultant providing assistance on the requirements of Goal 9 Economy, Goal 10 Housing and
Goal 14 Urbanization. This response is applicable to the comments provided by Mr. Grier, Ms.
Nelson, Mr. Emmons and Mr. Bowerman with respect to the correlation between the findings,
Attachment 2-17
conclusions and recommendations of the EOA and proposals to expand the UGB for purposes
of commercial and industrial land needs:
“On January 19, 2010, the Springfield City Council passed a resolution to adopt the draft Springfield
Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) as the guiding document to support the Goal 9 element of the
Springfield 2030 Plan and comply with the provisions of OAR 660-009. Through the hearings process,
the City received comments from the public on a range of issues. This memorandum addresses comments
from George Grier and 1000 Friends of Oregon about the connection between the employment forecast
and the site needs analysis.
One of the key issues raised in the comments relates to the methods the EOA uses to estimate land need.
Springfield received a number of specific comments that relate to the employment forecast and
employment densities (as expressed in employees per acre) and how those figures do not support the
conclusions of the EOA. The fact is that the EOA does not use employment density as a part of the site
needs analysis. The employment forecast is only tangentially used. The remainder of this memorandum
describes (1) ECO’s interpretation of the Goal 9 requirements, and (2) how ECO used that interpretation
to develop the site needs analysis.
What Goal 9 Requires
At the broadest level, Goal 9 and its related Administrative Rules (OAR 660-009) states the following
intent:
“The intent of the Land Conservation and Development Commission is to provide an
adequate land supply for economic development and employment growth in Oregon.” OAR
660-009-0000
Goal 9 requires cities to state objectives for economic development (OAR 660-009-0020(1)(a)) and to
identify the characteristics of sites needed to accommodate industrial and other employment uses to
implement the economic development objectives (OAR 660-009-0025(1)).
Moreover, Goal 9 requires cities to conduct an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) as defined by
OAR 660-009-0015. The emphasis here is on economic opportunity. The Rule is flexible enough to
recognize that simple linear analysis (for example new employees divided by employees per acre equals
needed acres) is an inadequate approach to providing an adequate land supply for economic
development and employment growth (the stated intent of Goal 9). A key working component of an EOA
is found in OAR 660-009-0015(2) Identification of Required Site Types:
The economic opportunities analysis must identify the number of sites by type reasonably
expected to be needed to accommodate the expected employment growth based on the site
characteristics typical of expected uses. Cities and counties are encouraged to examine
existing firms in the planning area to identify the types of sites that may be needed for
expansion. Industrial or other employment uses with compatible site characteristics may be
grouped together into common site categories.
This language has three operational aspects: “sites by type…needed;” “employment growth;” and “site
characteristics.” The language does not specifically address or require a particular methodology, but
does suggest an examination for firms in the area to identify types of sites that may be needed for
expansion.
Related to the site analysis requirement of OAR 660-009-0015(2) is the OAR 660-009-0015(4)
Assessment of Community Economic Development Potential requirement:
“The economic opportunities analysis must estimate the types and amounts of industrial and
other employment uses likely to occur in the planning area. The estimate must be based on
information generated in response to sections (1) to (3) of this rule and must consider the
planning area's economic advantages and disadvantages.”
Attachment 2-18
Section 1 is a review of national, state, regional, county and local trends; and Section 3 is an inventory of
industrial and other employment lands. In short, the key passage here is must estimate the types and
amounts of industrial and other employment uses likely to occur in the planning area. The requirement is
to base this on the information gathered in sections 1 and 3 or on the trend analysis and buildable land
inventory. There is no requirement the estimate be based on an employment forecast.
This then leads to the more specific land designation requirements articulated in OAR 660-009-0025.
Subsection (1) addresses Identification of Needed Sites
“The plan must identify the approximate number, acreage and site characteristics of sites
needed to accommodate industrial and other employment uses to implement plan policies.
Plans do not need to provide a different type of site for each industrial or other employment
use. Compatible uses with similar site characteristics may be combined into broad site
categories. Several broad site categories will provide for industrial and other employment
uses likely to occur in most planning areas. Cities and counties may also designate mixed-use
zones to meet multiple needs in a given location.”
This subsection includes two key requirements: (1) the identification of the approximate number, acreage
and site characteristics of sites, and (2) compatible uses with similar site characteristics may be
combined into broad site categories.
This is precisely what the Springfield EOA does. It uses lot size and locational attributes (e.g., proximity
to transportation, etc.) as threshold criteria. The basic method used in the EOA is:
Local Economic Development Objectives Æ Target Industries Æ Characteristics of
Needed Sites Æ Comparison with Inventory = Number of Needed Sites
Or in more detail: the stated local economic development objectives as informed by the trend analysis
leads to identification of target industries. Target industries have specific site requirements; those site
requirements are compared with sites with similar characteristics in the buildable lands inventory. The
comparison leads to a conclusion of whether the City has an adequate land supply for economic
development and employment growth as stated in OAR 660-009-0000.
The key point of the preceding discussion is that the site needs analysis is on a site basis and not on an
acreage basis. This is consistent with Goal 9 which recognizes that not all acres have the same attributes
and that some attributes are more important to certain industries than others.
The remainder of this memorandum provides a detailed explanation of how ECO conducted the site
analysis.
How Springfield Approached the Goal 9 Requirements
Consistent with the Goal 9 requirements, ECO used a site-based approach to projecting Springfield’s
employment land need. This approach considers historical development patterns on commercial and
industrial lands, the forecast of future employment growth, and Springfield’s vision and aspirations for
economic development, as articulated in the City’s economic development objectives. This approach is
not a demand-based approach, which projects employment land need based predominantly on the
forecast of employment growth, using historical employment densities (e.g., the number of employees per
acre) to estimate future commercial and industrial land demand. Rather, it is a site-based approach as
described in the previous section.
The following steps describe the approach that ECO used to develop the estimate of employment site and
land needs presented in Table 5-4 of the EOA:
1. Articulate the City’s economic development objectives. At the beginning of the project (in June
2008), ECO met with the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss the City’s
economic development objectives. The direction to ECO and Staff was: (1) develop a
reasonable and simple analysis of employment land sufficiency; (2) economic development
policies should provide flexibility for future land uses; (3) consider development costs and
Attachment 2-19
capitalize on existing economic opportunities; (4) focus on the project outcomes; and (5)
provide enough land to meet employment land needs for the next 20-years.
ECO and City staff used this direction as the guiding principles for developing the Economic
Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies articulated in the memorandum dated
October 15, 2008. The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Stakeholder Committee
provided input on the economic development objectives suggested by decision makers and
suggested implementation strategies for each objective. Other sources of input on the
objectives were public input from community workshops and the City’s draft Economic
Development Plan.
2. Conduct an economic opportunities analysis consistent with OAR 660-009-0015. ECO
assessed Springfield’s economic opportunities based on a review of national, state, regional,
county, and local trends, as well as assessed economic development potential based on
Springfield’s comparative advantages. The results of this analysis are presented in the EOA in
Chapter 3, Appendix A. and Appendix B.
3. Identify potential growth industries. Based on the City’s economic development objectives, the
analysis in the economic opportunities analysis in the previous step, and Springfield’s business
clusters, ECO identified potential growth industries. These are industries that have growth
potential in Springfield based on the City’s comparative advantages and economic and
employment trends that affect economic development throughout the Southern Willamette
Valley and the entire State. The identification of potential growth industries also takes the
City’s aspirations for economic development (identified in the Economic Development
Objectives) into consideration. The list of potential growth industries is not meant to be an
exhaustive list of all possible growth industries but a list of the types of industries that are
likely to locate in Springfield or that the City aspires to grow or attract.
4. Forecast employment growth. ECO developed a forecast of employment growth in Springfield
as required by Goals 9 and 14. The employment forecast is based on an estimate of total
employment in Springfield. The rate of employment growth used in the employment forecast is
based on the Oregon Employment Department’s forecast for employment growth in Lane
County (employment Region 5), as allowed by the safe harbor described in OAR 660-024-0040
(8) (a) (A). The end result of the employment forecast is an allocation of employment growth
into industrial and commercial building types.
5. Identify employment site needs. OAR 660-009-0015(2) requires the EOA identify the number
of sites, by type, reasonably expected to be needed for the 20-year planning period. ECO based
the analysis of employment site and land needs on the following considerations:
• Factors that affect firms’ locational decisions. ECO considered Springfield’s
opportunities and challenges for each of these factors, summarized in Table C-4 of
the EOA.
• Common site requirements. Firms typically have similar land needs, such as need for
relatively flat sites with urban services. Availability of these characteristics on
employment sites in Springfield is summarized in Table C-6 of the EOA. Table C-5
provides examples of lot sizes typically needed for firms in selected industries. The
purpose of Table C-5 is to illustrate that different types of industries need different
sized sites and to provide some examples of these sites.
• Forecast of employment growth. The employment forecast provides one way to gauge
land needs based on historical development patterns. ECO developed a forecast of
employment growth (Step 4). Historical development patterns and ECO’s past
experience with similar projects suggest that some employment will not require new
land. ECO estimated that 16% of employment would locate of land not designated for
employment uses (e.g., home occupations) and 10% of new employment would be
Attachment 2-20
accommodated in existing industrial built space. ECO estimated that more than
10,000 employees would require new land over the planning period.
• Historical employment development patterns. ECO considered the need for land
based on the forecast of employment growth (the approximately 10,000 employees
mentioned above) and historical employment development patterns, presented in
Table C-10. The range of needed sites presented in Table C-10 shows the number of
sites needed based on historical employment patterns. These patterns are based on:
(1) the distribution of employees by building type (e.g., general industrial or office)
and site size in 2006 (shown in Table C-8); (2) the assumed distribution of the
approximately 10,000 new employees (shown in Table C-9) based the historical
distribution of employees (Table C-8); and the average firm size in 2006.
Springfield’s economic development aspirations. Goal 9 allows cities to consider
their economic development aspirations when forecasting the site and land needs.
Springfield’s elected and appointed officials directed ECO and Staff to provide an
economic development framework with flexibility to provide opportunities for
economic development for both small employers and major employers who want to
expand or locate in Springfield. These objectives are described in the Economic
Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies memorandum. The range of
needed sites presented in Table C-10 of the EOA takes Springfield’s economic
development aspirations into account.
• Estimate needed sites. While Table C-10 in the EOA presents a range of needed sites,
Springfield is required to present a number of needed sites by site size. This estimate
of presented in the EOA in Table C-11 and Table 4-4. It takes into account the
minimum number of needed sites based on historical development patterns and
Springfield’s aspirations for economic development.2
6. Inventory suitable buildable employment land. OAR 660-009-0012(3) requires cities to
inventory industrial and other employment lands, to identify vacant and developed lands and
account for development constraints. Table 2-7 in the EOA summarizes Springfield’s vacant
suitable land by plan designation and Table 2-8 summarizes vacant suitable land by plan
designation and site size.
The EOA goes a step further and identifies land with redevelopment potential in Springfield.
Redevelopment potential can be thought of as a continuum—from more redevelopment
potential to less redevelopment potential. The EOA does not attempt to quantify the amount of
land that will redevelop but estimates potential for redevelopment, focusing on redevelopment
potential in Downtown Springfield and Glenwood. The reason that ECO presented the analysis
of redevelopment is that one of the City Council’s priorities is facilitating redevelopment in
Downtown and Glenwood, as described in the Economic Development Objectives and
Implementation Strategies memorandum.
7. Compare the demand for with the supply of employment sites and land. Table 5-1 presents a
comparison of vacant and potentially redevelopable buildable sites with the estimate of needed
sites (Table 4-4). Table 5-1 concludes that Springfield has a deficit of commercial and mixed
use sites between 1 acre and 50 acres in size and industrial sites larger than 20 acres. ECO
used an estimate of the average size of needed sites in Springfield (Table 5-2) to convert from
2 The approach used to estimate needed sites uses a site-based approach, rather than a demand-based approach,
which projects employment land need based predominantly on the forecast of employment growth, using
historical employment densities (e.g., the number of employees per acre) to estimate future commercial and
industrial land demand. The site-based approach considers the forecast for employment growth and historical
employment demand patterns but also considers the City’s economic development policies and aspirations.
Attachment 2-21
the number of needed sites (Table 5-1) to employment land needs (Table 5-4). The estimate of
employment land needs makes the following assumptions about needed sites:
• Need for sites smaller than 5 acres will be accommodated through redevelopment.
One of the City’s economic development strategies is to encourage redevelopment,
especially in Downtown and Glenwood—as well as any other “node” as defined
through the TransPlan process. Table 5-1 shows that Springfield concludes that 187
industrial sites and 340 commercial and mixed use sites would redevelop to address
land needs over the 20-year period. In addition to this assumption about
redevelopment, Springfield concludes that all land needs on sites smaller than five
acres would be accommodated through redevelopment. The City had a deficit of 23
commercial and mixed use sites smaller than five acres, which would require 71
acres of land. Table 5-4 shows no need for vacant land to accommodate demand for
sites smaller than 5 acres.
• The average size of large sites. The size of larger sites (those over 5 acres) includes a
wide range of site sizes. A prior version of the EOA presented two possible sizes for
these larger sites, intended to both illustrate the fact that there is a wide range of
potential site sizes and to give policymakers an option for choosing the preferred site
size to meet the City’s economic development objectives and aspirations.3 The size of
sites in the current version of the EOA reflects direction from decision makers on
their preference for site size to meet the City’s economic development objectives and
aspirations.
Additional Response Comments from Al Johnson (Attachment C)
II. Site needs analysis and jobs per acre
This section provides some additional background on the issue addressed in the following
comment and response in ECONW's supplemental memo: "Comment: The EOA assumes that
jobs per acre density will be roughly half of that currently seen in Springfield."
"ECONW Response: The EOA makes no use of jobs per acre density assumptions
(commonly called employees per acre) in any part of the analysis. This comment is derived
from base year employment data, the building land inventory, and the site needs analysis.
The consultants did not make this comparison in the report, because employment exists in
many different plan designations in Springfield (see Table A-9, page 96) and the
confidentiality limitations of the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage data."
"A similar issue exists in calculating “derived” jobs per acre assumptions for the 2030
forecast. In short, any jobs per acre density analysis is fundamentally flawed because of the
source data and how employment will distribute itself in the future among plan
designations. Such an analysis is not required by Goal 9 and was not conducted by the
consultants. The EOA does comply with the Goal 9 Administrative Rule in that it identifies
site needs based on the target industries identified in the City’s economic development
strategy." The “site-needs” analysis described by ECONW in the above comments and detailed
in the EOA is a permissible method of determining Goal 9 land needs and is consistent with
available guidance from DLCD and the courts.
3 This version of the EOA was from November 2008 and noted that the final EOA would present one estimate of
land need, rather than a range of land need.
Attachment 2-22
It is expected that additional guidance will be provided before final adoption of the 2030 Plan.
An appeal of LCDC‟s 2007 approval of Woodburn’s 2006 UGB expansion, involving similar
issues, is pending at the Court of Appeals. Pending the Court’s decision in the Woodburn appeal
(now in its third year because appeals of LCDC decisions are not on the same expedited
schedule as appeals of LUBA decisions), the city is relying on LCDC’s decision and the state's
brief in that case.
