HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 01 20 AIS for SUB formal interpretationAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/20/2021
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW
Kristina Kraaz, CAO
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784
Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Goals: Provide Financially Responsible and
Innovative Government Services
ITEM TITLE: REQUEST FOR FORMAL INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC TERMS FOR PROPERTY AT
THE EAST END OF EAST 22ND AVENUE, GLENWOOD, CASE 811-20-000248-TYP2
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt an order clarifying and confirming the definition and
applicability of specific terms found in Section 6.1-110 of the Springfield Development Code.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Springfield Utility Board (SUB) has submitted a request for formal interpretation of specific
terms and phrases in accordance with Section 5.11-125.B of the Springfield Development Code
(SDC).
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report for Formal Interpretation
2. Application
3. Supporting Exhibits – Formal Interpretation
4. PC Order & Recommendation – Formal Interpretation, Case 811-20-000248-TYP2
DISCUSSION:
The applicant SUB seeks interpretation of the terms “watercourse,” “riparian area” and “Water
Quality Limited Watercourse” as these terms relate to the City’s water quality provisions found in
SDC 4.3-115. The applicant requests clarification on which watercourses and riparian areas
depicted on the City’s Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map adopted pursuant to SDC 4.3-100
are subject to riparian area restrictions under SDC 4.3-115. A and B. Additionally, the applicant
seeks clarification on which watercourses and riparian areas are regulated by SDC 4.3-115.C and
how these regulations relate to the city’s SDC 4.3-110 stormwater regulations that are referenced in
SDC 4.3-115.C.
The subject site is currently vacant and not assigned a street address; it is located at the eastern end
of East 22nd Avenue in Glenwood, to the east of Henderson Avenue (Assessor’s Map 18-03-03-13,
Tax Lot 101). An electrical system substation was tentatively approved on the property in
accordance with Case 811-19-000084-TYP2 and it was subsequently appealed to the Planning
Commission and the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). A November 2020 final order
and opinion issued by LUBA remanded the matter to the City on a number of issues, including
application of the standards in SDC 4.3-115. LUBA’s decision is currently on appeal at the
Oregon Court of Appeals. SUB requested this Formal Interpretation to clarify application of SDC
4.3-115, in the event that the Oregon Court of Appeals does not resolve the issue in its decision.
The Planning Commission is requested to conduct a public hearing on the formal interpretation of
the terms “watercourse,” “riparian area,” and “Water Quality Limited Watercourse” as they are
used in SDC 4.3-115. The Planning Commission is requested to use this opportunity to review all
materials submitted into the record and to accept testimony from the applicant and public in
written, oral, and electronic forms. After accepting all testimony, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission review, deliberate, and adopt a final order based on the totality of the
information. The Planning Commission’s decision must apply the criteria for Formal
Interpretations of terms and phrases in SDC 5.11-125.B.
Type III FORMAL INTERPRETATION
staff report & FINDINGS
Project Name: SUB Electric Formal Interpretation
Project Proposal: Interpret the terms “watercourse,” “riparian area,” and “water quality limited watercourse” as
these terms relate to the City’s water quality rules in SDC 4.3-115; to clarify which watercourses and riparian areas
depicted on the City’s Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW) map are subject to riparian area restrictions of
SDC 4.3-115.A & B; and to clarify which watercourses and riparian areas are regulated by the provisions of SDC
4.3-115.C.
Case Number: 811-20-000248-TYP2
Project Location: Vacant parcel on
East 22nd Avenue, Glenwood
(Map 18-03-03-13, Tax Lot 101)
Zoning: Light Medium Industrial (LMI)
Application Submitted Date:
Dec. 23, 2020
Public Hearing Date: Jan. 20, 2021
APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant:
Jeff Nelson
Springfield Utility Board
1001 Main Street
Springfield OR 97477
Applicant’s Representative:
Michael Gelardi
Gelardi Law PC
P.O. Box 8529
Coburg OR 97408
Background: In 2019, the City of Springfield approved a tentative Site Plan, Hillside Development Permit, and Tree
Felling Permit for the SUB Electric substation and transmission line project extending southeastward from the
applicant’s property on East 22nd Avenue in Glenwood (Cases 811-19-000016-TYP2; 811-19-000084-TYP2; and
811-19-000085-TYP2). The land use decisions were subsequently appealed to the Springfield Planning Commission
and Hearings Official, and later appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
On November 12, 2020, LUBA issued a final order and opinion on the appeals as LUBA Nos. 2019-092/094/095/134.
LUBA remanded the site plan approval for the City to apply additional SDC 4.3-115 water quality rules to SUB’s
proposed development of the wetland. LUBA reasoned that the wetland is subject to these rules because it is a
“watercourse” and the wetland is “shown” on the City’s WQLW map. LUBA’s opinion could be read to impose a
riparian setback around the wetland. SUB has appealed LUBA’s wetland decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals,
and Royal Blue Organics has appealed other aspects of LUBA’s decision to the court. SUB has requested this formal
interpretation to provide clarity on the code terms described in the application, in the event that the Oregon Court of
Appeals declines to resolve the wetland issue.
Henderson Ave E 22nd Ave
E 24th Ave
SITE
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8
Requested Interpretation: The applicant’s request is to clarify the meaning of the terms “watercourse,” “Water
Quality Limited Watercourse,” and “riparian area” as these terms relate to the water quality provisions of SDC 4.3-
115. As part of this request, the applicant specifically requests clarification on which “watercourses” and “riparian
areas” depicted on the City’s Water Quality Limited Watercourse map are subject to riparian area restrictions under
SDC 4.3-115.A&B. Finally, the applicant also seeks clarification on which “watercourses” and “riparian areas” are
regulated by SDC 4.3-115.C and how these regulations relate to the city’s SDC 4.3-110 stormwater regulations that
are referenced in SDC 4.3-115.C.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under the formal interpretation criteria of approval SDC 5.11-
125.B. The subject application has been elevated to a Type III review before the Springfield Planning Commission
in accordance with SDC 5.11-130.A.
Interpretative Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.11-110, the Director has the authority to interpret the
appropriateness of new uses and the meaning of all terms and phrases in the Code. The Director has elevated the
interpretation to a Type III quasi-judicial review before the Springfield Planning Commission because of the City-
wide application of this interpretation request and also because of its relationship to the LUBA remand for the
applicant’s public utility project on the subject property.
NOTIFICATION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding: Notification of the January 20, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to
property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property on December 30, 2020 and published in the
legal notices section of The Register Guard on January 13, 2021. Staff also posted notices at the subject property
frontage on East 22nd Avenue, on the Development & Public Works office digital display, and on the City’s webpage.
Procedural Finding: On June 30, 2020, Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 4212, which waives requirements
under the Oregon Public Meetings Law and other statutes to facilitate public meetings online or by phone. Under
HB 4212, the governing body must make available a method by which the public can listen to or virtually attend the
public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs. HB 4212 allows governing bodies to accept public testimony by
telephone or video conferencing technology, or to provide a means to submit written testimony (including email or
other electronic methods) that the governing body can consider in a timely manner. HB 4212 overrides conflicting
requirements for quasi-judicial public hearings in state law or in the Springfield Development Code or Metro Plan.
Procedural Finding: The January 20, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing is being conducted as an online
meeting via video conferencing technology that allows members of the public to listen to the meeting online or by
calling in to the meeting. The public may listen to the meeting by phone but cannot provide testimony by phone.
Details regarding how to join the online meeting were provided in the notification letter mailed to nearby residents
and property owners, in the posted public hearing notices, in the Planning Commission meeting agenda, and on the
City’s website.
