HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 04 16 WS DSD CIBL STAKEHOLDERS MemoMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF WORK SESSION: April 16th, 2009
TO: Planning Commission TRANSMITTAL
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Linda Pauly, Planning Supervisor
SUBJECT: Commercial & Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) Stakeholder Committee -
Summary and Recommendations
ISSUE: The Planning Commission will conduct a work session with CIBL Stakeholder Committee to
review the committee’s involvement in the City’s Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Study
and to receive the committee’s recommendations.
DISCUSSION: Beginning on April 24, 2008, the CIBL Stakeholder Committee met nine times to
provide ongoing guidance of key assumptions and review of the following work products developed by
the City’s consultant ECONorthwest:
1. Draft Economic Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies
2. Draft Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities
Analysis
3. Draft Employment Opportunity Areas - The committee provided advice to ECONorthwest to
help guide the selection and prioritization of the Draft Employment Opportunity Areas within
the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) study area.
The draft policy documents will be finalized by ECONorthwest and included in the recommended UGB
and policy package to be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at a joint work
session on June 22, 2009. The first public hearing will be conducted by the Planning Commission on
September 15, 2009.
Since the committee’s last meeting, new data has been made available which significantly increases
the constraints on one of the Draft Employment Opportunity Areas selected and prioritized by the
committee. Staff will provide an update at the work session. Staff will also brief the committee and
Planning Commission on the updated Residential Lands Inventory.
RECOMMENDATION/ ACTION REQUESTED: The work session provides an opportunity for the
CIBL Stakeholder Committee to summarize the committee’s process and share their views with the
Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the CIBL
Stakeholder Committee’s recommendations as incorporated into the assumptions and findings of the
(1) Draft Economic Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies and (2) Draft Commercial
and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis and direct staff and the
consultants to finalize the draft documents. Revisions to the Draft Employment Opportunity Areas will
be prepared by ECO Northwest and shared with the CIBL Stakeholder Committee at their June 11,
2009 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of Committee Process & Recommendations
2. CIBL/RLS/UGB Policy Public Review and Adoption Schedule
UGB / Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL)
Stakeholder Committee
Summary of Committee Process &
Recommendations
Thursday, April 16th, 2009
The CIBL Stakeholder Committee is advisory to the Planning Commission and City
Council. The Committee has met nine times at Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street,
Library Meeting Room, 6-8pm. All meetings were open to the public.
Committee Members:
Member Name Membership Category
1. Mayor Leiken City Council liaison
2. Lee Beyer, Planning Commissioner Springfield Planning Commission liaison
3. Johnny Kirschenmann, Planning
Commissioner
Springfield Planning Commission liaison
4. Dan Egan, Executive Director Chamber of Commerce
5. Dave Marra (DC Real Estate); Jim Welsh,
(JD Welsh Co.) as alternate
Springfield Board of Realtors
6. Lauri Segel – Planner (Goal 1 Coalition)
Land Use Advocacy Group
7. Eve Montanaro - Watershed Coordinator,
Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council
Watershed Council
8. Philip Farrington Director, Land Use
Planning & Development (PeaceHealth)
Large Health Care Provider
9. Tim Stokes – Local Business Owner
(Metal Products)
Manufacturing Employer
10. Don OldenBurg (Symantec) High-tech Industry
11. Guy Weese, Board Member (Emerald
Empire Art Association)
Arts-Based Employment Sector
12. Kari Westlund, Executive Director
(CVALCO), Richard Boyles (Alternate)
Tourism Industry
13. George Grier, Board Member & Voting
Delegate (Lane County Farm Bureau)
Regional agri-business
14 & 15. Brianna Huber, Thurston High High School Student
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
(541) 726-3689 fax
www.ci.springfield.or.us
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
School Student; Naomi Campollo,
Springfield High School Student
16. Mike Kelly, Springfield Citizen Citizen at large
17. Donna Lentz, Springfield Citizen Citizen at large
18. Steven Yett, Paramount Center, LLC. Retail Industry
19. Doug McKay, McKay Commercial
Properties LLC
Commercial Developer
This document is a compilation of key points from the meeting minutes and is intended
to provide a concise, abbreviated summary of the committee’s process and
recommendations to date. Agreements and decision points are underlined.
Meeting 1: April 24, 2008.
Dan Egan and Lee Beyer volunteered to co-chair the Committee.
The group discussed committee meeting process and established guidelines.