The Attorney General's brief defending LCDC's Woodburn UGB decision explains that
Woodburn properly “determined its industrial land need based on a 'site-needs' approach to
attract targeted industries” to meet identified needs. LCDC brief at p. 16 The brief points out
that “A site-needs analysis focuses on the type of sites the industries require, not the amount of
area that employees have been shown to use. ” and that a local government “is not required” by
state land use statutes, goals, or rules “to use the medium growth rate or a strict employee-per-
acre methodology based on the population projection.” LCDC brief at pp 16, 20. In fact, the
brief states, “The city was not required by statute, goal, or rule to prepare a job growth
projection.” LCDC brief at p. 22. Therefore, even though it did prepare a job growth project,
the City of Woodburn “was not required to tie its 20-year land need to that job growth
projection.” LCDC Brief at p. 22.
III. Land Assembly, Goal Nine, and Goal 14
This section provides some additional background on the issue addressed in the following
comment and response in ECONW's supplemental memo: "Comment: The EOA doesn't account
for the possibility of smaller parcels being assembled into larger sites."
"ECONW Response: This issue was discussed by the Stakeholder Committee who
recommended that parcelization be considered a constraint consistent with the
definition of “Development Constraints” in OAR 660-009-0010(2): "'Development
Constraints" means factors that temporarily or permanently limit or prevent the use of land for
economic development. Development constraints include, but are not limited to, wetlands,
environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat, environmental contamination, slope,
topography, cultural and archeological resources, infrastructure deficiencies, parcel
fragmentation, or natural hazard areas.'" [emphasis added]
The implication that fragmentation is not a significant constraint runs counter to the policy and
experience reflected in the Goal Nine Rule's requirement that large parcels meeting special site
needs identified in a local government's EOA must be specifically "identified" and protected
from fragmentation to preserve their availability and desirability as large sites. OAR 660-09-
0025(8)(b) provides that
"Policies and land use regulations for these uses must
"(a) Identify sites suitable for the proposed use; and
"(b) Protect sites suitable for the proposed use by limiting land divisions . . ."
General assumptions that a certain percentage of small parcels will aggregate does not "identify
sites suitable for the proposed use." Relying on small parcels to aggregate does not protect sites
suitable by limiting land divisions because it relies on parcels that it's too late to protect.
Consistent with the rule, staff has pointed out that
Attachment 2-23
"The city currently has no basis for assuming that . . . the need for large employment sites
can be accommodated through assembly of small land parcels. Such assumptions would
not take into account existing life cycle value of buildings, on-site compatibility of new
uses with existing uses, or the ability of all affected parties to be able to satisfy site needs
at these locations." 1/19/2010 staff memo to Planning Commission, Rec. A-296.
Moreover, the city's analysis allocates small parcels elsewhere by assuming that Springfield will
be able to meet its projected employment land needs for sites five acres and smaller entirely on
its current supply and therefore does not need to add land to the current UGB for such sites.
That
assumption is only possible because it is coupled with optimistic assumptions about the potential
for redevelopment and infill on those lands: "Springfield assumes that all land needs on sites
smaller than five acres would be accommodated through redevelopment." Rec. A-297
As background, here is some key language relevant to the relationship between the Goal 9 and
Goal 14 interpretive rules:
OAR 660-024-0040(5) provides that
"(5) Except for a metropolitan service district described in ORS 197.015(13), the
determination of 20-year employment land need for an urban area must comply
with applicable requirements of Goal 9 and OAR chapter 660, division 9, and must
include a determination of the need for a short-term supply of land for employment
uses consistent with OAR 660-009-0025." (Emphasis added)
OAR 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency, provides in relevant part that
"(1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land
inside the UGB to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to
accommodate 20-year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. For residential land, the
buildable land inventory must include vacant and redevelopable land, and be conducted
in accordance with OAR 660-007-0045 or 660-008-0010, whichever is applicable, and
ORS 197.296 for local governments subject to that statute.
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." (Emphasis added)
"(4) If the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB
is inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20-year needs determined under OAR 660-
024-0040, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency,
either by increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by
expanding the UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable.
Prior to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated
needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. . . . "
OAR 660-024-0010(8) provides that:
Attachment 2-24
“'Suitable vacant and developed land' describes land for employment opportunities, and
has the same meaning as provided in OAR 660-009-0005 section (1) for 'developed land,'
section (12) for 'suitable,' and section (14) for 'vacant land.' LCDC’s 2009 amendments
to the Goal 14/UGB rule include new cross-references to the Goal 9/Economic
Development rule. DLCD explained the change as follows:
“Department staff noticed that division 24 (UGB rule) does not include a
definition of „suitable vacant and developed land,” a term that is used in OAR
660-024-0050(1) concerning employment and inventories, based on definitions in
the Goal 9 rules. Therefore, staff proposes a definition in OAR 660-024-0010(8)
that refers to definitions in Goal 9 rules.” 3/11-13/2009 LCDC Agenda Item 4
staff report, page 8.
3/11/10 Ed Moore, South Willamette Valley Regional Representative, Department of Land
Conservation and Development, 644 A Street, Springfield, OR 97477
The Department believes the factual basis for adopting a new UGB for each of the cities can
be accomplished through the adoption of a refinement plan and concurrent amendment of the
Metro Plan. In the case of Springfield adopting the 2030 Plan as a refinement to the Metro
Plan and the concurrent amendment of the Metro Plan, based upon the language in ORS
197.304, we believe the adoption of Springfield’s 2030 Plan and concurrent amendment of
the Metro Plan, including a map of Springfield’s new UGB, appears to only require action by
Springfield and Lane County. Once the 2030 Plan and map is adopted and acknowledged,
the Springfield UGB will be the controlling UGB for planning purposes for the Springfield
jurisdictional area as described in the Metro Plan.
At present it appears that Springfield will be adopting its jurisdictional UGB ahead of
Eugene. When Springfield takes this action, we believe Eugene can continue to rely on the
Metro Plan and the Metro UGB for their jurisdictional area west of I-5 Highway until they
adopt their own UGB separate and apart from Springfield.
In the case of Springfield and Eugene, we have interpreted this provision (ORS 197.626 and
OAR 660-024-0080) to mean that if either city, separately and apart from the other,
establishes a new jurisdictional UGB that adds more than 50 acres to the existing Metro UGB
within its jurisdictional area, then that UGB must be submitted to the Commission in the
manner provided for periodic review. If, on the other hand, either city establishes a new
jurisdictional UGB that adds no land or adds less than 50 acres to the existing Metro UGB for
its jurisdictional area, then that UGB will be reviewed using the standard post-
acknowledgment plan amendment process.
Additional analysis needed:
The department needs additional information to be able to determine compliance of the 2030
Plan with applicable Statewide Planning Program goals, statutes and administrative rules.
Chapter 2 – Urbanization, Urban Holding Areas (UHA) Interim Plan Designations
(Attachment 1, page 3)
Attachment 2-25
To ensure that the application of the E-UHA plan designation will be effective in protecting
the employment land being brought into the UGB to meet Springfield’s need for large
suitable sites, the E-UHA needs to include a provision that prevents any division of land
under this designation, even if the proposal would meet the minimum parcel size within the
underlying county zoning district. The R-UHA designation needs a minimum parcel size of
10 acres.
Response:
In the event the Planning Commissions forward a recommendation to the JEO that includes a
UGB expansion such a recommendation should be accompanied by additional language in
the E-UHA designation prohibiting the creation of lots or parcels smaller than 10 acres.
Chapter 2 – Urbanization, Nodal Development Strategy (Attachment 1, page 4)
The 2030 Plan needs to do more to clearly document that provisions for future housing and
employment land are consistent with achieving these targets (23% of new housing and 45%
of new employment over the planning period to be accommodated within designated nodes).
We recommend that the city present this in the form of a table that provides a node-by-node
estimate of the new housing units and number of employees that the city’s adopted planning
actions will accommodate. This should include, for example, converting general information
about planned building space (i.e. planned or expected square feet of office or retail
development) into an estimate of the number of employees that the city expects will be
accommodated.
Response:
The region has committed to a figure of 46% of total new jobs created between 2001 and 2015
being located in nodes. The relevance of this commitment is two fold: 1) it applies to jobs
created between 2001 and 2015 (the last year that nodal development is a required land use
model); and 2) the type of use appropriately located in a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use
environment.
Regarding this first qualification, the City is currently preparing a new transportation system
plan that will be in effect within Springfield’s new UGB, and co-producing a new regional
transportation system plan that will be in effect within the MPO boundary, including the City of
Coburg. Both of these plans will replace TransPlan with respect to local transportation planning
decisions. Until these plan are completed and acknowledged by the state we cannot predict
whether or not nodal development will be retained as a feature of either plan. Until this
determination is final (perhaps in 2011 or 2012) the mandate does not go beyond 2015. The
upshot of this is that employment allocation to nodes is only applicable through 2015, not the
out year of 2030 used in the EOA.
The second aspect of this question involves the uses described in the EOA as target uses with
particular site needs. The conclusion of the EOA is that “Springfield has a deficiency of six
industrial sites on 450 acres and eleven commercial and mixed-use sites on about 190 acres that
cannot be accommodated within the existing UGB over the 2010 to 2030 period.” This
conclusion, however, is based on the following adopted economic development strategies: “One
of the City’s economic development strategies is to encourage redevelopment, especially in
Downtown and Glenwood [designated nodes]. Table 5-1 shows that Springfield concludes that
187 industrial sites and 340 commercial and mixed use sites would redevelop to address land
needs over the 20-year period. In addition to this assumption about redevelopment, Springfield
Attachment 2-26
concludes that all land needs on sites smaller than five acres would be accommodated through
redevelopment” even though the site needs analysis determined the city had a deficiency of “33
commercial and mixed-use sites smaller than five acres, which would require 71 acres of land.
The EOA projects a need for 450 acres that would be comprised of sites 20 acres and larger for
uses that “should not abut urban residential, school or park uses.” Such developments are
inconsistent with the principle purpose of Nodal Development as described in TransPlan: “The
nodes will be pedestrian-friendly environments with a mix of land uses, including public open
spaces that are pedestrian-, tansit-, and bicycle-oriented. Nodal will have commercial cores that
contain a compatible mix of retail, office, employment, and civic uses. The amount and types of
commercial and civic uses in the cores should be consistent with the type of nodal development
center. The core should be adjacent to a frequently serviced transit stop. Nodal development
centers will include a mix of housing types that achieve at least an average density that is within
the medium-density range for residential uses.”
Chapter 4 – Residential Land and Housing Element (Attachment 1, Page 11)
We commented on the fact that the “12/09 RLHNA concludes that Springfield has a surplus
of 59 residential acres,” and that the city could “accommodate the estimated HDR deficit of
34 acres” by rezoning a portion of “the surplus 72 LDR acres and/or surplus 18 MDR acres
to HDR, so that Springfield’s new UGB would not require any additional land for its 20-year
residential land needs.”
You are correct that redesignating existing LDR zoned property to HDR is not Springfield’s
only option to remove the 20-year HDR deficit. Please consider other options, including, but
not limited to, those in ORS 197.296(9). Any action or actions for which the city can make
findings that demonstrate how the HDR deficit will be accommodated within the UGB are
appropriate. All of these options must be considered and analyzed before the city may
conclude that land must be added to the UGB to accommodate the 20-year HDR land need.
Response:
We agree with the Department’s assessment of our options regarding our response to the
deficit of HDR land in the inventory. The City is currently developing land use updates in
the Downtown and Glenwood refinement plan areas that include proposals to increase
permitted residential density to 100 units per acre and apply minimum density standards of
50 units per acre. These provisions would apply to up to 25-30 acres; if adopted by the City
Council these actions would exceed the defined HDR deficit.
3/14/10 Mia Nelson, Willamette Valley Advocate, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 220 East 11th Street,
Suite 5, Eugene, OR 97401
Concerns with this proposal are broken out into five categories:
I. APPARENT ERRORS AND OVERSIGHTS
II. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION
III. CALCULATION OF JOB GROWTH
IV. REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
V. LARGE SITES & JOB DENSITY
Attachment 2-27
Response:
The majority of this testimony focuses on the CIBL and EOA; answers to this testimony is
provided by the City’s consultants, ECONorthwest and Al Johnson (see pages 17-21). There is
additional testimony regarding the findings of the City’s Residential Lands and Housing Needs
Analysis (RHLNA) adopted by the City Council in December, 2009 and proposed for inclusion in
the 2030 Refinement Plan. Responses to these issues was provided to the City Council as part
of the record of the hearing that adopted the RHLNA; those responses are reprised here. (Also
see pages 17-25 of this memorandum for responses to CIBL, EOA and commercial/industrial
UGB expansion issues):
5) Failure to Consider Use of Constrained Land For Parks. The Residential Land
and Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA), which is one component of the Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan, wrongly assumes that constrained land has no parkland capacity.
Springfield has significant parklands located on constrained land, such as the 100-acre
natural park at the summit of Potato Hill. In its November 23, 2009 letter, Willamalane
stated that natural and linear parks "can be located largely on constrained land."
However, Springfield staff haven't changed this assumption because, according to staff,
they do not know how many acres of each type of park the city should plan for since
Willamalane's plan doesn't provide acreage totals by type. It appears that Willamalane
would need to provide more guidance to enable the RLHNA to be corrected to reflect
the true situation with constrained land. We request that Willamalane be asked to
provide a breakout of future park needs by type, and that Springfield staff then
use that information to correct the RLHNA. Alternatively, staff could be directed
to assume that the ratio of existing Willamalane natural and linear parks to total
existing Willamalane parks will continue in future years.
Response:
The City has a variety of strict development limitations that apply to sites that feature each of the
constraints identified by Ms. Nelson. This regulatory framework applies regardless of ownership or
proposed use; this is why these properties are categorized as constrained.
Willamalane Park and Recreation District provides a variety of park and recreation opportunities,
facilities and services. One component of these opportunities includes “Natural Areas, Linear Parks, and
Trails.” The park plan recognizes that other comparable park districts have a larger inventory of this
type of parkland, but even so, the plan does not include a quantitative standard applicable to need or
preferred service level (Ref. Table A-16, Appendix A, Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive
Plan). The Plan does indicate several proposed park sites of the “Natural-Area” category in the
southeast hills, including Mountain Gate and east of the cemetery; in Jasper-Natron and in Booth-Kelly.
All of these sites are within existing residential designations (Booth-Kelly is mixed use). The lack of a
standard defining the size of these potential park sites is further reflected by the District’s case-by-case
approach to the acquisition of this type of parkland as described in Chapter Four of the Plan:
“Collaborate with appropriate partners to pursue acquisition and development of natural areas
coordinated with and connecting to neighborhoods and other parks. “(potential Jasper-Natron
Natural-Area Park)
”Collaborate with appropriate partners to pursue acquisition and development of natural-area
parks as opportunities arise.” (potential Thurston Hills Natural-Area Park)
Attachment 2-28
“Work with the landowner(s) to develop a natural-area park in coordination with future
residential development.” (potential Mount Vernon Natural-Area Park)
Further, though the plan contemplates a network of connected parks in these areas, there is nothing in the
plan that suggests a property that is unsuitable for residential development is suitable for park
development. In any case, as long as the District does not have an adopted quantitative standard for this
type of parkland the City cannot assume that a specific percentage of these constrained sites will be used
for park use.