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL:
SDC 5.11-125.B, Interpretation of Terms and Phrases - Criteria states that the meaning of any term or phrase:
1. Shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Code, including any Chapter or Section to which
the term or phrase is related;
Finding 1: The requirement in SDC 5.11-125.B.1 that the meaning of any term or phrase “shall be consistent
with the purpose and intent of this Code, including any Chapter or Section to which the term or phrase is related”
is a mandatory criteria of approval for formal interpretations of terms or phrases under SDC 5.11-125.
Interpretation of the term “riparian areas” as used in SDC 4.3-115
Finding 2: Criterion E in SDC 5.12-125 (partition and subdivision criteria) and SDC 5.17-125 imposes the
following requirements related to “riparian areas”: “Physical features, including but not limited to… watercourses
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8
shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas; other riparian areas and wetlands specified in SDC
4.3-117, … shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.” Thus, there are two types of
“riparian areas” regulated under the Springfield Development Code: “riparian areas” associated with
“watercourses shown on the WQLW Map” and “other riparian areas... specified in SDC 4.3-117.”
Finding 3: SDC 4.3-115A states, “When addressing criterion E (as specified in Sections 5.12-125 and 5.17-125)
to protect riparian areas along watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map,
the following riparian area boundaries [listed in SDC 4.3-115.A] shall be utilized[.]” The list that follows
establishes a “riparian area boundary” of 75 feet landward from the top of bank that applies “along all
watercourses shown on the WQLQ Map with average stream flow greater than 1,000 cubic feet per second (CFS)”
and a “riparian area boundary” of 50 feet “along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average stream
flow less than 1,000 CFS.”
Finding 4: SDC 4.3-115.B lists “permitted uses in riparian areas” but does not specifically state whether the
applicable “riparian areas” are limited to riparian areas associated with watercourses on the WQLW Map, or all
“riparian areas” in the City’s planning jurisdiction, including those defined in SDC 4.3-117. Context of the
development code supports the interpretation that the “riparian areas” that are subject to SDC 4.3-115.B are only
the “riparian areas” associated with watercourses on the WQLW Map, and not all “riparian areas” in the City’s
planning jurisdiction. SDC 4.3-117 contains its own list of setbacks for “locally significant riparian areas” and
explicitly exempts those shown on WQLW Map in SDC 4.3-115 from the setbacks in SDC 4.3-117. This
supports the interpretation that SDC 4.3-115 regulates the “riparian areas” associated with watercourses shown
on the WQLW Map, and SDC 4.3-117 regulates all other “riparian areas” that are “locally significant.”
Conclusion: The context and intent of the development code shows that, as used in SDC 4.3-115, the term
“riparian area” means the areas that are within the “riparian area boundaries” defined in SDC 4.3-115.A that are
associated with “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map.”
Interpretation of the term “watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map”
Finding 5: By the terms of SDC 4.3-115.A (quoted in the findings above), the development setbacks in that
section apply only to “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map.” Thus, the setbacks in SDC 4.3-115.A do not
apply to any “watercourses” that are not “shown on” that map. While the dictionary meaning of the word “shown”
could apply to any feature appearing on the WQLW Map, the criteria for formal interpretations in SDC 5.1-125.B
look to dictionary definitions only if intent, context, and legislative history cannot be applied. For the following
reasons, “shown” as used in SDC 4.3-115 has a more limited meaning in that context that the common dictionary
meaning. “Shown on the WQLW Map” as used in SDC 4.3-115 should be understood to mean “specified on,”
rather than simply “appearing on.”
Finding 6: The text of Ordinance 6021 and the findings in the staff report supporting that ordinance both confirm
that the purpose of the water quality rules in SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115 is to meet the City’s obligations under the
Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA), specifically
as they relate to water quality in the Willamette and McKenzie rivers and their tributaries. Nothing in the
ordinance shows that the purpose of the regulations in SDC 4.3-115 was to treat wetlands disconnected from the
Willamette and McKenzie River as Water Quality Limited Watercourses. Because the State of Oregon's wetland
permitting process requires Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to certify that any proposed wetland
development is consistent with state water quality standards, the City had no need to impose additional water
quality standards on wetlands that are not part of a Water Quality Limited Watercourse or its identified tributaries
to comply with the ESA, CWA, and SWDA.
Finding 7: SDC 6.1-110 provides the definitions for “Watercourse” and “Water Quality Limited Watercourse”
listed below (emphasis added). These definitions demonstrate that the code uses the term “shown on the WQLW
Map” interchangeably for the words “specified on the WQLW Map.”
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8
Watercourse. Rivers, streams, sloughs, drainages including intermittent stream and seeps, ponds, lakes,
aquifers, wetlands and other waters of the State. This definition also includes any channel in which a flow
of water occurs, either continuously or intermittently, and if the latter with some degree of regularity.
Watercourses may be either natural or artificial. Specific watercourses that are protected by this Code are
those shown on the water quality Limited Watercourse Map.
Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW). Those watercourses within the City and its urbanizing
area that are specified on the WQLW Map.
Finding 8: The currently-adopted WQLW Map is the version dated August 2002 that was adopted by the City
Council via Ordinance 6021, attached to this staff report. Amendments to the WQLW Map must be adopted by
the City Council as an amendment to the Springfield Development Code, per SDC 4.3-110.F. No subsequent
ordinances have amended the WQLW Map. The version posted on the City’s website has been subsequently
reformatted to update new base layer information, but also includes changes to the legends and labels on the
WQLW Map. The formatting changes on the republished versions of the WQLW Map have not been adopted
by the City Council and therefore do not amend the WQLW Map nor change its meaning.
Finding 9: The wetland on SUB’s property that is the direct subject of this interpretation is not shown at all on
the August 2002 WQLW Map, neither as part of the Local Wetland Inventory nor as a Water Quality Limited
Watercourse or its tributary. The wetland was added to the Local Wetland Inventory as a locally non-significant
wetland by Ordinance 6265 (adopted February 22, 2011), which updated the Local Wetland Inventory to add
wetlands in the Glenwood area. Nothing in that Ordinance 6265 or any other ordinance incorporated the
amendments to the Local Wetland Inventory into the WQLW Map. Therefore, the wetland on SUB property
cannot be subject to the setback requirements in SDC 4.3-115.A or the use restrictions in SDC 4.3-115.B.
Finding 10: The adopted WQLW Map includes the following legend that describes the Water Quality Limited
Watercourses and tributaries to Water Quality Limited Watercourses and their associated riparian area boundary
setbacks. No riparian area boundary setbacks are listed or noted under the Local Wetland Inventory label.
Finding 11: SDC 4.3-110.F defines the specific criteria for identifying Water Quality Limited Watercourses on
the WQLW map. The criteria include (1) those watercourses that DEQ has identified “on its most recently
adopted ‘303(d)’ List of Impaired and Threatened Waterbodies;” (2) other watercourses the City has designated
as a WQLW based on City monitoring and sampling showing significant water quality impairment; and (3) and
direct tributaries of the first two categories of watercourses. These three definitions correspond to the categories
of “Water Quality Limited Watercourses” listed on the right side of the WQLW Map, with the first two categories
under SDC 4.3-110F shown as Water Quality Limited Watercourses on the WQLW Map according to their flow
rates, and tributaries shown as its own category.
Finding 12: The adopted WQLW Map also includes callouts identifying specific watercourses on the map by
name. (These callouts do not appear on the City’s republished but un-adopted versions of the WQLW Map). All
the map features identified by a callout are shown Water Quality Limited Watercourses and their tributaries in
blue, green, or orange corresponding to the right column of the map legend.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8
Finding 13: Some of the Water Quality Limited Watercourses on the WQLW Map (shown in blue, green, or
orange) overlap with the features identified as part of the Local Wetland Inventory (shown in dark teal).