Committee members agreed to set monthly Stakeholder Committee meetings for
the fourth Thursday of each month.
Mayor Leiken reiterated the importance of the project and noted that the project
timeline may lengthen if need be, as the Committee works through each issue.
Committee members agreed that the Stakeholder Committee should try to reach
consensus, but, if that is not possible, have a vote. Majority and minority opinions
would then still be forwarded to the Planning Commission / City Council. Mr.
Egan suggested that opinions would be encapsulated in the minutes.
David Reesor led the group in a “snow card” process to identify key issues.
Mr. Parker discussed the upcoming Public Workshop and future discussion of
inventory work and the Economic Opportunities Analysis.
Meeting 2: May 22, 2008
Mr. Parker described the context for economic development, and spoke in depth
about economic trends affecting Springfield’s future.
Mr. Parker led the group in a discussion related to the Economic Development
Strategy in Springfield. He asked the group to comment about assumptions
related to future growth in Springfield. These assumptions included:
• Job and population growth will continue in Springfield
• Springfield wants to be a “complete community”
• Springfield will continue to function within the regional economy
• The ratio of types of employment growth in Springfield will be similar to
the regional forecast
– 70% services
– 10% government
– 20% manufacturing
• The City wants to:
– Attract higher wage jobs
– Diversify the economy
– Provide a sufficient number of sites for long-term and short-term needs
– Make strategic infrastructure investments to accommodate growth
• Springfield will not have funds to provide major subsidies to attract firms
Overall comments related to general acceptance of the assumptions. Some specific
comments related to the following:
• Importance of strategically planning for future infrastructure, including
changing needs of infrastructure (i.e. auto, truck, railway, etc.)
• Consider cost of infrastructure
• Assuring ability to access employment sites
• Estimating different site needs for office development versus industrial
development
• Diversity in the economy is important
• Importance should be placed on higher wage jobs
• Expand from just referencing “regional economy” to include “national and
world economy” and its effects on Springfield
• Some subsidies may be important for certain types of business if they’re
choosing to locate between only a few different communities.
• Cost of raw materials is having an adverse effect in the manufacturing
sector.
• Springfield is a self employment friendly community.
• Value should also be placed on preserving and sustaining natural
resources while balancing the need for jobs.
• The manufacturing sector is changing, but not leaving. Biomanufacturing,
intellectual management are examples of the changing manufacturing
sector.
• Next round of jobs coming to Springfield will be here because “they want
to be here, not because they have to be here.” Quality of life is important
and a selling point for attracting industries.
• Private / public partnerships will continue to be important
• It shouldn’t be taken for granted that job growth will continue in
Springfield; Corvallis was given as an example as a community which has
lost jobs in recent years.
• Springfield will benefit from people’s general desire to “come out West…”
• There should not be too much separation between Eugene and
Springfield, as it’s a regional economy. However, Springfield doesn’t want
to be a bedroom community to Eugene.
Meeting 3: June 26, 2008
Ms. Goodman presented the results of the online community development
survey. 214 people responded to the survey –slightly less than a similar survey
conducted in Ashland. The group discussed survey validity and the public
involvement process. Terry Moore noted that the Committee can recommend as
a group how much emphasis should be given to the survey results. Mr. Moore
noted that most people’s concerns related to the survey findings would be
addressed in the Economic Development Objectives / Strategies discussion.
Mr. Beyer facilitated a group discussion of the survey findings:
• Ms. Segel spoke to the group about rising energy costs and the effects on
future industries. She stated that, in her opinion, there were impeded
assumptions in the survey – assumptions should have included climate
change, rising fuel costs, etc.
• Mr. Grier spoke about survey findings, and indicated that the results show
that we need to protect our quality of life; people want to live and work
within close proximity; etc. He noted that there is useful information in the
survey findings.
• Ms. Lentz stated that she had concerns over vacant development – she’d
like to see the vacant stores filled up prior to building on the fringes.
• Mr. Kirschenmann spoke to the group about Springfield’s ground water
protection program and how Springfield is ahead of other communities in
that regard.
• Mr. Beyer discussed with the group his opinion regarding industries
reliance on transportation. Mr. Beyer spoke about emerging industries
such as solar manufacturing. He gave an example of solar manufactures
needing 100 + acre sites.
• Mr. Farrington spoke to the group about community amenities that attract
employers to this area. He noted that Springfield has these attractive
amenities.