6) Failure to Consider Parkland Outside UGB. The RLHNA wrongly assumes that all
parkland must be inside the UGB, despite the fact that 30% of Willamalane's current
holdings are outside the UGB. Willamalane's service area is not coterminous with the
Springfield UGB, and the park needs of Springfield residents are partially met by
Willamalane's parklands located outside the UGB. It is reasonable to conclude that this
situation will continue in the future. We request that the RLHNA be revised to
assume that 30% of future park needs will be provided for outside the UGB,
continuing the historical trend.
Response:
With respect to the discrepancy between Willamalane’s current total park land of 680 acres, and Table
6.2 in the RLHNA showing 563 acres, we believe this may be a differentiation of undeveloped park land
(GP property, 125 acres); this makes the total 555 acres, not 563 acres. More to the point, however, is
the fact that 206 acres of Willamalane’s 680 acres (including the GP property) are outside the UGB. The
City’s jurisdiction does not extend beyond the UGB, therefore the City can’t account for any of this 206
acres of parkland being part of the residential inventory subsumed by parks. There are actually only 474
acres of parkland within the UGB and of this, 381 acres (80%) are designated Park and Open Space on
the Metro Plan diagram, not residential. This designation does not allow residential development
therefore it is not included in any assumptions about gross residential v. net residential acres.
This non-UGB parkland is the result of Willamalane Park ownership that preceded the adoption of the
UGB or resulted from post-UGB cooperative agreements transferring parks from Lane County because
the County could not afford to maintain these facilities. The proposition that land of any type outside the
UGB should be counted as inventory within the UGB contradicts the very foundation and purpose of the
Goals intended to protect and separate rural and urban uses. It makes no more sense to count
Willamalane’s parks outside the UGB than it does to count Lane County parks, or state or federal parks.
8) Exclusion of Land Over 25% Slope. The RLHNA assumes that all land over 25%
slope has no capacity for any use, not even parkland, despite Springfield's long practice
of siting both housing and natural parks on such land. Table 3-3 of the RLHNA shows
1,447 acres of buildable land, plus another 824 acres of "constrained" land that is
excluded from the inventory. The RLHNA does not indicate how many of these 824
acres were excluded solely due to slope, so it is impossible to understand the
ramifications of the underlying assumption that these sloped lands have no capacity.
We have been requesting this information for several months, and Springfield
staff has recently indicated that they will most likely be able to provide this data. We
request that the record be held open until April 20 to allow time for staff to
provide this information, and to give the public sufficient time to respond.
Attachment 2-29
Response:
1. Total area of >25% slope where it represents over half of any one parcel = 372.4 acres
2. Total area of parcels excluded based on having over half >25% Slope = 543.8 acres
9) RLHNA's Non-Residential Land Need. The RLHNA's assumed land need for
nonresidential uses such as schools, parks, roads, etc. is 74% of the net land needed
for housing, triple what the OAR 660-024-0040(10) safe harbor allows. Safe harbor
allowances are generally accepted as reasonable. Such a large increase beyond what
is generally accepted as reasonable warrants closer scrutiny. Springfield staff has said
that the requested land need is based on past statistics; however, these statistics are
not found in the RLHNA. We request that Springfield staff be asked to provide
statistics and corroborating data demonstrating that this is true.
Response:
We are not sure how the commenter arrived at the figure of 74% of the net land needed for
housing. The total buildable land available, which excludes constrained land but includes
vacant and partially vacant residential land, is 1447 acres; total vacant is 956. Table S-2 and 6-
4 in the RHLNA identify 463 acres as unavailable because it’s needed for parks, schools, right-
of-way, etc. 463 acres is 48% of 956 acres and 32% of 1,447 acres. As we mentioned in our
response to this testimony in December, 2009 the Metro Plan anticipates this proportional
relationship:
Residential
“This category is expressed in gross acre density ranges. Using gross acres, approximately 32
percent of the area is available for auxiliary uses, such as streets, elementary and junior high
schools, neighborhood parks, other public facilities, neighborhood commercial services, and
churches not actually shown on the Metro Plan Diagram. Such auxiliary uses shall be allowed
within residential designations (emphasis added) if compatible with refinement plans, zoning
ordinances, and other local controls for allowed uses in residential neighborhoods.” (Page II-G-
3)
11) Nodal Development. As pointed out by DLCD in its December 4, 2009 comments,
the EOA should explicitly explain how its projections regarding employment density and
site sizes match up with Springfield's commitment under TransPlan to locate an
increased percentage of new employment in nodal development zones. We request
that Springfield staff provide clarification as to how the proposal complies with
adopted nodal development strategies.
Response:
The region has committed to a figure of 46% of total new jobs created between 2001 and 2015 being
located in nodes. The relevance of this commitment is two fold: 1) it applies to jobs created between
2001 and 2015 (the last year that nodal development is a required land use model); and 2) the type of use
appropriately located in a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use environment.
Attachment 2-30
Regarding this first qualification, the City is currently preparing a new transportation system plan that
will be in effect within Springfield’s new UGB, and co-producing a new regional transportation system
plan that will be in effect within the MPO boundary, including the City of Coburg. Both of these plans
will replace TransPlan with respect to local transportation planning decisions. Until these plan are
completed and acknowledged by the state we cannot predict whether or not nodal development will be
retained as a feature of either plan. Until this determination is final (perhaps in 2011 or 2012) the
mandate does not go beyond 2015. The upshot of this is that employment allocation to nodes is only
applicable through 2015, not the out year of 2030 used in the EOA.
The second aspect of this question involves the uses described in the EOA as target uses with particular
site needs. The conclusion of the EOA is that “Springfield has a deficiency of six industrial sites on 450
acres and eleven commercial and mixed-use sites on about 190 acres that cannot be accommodated
within the existing UGB over the 2010 to 2030 period.” This conclusion, however, is based on the
following adopted economic development strategies: “One of the City’s economic development strategies
is to encourage redevelopment, especially in Downtown and Glenwood [designated nodes]. Table 5-1
shows that Springfield concludes that 187 industrial sites and 340 commercial and mixed use sites would
redevelop to address land needs over the 20-year period. In addition to this assumption about
redevelopment, Springfield concludes that all land needs on sites smaller than five acres would be
accommodated through redevelopment” even though the site needs analysis determined the city had a
deficiency of “33 commercial and mixed-use sites smaller than five acres, which would require 71 acres
of land.
The EOA projects a need for 450 acres that would be comprised of sites 20 acres and larger for uses that
“should not abut urban residential, school or park uses.” Such developments are inconsistent with the
principle purpose of Nodal Development as described in TransPlan: “The nodes will be pedestrian-
friendly environments with a mix of land uses, including public open spaces that are pedestrian-, tansit-,
and bicycle-oriented. Nodal will have commercial cores that contain a compatible mix of retail, office,
employment, and civic uses. The amount and types of commercial and civic uses in the cores should be
consistent with the type of nodal development center. The core should be adjacent to a frequently
serviced transit stop. Nodal development centers will include a mix of housing types that achieve at least
an average density that is within the medium-density range for residential uses.”
3/16/10 Richard M. Satre, Satre Associates, PC 101 East Broadway, Suite 480, Eugene, OR 97401
Suggests expanding UGB to include high value farm land that would continue to be farmed
until needed for urban uses in the future.
Response:
The City has conducted a residential lands and housing needs analysis and a commercial and
industrial buildable lands analysis; the Park District completed a 20-year park plan; and the School
District completed a 10-year facility plan; where these evaluations concluded existing inventories
within the UGB could not accommodate future growth over the planning period, they recommended
bringing land into the UGB for the purpose of providing needed urban development sites for these
activities, not for agricultural purposes. While the City is proposing an urban holding area as an
interim strategy to protect new UGB expansion sites for their intended use, these sites are identified
as future commercial and industrial development sites needed during the 20-year planning period.
Notwithstanding the congruity of this testimony and the City’s proposed holding areas, the
underlying purpose of a UGB expansion must comply with the applicable goal; Goal 3 Agriculture
Attachment 2-31
does not apply within the UGB; the City’s position on Goal 10 Housing is that there is sufficient
inventory within the UGB to accommodate growth during the 20-year planning period.
3/16/10 Robert Emmons, Land Watch Lane County, PO Box 5347, Eugene, OR 97405
Agrees with the positions found in testimony from Georg Grier and 1000 Friends of Oregon
that the City’s EOA is flawed; there are numerous sites within the UGB providing
redevelopment opportunities that are environmentally sustainable; that protect natural
resources and that anticipate impending issues such as peak oil, climate change and food
security.
Response:
See responses to testimony provided by George Grier and 1000 Friends of Oregon on pages 17-25 of
this memorandum.
3/16/10 Ken Schmidt, 605 Fair Oaks, Eugene, OR
Owns property at 4155 and 4181 E Street; the former is a single half-acre tax lot (TL 400)
zoned Heavy Industrial; the latter is comprised of two tax lots; TL 300 is .71 acres and zoned
Heavy Industrial; TL 500 is 3.70 acres and zoned Community Commercial; a single building
straddles TL’s 300 and 500. Requesting a zone change to Community Commercial for TL’s
300 and 400. Also submitted report of damaged foundation of new house in SE hills of
Springfield; contends that relying on hillsides as future inventory is risky and uncertain;
should at least consider some flat areas for residential development.
Response:
None of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan
designation of this property; follow-up corridor studies and updates to older refinement plans is proposed
as a means to address some of these plan/zone issues.
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not include any proposals to expand the UGB for residential purposes.
In December, 2009, the City Council accepted the final conclusions of the RLHNA that the City had
enough residential inventory to accommodate projected demand for housing for the 20-year planning
period.
3/16/10 Tom Bowerman, 33707 McKenzie View Drive, Eugene, OR
Agrees with and supports the comments submitted by 1000 Friends; believes that the City
should focus on redevelopment, better utilization of existing land; better fiscal management
of what we have before thinking about adding more maintenance costs through UGB
expansion; use the success of Downtown Corvallis as a model/example of what can happen
here.
Response:
Attachment 2-32
See responses to testimony provided by George Grier and 1000 Friends of Oregon on pages 17-25 of
this memorandum.
Additional written Testimony Entered into the Record between March 17th and March 26th.
3/22/10 Ken Schmidt, Lincoln Capital II
The letter requested rezoning of 4155 and 4181 E Street from Heavy Industrial to Community
Commercial; the letter included aerial photos and plat maps of the property.
Response:
None of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan
designation of this property; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram
amendment and corresponding zone change; follow-up corridor studies and updates to older refinement
plans is proposed as a means to address some of these plan/zone issues.
3/26/10 Brian J. Millington, Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, Attorneys at Law, 1011 Harlow
Road, Suite 300, Springfield, OR 97477, representing the Springfield School District
Request to redesignate Rainbow property from LDR to MDR (13.54 acres); request to redesignate
former Mr. Vernon School property from Public Land to HDR (725 S 42nd Street, 3.63 acres);
request to bring District property on Clearwater Lane into the UGB ( 19 acres, Tax Lot 1909,
Assessor’s Map 18-02-05)
This letter include aerial photos of all three properties and undeveloped lands maps from the Districts
Schools Facility Plan.
Response:
The 2030 Refinement Plan does not propose to redesignate land within the UGB to make up this deficit;
none of the elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan proposal include changes to zoning or plan designation
of these properties; making the changes as requested requires a Metro Plan diagram amendment and
corresponding zone change.
The Clearwater property is located in Area 7 on all three Land Use Concept maps.
3/26/10 Michael M. Reeder, Arnold Gallagher Percell Roberts & Potter, Attorneys at Law, 800 U.S. Bank
Center, 800 Willamette Street, Eugene, OR 97401, representing Rosboro, LLC
Request the city not redesignate Rosboro property Tax Lots 1003, 1004 and 1200, Assessor’s
Map 18-02-06 (east side of South 28th Street) from Heavy Industrial to Light Medium Industrial.
The letter reiterates previous testimony requesting the City not change the Metro Plan designation of the
Rosboro property from HI to LMI; includes an aerial map that shows the property; includes anecdotal
information that the School District does not oppose retention of HI plan designation and zoning;
contends that split-lot designation is not consistent with the goal of a parcel-specific plan diagram.
Response:
This City-initiated amendment was not undertaken to provide additional LMI sites; sole purpose was to
buffer the school property from heavy industrial activities.
Issues raised by the planning commissions:
Attachment 2-33
1. What distinguishes suitable from unsuitable land when considering a UGB expansion;
Response:
8) “Suitable vacant and developed land” describes land for employment opportunities, and has
the same meaning as provided in OAR 660-009-0005 section (1) for “developed land,” section
(12) for “suitable,” and section (14) for “vacant land.” (OAR 660-012-0010)
(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. (OAR 660-09-0005)
(1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land inside the
UGB to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to accommodate 20-year
needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. For residential land, the buildable land inventory must
include vacant and redevelopable land, and be conducted in accordance with OAR 660-007-
0045 or 660-008-0010, whichever is applicable, and ORS 197.296 for local governments subject
to that statute. 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. (OAR 660-024-0050)
(1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government must determine which land to add
by evaluating alternative boundary locations. This determination must be consistent with the
priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as
follows:
(a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a local government must determine
which land in that priority is suitable to accommodate the need deficiency determined under
OAR 660-024-0050.
(b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary to
satisfy the need deficiency, a local government must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to
choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB.
(c) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not adequate to satisfy the
identified need deficiency, a local government must determine which land in the next priority is
suitable to accommodate the remaining need, and proceed using the same method specified in
subsections (a) and (b) of this section until the land need is accommodated.
(e) For purposes of this rule, the determination of suitable land to accommodate land needs must
include consideration of any suitability characteristics specified under section (5) of this rule, as
well as other provisions of law applicable in determining whether land is buildable or suitable.
(5) If a local government has specified characteristics such as parcel size, topography, or
proximity that are necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need, the local government
may limit its consideration to land that has the specified characteristics when it conducts the
boundary location alternatives analysis and applies ORS 197.298. (OAR660-012-0060).
(1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not
be included within an urban growth boundary except under the following priorities:
Attachment 2-34
(a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or
metropolitan service district action plan.
(b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount
of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in
an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. Second priority
may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such
resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710.
(c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the
amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS
197.247 (1991 Edition).
(d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the
amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive
plan for agriculture or forestry, or both.
(2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability
classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use.