However, no features that are identified only as part of the Local Wetland Inventory on the WQLW Map are
labelled with a specific callout naming the watercourse. Read together in context, the WQLW Map legend and
the callouts on the map support the conclusion that the phrases “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map” and
“watercourses specified on the WQLW Map” are intended to mean only those watercourses that are specifically
identified on the map by name with a callout, and that the Local Wetland Inventory layer on the map is shown
only for reference. In other words, the features shown as part of the “Local Wetland Inventory” on the map are
not “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map” unless they are also labelled as a Water Quality Limited
Watercourse and identified with a callout.
Conclusion: The purpose and intent of the code shows that the phrase “watercourses shown on the Water Quality
Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map” in SDC 4.3-115 means only the features that are specifically shown on
the August 2002 WQLW Map as a “Water Quality Limited Watercourse (>1000 cfs),” a “Water Quality Limited
Watercourse (<1000 cfs),” or a “Tributary to a Water Quality Limited Watercourse (<1000 cfs),” and identified
by name with a callout. The features on the August 2002 WQLW Map that are only labelled as part of the “Local
Wetland Inventory” are not “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map” and therefore are not subject to the
riparian area boundaries in SDC 4.3-115.A.
Interpretation of which “watercourses” and “riparian areas” are regulated by SDC 4.3-115C and how these
regulations relate to the city’s SDC 4.3-110 stormwater regulations that are referenced in SDC 4.3-115C.
Finding 14: SDC 4.3-115C provides standards that apply [f]or protection of water quality and protection of
riparian area functions as specified in Section 4.3-110." SDC 4.3-115.C.7 specifically states the areas that are
subject to the standards in subsections C.1-C.6 (emphasis added):
7. In applying Subsections 4.3-115.C.1. through 6., riparian area protection, preservation, restoration and
enhancement measures shall be applied as follows:
a. For new development and redevelopment, existing riparian area functions shall be protected and
preserved. Degraded functions shall be restored or enhanced through the full riparian area width,
as specified in Subsections 4.3-115.A.1. and 2., and extending through the full frontage of the
lot/parcel along the watercourse on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW) Map.
b. For additions and expansions on any portion of a lot/parcel, existing riparian area functions shall be
protected and preserved through the full riparian area width specified in Subsections 4.3-115.A.1.
and 2., and extending through the full frontage of the lot/parcel along the watercourse on the WQLW
Map.
c. For additions and expansions within 100 feet of a watercourse on the WQLW Map on a lot/parcel
that has degraded riparian functions, the area for restoration or enhancement shall be based upon
the ratio of the impervious area of the addition or expansion to the existing building or impervious
area on the lot/parcel. The restoration or enhancement shall start at the top of bank of the
watercourse and work landward.
Conclusion: As explicitly stated in subsection C.7, the “watercourses” to which the standards in subsection C.1-
6 apply are “watercourses on the WQLW Map.” It is reasonable to interpret this phrase to have the same meaning
as the phrase “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map.” Therefore, the “riparian areas” regulated by SDC 4.3-
115C are those within the “riparian area boundaries” defined in subsections A.1-2, within the specific lot/parcel
boundary limits described in subsection C.7.a-c.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8
2. The meaning of the term or phrase may be determined by legislative history, including staff reports and
public hearing tapes and minutes.
Finding 15: The standard in SDC 5.11-125.B.2 stating that the meaning of a term or phrase “may be determined
by legislative history, including staff reports and public hearing tapes and minutes” provides the City with the
option to rely on legislative history to support a formal interpretation. However, the City is not obligated to adopt
findings in support of a formal interpretation that discuss the legislative history of a term or phrase if the meaning
can be determined based on the criteria in SDC 5.11-125.B.1 immediately above. Since all terms can be
determined by the purpose and intent of the Code, the legislative history findings in this section provide additional
support for the formal interpretation but are not mandatory findings for this decision.
Interpretation of the term “riparian areas” as used in SDC 4.3-115
Finding 16: Ordinance 6265 adopted the changes to the Local Wetland Inventory that added the wetland on
SUB’s property to the Local Wetland Inventory as a locally non-significant wetland. The Planning Commission
discussed the proposed amendments in Ordinance 6265 at their meeting on January 19, 2011. The minutes to
that meeting include the following explanation of the relationship between the riparian area setbacks adopted in
Ordinance 6265 and the stormwater management/water quality regulations adopted under Ordinance 6021:
“Questions from the Commission
...
• Commissioner Brew – With the addition of sites S27 and S28 which are proposed for 25-foot setbacks,
is the council going to see changes to the stormwater plan[?] Staff explained that the stormwater
management program that was adopted in 2002, identified the larger, more important drainageways and
riparian corridors. S27 and S28 are smaller resource features that were not included in the stormwater
plan. This doesn’t mean that the plan missed these sites and need [sic] to be corrected.”
Finding 17: S27 and S28 are locally-significant riparian resource areas in Glenwood identified in Ordinance
6265. Commissioner Brew’s reference to 25-foot setbacks should be understood as a reference to the setbacks
in SDC 4.3-117 for locally-significant riparian resource areas. The reference to “the stormwater management
program that was adopted in 2002” should be understood to be Ordinance 6021 (which includes the WQLW Map
and current SDC 4.3-110 and SDC 4.3-115), because that was the only ordinance that adopted stormwater
management regulations that year. Thus, the staff explanation to Commissioner Brew shows that the amendments
in Ordinance 6265 were not intended to change the application of the stormwater management regulations in
SDC 4.3-115. The minutes for the January 19, 2011 Planning Commission meeting were provided to the
Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, so it is reasonable to conclude those bodies
would have been aware of this intended scope of Ordinance 6265.
Finding 18: Ordinance 6265 was considered at a joint public hearing of the Springfield City Council and Lane
County Board of Commissioners on February 7, 2011. The minutes of that meeting include the following
recommendation from City staff: “Staff was recommending that [the Council and Board of Commissioners] keep
the 50 foot setbacks as noted in the existing stormwater management program, and a 25-foot development setback
for the new sites.” This explanation also shows an intent to regulate the riparian areas covered by SDC 4.3-117
separately from those subject to SDC 4.3-115.
Conclusion: The legislative history shows that the term “riparian area” used in SDC 4.3-115 does not refer to
the same set of “riparian areas” that are subject to development restrictions under SDC 4.3-117. This supports
the interpretation that the term “riparian areas” in SDC 4.3-115 means only the areas that are within the “riparian
area boundaries” defined in SDC 4.3-115A, which are associated with “watercourses shown on the WQLW
Map.”
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8
Interpretation of the phrase “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map”
Finding 19: The legislative history of Ordinance 6021 shows that the “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map”
that are subject to development setbacks in SDC 4.3-115A do not include the features labelled “wetlands” on the
WQLW Map. The “Irving Slough/Pierce Ditch” was originally shown as a wetland on the WQLW Map presented
to the Springfield Planning Commission at the public hearing on April 2, 2002. Following public comments
related to this specific feature, the Planning Commission recommendation removed the callout on the WQLW
Map identifying the “Irving Slough/Pierce Ditch” and the feature was shown only as part of the Local Wetland
Inventory.
Finding 20: During the July 1, 2002 City Council meeting and public hearing on the ordinance, (former)
Councilor Simmons objected to removing the Irving Slough/Pierce Ditch, as documented in the minutes of that
meeting. The minutes of the meeting on July 15, 2002 show that Councilor Simmons was the only Councilor to
vote not to adopt Ordinance 6021, during which he noted his same objections expressed on July 1. This indicates
that the remaining members of the City Council who voted to adopt Ordinance 6021 understood that features
labeled only as part of the “Local Wetland Inventory” on the WQLW Map were not “watercourses shown on the
WQLW Map” and were not subject to the riparian area boundaries for WQLWs in (current) SDC 4.3-115.A.