• Mr. Marra discussed the importance of attracting new businesses to the
area by having enough available land. He also explained that call centers
are not necessarily long term businesses in his opinion, and that there
should be more focus on manufacturing industries.
• Mr. McKay spoke to the group about the importance of attracting smaller
manufacturing industries locate in Springfield. He indicated that there may
be a shift in the future to smaller manufacturers that provide items locally
and may be more of a shift towards service industries.
• Ms. Huber noted that new businesses need to be more environmentally
friendly and focus less on fossil fuel consumption.
• Mr. Grier asked Mr. Moore about factoring in energy costs into economic
development planning.
• Mr. Moore noted that the market is currently responding to the increase in
energy costs. The difference between the 1970s and today is that is
people believe it is more long term. People’s reaction today to high
energy costs will not happen overnight, but over the long-term. Policy
choices today, though, will help effect people’s responses to high energy
costs.
• The group discussed the relationship of energy costs and economic
development.
• Mr. Weese indicated that his opinion was that the high energy costs will
work itself out – there will either be more oil or cleaner energy.
• Ms. Segel noted that she disagreed with Mr. Weese and spoke to the
group about peak oil and climate change.
Presentation & Discussion of Draft Economic Development Objectives and
Strategies: Terry Moore. Mr. Moore’s presentation covered the following topics:
• “Narrow/traditional view” and “broad/emerging view” of economic
development.
• Simple model of regional growth
• Key objective of economic growth – “jobs”
• Factors that mater to firms
• Implications / policies related to economic development
Group discussion focused on the “land development” section of economic
development objectives/strategies.
• George Grier stated that many communities attempt to include as
much land in the land need analysis as possible – this is a concern for
the agriculture community as it ties up the land base. Mr. Grier noted
that the planned infrastructure should guide development in a more
orderly manner.
• Lee Beyer spoke to the group about a need for large sites.
• Ms. Lentz indicated that she desired that the city fully utilize the
existing urbanized land prior to expanding the UGB.
• Mr. Farrington noted that there needs to be an adequate short term
supply of land.
• Ms. Segel spoke to the group about staying focused on
redevelopment of infill sites and that future patterns of development
may not be similar to historic patterns of development.
• Mr. Grier reiterated his point related to the importance of the
availability of infrastructure in relation to future growth. Availability of
infrastructure should drive the process.
• Mr. Beyer discussed that new, larger companies may not necessarily
need infrastructure in place, but rather they could help install the
infrastructure themselves.
• Mr. Farrington reiterated his point of allowing flexibility for
accommodating new industries.
• Ms. Segel reiterated her point of changing industries and the effect of
high energy costs and decline in fossil fuel capacity. Ms. Segel
indicated that new call centers should not be allowed to build in the
floodplain.
• Group discussion continued regarding development on farm land;
floodplains, etc.
• Mr. Moore briefly spoke about redevelopment effects on land need.
• Eve Montanaro reminded the group that when hearing different
opinions during the meetings, that all members should respect others
and listen to different opinions.
• Additional questions were asked by the group related to the effect of
historic trends relation to future economic planning.
Meeting 4: July 24, 2008
Staff presented a Group Working Agreement to the Committee. The Committee
agreed to adhere to the Group Working Agreement.
Economic Development Objectives / Strategies. Mr. Parker gave the
Committee a brief overview of steps taken to provide the draft objectives and
strategies. These steps included: work sessions with Planning Commission and
City Council; Stakeholder Committee discussion during the June Stakeholder
meeting; online survey taken by Stakeholder Committee; and discussions with
staff. The Committee provided comments and suggestions on the draft
Economic Development Objectives / Strategies:
Redevelopment Potential. The committee agreed to Mr.Parker’s proposal to
produce the inventory / redevelopment estimates using the mid-range
redevelopment potential scenario.
Meeting 5: September 25, 2008
Public Testimony. At committee member George Grier’s request, staff
distributed a printed handout describing a seminar the University of Oregon is
conducting regarding Multi-Lane Boulevards to the Committee.
City Attorney Bill VanVactor spoke to the Committee regarding new State ethics
law/requirements for public representatives.
Discussion of Draft Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) & Inventory.
Committee members commented on the information presented by ECO
Northwest, including corrections to inventory maps; inventory constraints re
ODOT regulations on Main Street; building regulations on floodplain and
floodway within the existing Urban Growth Boundary. After deliberation on the
issue, it was agreed that floodplain would be included as potentially buildable
land for existing inventory purposes, so long as it did not preclude potentially
excluding floodplain land in any future expansion areas during the Alternatives
Analysis.