(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban
growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount
of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons:
(a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher
priority lands;
(b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due
to topographical or other physical constraints; or
(c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires
inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority
lands. (ORS 197.298 Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary)
2. How will Springfield fund infrastructure into UGB expansion areas;
Response:
The City utilizes the following techniques and mechanisms to fund infrastructure throughout the city:
• Capital Improvements Planning;
• Urban Renewal Tax Increment Financing (where applicable);
• Local Improvement District;
• Systems Development Charges;
• City/developer partnerships; and
• Loans, grants and other state and federal infrastructure and economic development funding
sources
3. Isn’t UGB expansion for warehousing and distribution a waste of land given the low number of
employees per acre for such uses;
Response:
Attachment 2-35
Projected land needs for employment purposes is based on a variety of factors, but none of these factors
include a standard, criteria or threshold based on employees per acre. The CIBL stakeholder process
that developed the City’s Economic Opportunities Analysis and Economic Development Strategies
followed each of the required steps in OAR 660-009-0015, 0020 and 0025. The emphasis in this Rule is
developing an outcome that can be substantiated by the fact base and reasonable expectation. Some of
the commenters have singled out warehouse and distribution as a waste of land (though this fact has no
relevance to the Rule) but ignore the necessary role that such uses provide in the supply, storage,
distribution and delivery of the majority of goods each of us need on a routine basis. These facilities need
to be geographically dispersed; they are fundamental to the efficient movement and storage of goods;
they require unique location standards that makes it impractical if not impossible to relocate in many
existing redevelopment sites or any sites removed from highway or rail, or sites adjacent to residential
uses. It is probably a policy choice to include this use in a community’s EOA; however, there is no
statutory standard for employees per acre; these uses serve an important role in the supply chain of
goods; and the CIBL Stakeholders endorsed this use as an element of the City’s EOA.
4. How do you preserve a site for its intended use;
Response:
(6) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must assign appropriate urban plan
designations to the added land, consistent with the need determination. The local government
must also apply appropriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation or
may maintain the land as urbanizable land until the land is rezoned for the planned urban uses,
either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by
applying other interim zoning that maintains the land's potential for planned urban development.
The requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning also apply when local
governments specified in that statute add land to the UGB. (OAR 660-012-0050)
8) Uses with Special Siting Characteristics. Cities and counties that adopt objectives or policies
providing for uses with special site needs must adopt policies and land use regulations providing
for those special site needs. Special site needs include, but are not limited to large acreage sites,
special site configurations, direct access to transportation facilities, prime industrial lands,
sensitivity to adjacent land uses, or coastal shoreland sites designated as suited for water-
dependent use under Goal 17. Policies and land use regulations for these uses must:
(a) Identify sites suitable for the proposed use;
(b) Protect sites suitable for the proposed use by limiting land divisions and permissible uses and
activities that interfere with development of the site for the intended use; and
(c) Where necessary, protect a site for the intended use by including measures that either prevent
or appropriately restrict incompatible uses on adjacent and nearby lands. (OAR 660-009-0025)
5. Are there legal restrictions against promoting growth in the floodplain;
Response:
There are no limitations in the statute regarding urban development in the floodplain (not floodway).
Buildable lands inventories that are within the 100-year floodplain can be excluded under the generally
not suitable or available category due to constraints as described in OAR 660-08-0005, including the
100-year floodplain.
Attachment 2-36
The FEMA standards for development in the floodplain are that the community provide flood hazard
insurance; that all dwellings must be constructed with a finished floor elevation 1 foot above the flood
hazard elevation; and that the local building department certify this finished floor elevation standard as a
condition of occupancy.
The City of Springfield does have a floodplain overlay district that regulates development in the 100-year
flood hazard area consistent with the requirements of the FEMA flood insurance program. In addition,
this overlay district requires an analysis of the impacts of fill within the floodplain to determine whether
or not, and by how much, the elevation is altered by the proposed development.
6. Why is the Sony property not included as a redevelopment site;
Response:
The EOA defines redevelopment potential in two principal ways: a ratio of building value to land value
and a ratio of building size to lot size: building value = less than 0.3:1.0 land value; building size = less
than 10% of total area of the property. Additionally, redevelopment potential should be thought of as “a
continuum – from more redevelopment potential to less redevelopment potential. The factors that affect
redevelopment are complicated and include location, surrounding uses, current use, land and
improvement values and other factors.” (EOA page 21) The total assessed land value of the Sony
property is about 13.8 million; the total assessed improvement value is 13 million. Approximately half of
this 40 acre site is occupied by building and parking areas. The building is also owned by PeaceHealth
and is currently fully occupied with a host of different administrative hospital uses.
7. Please provide new FEMA maps or indicate when they may be forthcoming;
Response:
Attachment D, titled Current Flood Plain Studies/Requests Affecting Springfield – As of 4/7/2010
provides a summary of all of the ongoing, relevant floodplain studies. As you will note, the completion
dates of these separate efforts is largely an uncertainty.
8. Why do concept maps continue to identify some UGB expansion areas as suitable for residential
development if there is no proposal to expand for residential purposes;
Response:
These maps were developed in the spring and summer of 2009 when our data showed that the City would
likely need between 900 and 1,200 acres of additional residential land. The CIBL Stakeholders took it
upon themselves to evaluate potential UGB expansion areas for all inventory purposes, not just
commercial and industrial.
Subsequent discovery of some mapping errors in the late fall revealed that the city had a slight surplus of
residential inventory and, as a result, the City Council’s adoption of the Residential Lands and Housing
Needs Analysis (RLHNA) in December, 2009 effectively eliminated the need to pursue expansion of the
UGB for residential purposes. However, because these maps reflected the actual work that had been
performed on this task, the annotations were left alone, including the vestigial residential references.
Our previous communications on this matter have included the request that the planning commission
disregard any reference to residential purposes; that request remains operational until and unless the
planning commission(s) were to decide that sufficient evidence has been entered into the record of this
hearing to support an expansion of the UGB to include residential inventory.
Attachment 2-37
9. Please indicate what the two blue colors on Map 3 are intended to identify;
Response:
Map 3 showed the floodway in dark blue and the floodplain in light blue.
10. Why is school capacity an issue in the Seavey Loop expansion area;
Response:
The Seavey Loop area is within the boundary of District 19 and includes Goshen Elementary School. The
school’s current enrollment is 94 and it has a functional capacity of 175. Even though this represents a
significant reserve, the general condition of the school is so poor that it would need to be upgraded or
replaced in order to accommodate any significant increase in enrollment. It should be noted that such an
effect is not anticipated if this expansion area is limited to non-residential use.
11. Can the entire McKenzie River paralleling the UGB be brought in as park and open space to
protect this resource?
Response:
This question touches upon several elements of the statewide land use planning program so there is no a
simple answer. Expanding the UGB for any reason must be justified; this includes land needed for park
or open space uses. Under normal circumstances, a city could determine that the existing UGB did not
have adequate park and/or open space and therefore a Goal 14 evaluation could be undertaken to
evaluate the possibility of expanding the UGB for this purpose. In the case of a Goal 5 resource, the city
would need to confirm the presence of the resource (significance determination) and then complete an
ESEE analysis (an analysis of the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences that could
result from a decision to allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use) that should conclude the site needs to
be brought into the UGB as the only way to protect the Goal 5 resource (Assuming no such Lane County
ordinances are in effect). These same requirements apply to open space if the city’s aim is to include
open space within the UGB: “Local governments are not required to amend acknowledged
comprehensive plans in order to identify new open space resources. If local governments decide to
amend acknowledged plans in order to provide or amend open space inventories, the requirements of
OAR 660-023-0030 through 660-023-0050 shall apply.” These latter provisions include significance
determination and the ESEE analysis.
All of the land between the McKenzie River and the City’s UGB is planned and zoned for agricultural use
or sand and gravel extraction (a Goal 5 resource). The basis of the “conflicting uses” determination
would rest upon demonstration that the uses permitted by County EFU zoning would cause irreparable
harm or loss to the Goal 5 resource, again assuming that no such County ordinances are currently in
effect.
12. Where are ODOT’s comments regarding UGB expansions; how much will it cost to upgrade ODOT
facilities to accommodate UGB expansions;
Response:
ODOT has participated on the technical advisory committee of the CIBL process from the beginning.
They provided comments on each of the expansion areas, including estimates of costs for state facilities to
support the proposed use. These figures are embedded in the tables in Attachment 3 included in the staff
report distributed for the February 17, 2010 public hearing.
Attachment 2-38
13. Bill Kloos letter said the city needed to prepare a TPR analysis for plan/zone conflict actions, and that
the proposed text did not provide clear and objective standards for residential development.
Response:
The City identified a number of plan/zone conflicts that have existed since the original acknowledgment in
1982. The 2030 Refinement Plan package does include a proposal to correct some of these conflicts by
proper alignment of zoning with the plan designation. In cases where the proposed change is intended as
the action to create a parcel-specific diagram, the city relied upon the GIS and RLID data files and
therefore is simply putting closure on this matter at the diagram level. In these instances we do not
believe the TPR analysis is required because these same data files were used to inform the modeling and
development of the transportation plan that identified specific projects that would be necessary to
accommodate future “planned” growth, i.e., the uses allowed by the Metro Plan designation, not the uses
allowed by current local zoning. TransPlan was acknowledged by LCDC on May 8, 2001. These files
also were used as the source of the buildable lands inventory that was undertaken in 1994 as a
requirement of Periodic Review. This effort also received acknowledgment from DLCD in 1997.
In those instances where the 2030 Refinement Plan package makes a recommendation that deliberately
changes the Metro Plan diagram designation, Goal 12 does apply; however, we believe that many of
these changes do not generate a significant affect (as defined in the TPR) on the state transportation
facility because: 1) the change applies to land smaller than .25 acres; 2) the land is already fully
developed with a use consistent with the proposed Metro Plan designation; 3) the change reduces the
intensity of permitted uses; and 4) the property is not within .5 miles of a state transportation facility. In
these instances we believe that we can address Goal 12 with the statement that the changes, both
individually and collectively, will not increase trips on the state system already modeled in the
acknowledged transportation system plan (TransPlan) therefore the use does not result in a significant
affect. All other actions to change Metro Plan designations that result in more intensive use of land are
subject to a more rigorous analysis and therefore should be removed from consideration as a component
of the 2030 Refinement Plan package. Please also review response provided by Al Johnson to this issue
on pages 13-16 of this memorandum.
Mr. Kloos’ comments regarding new land use regulations must include clear and objective standards is
correct. Mr. Kloos has suggested including the following language in the proposal:
“Consistent with the Needed Housing Statute, Goal 10, and the Goal 10 rule, persons developing
needed housing on land in the 20-year buildable land inventory are entitled to city decisions that
apply only standards, conditions, and procedures that are clear and objective and that do not have
the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through
unreasonable cost or delay. ORS 197.307(6); OAR 660-08-015. The city may have an alternative
approval process based on standards that are not clear and objective, provided applicants retain the
option of proceeding under either process. ORS 197.307(3)(d). The city’s implementing regulations
shall be drafted, interpreted and applied in a fashion that implements this right.”
We recommend this language be added to Chapter 4 Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
An additional note on this matter; the Metro Plan underwent Periodic Review between the years 1994
and 2007. During this time, the residential lands inventory and policies were updated; this effort also
was acknowledged by LCDC as being completed in compliance with the applicable rules and provisions
of Goal 10. Unless otherwise noted and addressed, nothing in the remainder of this proposal changes the
status of those inventories already acknowledged by the state.
14. What occurs to Goal 5 resources in UGB expansion areas and is this addressed in any of the
Attachment 2-39
Attachment 2-40
analysis of these areas?
Response:
The City has an acknowledged Goal 5 inventory and protection/preservation plan; the provisions of this
program will be applied to any land included in Springfield’s UGB at the time of annexation or Master
Plan approval. Until one of these two circumstances arise, the existing Lane County zoning and Goal 5
ordinances shall remain in force and effect.
Attachments
Attachment A – DVD of testimony submitted into the record of the joint Planning Commission public
hearing
Attachment B – April 10, 2010 Response Memorandum from ECONorthwest to Linda Pauly and Greg
Mott
Attachment C – April 12, 2010 Response Memorandum from Al Johnson to Greg Mott
Attachment D – Table of Floodplain analysis work currently underway on Springfield area rivers and
streams
Attachment B-1
1
2
Phone • (541) 687-005
FAX • (541) 344-056
info@econw.com Eu
April 10, 2010
TO: Linda Pauly and Greg Mott
FROM: Bob Parker and Beth Goodman
SUBJECT: METHOD FOR ESTIMATING EMPLOYMENT LAND NEEDS IN
SPRINGFIELD
On January 19, 2010, the Springfield City Council passed a resolution to adopt the
draft Springfield Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) as the guiding document to
support the Goal 9 element of the Springfield 2030 Plan and comply with the provisions
of OAR 660-009. Through the hearings process, the City received comments from the
public on a range of issues. This memorandum addresses comments from George Grier
and 1000 Friends of Oregon about the connection between the employment forecast and
the site needs analysis.
One of the key issues raised in the comments relates to the methods the EOA uses to
estimate land need. Springfield received a number of specific comments that relate to
the employment forecast and employment densities (as expressed in employees per
acre) and how those figures do not support the conclusions of the EOA. The fact is that
the EOA does not use employment density as a part of the site needs analysis. The
employment forecast is only tangentially used. The remainder of this memorandum
describes (1) ECO’s interpretation of the Goal 9 requirements, and (2) how ECO used
that interpretation to develop the site needs analysis.
1 WHAT GOAL 9 REQUIRES
At the broadest level, Goal 9 and its related Administrative Rules (OAR 660-009)
states the following intent:
“The intent of the Land Conservation and Development Commission is to provide
an adequate land supply for economic development and employment growth in
Oregon.” OAR 660-009-0000
Goal 9 requires cities to state objectives for economic development (OAR 660-009-
0020(1)(a)) and to identify the characteristics of sites needed to accommodate industrial
and other employment uses to implement the economic development objectives (OAR
660-009-0025(1)).
Moreover, Goal 9 requires cities to conduct an Economic Opportunities Analysis
(EOA) as defined by OAR 660-009-0015. The emphasis here is on economic opportunity.
The Rule is flexible enough to recognize that simple linear analysis (for example new
Attachment 2- 42
Attachment B-2
employees divided by employees per acre equals needed acres) is an inadequate
approach to providing an adequate land supply for economic development and
employment growth (the stated intent of Goal 9). A key working component of an EOA
is found in OAR 660-009-0015(2) Identification of Required Site Types:
The economic opportunities analysis must identify the number of sites by type reasonably
expected to be needed to accommodate the expected employment growth based on the site
characteristics typical of expected uses. Cities and counties are encouraged to examine existing
firms in the planning area to identify the types of sites that may be needed for expansion.
Industrial or other employment uses with compatible site characteristics may be grouped
together into common site categories.
This language has three operational aspects: “sites by type…needed;” “employment
growth;” and “site characteristics.” The language does not specifically address or
require a particular methodology, but does suggest an examination for firms in the area
to identify types of sites that may be needed for expansion.
Related to the site analysis requirement of OAR 660-009-0015(2) is the OAR 660-009-
0015(4) Assessment of Community Economic Development Potential requirement:
“The economic opportunities analysis must estimate the types and amounts of
industrial and other employment uses likely to occur in the planning area. The
estimate must be based on information generated in response to sections (1) to (3) of
this rule and must consider the planning area's economic advantages and
disadvantages.”
Section 1 is a review of national, state, regional, county and local trends; and Section 3
is an inventory of industrial and other employment lands. In short, the key passage here
is must estimate the types and amounts of industrial and other employment uses likely
to occur in the planning area. The requirement is to base this on the information
gathered in sections 1 and 3 or on the trend analysis and buildable land inventory.