Finding 21: The minutes from the June 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting include the following explanation
from Ken Vogeney, City Engineer, explaining the intended scope of the proposed code amendments in response
to Planning Commission questions. “Mr. Vogeney also indicated that there were a number of other open
waterways [in addition to the Irving Slough/Pierce Ditch] that were not being included in the SDC amendments
for protection. The waterways that were included were those that were known water quality limited waters and
the direct tributaries that provide a direct contribution to those waters.” This demonstrates that the scope of the
Water Quality Limited Waterways regulations was not intended to extend to every feature that could be defined
as a “watercourse” under (current) SDC 6.1-110, but rather only to those “watercourses” that are Water Quality
Limited Watercourses and their direct tributaries. The June 4 minutes were provided to the City Council in the
agenda packet for the July 1, 2002 City Council meeting, so the City Council would have also understood this
intent in the code amendment.
Finding 22: The Staff Report provided to the City Council for the July 1, 2002 meeting and public hearing
includes findings related to the code amendments’ impacts on the City’s buildable lands inventory. The findings
conclude that there are only 31 tax lots affected by the proposed development setbacks and use restrictions in
(current) SDC 4.3-115A and B. This shows that the that the development setbacks and use restrictions were
intended to apply only to the “watercourses” labelled on the WQLW Map as a Water Quality Limited
Watercourse or a Tributary to a Water Quality Limited Water. The August 2002 WQLW Map shows tax lot
boundaries and it is apparent that a much larger number of properties would have been affected if the development
restrictions were intended to apply to the Local Wetland Inventory as shown on that map.
Finding 23: The legislative history of Ordinance 6265 also shows that ordinance was not intended to subject
wetlands identified as not locally significant to increased setbacks under the Springfield Development Code. At
the February 2, 2011 joint City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners meeting, City staff gave the
following example:
“The Pape family, one of the industrial use property owners, was concerned about a wetland identified by
the inventory that didn't, by State criteria, rise to the level of being called a locally significant wetland.1 That
term was defined by the State. There was a wetland on their property that was not significant, so they were
given the option of working with the State. Often in cases where a wetland was not locally significant, the
State would work with the property owner to allow mitigation and make use of the property.”
1 It is reasonable to conclude that the SUB property wetland was the specific subject of the concerns expressed by the Pape family. SUB purchased the
subject property from Pape Properties, Inc, in 2015. (Lane Co. Deeds and Records Document No. 2015-14356.)
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8
This example shows that wetlands in Glenwood that are not locally significant were intended to be subject to
state permits, and that the regulations in the Springfield Development Code were not intended to be more
restrictive than the state’s wetland fill requirements.
Conclusion: The legislative histories of Ordinance 6021 and Ordinance 6265 support the interpretation that the
features on the August 2002 WQLW Map that are labelled only as “Local Wetland Inventory” are not
“watercourses shown on the WQLW Map” and therefore are not subject to the riparian area boundaries in SDC
4.3-115.A or use restrictions in SDC 4.3-115.B.
3. The meaning of a term or phrase shall be consistent with any dictionary of common usage, if criteria 1.
and/or 2., above cannot be applied.
Finding 24: The criteria in SDC 5.11-125.B.3 that the meaning of a term or phrase “shall be consistent with any
dictionary of common usage, if criteria 1 and/or 2, above cannot be applied” is mandatory only when the meaning
cannot be determined by applying the standards in subsections B.1 and B.2. Because the meaning of terms and
phrases discussed in this decision are supported by findings under SDC 5.11-125.B.1 regarding intent and purpose
of the Code, and SDC 5.11-125.B.2 regarding legislative history, there is no need to apply the common dictionary
meanings.
Conclusion: This criterion is not applicable, because the meaning of the terms and phrases in this decision can
be determined solely from the intent and purpose of the Code, and from legislative history.
CONCLUSION: As used in SDC 4.3-115, the term “riparian area” means the areas that are within the “riparian area
boundaries” defined in SDC 4.3-115.A that are associated with “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map.” The
phrase “watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map” in SDC 4.3-115 means
only the features that are specifically shown on the August 2002 WQLW Map as a “Water Quality Limited
Watercourse (>1000 cfs),” a “Water Quality Limited Watercourse (<1000 cfs),” or a “Tributary to a Water Quality
Limited Watercourse (<1000 cfs),” and identified with a callout on the map.
The wetland on the SUB property identified in this application does not appear on the August 2002 WQLW Map. It
is adopted only as a “locally non-significant wetland” in the Local Wetland Inventory and has not been adopted as a
Water Quality Limited Watercourse or its tributary. Therefore, the SUB wetland is not subject to any of requirements
or standards in SDC 4.3-115.A, B, or C, but is subject to applicable requirements for locally non-significant wetlands
in SDC 4.3-117.
PREPARED BY
Andy Limbird
Andy Limbird
Senior Planner
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 8
City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
SPRINGFIELD
W 0#/
Interpretation
Interpretation of new uses, terms or phrases will be reviewed under Type II procedure, unless the
Director determines that the application should be reviewed as a Type III decision by the Planning
Commission or Hearings Official due to the complexity of the application or the need for discretionary
review. Planning Policy issues that include, but are not limited to the Springfield Development Code,
ado ted refinement nlans or the Metro Plan shall be reviewed under T e IV rocedure.
Application Type licant. check one)
TNewUse: Type II T e III ClarifyPlanningPolicy: a IV
Term or Phrase: T e II T e III
Required Project Information (Applicant., complete this
Applicant Name: Springfield Utilit Board Phone: (541)689-3094
Company: Springfield Utilit Board Fax:
Address: 1001 Main Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Applicant's Rep.: MichaelGelardi Phone: (541) 689-3094
Company: Gelardi Law P.C. Fax:
Address: P.O. Box 8529, Coburg, OR 97408
Property Owner: Springfield Utilit Board Phone:
Company: Springfield Utilit Board Fax:
Address: 1001 Main Street, Springfield, OR 97477
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 18-03- 03-13 TAX LOT NOS : 101
Property Address: N/A
Size of Property: 6,48 Acres 9 square Feet
Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application.
Proposal: See attached application narrative.
Existing Use: See attached application narrative.
Signatures: Please si n and print your name and date in the appropriate
Required Project Information (City Intake Staff.
Associated Applications:
box on the next caae.
complete this section)
Signs:
Case No.: Date: Reviewed by:
Application Fee: $ Technical Fee: $ 1 Postage Fee: $
TOTAL FEES: $ PROJECT NUMBER:
Revised 1/9/09 ddk 1 of 6Attachment 2, Page 1 of 11
Signatures
The undersigned acknowledges that the Information In this application is correct and accurate,
Date: 1
Signatfifilb
Jeff Nelson
If the applicant is not the owner, the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to act in his/her behalf,
Owner:
Date:
Signature
Print
Revised 1/9/09 ddk 2 of 6Attachment 2, Page 2 of 11
Section 5.11-100 Interpretations (Springfield Development Code)
5.11-105 Purpose
The purpose of an Interpretation is to:
A. Consider the applicability of new uses within each zoning district that are not specifically identified in this Code;
B. Clarify the meaning of terms or phrases found in this Code; or
C. Clarify planning policy contained in this Code, adopted refinement plans or the Metro Plan, or other policy
documents.
5.11-110 Authority
The Director shall have the initial authority and responsibility to interpret the appropriateness of new uses and the
meaning of all terns and phrases in this Code. The City Council shall have the authority to interpret planning policy
contained in this Code, adopted refinement plans or the Mehra Plan, or other policy documents.
5.11-115 Review
A request for an Interpretation of this Code concerning new uses and terms and phrases is reviewed under Type II
procedure, unless the Director determines that the application should be reviewed as a Type III decision by the Planning
Commission or Hearings Official due to the complexity of the application or the need for discretionary review. Planning
policy issues that include, but are not limited to this Code, adopted refinement plans or the Metro Plan is reviewed under
Type IV procedure.