Committee members agreed with the Technical Advisory Committee’s
assessment of inventory constraints. Committee members identified edits to be
made to the inventory maps.
Meeting 6: October 23, 2008
Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). Present site / land needs based
upon revised EOA.
Finalized discussion and recommendation of Redevelopment
Assumptions. The following comments/recommendations were made by
Stakeholder Committee members:
Mike Kelly:
Agreed with ECO’s redevelopment assumptions for small retail development.
His experience is that it is easier to redevelop commercial sites smaller than 2
acres (especially those 1 acre and smaller) but that commercial sites larger than
2 acres are harder to redevelop.
Questions that Springfield will get 50% redevelopment of industrial development
given the history of Springfield. Noted that developers want large industrial sites
that are ready to build.
There is a need for more new parcels available for industrial parcels 5 acres and
larger.
Guy Weese:
Employment site needs can / should be met through redevelopment and infill
ECO’s assumptions are statistically valid, but lack of large, unconstrained vacant
land on the fringe of the UGB make it unrealistic to assume that Springfield will
be able to find large sites for new development.
Described many vacant buildings he knows of which could be redeveloped.
Naomi Campollo:
Explained that there should be a priority list and timeline for redevelopment of
properties.
List of when and what will be developed on specific sites.
Richard Boyles:
Agreed with Mike Kelly
Steven Yett:
Agreed with Mike Kelly - pressure is on having large lots
Also agreed with ECO on redevelopment of smaller sites.
Thinks that the City needs to provide larger, good sites for development.
Johnny Kirschenmann:
Agreed with ECO recommendations
Dan Egan:
Explained that if redevelopment is to happen at ECO’s assumed level, there
needs to be strong city policies / tools to support redevelopment in order for it to
occur.
Stated opinion that redevelopment hasn’t historically been as aggressive as ECO
recommendation.
Thinks that the assumptions underestimate the demand for large sites.
George Grier:
ECO’s recommendations are realistic, not aggressive.
Is concerned with the cost of servicing new sites.
Philip Farrington:
Overall agreed that ECO’s recommendation was accurate.
Thinks that the City will need sites to capture larger businesses but that the
analysis does a good job with assumptions about redevelopment of smaller sites.
Stated opinion that safe harbor population projection underestimates growth in
Springfield.
Lee Beyer:
Overall agreed with ECO’s recommendation given the fact it’s for a 20-year time
period.
Eve Montenaro.:
ECONorthwest Assumptions are reasonable
Donna Lentz:
ECONorthwest Assumptions are reasonable
Meeting 7: November 20, 2008
Staff prepared a memorandum summarizing the committee’s comments on the
Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA):
November 20th, 2008
Stakeholder Committee Comments / Recommendations
on the Draft EOA
Lee Beyer:
Felt that the assumptions / recommendations are a compromise but acceptable
Technical analysis is sound
Kati Westlund:
Asked that the cluster development narrative in the draft EOA include a
conference center (page 48 – add box for conference center. Page 50 –
additional conference center would add to tourism industry in Springfield). Also
noted that a couple additional large sites would be desirable.
Don Oldenburg:
Overall agrees with ECONorthwest recommendations – however, would like at
least one additional large site.
Commercial redevelopment assumptions seem reasonable
Industrial redevelopment assumptions may be overly aggressive
Johnny Kirschenmann:
Overall felt that ECO’s assumptions / analysis are realistic – however, an
additional large site would be helpful – but doesn’t want to risk not getting State
approval if additional large sites are added.
Naomi Campollo:
Overall agreed with ECO’s assumptions / analysis
Dave Marra:
Overall agreed with ECO’s assumptions / analysis but thought the parcels
needed should be large
Indicated that there may be a need to update the inventory again after study is
complete.
Doug McKay
Likes the idea of creating large parcels – but noted that there will be pressure to
partition / subdivide large parcels into smaller ones.
Dan Egan:
Infill and redevelopment assumptions are very aggressive. Understands that
assumptions are a “political compromise”, and is comfortable with that.
Noted that large sites are needed for cluster employment sites (noted example of
RiverBend site)
Guy Weese:
Agreed that there is a need for more large parcels.
Steven Yett:
Noted that having one or two more large sites is critical.