There is no requirement the estimate be based on an employment forecast.
This then leads to the more specific land designation requirements articulated in OAR
660-009-0025. Subsection (1) addresses Identification of Needed Sites
“The plan must identify the approximate number, acreage and site characteristics
of sites needed to accommodate industrial and other employment uses to implement
plan policies. Plans do not need to provide a different type of site for each industrial
or other employment use. Compatible uses with similar site characteristics may be
combined into broad site categories. Several broad site categories will provide for
industrial and other employment uses likely to occur in most planning areas. Cities
and counties may also designate mixed-use zones to meet multiple needs in a given
location.”
Attachment 2- 43
Attachment B-3
This subsection includes two key requirements: (1) the identification of the
approximate number, acreage and site characteristics of sites, and (2) compatible uses
with similar site characteristics may be combined into broad site categories.
This is precisely what the Springfield EOA does. It uses lot size and locational
attributes (e.g., proximity to transportation, etc.) as threshold criteria. The basic method
used in the EOA is:
Local Economic Development Objectives Æ Target Industries Æ
Characteristics of Needed Sites Æ Comparison with Inventory = Number
of Needed Sites
Or in more detail: the stated local economic development objectives as informed by
the trend analysis leads to identification of target industries. Target industries have
specific site requirements; those site requirements are compared with sites with similar
characteristics in the buildable lands inventory. The comparison leads to a conclusion of
whether the City has an adequate land supply for economic development and
employment growth as stated in OAR 660-009-0000.
The key point of the preceding discussion is that the site needs analysis is on a site
basis and not on an acreage basis. This is consistent with Goal 9 which recognizes that
not all acres have the same attributes and that some attributes are more important to
certain industries than others.
The remainder of this memorandum provides a detailed explanation of how ECO
conducted the site analysis.
2 HOW SPRINGFIELD APPROACHED THE GOAL 9
REQUIREMENTS
Consistent with the Goal 9 requirements, ECO used a site-based approach to
projecting Springfield’s employment land need. This approach considers historical
development patterns on commercial and industrial lands, the forecast of future
employment growth, and Springfield’s vision and aspirations for economic
development, as articulated in the City’s economic development objectives. This
approach is not a demand-based approach, which projects employment land need
based predominantly on the forecast of employment growth, using historical
employment densities (e.g., the number of employees per acre) to estimate future
commercial and industrial land demand. Rather, it is a site-based approach as described
in the previous section.
The following steps describe the approach that ECO used to develop the estimate of
employment site and land needs presented in Table 5-4 of the EOA:
Attachment 2- 44
Attachment B-4
1. Articulate the City’s economic development objectives. At the beginning of
the project (in June 2008), ECO met with the City Council and Planning
Commission to discuss the City’s economic development objectives. The
direction to ECO and Staff was: (1) develop a reasonable and simple analysis of
employment land sufficiency; (2) economic development policies should
provide flexibility for future land uses; (3) consider development costs and
capitalize on existing economic opportunities; (4) focus on the project
outcomes; and (5) provide enough land to meet employment land needs for the
next 20-years.
ECO and City staff used this direction as the guiding principles for developing
the Economic Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies
articulated in the memorandum dated October 15, 2008. The Commercial
Industrial Buildable Lands Stakeholder Committee provided input on the
economic development objectives suggested by decisionmakers and suggested
implementation strategies for each objective. Other sources of input on the
objectives were public input from community workshops and the City’s draft
Economic Development Plan.
2. Conduct an economic opportunities analysis consistent with OAR 660-009-
0015. ECO assessed Springfield’s economic opportunities based on a review of
national, state, regional, county, and local trends, as well as assessed economic
development potential based on Springfield’s comparative advantages. The
results of this analysis are presented in the EOA in Chapter 3, Appendix A. and
Appendix B.
3. Identify potential growth industries. Based on the City’s economic
development objectives, the analysis in the economic opportunities analysis in
the previous step, and Springfield’s business clusters, ECO identified potential
growth industries. These are industries that have growth potential in
Springfield based on the City’s comparative advantages and economic and
employment trends that affect economic development throughout the
Southern Willamette Valley and the entire State. The identification of potential
growth industries also takes the City’s aspirations for economic development
(identified in the Economic Development Objectives) into consideration. The
list of potential growth industries is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all
possible growth industries but a list of the types of industries that are likely to
locate in Springfield or that the City aspires to grow or attract.
4. Forecast employment growth. ECO developed a forecast of employment
growth in Springfield as required by Goals 9 and 14. The employment forecast
is based on an estimate of total employment in Springfield. The rate of
employment growth used in the employment forecast is based on the Oregon
Employment Department’s forecast for employment growth in Lane County
(employment Region 5), as allowed by the safe harbor described in OAR 660-
Attachment 2- 45
Attachment B-5
024-0040 (8) (a) (A). The end result of the employment forecast is an allocation
of employment growth into industrial and commercial building types.
5. Identify employment site needs. OAR 660-009-0015(2) requires the EOA
identify the number of sites, by type, reasonably expected to be needed for the
20-year planning period. ECO based the analysis of employment site and land
needs on the following considerations:
• Factors that affect firms’ locational decisions. ECO considered
Springfield’s opportunities and challenges for each of these factors,
summarized in Table C-4 of the EOA.
• Common site requirements. Firms typically have similar land needs, such
as need for relatively flat sites with urban services. Availability of these
characteristics on employment sites in Springfield is summarized in
Table C-6 of the EOA. Table C-5 provides examples of lot sizes typically
needed for firms in selected industries. The purpose of Table C-5 is to
illustrate that different types of industries need different sized sites
and to provide some examples of these sites.
• Forecast of employment growth. The employment forecast provides one
way to gauge land needs based on historical development patterns.
ECO developed a forecast of employment growth (Step 4). Historical
development patterns and ECO’s past experience with similar projects
suggest that some employment will not require new land. ECO
estimated that 16% of employment would locate of land not
designated for employment uses (e.g., home occupations) and 10% of
new employment would be accommodated in existing industrial built
space. ECO estimated that more than 10,000 employees would require
new land over the planning period.
• Historical employment development patterns. ECO considered the need for
land based on the forecast of employment growth (the approximately
10,000 employees mentioned above) and historical employment
development patterns, presented in Table C-10. The range of needed
sites presented in Table C-10 shows the number of sites needed based
on historical employment patterns. These patterns are based on: (1) the
distribution of employees by building type (e.g., general industrial or
office) and site size in 2006 (shown in Table C-8); (2) the assumed
distribution of the approximately 10,000 new employees (shown in
Table C-9) based the historical distribution of employees (Table C-8);
and the average firm size in 2006.
• Springfield’s economic development aspirations. Goal 9 allows cities to
consider their economic development aspirations when forecasting the
site and land needs. Springfield’s elected and appointed officials
directed ECO and Staff to provide an economic development
Attachment 2- 46
Attachment B-6
framework with flexibility to provide opportunities for economic
development for both small employers and major employers who
want to expand or locate in Springfield. These objectives are described
in the Economic Development Objectives and Implementation
Strategies memorandum. The range of needed sites presented in Table
C-10 of the EOA takes Springfield’s economic development aspirations
into account.
• Estimate needed sites. While Table C-10 in the EOA presents a range of
needed sites, Springfield is required to present a number of needed
sites by site size. This estimate of presented in the EOA in Table C-11
and Table 4-4. It takes into account the minimum number of needed
sites based on historical development patterns and Springfield’s
aspirations for economic development.1
6. Inventory suitable buildable employment land. OAR 660-009-0012(3)
requires cities to inventory industrial and other employment lands, to identify
vacant and developed lands and account for development constraints. Table 2-
7 in the EOA summarizes Springfield’s vacant suitable land by plan
designation and Table 2-8 summarizes vacant suitable land by plan
designation and site size.
The EOA goes a step further and identifies land with redevelopment potential
in Springfield. Redevelopment potential can be thought of as a continuum—
from more redevelopment potential to less redevelopment potential. The EOA
does not attempt to quantify the amount of land that will redevelop but
estimates potential for redevelopment, focusing on redevelopment potential in
Downtown Springfield and Glenwood. The reason that ECO presented the
analysis of redevelopment is that one of the City Council’s priorities is
facilitating redevelopment in Downtown and Glenwood, as described in the
Economic Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies
memorandum.
7. Compare the demand for with the supply of employment sites and land.
Table 5-1 presents a comparison of vacant and potentially redevelopable
buildable sites with the estimate of needed sites (Table 4-4). Table 5-1
concludes that Springfield has a deficit of commercial and mixed use sites
between 1 acre and 50 acres in size and industrial sites larger than 20 acres.
ECO used an estimate of the average size of needed sites in Springfield (Table
5-2) to convert from the number of needed sites (Table 5-1) to employment
1 The approach used to estimate needed sites uses a site-based approach, rather than a demand-based approach,
which projects employment land need based predominantly on the forecast of employment growth, using historical
employment densities (e.g., the number of employees per acre) to estimate future commercial and industrial land
demand. The site-based approach considers the forecast for employment growth and historical employment demand
patterns but also considers the City’s economic development policies and aspirations.
Attachment 2- 47
Attachment B-7
land needs (Table 5-4). The estimate of employment land needs makes the
following assumptions about needed sites:
• Need for sites smaller than 5 acres will be accommodated through
redevelopment. One of the City’s economic development strategies is to
encourage redevelopment, especially in Downtown and Glenwood—
as well as any other “node” as defined through the TransPlan process.
Table 5-1 shows that Springfield concludes that 187 industrial sites and
340 commercial and mixed use sites would redevelop to address land
needs over the 20-year period. In addition to this assumption about
redevelopment, Springfield concludes that all land needs on sites
smaller than five acres would be accommodated through
redevelopment. The City had a deficit of 23 commercial and mixed use
sites smaller than five acres, which would require 71 acres of land.
Table 5-4 shows no need for vacant land to accommodate demand for
sites smaller than 5 acres.
• The average size of large sites. The size of larger sites (those over 5 acres)
includes a wide range of site sizes. A prior version of the EOA
presented two possible sizes for these larger sites, intended to both
illustrate the fact that there is a wide range of potential site sizes and to
give policymakers an option for choosing the preferred site size to
meet the City’s economic development objectives and aspirations.2 The
size of sites in the current version of the EOA reflects direction from
decisionmakers on their preference for site size to meet the City’s
economic development objectives and aspirations.
Attachment 2- 48
2 This version of the EOA was from November 2008 and noted that the final EOA would present one estimate of
land need, rather than a range of land need.
LAW OFFICES OF Portland Office
JOHNSON & SHERTON, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAND, AIR & WATER LAW
2303 SE GRANT
ALLEN L. JOHNSON, Portland PORTLAND, OR 97214
CORINNE C. SHERTON, Salem
Memorandum
From: Al Johnson
To: Greg Mott
Re: 2030 Plan Issues: Plan-zone conflict resolution, TPR, and inventories
Site needs analysis and jobs per acre
Large sites and land assembly
Date: April 12, 2010
I. Plan/Zone Conflict Resolution, the Transportation Planning Rule, and Inventories
The draft 2030 Refinement Plan resolves about 300 of about 900 plan/zone conflicts identified by
staff. The proposed changes would affect about 66 acres of vacant land. Of the 66 acres, about 41
acres involve a 25.13-acre change from Sand and Gravel to Light Medium Industrial near the
former Blue Water Boats facility and a 15.73-acre change from Campus Industrial to Park and
Open Space that awas approved several years ago when the Gateway sports complex was created.
The change was approved at that time but was never shown on the Gateway Refinement Plan. The
remaining 26 acres is comprised of "dozens of small changes, the majority of which correct the
land use designation to reflect the existing zoning or which reflects a change to fit the context of the
neighborhood or reality on the ground." The affected lands have not been analyzed for constraints,
which could reduce the affected buildable acreage further.
Concerns have been raised that resolving these conflicts, and, possibly, meeting other requirements
incident to establishment of the city's new UGB, will be made more difficult by the recent decision
of the Court of Appeals in Willamette Oaks, LLC v City of Eugene, 232 Or App 29 (Nov. 18, 2009)
may require the the city to perform a fresh "significant impact analysis" under the LCDC's
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) for every 2030 Refinement Plan change to existing plan
diagrams and zoning maps. This memo addresses these concerns in general terms.
As to the 2030 Refinement Plan generally, it is my opinion that (a) the new Court of Appeals
decision should generally require the city to address only the "first stage" of the Transportation
Attachment C - 1
Attachment 2-49
Page - 2
Al Johnson Memo to Greg Mott
April 12, 2010
Rule and (b) the fact that the 2030 plan largely codifies and relies upon existing acknowledged
comprehensive plan elements will greatly simplify that step.
As to the plan-zone conflicts, the recent decision will require only a "batched" first-stage analysis
as to most, if not all of the 300 that are proposed. All conflicts that are resolved in a manner that is
consistent with the Metro Plan Diagram or any acknowledged amendment to or refinement of that
diagram require only a first-stage analysis under the Mason rule discussed below. Conflicts that are
resolved in a manner that is clearly inconsistent with the current acknowledged plan designation
should probably be removed from the "now" list unless they are simply "codifications" of previous
post-acknowledgement plan amendments during which the TPR was or should have been applied.
The concern arises because Willamette Oaks holds that local governments may not defer
application of Section 60 of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) when
amending a comprehensive plan or implementing regulation. In so holding, the Court of Appeals
indirectly overruled a 2004 Land Use Board of Appeals decision, Citizens for Protection of
Neighborhoods v. City of Salem and Sustainable Fairview, 47 Or LUBA 111 (2004)(Sustainable
Fairview).
In Sustainable Fairview, LUBA allowed deferral if the record showed that full compliance with the
TPR's substantive and procedural requirements would be required before any additional
development authorized by the subject plan or zone change could take place.
Fortunately, compliance with Section 60 of the TPR is not difficult to demonstrate for lands inside
the currently-acknowledged urban growth boundary. In addition the TPR grants a specific
exception for lands added to that boundary if the local government keeps those lands in an
appropriate holding zone pending application of the TPR and other necessary planning steps.
Inside the current UGB, with few if any exceptions, the 2030 Plan simply implements existing
acknowledged comprehensive plan designations that were in in place when the region's
ackowledged Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) was adopted. Refinement plan and zoning map
designations interpreting and implementing those designations do not cause "significant impacts"
within the meaning of the rule.
Section 60 is a two-stage regulation. The first stage is a determination whether a plan or zoning
amendment will "significantly affect" a transportation facility. The second stage is the
identification and implementation of one or more different kinds of "mitigation" measures to
prevent the identified significant impacts or to render them no longer significant.
The applicant in Willamette Oaks skipped the first stage and sought deferral of both stages, relying
on Sustainable Fairview. The court said the applicant couldn't do that. It did not, however, say
there was anything wrong with other LUBA and court decisions about what is required for the first
stage in different circumstances.
Attachment C - 2
Attachment 2-50
Page - 3
Al Johnson Memo to Greg Mott
April 12, 2010
For example, LUBA has determined that plan and zoning amendments do not have significant
impacts under Section 60 to the extent that those amendments were in place and therefore
necessarily assumed by acknowledged Transportation Systems Plans.