5.11-120 Interpretation of New Uses
A. Application Submittal. The request shall include information on the following characteristics of the new use
1. A description of proposed structures and the operational characteristics of the new use.
2. Where commercial and industrial uses are involved, the following topics are considered:
a. Emission of smoke, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases;
b. Use, storage and/or disposal of flammable or explosive materials;
C. Glare;
d. Use of hazardous materials that may impact groundwater quality;
e. Noise;
f. The potential for ground vibration; and
g. The amount and type of traffic to be generated, parking required and hours of operation.
3. Where residential uses are involved, the following topics are considered:
a. Density; and
b. The amount and type of traffic to be generated and parking required.
Revised 1/9/09 ddk
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 11
B. Criteria. A new use may be considered to be a permitted use when, after consultation with the City Attorney or
other City staff, the Director determines that the new use:
1. Has the characteristics of one or more use categories currently listed in the applicable zoning district;
2. Is similar to other permitted uses in operational characteristics, including but not limited to, traffic
generation, parking or density; and
3. Is consistent with all land use policies in this Code which are applicable to the particular zoning district.
5.11-125 Interpretation of Terms or Phrases
A. Application Submittal. The request shall include:
1. The particular term or phrase requiring Interpretation; and
2. The applicant's statement describing what the particular term or phrase means.
B. Criteria. The Director shall interpret a tens or phrase, after consultation with the City Attorney and City staff. The
meaning of any tens or phrase:
1. Shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Code, including any Chapter or Section to which the
tens or phrase is related;
2. May be determined by legislative history, including staff reports and public hearing tapes and minutes; and
3. Shall be consistent with any dictionary of common usage, if criteria 1. and/or 2., above cannot be applied.
5.11-130 Interpretations Reviewed Under Type III and Type IV Procedure
A. Interpretations that the Director may elevate from a Type II to a Type III review shall follow the approval criteria
specified in either Section 5. 11-120 or 5.11-125 depending upon the nature of the interpretation requested. In
addition, the Planning Commission or Hearings Official shall consider the Metro Plan and any refinement plans or
other policy documents of the City, where applicable.
B. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official, upon a finding in support of a particular Interpretation, shall make
a decision and may impose reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the approval criteria.
C. Where there is an Interpretation of planning policy, the matter is forwarded to the City Council:
1. For consideration on the record;
2. To consider appropriate revisions to this Code to resolve the question; or
3. To revise or supplement a policy issue.
5.11-135 Effect of a Decision
An approved Interpretation is effective on the date of approval, unless appealed. An approved Interpretation may be
superseded by a subsequent Interpretation or a Code amendment.
Revised 1/9/09 ddk
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 11
Interpretation Application Process
1. Applicant Submits an Interpretation Application to the Development & Public Works
Department
The application must conform to the Interpretation Submittal Requirements
Checklist on page 6 of this application packet.
Planning Division staff screen the submittal at the front counter to determine
whether all required items listed in the Interpretation Submittal Requirements
Checklist have been submitted.
Applications missing required items will not be accepted for submittal.
2. City Staff Conduct Detailed Completeness Check
Planning Division staff conducts a detailed completeness check within 30 days of
submittal.
The assigned Planner notifies the applicant in writing regarding the completeness of
the application.
An application is not be deemed technically complete until all information necessary
to evaluate the proposed development, its impacts, and its compliance with the
provisions of the Springfield Development Code and other applicable codes and
statutes have been provided.
Incomplete applications, as well as insufficient or unclear data, will delay the
application review process and may result in denial.
3. City Staff Review the Application and Issue a Decision
A Type II decision, made after public notice, but without a public hearing, unless
appealed, is issued within 120 days of submittal of a complete application.
Mailed notice is provided to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the
property being reviewed and to any applicable neighborhood association. In
addition, the applicant must post one sign, provided by the City, on the subject
property.
There is a 14 -day public comment period, starting on the date notice is mailed.
Applications are distributed to the Development Review Committee, and their
comments are incorporated into a decision that addresses all applicable approval
criteria and/or development standards, as well as any written comments from those
given notice.
Applications may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied.
The City mails the applicant and any party of standing a copy of the decision, which
is effective on the day it is mailed.
The decision issued is the final decision of the City but may be appealed within 15
calendar days to the Planning Commission or Hearings Official.
Revised 1/9/09 ddk 5 of 6Attachment 2, Page 5 of 11
Interpretation Submittal Requirements Checklist
NOTE: If you feel an item does not apply, please state the reason why and attach the
explanation to this form.
Submitted Concurrently with Site Plan Review or Minimum Development Standards,
where applicable
Application Fee - refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee
calculation formula. A copy of the fee schedule is available at the Development & Public
Works Department. The applicable application, technology, and postage fees are collected
at the time of complete application submittal.
V1 Interpretation Application Form
Interpretation of New Uses Narrative - explaining the proposal and any additional
information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken, including
findings demonstrating compliance with the Criteria described in SDC 5.11-120 B and
information on the following characteristics of the new use:
Description of proposed structures and operational characteristics of the new use
Commercial/Industrial Uses
Emission of smoke, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases
Use, storage, and/or disposal of flammable or explosive materials
Glare
Use of hazardous materials that may impact groundwater quality
Noise
Potential for ground vibration
Amount and type of traffic to be generated and parking required
Hours of operation
Residential Uses
Density
Amount and type of traffic to be generated and parking required
V1 Interpretation of Terms or Phrases Narrative - explaining the proposal and any
additional information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken,
including findings demonstrating compliance with the Criteria described in SDC 5.11-125
B, as well as the following information:
Particular term or phrase requiring interpretation
Applicant's statement describing what the particular term or phrase means
NOTE: Before the Director or Planning Commission can make an Interpretation, information
submitted by the applicant must adequately support the request. All of the Interpretation
Criteria must be addressed by the applicant. Incomplete applications, as well as insufficient or
unclear data, will delay the application review process and may result in denial.
Revised 1/9/09 ddk 6 of 6Attachment 2, Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT A
APPLICATION NARRATIVE
I. Terms Requiring Interpretation
Applicant Springfield Utility Board (" SUB'D seeks interpretation of the terms
watercourse," ..riparian area" and `water quality limited watercourse" (which are defined
respectively in SDC 6.1-100), as these terms relate to the city's water quality rules at SDC 4.3-
115. SUB requests clarification on which watercourses and riparian areas depicted on the city's
Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map adopted pursuant to SDC 4.3-100 are subject to riparian
area restrictions under SDC 4.3-115A and B.
SUB also seeks clarification on which watercourses and riparian areas are regulated by
SDC 4.3-115C and how these regulations relate to the city's SDC 4.3-110 stormwater regulations
that are referenced in SDC 4.3-115C.
II. Applicant's Statement Describing Meaning of Terms
A. Context of Request
This request relates to the Land Use Board of Appeals' recent decision in Royal Blue
Organics v. City ofSpringfield, LUBA Nos. 2019-092/94/95/134. The Royal Blue case concerns
SUB's planned Glenwood substation and transmission line 17A, which are defined and approved
in a 2015 amendment to the Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan Public Facilities and
Services Plan (the "Project'D.
Before LUBA, Royal Blue Organics challenged, among other things, the site plan review
approval issued by the city for the Project as it relates to development ofa wetland on the proposed
substation site (the "Wetiand'D. Inits 2010 inventory of wetlands in Glenwood, the citydetermined
that the Wetland is "non-significant" under Statewide Planning Goal 5 and therefore the city
declined to adopt a program to preserve the Welland. The city's 2010 inventory of the Wefland
determined that it is primarily fed by rainwater, is more than one quarter mile from any water
quality limited watercourse (' WQLW ') and is not directly connected to any WQLW.