Agreed that there will be pressure to partition / subdivide large sites
Explained that historic redevelopment / infill trends did not occur at a fast pace –
but noted that there was more “green field” land available in the 1970s than
today, and that it was easier to develop.
George Grier:
Noted that Springfield is geographically constrained, and servicing new
expansion sites will be extremely costly (i.e. new bridges, sewer, etc.).
Consider System Development Charges (SDCs) – more aggressive growth will
cost more money for SDCs. Cost of infrastructure should be considered in any
UGB expansion.
Fiscal and geographic realities make it appropriate to look at infill. ECO’s
assumptions don’t appear overly aggressive. The assumptions don’t take into
account parcel assembly.
Concern expressed over how some of the assumptions were made. Projected
need for medical and government services outside the UGB is overstated –
believes this can be accommodated through parcel assembly.
Concern expressed over general growth rate.
Supports redevelopment for commercial
Mike Kelly:
Would like to see more sites for 20 acre or larger sites, but understands that this
could create a need to change some of the underlying assumptions.
The draft EOA is acceptable
Brianna Huber
Agrees that it would be useful to bring in more large sites.
Donna Lentz:
Agrees with George Grier – the City should try to work with the sites we currently
have inside the existing UGB.
Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) ECONorthwest presented
revisions to the EOA, updates to the Buildable Lands Inventory, infill and
redevelopment assumptions, site needs & land needs. Key points and
clarifications from the Committee’s discussion:
• Bob Parker explained that providing a range of site needs scenarios (low vs.
high scenario) provides some flexibility when looking at sites outside the
UGB.
• All land within the existing UGB was part of the analysis.
• The existing Metro Plan designation was used as the basis of the analysis
and constraints such as wetlands were discounted.
• Glenwood was included.
• Mr. Kirschenmann asked about whether or not Jasper Natron was included in
the short supply. John Tamulonis explained costs and timelines associated
with future road and sewer construction to Jasper Natron.
• Mr. Parker noted that there are a lot of small sites available in the existing
UGB, but not a lot of large sites.
• Mr. Grier noted that there were no redevelopment assumptions made about
parcel assembly. Mr. Parker explained that the redevelopment assumptions
regarding needed small sites will be addressed through changes in land use
policies that effect land use efficiency within the existing UGB. Mr. Parker
noted that the State allows parcel assembly to be considered a constraint
because of the difficulties associated with it.
• Kari Westlund explained how the number of site needs and acreage need
was calculated.
• Beth Goodman explained that the high scenario was put in place since the
last meeting in response to what was previously heard from the Stakeholder
Committee, TAC, Planning Commission and Council related to allow flexibility
in including large employment sites.
• Doug McKay asked for clarification on the low vs. high scenario – asked if
ECONorthwest wanted the group to come to consensus on the low vs. high
scenario. Mr. Parker stated that the Committee is not asked to decide this
evening between the low vs. high scenario. He indicated that the discussion
should move forward into the alternatives analysis next month, allowing the
Committee to look at what types of sites are available.
• Mr. McKay asked if there is a sense of how many acres of commercial and
industrial were used in the last 20 years.
• Mr. Tamulonis indicated that he could perhaps find more information, but that
it was not currently available.
• Mr. Kelly stated that he was surprised that commercial and industrial needs
were treated the same. He felt that they are not the same. He stated that
industrial uses are drawn towards green field sites rather than redevelopable
sites. He also explained that small commercial site needs are more likely to
be met through redevelopment than industrial.
• Lee Beyer explained that he shares some of the same concerns. He
indicated that he was somewhat bothered that all of the industrial sites will be
met through redevelopment.
• Mr. Parker explained that there is a need for an industrial park, which could
then be divided into smaller pieces to meet the need for small industrial sites.
He noted that there is a need to balance needed sites with UGB expansion.
He further explained that some new industrial uses are different than
traditional industrial uses.
• Mr. Egan noted that companies look for sites based upon specific need. He
explained that in his experience, it’s hardly ever a site that is smaller than 50
acres. He noted that Springfield does not have an industrial park with
available sites. He explained that in a 20-year period, there will be hundreds
of industries looking for new sites. He noted that Springfield needs to focus
on large sites were there are the most inquiries.
• Mr. McKay asked clarification on typical parcel sizes for big-box stores. Mr.
Parker noted that warehouse sites need to be located close (i.e.
approximately one-half mile) from I-5
• Mr. Egan explained that the definition of “industrial” is different than what it
used to be – it is more based on technology centers (i.e. solar manufacturing,
software manufacturers, etc - not smoke stacks.