The leading case on this issue is Mason v. City of Corvallis, 49 Or LUBA 199 (2005). In Mason, the
subject decision rezoned land from low-density rural to urban low-density-residential (LDR) densities
allowed under a city comprehensive plan designation that had been assumed in the city's acknowledged
TSP. LUBA found that
"[I]t was appropriate for the city to compare traffic impacts based on the . . . LDR plan
designation, not the county UR zone. The general purpose of OAR 660-12-0060 is to ensure
that allowed uses are consistent with the planned functdion, capacity and performance standards
of transportation facilities. If the applicable TSP assumes greater development density for a
particular property than allowed under the pre-amendment zoning district, it seems more
consistent with the purpose of OAR 661-010-0060 to compare development density (and hence
traffic impacts) actually assumed by the TSP with the amended zoning rather than the pre-
amendment zoning." 49 Or LUBA at 218.
In contrast, a local government that does not have an acknowledged TSP or can't show consistency with
plan designations previously adopted in compliance with the TPR has to make a fresh significant impact
analysis. See Just v. City of Lebanon, 49 Or LUBA 181 (2005).
In short, elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan that reflect, interpret, or implement comprehensive plan
designations and other land use measures assumed by TransPlan do not have significant impacts within
the meaning of Section 60 of the TPR.
The same is true of elements of the 2030 Refinement Plan that incorporate or otherwise reflect other
post-acknowledgment plan or zoning amendment decisions that have become final and no longer
subject to appeal. Those decisions are deemed "acknowledged" by operation of law and are presumed
to have been made in full compliance with the LCDC's transportation goal and interpretive rule. See
Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 139 Or App 39, 911 P2d 350, rev. den. 323 Or 136
(1996). Examples reflected in the draft 2030 Plan include post-acknowledgment amendments relating
to Riverbend, the Sports Complex, and North Gateway.
This reasoning is also maintains consistency between the TPR and potentially conflicting requirements
of state land use statutes restricting collateral attacks on acknowledged plans and requiring that urban
lands inventoried for needed housing and "competitive" industrial land supplies be rezoned and made
available without undue regulatory burdens when needed during a planning period.
If the TPR is to remain fully applicable to future rezonings of land inventoried for "needed housing," it
raises particularly serious--and not easily resolved--issues as to whether affected lands can remain in the
buildable lands inventory. See Bill Kloos letter and Gloria Gardner responses.
See, for example: "competitive land supply" requirements of Goal 9 and Goal 9 Rule ; definitions of
"buildable" and "available" in Goal 10 Housing Rule; 20-year residential land supply requirements of
ORS 197.296; regulatory constraint statute at ORS 197.296(4), requiring cities over 25,000 to take
Attachment C - 3
Attachment 2-51
Page - 4
Al Johnson Memo to Greg Mott
April 12, 2010
local, state, and federal regulatory constraints into consideration in determining whether or not to
include otherwise available lands in residential lands inventories; ORS 197.831, requiring local
governments to demonstrate that ordinances required to contain clear and objective standards for
permits involving "needed housing" under ORS 197.307 and 227.175 are capable of being imposed
only in a clear and objective manner.
II. Site needs analysis and jobs per acre
This section provides some additional background on the issue addressed in the following comment
and response in ECONW's supplemental memo:
"Comment: The EOA assumes that jobs per acre density will be roughly half of that
currently seen in Springfield."
"ECONW Response: The EOA makes no use of jobs per acre density assumptions
(commonly called employees per acre) in any part of the analysis. This comment is derived
from base year employment data, the building land inventory, and the site needs analysis.
The consultants did not make this comparison in the report, because employment exists in
many different plan designations in Springfield (see Table A-9, page 96) and the
confidentiality limitations of the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage data."
"A similar issue exists in calculating “derived” jobs per acre assumptions for the 2030
forecast. In short, any jobs per acre density analysis is fundamentally flawed because of the
source data and how employment will distribute itself in the future among plan
designations. Such an analysis is not required by Goal 9 and was not conducted by the
consultants. The EOA does comply with the Goal 9 Administrative Rule in that it identifies
site needs based on the target industries identified in the City‟s economic development
strategy."
The “site-needs” analysis described by ECONW in the above comments and detailed in the EOA is
a permissible method of determining Goal 9 land needs and is consistent with available guidance
from DLCD and the courts.
It is expected that additional guidance will be provided before final adoption of the 2030 Plan. An
appeal of LCDC‟s 2007 approval of Woodburn‟s 2006 UGB expansion, involving similar issues, is
pending at the Court of Appeals. Pending the Court‟s decision in the Woodburn appeal (now in its
third year because appeals of LCDC decisions are not on the same expedited schedule as appeals of
LUBA decisions), the city is relying on LCDC‟s decision and the state's brief in that case.
The Attorney General's brief defending LCDC's Woodburn UGB decision explains that Woodburn
properly “determined its industrial land need based on a 'site-needs' approach to attract targeted
industries” to meet identified needs. LCDC brief at p. 16 The brief points out that “A site-needs
analysis focuses on the type of sites the industries require, not the amount of area that employees
have been shown to use. ” and that a local government “is not required” by state land use statutes,
Attachment C - 4
Attachment 2-52
Page - 5
Al Johnson Memo to Greg Mott
April 12, 2010
goals, or rules “to use the medium growth rate or a strict employee-per-acre methodology based on
the population projection.” LCDC brief at pp 16, 20. In fact, the brief states, “The city was not
required by statute, goal, or rule to prepare a job growth projection.” LCDC brief at p. 22.
Therefore, even though it did prepare a job growth project, the City of Woodburn “was not required
to tie its 20-year land need to that job growth projection.” LCDC Brief at p. 22.
III. Land Assembly, Goal Nine, and Goal 14
This section provides some additional background on the issue addressed in the following comment
and response in ECONW's supplemental memo:
"Comment: The EOA doesn't account for the possibility of smaller parcels being
assembled into larger sites."
"ECONW Response: This issue was discussed by the Stakeholder Committee who
recommended that parcelization be considered a constraint consistent with the
definition of “Development Constraints” in OAR 660-009-0010(2):
"'Development Constraints" means factors that temporarily or permanently limit or
prevent the use of land for economic development. Development constraints include,
but are not limited to, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat,
environmental contamination, slope, topography, cultural and archeological
resources, infrastructure deficiencies, parcel fragmentation, or natural hazard
areas.'" [emphasis added]
The implication that fragmentation is not a significant constraint runs counter to the policy and
experience reflected in the Goal Nine Rule's requirement that large parcels meeting special site
needs identified in a local government's EOA must be specifically "identified" and protected from
fragmentation to preserve their availability and desirability as large sites. OAR 660-09-0025(8)(b)
provides that
"Policies and land use regulations for these uses must
"(a) Identify sites suitable for the proposed use; and
"(b) Protect sites suitable for the proposed use by limiting land divisions . . ."
General assumptions that a certain percentage of small parcels will aggregate does not "identify
sites suitable for the proposed use." Relying on small parcels to aggregate does not protect sites
suitable by limiting land divisions because it relies on parcels that it's too late to protect.
Attachment C - 5
Attachment 2-53
Page - 6
Al Johnson Memo to Greg Mott
April 12, 2010
Consistent with the rule, staff has pointed out that
"The city currently has no basis for assuming that . . . the need for large employment sites
can be accommodated through assembly of small land parcels. Such assumptions would not
take into account existing life cycle value of buildings, on-site compatibility of new uses
with existing uses, or the ability of all affected parties to be able to satisfy site needs at these
locations." 1/19/2010 staff memo to Planning Commission, Rec. A-296.
Moreover, the city's analysis allocates small parcels elsewhere by assuming that Springfield will be
able to meet its projected employment land needs for sites five acres and smaller entirely on its
current supply and therefore does not need to add land to the current UGB for such sites. That
assumption is only possible because it is coupled with optimistic assumptions about the potential
for redevelopment and infill on those lands: "Springfield assumes that all land needs on sites
smaller than five acres would be accommodated through redevelopment." Rec. A-297
As background, here is some key language relevant to the relationship between the Goal 9 and Goal
14 interpretive rules:
OAR 660-024-0040(5) provides that
"(5) Except for a metropolitan service district described in ORS 197.015(13), the
determination of 20-year employment land need for an urban area must comply with
applicable requirements of Goal 9 and OAR chapter 660, division 9, and must include
a determination of the need for a short-term supply of land for employment uses
consistent with OAR 660-009-0025." (Emphasis added)
OAR 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency, provides in relevant part that
"(1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land inside
the UGB to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to accommodate 20-
year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. For residential land, the buildable land
inventory must include vacant and redevelopable land, and be conducted in accordance with
OAR 660-007-0045 or 660-008-0010, whichever is applicable, and ORS 197.296 for local
governments subject to that statute. 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." (Emphasis added)
"(4) If the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB is
inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20-year needs determined under OAR 660-024-
0040, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by
increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by expanding the
UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable. Prior to expanding
the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably
be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. . . . "
Attachment C - 6
Attachment 2-54
Page - 7
Al Johnson Memo to Greg Mott
April 12, 2010
OAR 660-024-0010(8) provides that:
“'Suitable vacant and developed land' describes land for employment opportunities, and has
the same meaning as provided in OAR 660-009-0005 section (1) for 'developed land,'
section (12) for 'suitable,' and section (14) for 'vacant land.'
LCDC‟s 2009 amendments to the Goal 14/UGB rule include new cross-references to the Goal
9/Economic Development rule. DLCD explained the change as follows:
“Department staff noticed that division 24 (UGB rule) does not include a definition of
„suitable vacant and developed land,‟ a term that is used in OAR 660-024-0050(1)
concerning employment and inventories, based on definitions in the Goal 9 rules. Therefore,
staff proposes a definition in OAR 660-024-0010(8) that refers to definitions in Goal 9
rules.” 3/11-13/2009 LCDC Agenda Item 4 staff report, page 8.
Attachment C - 7
Attachment 2-55
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Update Project Summary of Current Flood Plain Studies/Requests Affecting Springfield – As of 4/15/2010 Title Location Sponsor Status A Metro Waterways McKenzie River and Cedar Creek – Hayden Bridge to Hendricks Bridge Springfield & EWEB through Army Corps of Engineers In Process - Draft Study completed – The study area may need to be expanded to comply with FEMA mapping requirements. Staff is discussing scope, timing, and cost issues with the Corps of Engineers. B Willamette River Bridge Willamette River upstream & downstream of new I-5 bridges ODOT through OBEC In Process - Draft Study completed – Past fill in the flood plain downstream of the I-5 bridges appears to affect flood plain and floodway boundaries in Eugene downstream of the bridges and in Springfield upstream of the bridges. Further study upstream and downstream of the bridges may be needed to define the affects and to comply w/ FEMA mapping requirements. Staff is discussing scope, timing, and cost issues with ODOT and City of Eugene. C FEMA DFIRM Update Willamette from Junction City, up Coast Fork to Cottage Grove; Middle Fork to Lowell; McKenzie to Blue River & Cougar FEMA through Baker Associates In Process – This project is not a new Flood Insurance Study and does not include an updated model or bathymetry. Rather, FEMA is updating their Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) by adjusting the flood boundaries using the flood water elevations from their 1985 study and matching it to updated topography. We expect draft maps for the 2 rivers to come for staff review in the next few months. Other mapped waterways (e.g. Q St. Channel, SCS Channel 6, etc.) are not included in this update. D Upper Willamette Basin FIS Currently - Coast Fork to Dorena; Middle Fork to Hills Creek; Eventually – all of Willamette Basin FEMA through Corps and Starr In Process - New initiative from FEMA to do new Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) for all of the Willamette Basin over the next 50 years. They are starting with upper reaches of Basin outside of urban areas. Preliminary schedule is for draft maps for the Coast Fork and Middle Fork within the next few years. E Glenwood River Front Willamette from Wildish LOMR to I-5/Willamette River Bridges SEDA/Springfield Pending – Funding Partially Programmed – Staff is discussing adding this study to the scope of work that ODOT is doing for the new Willamette River Bridges (see B above). Springfield has current topography and bathymetry but has not initiated a flood plain study at this time. Attachment D-1 Attachment 2 - 56
Attachment D-2 Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Update Project Summary of Current Flood Plain Studies/Requests Affecting Springfield – As of 4/15/2010 Attachment 2 - 57 F Springfield Mill Race Inlet to Island Park, including Jasper Slough Springfield and Army Corps of Engineers Pending – Funding Not Programmed – The Springfield Mill Race has a FEMA-mapped flood plain. Therefore, the Mill Race Project may need to be evaluated for changes to the mapped flood plain. If base flood elevations are changed due to the project, we may be required under FEMA regulations to do a new FIS and adopt new maps. This study is not included in the scope of work for the Mill Race Project. Staff, funding, consultant, and data resources have not been identified for this study. G SCS Channel 6/I-5 Channel From Q Street Channel at I-5 upstream to 10th Street None at this time – Citizen, FEMA & DLCD Requesting a new Flood Insurance Study and updated maps Pending – Funding Not Programmed - Numerous changes have occurred to Channel 6 over the past 30 years without updating the flood maps. An affected citizen is requesting the City to update the maps to incorporate these changes. The mapped flood plain for Channel 6 is an unnumbered Zone A, meaning that FEMA did not do the detailed analysis necessary to determine estimated depth of flooding or base flood elevations. Also, the study area may need to include all of Springfield’s Q Street Channel stormwater basins due to current mapped influence of Q Street Channel flooding on SCS Channel 6. New hydrology and hydraulics may need to be developed to perform the study to FEMA mapping standards. Staff, funding, consultant, and data resources have not been identified for this study.