The city's Goal 5 rules at SDC 4.3-117 allow non-significant wetlands to be developed if
approved through the applicable federal and state environmental permits:
Inventoried wetlands which are not deemed to be locally
significant shall not be subject to the development setbacks and
other protections described in this Subsection, but shall continue to
be protected under permitting authority of applicable Federal and
State agencies."
SDC 4.3-117(b)(1)(B). SUB has obtained all required federal and state environmental approvals
for SUB's planned fill of a portion of the Welland to facilitate construction of the substation. These
approvals include a Clean Water Act section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers,
certification of compliance with state water quality standards from the Oregon Department of
Page 1 -EXHIBIT A 324\00031171.001
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 11
Environmental Quality ("DEQ'D, and a removal -fill permit from the Oregon Department of State
Lands.
Despite all this, LUBA remanded the city's site plan approval for the Project for the city to
apply additional SDC 4.3-115 water quality rules to SUB's proposed development of the Welland.
LUBA reasoned that the Welland is subject to these rules because it is a `watercourse" and the
Welland is shown on the city's WQLW map. LUBA's direction to the city for the remand is
unclearl and LUBA's opinion canbe read to impose a riparian setback around the Welland.
SUB has appealed LUBA's wetland decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals, and Royal
Blue Organics has appealed other aspects of LUBA's decision to the court. Although SUB hopes
that the court will reverse LUBA's interpretation of the city's water quality rules, the court
frequently declines to issue opinions in land use cases. If the court declines to provide direction to
the city on the wetland issue, then the Project and other needed infrastructure throughout the city
could be in jeopardy. It is therefore important for the city to take action now to clarify the code
terms described above.
B. Meaning of Terms
The watercourses that are subject to riparian area setbacks and use restrictions under SDC
4.3-115A and B are the three categories of water quality limited streams depicted on the WQLW
map. Wetlands depicted on the map that are not within the riparian areas of these streams are not
subjectto SDC 4.3-115A and B. These wetlands, as well as floodways and floodplains are included
on the map solely for reference.
This interpretation is required by SDC 4.3-110, which establishes the WQLW map and the
criteria for designation of WQLWs in the city. As described in 4.3-11017 and the legend of the
WQLW map, the city's WQLWs are streams that do not meet state water quality standards
established under the framework of Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, as well as
tributaries of these streams. Wetlands outside of the riparian areas of these streams are not
regulated by Section 303(d) and are instead regulated by the Army Corps under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The Corps' 404 permitting process and associated water quality certification by
DEQ ensure that any wetland development does not impact the city's ability to meet water quality
standards.
The regulations in SDC 4.3-115C, by contrast, are not limited to WQLWs, but are for the
purpose of regulating the discharge of stormwater from development to watercourses and riparian
areas. SDC 4.3-115C sets forth development standards to protect water quality "as specified in
SDC 4.3-110." SDC 4.3-110 provides detailed technical requirements for managing stormwater
drainage. The SDC 4.3-115C rules therefore apply more broadly than the rules in 115A and B, but
regulate stormwater discharge to watercourses and riparian areas rather than development ofthese
areas themselves.
1 For example, LUBA states at one point that the Welland is "subject to protection under SDC 4.3-
115," but at another point LUBA states that " [i]t may be that compliance with state and federal
standards could provide a basis for the city to conclude that SDC 4.3-115 will be satisfied."
Page 2 -EXHIBIT A 324\00031171.001
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 11
III. Procedural Request
Although SUB's request for an interpretation of terms in the SDC is a Type II application,
the Planning Director has authority to elevate this application to a Type III proceeding before the
Planning Commission. See SDC 5. 11-130. The Planning Commission in turn must forward the
interpretation for City Council review to the extent that the interpretation raises policy issues. See
5. 11-130C. If the City Council issues the interpretation, then LUBA and the courts must defer to
this interpretation as long as the interpretation is a plausible reading of the SDC. This deference
standard has been established by the Oregon Supreme Court. See Siporen v. City ofMedford, 349
Or 247 (2010).
Given the important practical and policyissues created by LUBA's mistaken understanding
of the city's water quality rules, SUB requests that the Planning Director elevate this application
to the Type III process and urge the Planning Commission to forward the interpretation to the City
Council for consideration.
IV. Conclusion
SUB requests formal interpretation of certain city code terms used in the city's water
quality land use rules. SUB requests that the Planning Commission and the City Council participate
in this interpretation in order to protect the city's authority to manage its own regulations and
planning policy in light of the potential impact of LUBA's misunderstanding of city rules. Thank
you for your attention to this application.
Page 3 -EXHIBIT A 324\00031171.001
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 11
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Tax Lot 18-03-03-13-00101
Parcel 2 of Land Partition Plan No. 93- P0340, Lane County Official Records, in Lane County,
Oregon.
EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 11
EXHIBIT C
TAX MAP
SW 1/4 N E.1 /4 SEC. 3 T l8S. R3W. WM.
Lane County
f
EXHIBIT C
1
18030313SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD18030313
004-80
5
8,
t
004-46
EXHIBIT C
1
I
r
18030313SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD18030313
I
r
SPRINGFIELD18030313
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 11
Exhibits in support of the Formal Interpretation:
1. Water Quality Limited Watercourses Map, dated August 2002
2. Ordinance 6021, adopted on July 15, 2002
3. Minutes of the City Council Meeting July 15, 2002 (excerpted)
4. Staff Report and findings presented to City Council on July 1, 2002 in support of
Ordinance 6021
5. Minutes of the City Council Meeting July 1, 2002 (excerpted)
6. Planning Commission Order Jo. No. 2002-02-0038
7. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting June 4, 2002
8. Ordinance 6265, adopted on February 22, 2011
9. Minutes of the Joint City Council and County Board of Commissioners Meeting
February 7, 2011 (excerpted)
10. Planning Commission Order Jo. No. 2010-00002, adopted January 19, 2011
11. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting January 19, 2011 (excerpted)
12. Springfield Development Code Sections 4.3-110, 4.3-115, 4.3-117, and 6.1-110
(excerpted)
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 188
ORDINANCE NO.6021 General)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 1 GENERAL
PROVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 1.030 AND 1.050; ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS, BY
AMENDING SECTION 2.020; ARTICLE 31 MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW STANDARDS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 31.010, 31.020, 31.030, 31.050, 31.060,31.070,
AND 31.100 AND ADDING SECTION 31.240; ARTICLE 32 PUBLlC,AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS,
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 32.110 AND 32.120; ARTICLE 34 PARTITION STANDARDS BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 34.010, 34.030, 34.050, 34.060 AND 34.070; AND ARTICLE 35 SUBDIVISION
STANDARDS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 35.010, 35.040, 35.050 AND 35.060 AND ADDING SECTION
35.055; ADOPTING THE WATER QUALITY LIMITED WATERCOURSE MAP; AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, the Springfield Development Code (SDC) was adopted bythe Springfield City
Council on May 5; 1986, and amendments thereto were subsequently adopted by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the SDC sets forth procedures for the amendment of this document; and
WHEREAS, the City's two primary watercourses, the Willamette River and the McKenzie River
are on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's list of Water Quality Limited Watercourses
under the "Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303( d) list" primarily because of water temperature problems
ana the City will be expected to implement standards that are responsive to the stricter water quality
standards under the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II requirements for
clean water discharges that will be effective for Springfield in 2003; and
WHEREAS, 100 percent of the City's drinking water comes from wells and continued compliance
with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is necessary; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 1999 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Spring
Chinook Salmon populations that inhabit the Willamette River, McKenzie River and several of their
tributaries as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); ESA Section 4(d) became
effective for Spring Chinook Salmon on January 8, 2001; ESA Section 4( d) established protective
regulations that apply to a species listed as threatened by introducing "take" provisions; and ESA Section
11 provided for substantial civil and criminal penalties for actions that result in the "take" of a listed
species; and clean water is essential to salmon habitat; and
WHEREAS, staff has demonstrated linkages between Metro Plan policies, state regulations and
the CWA and SDWA as set forth in the Staff Report incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the proposed SDC amendments is to implement interim provisions to
bring the SDC and future development within the City's land use jurisdiction closer to compliance with the
federal standards of the CWA, the SDWAand the ESA; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
SDC amendment request (Jo. No. 2002-02-0038). The Springfield Planning Commission voted 6 to 0,
with one absent to recommend approval of these amendments to the City Council based upon findings in
support of adoption of these amendments to the SDC as set forth in the Staff Report and the
Recommendation to the Council incorporated herein by reference; and.