• Mr. Parker focused the group again on the methodology – he noted that he
heard many Stakeholders saying that they’re uncomfortable with the
redevelopment assumptions related to industrial sites more so than
commercial sites.
• Don Oldenburg asked for clarification regarding how numbers were
generated to accommodate all needed sites less than 5 acre sites within the
existing UGB, and 50% of the 5-20 acre sites through redevelopment.
• Mr. Parker explained that the assumptions were from input from the
Stakeholders, Council, public, etc. – Springfield wants economic development
but also efficient land use (i.e. not have small employment sites on the fringe
of the UGB, but focus them on the center). The assumption with the 5-20
acre sites were discounted to 50% because they are more difficult to come-
by.
• Mr. Parker explained that the Study needs to be legally defendable – he
noted that the City could be a lot more aggressive with the Goal 9 analysis.
He explained that it is ultimately a policy decision if the City chooses the
proposed redevelopment assumptions, as it limits land supply on the fringe,
which then encourages redevelopment in the existing UGB.
• Lee Beyer explained that redevelopment for small sites (less than 5 acres)
makes sense because the cost of infrastructure for these small sites on the
fringe would be more prohibitive.
• Kari Westlund asked for clarification on a table shown in the PowerPoint. She
noted that it appeared to show a surplus of small industrial sites. She
explained that small commercial sites are where it showed site deficits.
• Mr. Kelly noted the complexity of bringing in residential land into needed
acreage.
• Ms. Westlund noted that Springfield may not have enough land for large
parcels when considering more residential growth.
• Mr. Grier asked for clarification in the revised EOA draft, which showed a
decrease campus industrial acreage. Mr. Parker explained that it was mostly
due to incorporating Marcola Meadows master planned area. There also was
a large portion of the Campus Industrial site in Gateway that is constrained by
floodway.
• Dave Marra passed around a flyer advertising a big-box site near Wilsonville -
he indicated it was an example of something Springfield needs.
• Mr. Beyer explained there is a difference between how companies seek
commercial and industrial sites – commercial demand is driven by purchasing
power and population – industrial is different.
• Mr. Egan gave an example of the Woodburn outlet mall - he indicated that
Springfield would not have the ability to site a similar commercial
development with our existing land supply.
Finalize discussion and recommendation of Revised EOA.The following is a
general summary of the combined comments from the Stakeholder Committee:
“The majority of Committee members felt strongly that Springfield needs more large
sites but are accepting of the fact that the City may need to settle for less to get the
plan approved -- approval being the most important point at this time. A minority of
the group felt equally strongly that we should not pursue a large expansion of the
UGB.”
Meeting 8: January 22, 2009
Bill Van Vactor, City Attorney gave a presentation: Safe Harbor Population
Forecast.
Allen Johnson, Attorney gave a presentation: Adopting Springfield’s UGB and
UGB Adoptions around the State.
Potential Employment Opportunity Areas & Constraints: Ten different
opportunity areas were discussed. The notes below summarize the discussion
regarding each site.
Site #1 North Gateway Area
Constraints Discussion:
• Floodplain and floodway issues in the area.
• How much of the area (in acres is affected by flood hazards?
• Much of the Wicklund property is designated as a “Natural Resource Area” in
addition to being subject to floodplain and floodway issues.
• The Committee should be careful to avoid choosing expansion sites that cannot
realistically be developed because of topographical or environmental constraints
that were not an issue when the original inventory of industrial lands was
compiled.
• The cumulative effects of building in the floodplain must be considered. Such
development is going to take a problem and move it somewhere else.
• The TAC indicates that Johnson Rd. provides some potential access. Why is this
so?
• There are significant limitations on the traffic capacity in the Beltline-Gateway
vicinity may affect the North Gateway site.
• ODOT says there is a potential limitation on the density of buildout in the area
(Trip cap).
Opportunities Discussion:
• The site is popular and visible from I-5 and is near other industrial development.
• Has the large parcels (25-50 acres) that are needed.
• Future improvements to I-5/Beltline and Gateway could expand transportation
capacity in the area.
• EMx is extending service into the area.
Site #2 Hayden Bridge Area
Constraints Discussion:
• The area seems to be confined with the adjacent steep sloped lands, and the
rivers. Is it affected by floodplain issues?