Draw UGB line down I‐5Draw line all the way around the existing UGBForward to JEOAttachment 3-1Attachment 3-1Are the conclusions of the the Residential Lands Study Supportable?Draw UGB line down I‐5Draw line all the way around the existing UGBForward to JEOAdequate Low Density Residential acreage?Adequate Medium DensityResidentialIf Yes, doneIf No, make findingsIf Yes, doneAdd land to the UGBYes/NoDraw UGB line down I‐5NoYesSpringfield UGB and HB 3337 ComplianceResidential Lands StudyAre the conclusions of the the Residential Lands Study Supportable?Draw UGB line down I‐5Draw line all the way around the existing UGBForward to JEOAdequate Low Density Residential acreage?Adequate Medium Density Residential acreage?Adequate High Density Residential acreage?If Yes, doneIf No, make findingsIf Yes, doneIf No, makefindingsIf Yes, doneIf No, make findingsAdd land to the UGBYes/NoRedesignate land within the UGBYes/NoEfficiency MeasuresYes/NoEstablishUGBDraw UGB line down I‐5Draw line all the way aroundthe existing UGBDraw new UGB with expansion areas to meet needForward to JEONoYes
(CIBL)Alternatives Analysis:Select a preferred Concept for expansion of the UGB(640acres)Concept 1Concept 2Concept 3OtherPreferred ConceptForward to JEOAttachment 3-2Attachment 3-2Are the conclusions of the CIBL Study Supportable?Alternatives Analysis:Select a preferred Concept for expansion of the UGB(640 acres)‐‐Employmentgrowth during the planning period‐‐Forecast of employment growth by building type and site sizeConcept 1Concept 2Concept 3OtherPreferred ConceptForward to JEOYesNoAssumptions about Long‐Term Land and Site NeedsPrepare alternative conceptsforUGBAre the conclusions of the CIBL Study Supportable?Alternatives Analysis:Select a preferred Concept for expansion of the UGB(640 acres)What assumptions within the CIBL Study should be reassessed?‐‐Employmentgrowth during the planning period‐‐Forecast of employment growth by building type and site size‐‐Characteristics of needed employment sites‐‐Prohibitive constraints‐‐Other‐‐Percentage of employment growth needs met by infill or redevelopment of existing sites‐‐Percentage of new jobs not Concept 1Concept 2Concept 3OtherPreferred ConceptForward to JEOYesNoAssumptions about Long‐Term Land and Site NeedsAssumptions about how Land needs will be met Amend CIBL's Economic Opportunities Analysis and Economic Development Strategy Is a UGB expansion still needed?Prepare alternative concepts for UGB expansion. Choose a preferred alternativeForward to JEOYesNoForward to JEOSpringfield UGB and Commercial/Industrial Buildable Lands Study Are the conclusions of the CIBL Study Supportable?Alternatives Analysis:Select a preferred Concept for expansion of the UGB(640 acres)What assumptions within the CIBL Study should be reassessed?‐‐Employmentgrowth during the planning period‐‐Forecast of employment growth by building type and site size‐‐Characteristics of needed employment sites‐‐Prohibitive constraints‐‐Other‐‐Percentage of employment growth needs met by infill or redevelopment of existing sites‐‐Percentage of new jobs not requiring commercial or industrial zoning‐‐OtherConcept 1Concept 2Concept 3OtherPreferred ConceptForward to JEOYesNoAssumptions about Long‐Term Land and Site NeedsAssumptions about how Land needs will be met Amend CIBL's Economic Opportunities Analysis and Economic Development Strategy Is a UGB expansion still needed?Prepare alternative concepts for UGB expansion. Choose a preferred alternativeForward to JEOYesNoForward to JEO
Incorporate amendment requests from hearings?Amend Metro PlanForward to JEOYesNoShall Springfield establish a parcel‐specific plan diagram?Incorporate amendment requests from hearings?ResolvePlan/Zone conflicts?Amend Metro PlanForward to JEOAmend Metro PlanForward to JEOYesYesNoYesNoMakefindingsForwardtoJEONoParcel‐Specific Plan Diagram (Springfield 2030 Plan)Shall Springfield establish a parcel‐specific plan diagram?Incorporate amendment requests from hearings?ResolvePlan/Zone conflicts?Amend Metro PlanForward to JEOAmend Metro PlanForward to JEOYesYesNoYesNoMake findingsForward to JEONoAttachment 3-3
Recommendall Efficiency Measures?Recommend some Efficiency Measures?Forward to JEOForward to JEOIdentify whichMeasures and revise the proposalOrShall the proposed Efficiency Measures be adopted?Recommendall Efficiency Measures?Recommend some Efficiency Measures?Recommend newEfficiency Measures?Forward to JEOForward to JEOForward to JEOIdentify whichMeasures and revise the proposalMake findings and revise the proposalYesNoOrOrProposed Efficiency MeasuresShall the proposed Efficiency Measures be adopted?Recommendall Efficiency Measures?Recommend some Efficiency Measures?Recommend newEfficiency Measures?Forward to JEOForward to JEOForward to JEOIdentify whichMeasures and revise the proposalMake findings and revise the proposalMake findingsRevise Plan textForward to JEOYesNoOrOrAttachment 3-4
Attachment 4-1
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
REQUEST TO ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD ] RECOMMENDATION TO
2030 REFINEMENT PLAN ] THE CITY COUNCIL
]
Case Number LRP 2009-00014
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
1. On February 17th and March 16th, 2010 the Joint Planning Commissions conducted a public
hearing on the proposed Metro Plan Amendments. The Development Services Department
staff report, the oral testimony, letters received, written submittals of the persons testifying at
the hearing, and the public record for file # LRP 2009-00014 have been considered and
hereby are incorporated into the record for this proceeding.
2. House Bill 3337 requires that Springfield demonstrate as required by ORS 197.296 that its
Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years on or before January 1, 2010. To
accomplish this requirement, the City of Springfield has commissioned ECONorthwest to
prepare a Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis outlining Springfield’s housing needs
for the next 20 years. The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis
completes the residential land inventory, analysis, and housing needs determination required
by HB 3337.
3. Springfield has conducted the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, Residential Lands Study and
Commercial and Industrial Land Study planning processes to date in a manner consistent with
Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, and evidence of the citizen involvement and
intergovernmental coordination processes thus far is fully documented in the public record:
application file numbers LRP2007-00014, LRP2007-00030 and LRP2007-00031 and hereby
are incorporated into the record for this proceeding.
4. The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis is incorporated into the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, a refinement plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan, as
an appendix to the Residential Land and Housing Element of the plan.
5. On December 7, 2009, a public hearing on the Springfield Residential Land and Housing
Needs Analysis was held before the Springfield City Council. The Development Services
Department staff report, the oral testimony, letters received, written submittals of the persons
testifying at the hearing, and the public record for file # LRP2007-00030 have been considered
and hereby are incorporated into the record for this proceeding.
6. On the basis of this record, the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis as
submitted is consistent with the criteria of House Bill 3337, ORS 197.296, ORS 197.303, ORS
197.304, the Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules pertaining to housing – OAR
660-008-0000 - 0040. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and
conclusions as described in the public record for application file # LRP 2009-00030 and
hereby incorporated into the record for this proceeding.
Attachment 4-2
7. On December 7, 2009, the Springfield City Council adopted resolution no. 09-54: A
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING
THE 2009 PRELIMINARY SPRINGFIELD RESIDENTIAL LAND AND HOUSING NEEDS
ANALYSIS, FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO "COMPLETE" THE
PRELIMINARY INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION BEFORE JANUARY 1,
2010.
8. Local adoption of the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis was an interim
step necessary to comply with the law. The final decision on adoption of the Springfield
Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis shall be made by the Springfield City Council
and the Lane County Board of Commissioners as the Springfield Residential Land and
Housing Needs Analysis is incorporated into the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, a
refinement plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan. Subsequent action in compliance with
HB3337 to establish a separate urban growth boundary for Springfield may rely in part on this
document, a variation of this document, or entirely new documentation. The adoption of a UGB
is an iterative process, and depending on how the record develops, the background
assumptions, analysis and determinations in the Springfield Residential Land and Housing
Needs Analysis may change.
9. The city chose to conduct a Commercial and Industrial Lands Study concurrently with the
Residential Lands Study.
10. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan incorporates the Springfield Commercial and Industrial
Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis as appendices to the
Economic Element of the plan.
11. The City of Springfield has commissioned ECONorthwest to prepare a Commercial and
Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis to outline
Springfield’s employment land needs for the next 20 years as part of Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan pursuant to LCDC's Economic Development goal and rule in order to carry
out mandate of 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650 requiring Springfield to separately establish its own
urban growth boundary pursuant to statewide land use goals.
12. On the basis of this record, the Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands
Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis is consistent with 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650,
State Economic Development Planning Goals and Rules OAR 660-0015, OAR 660-009-0020,
OAR 660-009-0025 as amended by LCDC in 2007, and applicable comprehensive plan
policies. While not explicitly required by Or Laws 2007 Chapter 650, the Commercial and
Industrial Buildable Lands Study supplements the residential lands determination required by
Or Laws 2007 Chapter 650 by evaluation of the additional buildable lands necessary for the
establishment of an urban growth boundary. This general finding is supported by the specific
findings of fact and conclusions as described in the public record for application file # LRP
2009-00031 and hereby incorporated into the record for this proceeding.
13. On January 19, 2010 The Springfield City Council adopted resolution no 10-03: A
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING
THE DRAFT SPRINGFIELD COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDABLE LANDS
INVENTORY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AS PART OF THE SPRINGFIELD
2030 REFINEMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO LCDC’S ECONOMIC DEVEVLOPMENT GOAL
AND RULE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT MANDATE OF 2007 OR LAWS CHAPTER 650
REQUIRING SPRINGFIELD TO ESTABLISH ITS OWN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
PURSUANT TO STATEWIDE LAND USE GOALS.
Attachment 4-3
14. The final decision on adoption of the Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands
Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis shall be made by the Springfield City Council
and the Lane County Board of Commissioners as the Springfield Residential Land and
Housing Needs Analysis is incorporated into the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, a
refinement plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan. Subsequent action in compliance with
HB3337 to establish a separate urban growth boundary for Springfield may rely in part on this
document, a variation of this document, or entirely new documentation. The adoption of a UGB
is an iterative process, and depending on how the record develops, the background
assumptions, analysis and determinations in the Springfield Commercial and Industrial
Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis may change.
15. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Springfield Development Code
Section 5.2-115, has been provided.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan as submitted is consistent with the
criteria of House Bill 3337, ORS 197.296, ORS 197.303, ORS 197.304, the Statewide Planning Goals
and Administrative Rules pertaining to housing – OAR 660-008-0000 - 0040. On the basis of this
record, the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan as submitted is consistent with the criteria of 2007 Or
Laws Chapter 650, ORS 197.296, ORS 197.303, ORS 197.304, the Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules pertaining to housing – OAR 660-008-0000 – 0040, and State Economic
Development Planning Goals and Rules OAR 660-0015, OAR 660-009-0020, OAR 660-009-0025 as
amended by LCDC in 2007, and applicable comprehensive plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission, at its April 20, 2010 meeting, hereby recommends that the City Council
approve the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, as presented herein at Case No. LRP 2009-00014.
______________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
AYES: _____
NOES: _____
ABSENT: _____
ABSTAIN: _____
Attachment 4-4
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
REQUEST TO ADOPT SPRINGFIELD ] RECOMMENDATION TO
DEVLOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS ] THE CITY COUNCIL
]
Case Number LRP 2009-00015
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
1. On February 17th and March 16th, 2010 the Joint Planning Commissions conducted a public
hearing on the proposed Code Amendments. The Development Services Department staff
report, the oral testimony, letters received, written submittals of the persons testifying at the
hearing, and the public record for file # LRP 2009-00015 have been considered and hereby
are incorporated into the record for this proceeding.
2. House Bill 3337 requires that Springfield demonstrate as required by ORS 197.296 that its
Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years on or before January 1, 2010. To
accomplish this requirement, the City of Springfield has commissioned ECONorthwest to
prepare a Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis outlining Springfield’s housing needs
for the next 20 years. The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis
completes the residential land inventory, analysis, and housing needs determination required
by HB 3337.
3. The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis is incorporated into the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, a refinement plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan, as
an appendix to the Residential Land and Housing Element of the plan.
4. Springfield has conducted the Residential Lands Study planning process to date in a manner
consistent with Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, and evidence of the citizen involvement and
intergovernmental coordination processes thus far is fully documented in the public record:
application file number LRP2007-00030 and hereby are incorporated into the record for this
proceeding.
5. Through the Residential Lands Study planning process, the Residential Lands Study Advisory
Committee, a Housing Focus Group, the Planning Commission and City Council considered,
identified and prioritized Land Use Efficiency Measures that, when implemented will increase
the likelihood that needed housing will occur in Springfield. The proposed code amendments
represent Phase One implementation.
6. On December 7, 2009, a public hearing on the Springfield Residential Land and Housing
Needs Analysis was held before the Springfield City Council. The Development Services
Department staff report, the oral testimony, letters received, written submittals of the persons
testifying at the hearing, and the public record for file # LRP2007-00030 have been considered
and hereby are incorporated into the record for this proceeding.
7. On the basis of this record, the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis as
submitted is consistent with the criteria of House Bill 3337, ORS 197.296, ORS 197.303, ORS
197.304, the Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules pertaining to housing – OAR
Attachment 4-5
660-008-0000 - 0040. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and
conclusions as described in the public record for application file # LRP 2009-00030 and
hereby incorporated into the record for this proceeding.
8. On December 7, 2009, the Springfield City Council adopted resolution no. 09-54: A
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING
THE 2009 PRELIMINARY SPRINGFIELD RESIDENTIAL LAND AND HOUSING NEEDS
ANALYSIS, FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO "COMPLETE" THE
PRELIMINARY INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION BEFORE JANUARY 1,
2010.
9. Local adoption of the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis was an interim
step necessary to comply with the law. The final decision on adoption of the Springfield
Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis shall be made by the Springfield City Council
and the Lane County Board of Commissioners as the Springfield Residential Land and
Housing Needs Analysis is incorporated into the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, a
refinement plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan. Subsequent action in compliance with
HB3337 to establish a separate urban growth boundary for Springfield may rely in part on this
document, a variation of this document, or entirely new documentation. The adoption of a UGB
is an iterative process, and depending on how the record develops, the background
assumptions, analysis and determinations in the attached Springfield Residential Land and
Housing Needs Analysis may change.
10. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Springfield Development Code
Section 5.2-115, has been provided.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code as
submitted are consistent with the criteria of Springfield Development Code 5.6-115 and are consistent
with Metro Plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules pertaining to housing
– OAR 660-008-0000 - 0040.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission, at its April 20, 2010 meeting, hereby recommends that the City Council
approve the amendments to the Springfield Development Code, as presented herein at Case No. LRP
2009-00015.
______________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
AYES: _____
NOES: _____
ABSENT: _____
ABSTAIN: _____
COMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE: April 13, 2010
TO: Joint Planning Commissions PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNICATION
FROM: Mark Metzger, Planner III MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Transportation impacts of the
proposed Metro Plan re-designations to resolve existing Plan/Zone conflicts
ISSUE: Staff has prepared a proposal that would resolve a significant number of plan/zone
conflicts through subsequent adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – a refined
comprehensive plan diagram for Springfield. OAR 660-012-0060 (1) requires communities to
evaluate the potential impact of amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans to
determine if the amendments would significantly affect existing or planned transportation
facilities. If the land use changes have a significant impact then communities must take action
to amend their local transportation plans to lower the planned functional capacity or mitigate the
impact of the changes through other means.
OAR 660-012-0060 (1) states that a plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects
a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels
of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that
is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared an analysis that supports a position that the proposed
amendments will not significantly affect Springfield’s transportation facilities within the
Springfield 2030 planning area. The analysis shows how the proposed changes primarily affect
existing development where the changes are made to bring the comprehensive plan
designations into conformance with existing zoning and that the great majority of these changes
Attachment 5-1
reflect development that is already in place. The scope of the Springfield 2030 Plan and the
city’s efforts to resolve Plan/Zone conflicts requires this high level analysis that considers the
overall impact of the proposed amendments.
Background
Metro Plan and neighborhood refinement plans are intended to establish where various types of
development (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) are to occur. These designations are
implemented through Springfield’s various zoning districts. Staff conducted an analysis to
compare existing Metro Plan and Refinement Plan designations with the Springfield Zoning
Map. For the great majority of the 22,476 tax lots within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary
there is consistency between the land uses designated by the Metro Plan and Refinement Plans
and the implementing zoning.