• There appear to be significant areas of hydric soils that are a sign of wetland
issues.
• May not be developable for industrial uses.
• May be better for future residential development.
Opportunities Discussion:
• May be easy to service with nearby infrastructure (south side of Hayden Bridge).
• Good connection to I-5 via Hwy 126.
• TAC thinks the area is compatible with future office or retail development. What
was the thinking of the TAC? There is no surrounding residential base to support
retail development.
Site #3 North McKenzie Highway
• George Grier declared that he has a potential conflict of interest related to this
site, given that he owns land in the vicinity. He indicated that he would keep his
comments factual and objective.
Constraints Discussion:
• Significant floodplain and floodway problems. The 1996 flood inundated a
number of areas on the map that are shown to be outside the floodplain. The
floodplain maps are not accurate for this location.
• SUB groundwater protection regulations are an absolute constraint on this land.
There are nearby wellheads that would limit commercial and industrial
development.
• Cedar Creek is the receiving body for much of the stormwater runoff for North
Springfield. City studies indicate that Cedar Creek is at capacity and will be
challenged to accommodate future runoff from urban development within the
existing UGB.
Opportunities Discussion:
• None discussed.
Site #4 Far East Springfield Area
Constraints Discussion:
• Stormwater constraints. This area drains to Cedar Creek. Development
proposed on the Gray property which is inside the existing UGB was constrained
by the stormwater capacity limitations of Cedar creek.
• Steep slopes are also an issue in this area which would constrain development.
• The area would probably be best considered for residential development.
Opportunities Discussion:
• None discussed.
Site #5 Wallace Creek Area and Site #6 West Jasper/Jasper Bridge Area
Constraints Discussion:
• Site #5 has some steep slope issues. The ridge separating the Wallace Creek
basin includes areas of thin soils covering basalt outcroppings that prevented the
extension of the Bob Straub Parkway to Wallace Creek as originally planned.
• Site 6# has floodplain issues and is affected by the Willamette Greenway which
requires riparian setbacks from the river.
Opportunities Discussion:
• The Bob Straub Parkway provides an improved access route to Hwy 126 and I-5
from this area. Is this a logical extension of the Jasper-Natron area?
• Development within the Jasper Natron area along the Bob Straub Parkway may
spur future development in this area.
• The Weyerhaeuser Haul Rd. provides a connection to the Wallace Creek from
Jasper Natron.
• There is an existing industrial site just south of Jasper that should be considered.
Site #7 Clearwater Area
Constraints Discussion:
• Floodplain should be respected. If you don’t build around the flood channels
running through the area there will be problems.
• The area is part of a SUB ground water protection area (Willamette Wellfield).
• New rules for lending in floodplain areas are not favorable to homeowners.
• This area should be considered for residential development. Some
neighborhood scale commercial would be appropriate.
Opportunities Discussion:
• The school district owns some land along Clearwater Lane.
Site #8 South Millrace Area
Constraints Discussion:
• Is within the 0-5 year time of travel zone. The Willamette Wellfield ( wellheads) is
a prominent part of the area. Development can occur within time of travel zones,
but mitigation is necessary and would restrict the used of certain chemicals by
commercial and industrial users.
• The rail crossing at 28th St. is a choke point for emergency access when trains
are moving through the area.
Opportunities Discussion:
• There is a substantial amount of publically owned land in Site #8. The City,
Willamalane and Sub all control parcels in the area which may help guide future
development in a positive way.
• There is nearby industrial development. Integration of this area with existing
urban development to the north makes sense.
• Some residential development may be acceptable.
Site #9 Seavey Loop Area and Site #10 Goshen Area
Constraints Discussion:
• Floodplain and wetland issues are apparent in this area.
• ODOT indicates that 30th and I-% interchange has capacity constraints.
• Much of the area has Class I and Class II soils which are “low priority” for
inclusion in urban areas under state planning rules.
• Mt. Pisgah is a sensitive recreational/environmental area.
Opportunities Discussion:
• Glenwood provides Springfield with a nexus to Site #9. Sewer connections to the
area through Glenwood may be possible.
• There is a significant industrial and commercial development in the area already,
especially along I-5 in both Site #9 and Site #10.
• The proximity to I-5 and 30th Ave. are beneficial for transportation access.
• ODOT has plans to improve the I-5/ 30th interchange.
• Would expanding Site #10 to include that portion of Goshen west of I-5 be
feasible and or allowed under the Metro Plan? The Metro Plan governs the
boundary between Eugene and Springfield within the Metro Plan boundary.
Goshen is outside of the Metro Plan area. None the less, there may be push
back if Springfield seeks to incorporate land west of I-5.
• Wildish owns land near Mt. Pisgah that it has proposed for residential
development.
Meeting 9: February 26, 2009 (Draft – to be approved on April 16).
The Committee reviewed and provided comment on the Draft Estimate of Public
and Semi-Public Land Needs Memorandum and Preliminary Results of the
Residential Land Needs Analysis. Final calculations of how much land is
available within the existing UGB will be finalized in the next few weeks and
incorporated into the final residential lands analysis.
George Grier presented a conceptual plan for east Main Street supported by the
Farm Bureau that showed how redevelopment along east Main Street could
account for much of the needed residential units projected in the study and would
reduce average VMT, reduce carbon emissions, reduced energy costs, etc. The
study was prepared by a University of Oregon Architecture studio class.
Round-Robin sharing of the committee’s thoughts about the process to:
Brianna Huber: It has been an interesting learning experience. I have enjoyed working
with all of you.
Dave Marra: Great bunch of people. Good experience.
Johnny Kirschenmann: It has been a great experience. This is a more complicated
process than the Planning Commission issues usually considers. ECONorthwest did a
good job of laying things out.
Dan Egan. I have enjoyed the process. I look back 20 years and the town didn’t look
this way when I first moved here. I disagree with George in that I have to tell people that
they have to take their great businesses somewhere else because we didn’t have the
land. It will be important to have a final document that integrates the land needs for
commercial, industrial, and residential lands combined.
Mike Kelly: I think we feel short of where we expected to, especially with the alternative
analysis. I understand there were reasons for us to stop where we have. We need to
have a policy that says here are our land use policy and our economic development
policies.
Guy Weese: I have enjoyed the experience. I first thought that redevelopment would
take care of our needs. We need some bigger pieces of land. The reality is that it will
take people who are willing sell their land and someone willing to invest in development.
Kari Westlund: I was challenged by the material. I was interesting and like others felt
like I didn’t really have much influence and that we stopped short of where I thought we
were going.
Philip Farrington: Springfield is attempting to fulfill its responsibility to maintain an
inventory of buildable lands and I applaud the City Council for doing so.
Don Oldenburg: We are doing the responsible thing that will help shape where our
community will go.
Doug McKay: I have been involved in redevelopment. Assembly of land can become
expensive as soon as your neighbors hear you are trying to assemble land. I think that
small redevelopment projects can be a catalyst for improving surrounding properties.
Future Opportunities for the Committee Members to Stay Involved.
Staff presented a flow chart with opportunities for future Stakeholder involvement that
provide a meaningful opportunity for influencing a final recommendation. The consultant
will continue to work on refining the opportunity areas to come up with a specific
recommendation to present for public review.
Staff was requested to provide the Committee with the recommendations in advance of
the joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Committee members also expressed
that a Committee meeting be scheduled before the Planning Commission/Council
meeting to allow time to review the recommendations.
CIBL/RLS/UGB Public Review and Adoption Process
Public Open House: Land Use Efficiency Measures
April 2, 2009
City Council Work Session
Residential Lands Study Update & Land Use Efficiency
Measures (ECONorthwest)
April 13, 2009
Joint Planning Commissions Public Hearings: CIBL, RLS & UGB
September 15 (ECONorthwest)
- October 2009
Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing(s)
December 7, 2009 (ECONorthwest)
Planning Commission Work Session(s)
Land Use Efficiency Measures
Review Draft Code Amendments
June 2, 2009
Planning Commission / City Council Work Session
Present recommended UGB and policy package based on all input collected
throughout the project. Three UGB alternatives will be presented. (ECO Northwest)
June 22, 2009
Adoption Hearing(s)
January 18, 2010
Planning Commission Work Session with CIBL Stakeholder Committee
Commercial & Industrial Land Needs & Alternatives
(ECONorthwest)
April 16, 2009
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Land Use Efficiency Measures
Code Amendments
July 7, 2009
Public Open Houses:
Buildable Land Inventories and Alternatives Analysis
May 14 & 20, 2009
Planning Commission Work Session
with RLS Stakeholder Committee
May 19, 2009
Public Open Houses:
UGB Alternatives
June - August 2009
CIBL Stakeholder Committee Meeting
June 11, 2009