Staff has identified 895 instances where the zoning of a parcel is not consistent with the Metro
Plan and/or refinement plan designation. A “plan/zone conflict” places a cloud of uncertainty on
development or redevelopment of a parcel which requires resolution through a Planning
Commission review process before development permits can be processed. Since the
buildable lands inventories are based on plan designations, not zoning, it is important that
known conflicts be resolved to the maximum extent practicable at this stage in the planning
process so that the inventories are as accurate as possible.
Staff proposes to address a portion of the plan/zone conflicts as we prepare recommendations
for significant updates to Springfield’s land use plans. Staff examined each plan/zone conflict
and developed recommendations for Metro Plan/Refinement Plan changes to resolve 297 of
them. To resolve all 895 conflicts, a combination of Plan/Refinement Plan and zone changes
will be needed. Some conflicts are in areas of the city such as Glenwood and Downtown where
planning activities are ongoing. Other conflicts are in areas where new planning efforts are
likely to be initiated in the near future such as Jasper-Natron or along the Main Street corridor.
In these cases, no recommendation was prepared for most conflicts since future planning efforts
will resolve them in the context of a new plan for the area.
The proposed changes would affect 66.24 acres of vacant land and this could have some effect
on the buildable lands inventories. Of this, 40.86 acres are attributable to a 25.13 acre change
from Sand and Gravel to Light Medium Industrial; and another 15.73 acre change from Campus
Industrial to Park and Open Space was approved several years ago when the Gateway sports
complex was created. The change to Parks and Open Space was approved but never shown
on the Gateway Refinement Plan. The acreage changed from Sand and Gravel to Light
Medium Industrial is almost entirely covered by a pond that remains from an abandoned gravel
mining operation.
The remaining 25.38 acres is composed of dozens of small changes, the majority of which
correct the land use designation to reflect the existing zoning or which reflects a change to fit
the context of the neighborhood or reality on the ground. Staff has not applied constraints to the
acreages presented here, and thus at this time we cannot provide an accurate estimate
regarding how this proposed action would affect the buildable land inventories. The following
section of this memorandum summarizes the methodology used to conduct the plan/zone
conflict analysis and to evaluate the likely transportation impacts on Springfield’s transportation
facilities as required by OAR 660-012-0060 (1)
Attachment 5-2
Methodology and Analysis of the Proposed Metro Plan Diagram Changes
Staff identified 895 apparent conflicts between the Metro Plan and neighborhood refinement
plan designation using information maintained on the City’s Geographic Information System
(GIS), the database maintained by the Lane County Assessor’s Office and data maintained for
the Regional Land Use Database (RLID).
The Metro Plan Diagram is an 11”x17” comprehensive plan map that shows plan designations
for the greater Eugene-Springfield area. The Diagram is not parcel specific and many times the
boundary between one land use designation and another has no meaningful point of reference
to show with precision where the boundary is located. At various times, Hearings Officials have
indicated that those boundaries between land uses that have no points of reference (like an
abutting street), may be subject to interpretation within a distance of up to 150 feet.
Springfield’s Refinement Plans are parcel specific and provide more accurate designation of the
intended land use at the neighborhood level.
Staff used GIS to overlay a computer representation of the Metro Plan on top of Springfield’s
parcel specific zoning map to identify Metro Plan/zoning conflicts. As expected, the plan
designation boundaries shown on the non-specific Metro Plan Diagram did not always line up
with the boundaries of the parcel specific zoning map. The Refinement Plans, being parcel
specific, conform to parcel lines without overlap.
GIS allows the use of map information, aerial photography and property specific data from the
Lane County Assessor and RLID parcel files to analyze individual conflicts. Staff used
information from each of these data sources to create a spreadsheet that identified tax lots
where these conflicts exist.
It was immediately obvious that the great majority of the apparent conflicts identified by GIS
were small fragments of parcels that revealed the discrepancies between the general Metro
Plan and the parcel specific zoning maps. In effect, the conflicts were registration errors
between the two maps. The intended land use designation shown by the Metro Plan Diagram
was evident, but the Diagram did not register exactly with the underlying parcels and the zoning
for those parcels. Refinement Plan/zoning conflicts were clearly identifiable as differences
between the assigned designation and the zoning for the same parcel.
Where registration errors were evident, and the affected parcel fragments were less than 1000
square feet in size, these fragments were assumed to be consistent with the parent parcel and
not a plan/zone conflict. There were many fragments which were larger than 1,000 square feet
that where there was little doubt as to the intended Metro Plan Designation for the parent lot.
These cases were treated as plan/zone conflicts none the less. The majority of the 895
apparent plan/zone conflicts are composed of these larger fragments for which the intent of the
Metro Plan Diagram requires little interpretation.
Attachment 5-3
Registration Errors between the Metro Plan Diagram and Underlying Parcels
W L ST
Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential
Metro Plan/Zoning Conflicts Greater than 1000 Sq. Ft.
32ND STCOMMERCIAL ST
Low Density Residential
Light Medium Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Registration
Error
Conflicts greater than
1,000 sq. ft.
Metro Plan/Refinement Plan /Zone Conflicts
Staff met weekly from August through October to consider how best to resolve the identified
conflicts. At each meeting staff reviewed aerial photos, zoning maps and other data for each
tax lot where a conflict exists. Staff discussed the context of the conflicting lot, existing use of
the lot itself, and the future prospect of development in the area. A recommendation was then
recorded for each lot on a spreadsheet. The recommendations fell into three categories: 1)
change the Metro Plan/Refinement plan designation; 2) change the zoning; and 3) defer a
recommendation for future planning. The action that is being presented for consideration is for
Metro Plan designation changes only and not zone changes.
Recommendations have been made for resolving 297 plan/zone conflicts. In many cases, the
conflicts were located in neighborhood refinement plan areas where planning efforts are already
in progress, such as Downtown and Glenwood. These conflicts were left unresolved awaiting
the completion of those planning projects. Recommendations to resolve conflicts along the
Attachment 5-4
Main Street Corridor, Pioneer Parkway and in the Jasper Natron area were also reserved for
future planning.
Findings
Tables 1 through 6 below summarize the recommended changes to resolve Plan/Zone conflicts.
The following findings can be made from these tables:
• Table 1 shows that about 177 lots are proposed to change to a more intensive use.
These changes averaged about .75 acres each. This average drops to about .53 acres
if you drop out the three Sand and Gravel parcels that were changed to Light-Medium
Industrial which are largely unbuildable. Half-acre changes scattered throughout the city
are not likely to have a significant affect on any single local transportation facility,
particularly since the majority of these lots are already developed and the change
reflects the current use of the parcels.
• Table 1 also shows that of the 177 lots that are proposed to change to a more intensive
use, 126 lots are changing from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
The average change per lot is .18 acres, or about 8,000 square feet, the size of a single
family lot. Table 3 shows that only .68 acres of vacant Medium Density Residential Land
will be added by the proposed changes.
• Table 2 shows the changes and acreages that represent more intensified uses. The
largest single intensification of use in terms of acres added is again the Sand and Gravel
conversion to Light-medium Industrial. Only about 13.6 acres of vacant Light Medium
Industrial land will be added by the proposed action if you remove the unbuildable land
added by the conversion of the Sand and Gravel parcels. The 13.6 acres is comprised of
16 small parcels lots (average .85 acres), not counting the Sand and Gravel conversion.
• Table 3 shows the land use designations that will significantly increase in acreage by the
proposed actions. Table 4 shows that only two designations, Parks and Open Space
(11.7 acres) and Light-Medium Industrial (38.72 acres) will gain vacant land. The
majority of proposed changes simply reshuffle land that has already been developed.
• Table 5 shows the acreage for changes in vacant and developed land within ½ mile of
the interchanges with I-5 and Hwy 126. Only about .65 acres of vacant buildable land
are is located within ½ mile of the state highway interchanges if the Sand and Gravel
conversion parcels are omitted. There are 23.53 acres of developed land within the ½
mile radius. Diagram 1 is a map of the parcels and affected interchanges.
• Table 6 shows the acreage for changes in vacant and developed land within ¼ mile of
Franklin Blvd., Main Street, and South A Street. Only about .11 acres of vacant
buildable land are is located within a ¼ mile of these streets. There are 4.73 acres of
developed land within the ½ mile radius. Diagram 1 is a map of the parcels and the
affected streets.
• It can be reasonably construed that proposed Metro Plan and Refinement Plan changes
will not have a significant affect on Springfield’s transportation facilities according the
OAR 660-012-060, given the small number and parcel acreage of more intensified uses,
and in particular vacant acreage that will be affected.
Attachment 5-5
A key to the land use abbreviations used for Tables 1-6 may be found at the end of this
document.
Table 1. Character of Recommended Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Amendments
Character of Recommended
Changes
Change Change Number
of Lots
Acres Changes/Acre
From: To:
Changes to a more intensive use: POS LDR 6 4.47 .75
PLO LDR 5 0.59 .12
POS MDR 2 0.44 .22
POS CC 1 1.92 1.92
LDR MDR 126 22.89 .18
LDR HDR 5 4.98 1.00
LDR CC 2 0.73 .37
LDR LMI 16 14.13 .88
MRC HDR 1 1.43 1.43
MRC CC 2 1.89 .95
LMI MDR 1 0.17 .17
LDR GE 1 2.21 2.21
LDR MRC 1 2.59 2.59
MDR CI 1 0.3 .3
SG LMI 3 25.21 8.40
HI LDR 2 0.06 .03
HI CC 2 3.74 1.87
POS HI 1 0.07 .07
SUBTOTAL 177 87.82 .75
Changes to a less intensive use: Change Change Number
of Lots
Acres Changes/Acre
From: To:
CC LDR 35 4.92 .14
CC MDR 15 2.61 .17
CC LMI 2 7.38 3.69
MDR LDR 29 6.77 .23
MDR POS 2 0.78 .39
LMI-MU LDR 2 0.84 .42
LMI-MU POS 3 4.12 1.37
LDR POS 6 1.75 .29
LDR HI 1 0.04 .04
LMI LDR 6 1.88 .31
LMI HI 1 1.75 1.75
HDR POS 1 4.76 4.76
HI POS 3 19.26 6.42
CI POS 3 15.73 5.24
SUBTOTAL 110 72.59 .65
Changes to a similar intensity: Change Change Number
of Lots
Acres Changes/Acre
From: To:
CC C/ND 2 15.81 7.9
CI LMI 4 9.54 2.39
MU-
LMI/CC
CC 3 1.17 .39
LMI-MU LMI 1 0.15 .15
SUBTOTAL 10 26.67 2.67
TOTAL OF ALL RECOMMENDED
CHANGES
297 187.08 .63
Attachment 5-6
Table 2. Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Changes that Intensify Uses
Recommended
Changes
Existing Designations
Change From:
Change To: Affected
Lots
HI LDR LMI MDR MRC PLO POS SG Total
Acres
CC 7 3.74 0.73 1.89 1.92 8.28
CI 1 0.3 0.3
GE 1 2.21 2.21
HDR 6 4.98 1.43 6.41
HI 1 0.07 0.07
LDR 13 0.06 0.59 4.47 5.12
LMI 19 14.13 25.21 39.34
MDR 129 22.89 0.17 0.44 23.5
MRC 1 2.59 2.59
Total Acres 3.8 47.53 0.17 0.3 3.32 0.59 6.9 25.21 87.82
Table 3. Overall Change in Plan Designations by Acreage
Plan Designation From
(Loss)
To
(Gain)
Difference
Community Commercial 30.72 9.45 -21.27
Campus Industrial 25.27 .30 -24.97
High Density Residential 4.76 6.41 1.65
Heavy Industrial 23.06 1.86 -21.2
Low Density Residential 49.32 19.53 -29.79
Light Medium Industrial 3.8 56.41 52.61
Light Medium Industrial-Mixed Use 5.11 0 -5.11
Medium Density Residential 7.85 26.11 18.26
Major Retail Center 3.32 2.59 -.73
Mixed Use- Light Medium Industrial/Commercial 1.17 0 -1.17
Public Lands and Open Space .59 0 -.59
Parks and Open Space 6.90 46.40 39.50
Sand and Gravel 25.21 0 -25.21
Government and Education 0 2.21 2.21
Community Commercial/ Nodal Development 0 15.81 15.81
00 0
Total 187.08 187.08 0.0
Table 4. Changes in Vacant Acreage by Plan Designations
Plan Designation From To Difference
Community Commercial 8.05 5.35 -2.70
Campus Industrial 18.99 .30 -18.69
High Density Residential 0 0 0
Heavy Industrial 3.07 .04 -3.03
Low Density Residential 3.63 4.41 .78
Light Medium Industrial 0 38.72 *38.72
Light Medium Industrial-Mixed Use 0 0 0
Medium Density Residential 1.33 .68 -.65
Major Retail Center 0 0 0
Mixed Use- Light Medium Industrial/Commercial 0 0 0
Public Lands and Open Space 2.01 .78 -1.23
Attachment 5-7
Parks and Open Space 4.03 15.73 11.70
Sand and Gravel 25.13 0 -25.13
Government and Education 0 0 0
Community Commercial/ Nodal Development 0 .23 .23
Total 66.24 66.24 0.0
*Only about 13.6 acres of vacant Light Medium Industrial land will be added by the proposed
action if you remove the unbuildable land added by the conversion of the Sand and Gravel
parcels. The 13.6 acres is comprised of 16 small parcels lots (average .85 acres), not counting
the Sand and Gravel conversion.
Table 5. Changes in Vacant and Developed Acres within ½ Mile of State Highway
Interchanges on I-5 and Hwy 126
Change To: Vacant Acreage within ½ Mile of
Interchanges
Developed Acreage within ½ Mile of
Interchanges
C 0.4 4.11
C/ND 0.23
CC 1.89
HDR 6.41
LDR .25 5.07
LMI **26.73 .08
MDR 5.97
Total Acreage 27.38 23.53
**Includes 25.13 acres of Sand and Gravel proposed for Light- Medium Industrial that is not
buildable. Only about .65 acres of vacant buildable land are is located within ½ mile of the state
highway interchanges.
Table 6. ***Changes in Vacant and Developed Acres within ¼ Mile of
Franklin Blvd., Main Street and South A Street
Change To: Vacant Acreage within ¼ Mile of
Franklin/Main/South A
Developed Acreage within ¼ Mile of
Franklin/Main/South A
HI 1.75
LMI .11 .77
MDR 2.21
Total Acreage .11 4.73
***Resolution of the plan/zone conflicts for parcels located within ¼ mile of Franklin Blvd., Main
Street and South A Street are being deferred until a comprehensive “corridor plan” can be
completed. The figures in Table 6 represent those few parcels that are being considered for
change through this plan/zone resolution action.
Attachment 5-8
Key to Land Use Abbreviations Used in Tables 1-4
C Commercial
CC Community Commercial
CI Campus Industrial
CC/ND Community Commercial/ Nodal Development
HDR High Density Residential
GE Government and Education
HI Heavy Industrial
LDR Low Density Residential
LMI Light Medium Industrial
LMI-MU Light Medium Industrial-Mixed Use
MDR Medium Density Residential
MRC Major Retail Center
MU-LMI/CC Mixed Use- Light Medium Industrial/Commercial
PLO Public Lands and Open Space
POS Parks and Open Space
SG Sand and Gravel
Attachment 5-9