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2002, the Springfield City Council held a public hearing and is now ready to
take action on this matter based upon the above recommendation and the evidence and testimony
already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at this publiC hearing held in the
matter of adopting this ordinance amending the SOC.
Ordinance 6021
Page 1
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 188
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Section 1.030 APPLICABILITY is hereby amended as described below:
1)Land, may be used, or developed by land division or otherwise, and a structure may be used or
developed by construction, reconstruction, alteration, and occupancy or otherwise, only as this
Code permits.
2) It is the intent of this Code that all development will comply with the applicable requirements of the
following: Federal programs, regulations and statutes, including, but not limited to the Clean Water
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act; State programs, regulations and
statutes, including, but not limited to permitting agencies such as the Oregon Division of State
Lands, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality; and local programs, regulations and statutes, including, but not limited to the MetroPlan
together with functional plans and applicable refinement plans, the Springfield Municipal Code
SMC) 1997, the Springfield Building Safety Codes and the Springfield Fire and Life Safety Codes
which may be applicable to a development. Except where specified in this Code or the SMC, the
specific enforcement of and compliance with applicable state and Federal regulations shall be
under the jurisdiction of the appropriate agency. Therefore, approvals granted through the
administration of this Code do not constitute Federal or state approvals.
Section 2: Section 1.050 VIOLATION AND PENALTIES is hereby amended as described below:
1)Enforcement of this Code may be through the applicable procedures for abatement and civil
infractions in the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997. The enforcement remedies available under this
Code or the Municipal Code are not exclusive and do not preclude the City from using any other
remedies available by law. In addition, the Building Official may order any work stopped by notice
in writing.
2) The Director may, in writing, suspend or revoke any permit or approval granted under the provisions
of this Code whenever the permit or approval is granted in error on the basis of incorrect information
supplied or whenever its granting (or activity permitted) is in violation of any ordinance or regulation,
or whenever the holder of the permit or approval violates the provisions of either this Code or the
Springfield Municipal Code, 1997.
Section 3: Section 2.020 MEANING OF SPECIFIC WORDS AND TERMS is hereby amended or
terms added as described below:
BASE FLOW. The portion of a stream flow that is not run-off cmd results from seepage of water from the
ground into achannel. The primary source of running water in a stream during dry weather.
CHANGE OF USE. A change from an existing use to another land use according to the land use and
permit requirements in this Code.
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA). A federal law established in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of water, including lakes, rivers aquifers and coastal areas.
DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USE. The purpose or benefit to be derived from a watercourse. For the
Willamette and McKenzie Rivers and all other streams and tributaries, the following beneficial uses apply:
Public domestic water supply, private domestic water supply, industrial water supply, irrigation, live stock
watering, anadromous fish passage, salmonid fish rearing salmonid fish spawning, resident fish and
aquatic life, wildlife, fishing, boating, water contact recreation aesthetic quality ~nd hydro power (except
for the Willamette River).
Ordinance 6021
Page 2
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 188
DEVELOPMENT AREA. The area sUbjeCt to any application required by this Code.
DIRECT TRIBUTARY TO A WATER QUALITY LIMITED WATERCOURSE. A direct tributary to a Water
Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW) is one that flows directly into a WQLW, except for those
watercourses that flow into the WQLW as a piped connection, where the pipe system extends more than
200 feet upstream of the connection point or is one that is a diversion from a WQLW and that discharges
into either a WQLW or other direct tributary to a WQLW and where the water quality of the diverted flow at
the discharge point has been degraded when compared with the water quality at the diversion point.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA). A federal law established in 1973 that provides significant
protection for various species of fish, wildlife and plants facing extinction that are listed as needing
protection.
ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL. A manual of design standards
and procedures prepared by the Public Works Department and adopted by resolution of the City Council.
These standards and procedures are applicable to public and private improvements and allow City staff to
provide certainty to developers and consultants to ensure safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation,
sanitary sewer, and stormwater management system projects within the City of Springfield and its Urban
Growth Boundary.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. Any surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into soil.
Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways,
parking lots and/or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel surfaces with compacted subgrade,
packed earthen materials and oiled macadam or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural
infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered
impervious surfaces.
INVASIVE PLANTS. Non-native plants that spread quickly, are highly competitive and difficult to control
or eliminate. Introduced intentionally or accidentally through human actions and spread by seed, by
birds, by wind, or vegetatively, these exotic plants can destroy native plants, choke waterways, degrade
recreational areas and necessitate costly maintenance. The Invasive Plahts List is a listing of plants that
the City considers undesirable for use in landscaping within its jurisdiction.
LAND AND DRAINAGE ALTERATION PERMIT (LDAP). A City permit for any fill, grading and
excavation that is required before any site preparation work can begin.
LISTED SPECIES. The Endangered Species Act provides for listing plant and animal species into the
following categories: Listed Endangered Species and Listed Threatened Species. An endangered
species is an animal or plant listed by regulation as being in danger of extinction. A threatened species is
any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
NATIVE PLANTS, NATIVE VEGETATION. Plant species that are indigenous to a local area and
adapted to the local climate, soils and hydrology as distinguished from plant species that have been
deliberately or accidentally imported or introduced from other areas by humans or human activities. The
Native Plants List is available in the Development Services Department.
OUTFALL. The point of discharge from a river, pipe, drain, etc. to a receiving watercourse.
PHYSICAL FEATURES. These features include, but are not limited to significant clusters of trees and
shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their riparian areas,
wetlands and rock outcroppings.
Ordinance 6021
Page 3
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 188
PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CONDITION, The sustained presence of natural habit-forming processes
e.g., hydraulic run-off, transport, channel migration, native vegetation succession) that are necessary for
the long-term survival and recovery of the species.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. The Director of Public Works or a duly authorized representative. The
City Engineer, the Environmental Services Manager and the Transportation Manager routinely serve as
representatives of the Public Works Director.
REDEVELOPMENT. Development that requires demolition or removal of existing structures or
impervious surfaces at a site and replacement with new construction. Maintenance activities such as
repavement are not considered redevelopment.
RIPARIAN AREA. A zone of transition from an aquatic to a terrestrial system, dependent upon surface
or subsurface water, that reveals through the zones existing or potential soil-vegetation. complex the
influence of such surface or sub-surface water. A riparian area may be located adjacent to a lake,
reservoir, estuary, spring, bog, wet meadow, slough, or ephemeral, intermittent or perennial stream.
Riparian areas protected under Articles 31, 34 and 35 of this Code shall be limited to those along
watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map,
RIPARIAN AREA FUNCTIONS. These functions shall include, but not be limited to: maintaining
temperature; maintaining channel stability; providing flood storage; providing groundwat~r recharge;
removing sediments; reducing contaminants such as: excess nutrients; oils and grease; metals; and fecal
coliform; moderating stormwater flows; and providing fish and wildlife habitat. Degraded riparian function
means that one or more of the functions listed above are at risk.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA). A federal law established in 1974, to protect drinking water
and its sources (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water) and sets standards for drinking water
quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.
STORMWATER. Water derived from a storm event or conveyed through a storm sewer water
management system.
STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs).
A) Nonstructural. Strategies implemented to control stormwater run-off that focus on pollution
prevention, such as alternative site design, zoning and ordinances, education and good
housekeeping measures.
B) Structural. Engineered devices implemented to control, treat or prevent stormwater run-off pollution.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. The structures, facilities, and practices utilized by the City
and/or a development to control and manage the quantity and quality of groundwater discharges and
surface water run-off, including stormwater run-off, non-storm generated run-off, and floodwaters.
Ordinance 6021
Page 4
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 188
TOP OF BANK. For a given watercourse, the top of bank is the same as the "bankfull stage". The
bankfull stage" is defined as the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural banks of streams
or other waters of the state and begins to inundate the upland. The ground elevations on both sides of
the watercourse are examined and the lower grade break elevation; the elevation where water would
leave the channel in a particular reach is used. The elevati0n of the lower bank controls the bank full
elevation for a watercourse reach. The edge of the bankfull watercourse typically corresponds to the start
of the floodplain. The start of the floodplain is often characterized by:
A berm or other break in slope from the watercourse bank to a flat valley bottom, terrace or
bench;
A change in vegetation from bare surfaces or annual water-tolerant species to perennial water-
tolerant or upland species; and
A change in the size distribution of surface sediments (e.g., gravel to fine sand) (Figure 1).
J ~
l~
S;;lnwnbe:rr Shruh
I In.:!K.;dM:';;
L
a~~
Bankfull Widlh
Sill\"ravel
Figure 1. Indicators for determining bankfull width.
In the absence of physical evidence, the two-year recurrence interval flood elevation may be used to
approximate the bankfull stage.
WATERCOURSE. Rivers, streams, sloughs, drainages including intermittent streams and seeps, ponds,
lakes, aquifers, wetlands and other waters of the state. This definition also includes any channel in which
a flow of water occurs, either continuously or intermittently, and if the latter with some degree of regularity.
Watercourses may be either natural or artificial. SpecifiC wa~ercourses that are protected by this Code
shall be those shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map.
WATER QUALITY LIMITED WATERCOURSE (WQLW). Those watercourses within the City and its
urbanizing area that are specified on the WQLW Map.
WATERS OF THE STATE. These waters include lakes, bays, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs,
wells, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Pacific Ocean within the territorial
limits of the State of Oregon, and all other bodies of surface or underground waters, natural or artificial,
inland or coastal, fresh or salt, public or private (except those private waters which do not combine or
effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters), which are wholly or partially within or
bordering the state or within its jurisdiction.
Ordinance 6021
Page 5
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 188
WETLANDS. Areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of hydrophitic
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas except those constructed as water quality or quantity control facilities.
Section 4: The Article 31 title page is hereby amended as described below:
ARTICLE 31 MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
31.010 MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
31.020 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
31.030 SITE PLAN REVIEW - REVIEW PROCESS
31.040 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE
31.050 SITE PLAN REVIEW - INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
31.060 SITE PLAN REVIEW - CRITERIA
31.070 SITE PLAN REVIEW - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
31.080 SITE PLAN REVIEW - FINAL SITE PLAN
31.090 SITE PLAN REVIEW - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
31.100 SITE PLAN REVIEW - MODIFICATIONS
31.110 SITE PLAN REVIEW - SECURITY AND ASSURANCES
31.120 SITE PLAN REVIEW - MAINTAINING THE USE
31.130 SITE PLAN REVIEW - LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
31.140 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PLANTING STANDARDS
31.150 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PLANTING INSTALLATION STANDARDS
31.160 SITE PLAN REVIEW - SCREENING AND LIGHTING STANDARDS
31.170 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PARKING STANDARDS
31.180 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARD$
31.190 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
31.200 SITE PLAN REVIEW - OFF-STREET LOADING STANDARDS
31.210 SITE PLAN REVIEW.., BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS
31.220 SITE PLAN REVIEW - MINIMUM REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
31.230 SITE PLAN REVIEW - BICYCLE COMMUTER FACILITIES
31.240 SITE PLAN REVIEW - WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
Ordinance 6021
Page 6
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 188
Section 5: Section 31.010 MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS is hereby amended
as described below:
1) Purpose. Minimum Development Standards (MDS) are intended to support economic
development by minimizing City review for minor additions or expansions, or changes in use
specified in this Section. MDS shall ensure compliance with specific appearance; transportation
safety and efficiency; and stormwater management standards specified in this Code and
otherwise protect the publiC health, safety and welfare.
2) Applicability.
a) MDS shall apply:
1. To developed properties that do not require either Site Plan Review as specified in
Section 31.020 of this Code or Site Plan Modification as specified in Section
31.100 of this Code; and
2. Within Springfield's city limits Only; and
3. Within commercial, industrial and public land zoning districts only, where there is:
A. An addition or expansion that is:
i. 50 percent or less than the existing building gross floor area and/or
impervious surface area; or
ii.5,000 square feet or less of additional building gross floor area and/or
impervious surface area, whichever is less.
iii. Serial expansions shall be limited so that the standards specified in i.
and ii. are not exceeded in a 3-year period.
Exception: The installation of items, including but not limited to internal
sidewalks or bases for benches that are less than 50 square feet shall not
initiate MDS review; and
B. A change in use of a building or property.
b) Where there is an addition, expansion or change in use of a building or property containing
multiple uses, the property owner shall bring the entire property into compliance with the
standards specified in Subsection (4) of this Section. If the property contains more than
three uses, the Director and property owner may enter into an agreement so that as a use
changes or expands a percentage of the property shall comply with MDS requirements with
the intent that the total property will meet MDS requirements over time. This agreement
shall not affect the MDS timelines specified in Subsection (5) of this Subsection.
Exception: In cases where the proposed addition, expansion or change in use is an
espresso cart that has wheels, the Director may waive the MDS requirement on
properties containing existing multiple uses.
c)Where the property is currently in compliance with all of the standards specified in
Subsection (4) of this Section, MDS shall not apply.
Ordinance 6021
Page 7
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 188
3)MDS Review Process.
a) MDS shall be reviewed under the Type I review process, unless the Director finds that
the proposed use should be reviewed under the Type II review process.
b) A complete application together with all required materials shall be accepted by the Director
prior to staff review of the application as specified in Section 3.050, Application Submittal.
c) Where applicable, a copy of any required ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit
application shall be submitted concurrently with the MDS application.
4) SDC Standards Applicable to MDS Approval. In order to grant MDS approval, the Director shall
determine compliance with all applicable standards specified below:
a) A five-foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or
approved drought resistant plants as specified in Sections 31.130, 31.140 and 32.050 of
this Code shall be installed between the sidewalk and parking areas or buildings.
Exceptions:
1. Where there is an unimproved street, a foW foot wide landscaped planterstrip
shall be required to be set back one foot from the property line.
2. Where there is insufficient space for the landscaped strip required in Subsections
4 )(a) and (4)(a)1. of this Section due to existing buildings, street width, paved
parking, changes of elevation or location of utilities including catch basins, the
Director may approve:
A. Decorative fencing located immediately behind the property line. This
fencing may be wrought iron or masonry and shall be subject to the height
standards of the applicable zoning district and the vision clearance
setbacks of Section 32.070 of this Code; and/or
B. Landscaping equivalent to the amount required in Subsection (4)(a) of this
Section may be placed at the property corners or other areas of the
property that are visible from the street.
b) Trash receptacles and outdoor storage areas shall be screened by a structure or enclosure
permanently affixed to the ground as specified in Section 31.160 of this Article.
c) Bicycle parking spaces shall be added to meet the numerical standards for the
appropriate use or upgraded to meet the standards set in Sections 31.210 and 31.220 of
this Article.
Exception: In cases where the number of bicycle parking spaces cannot be met due to
lot size or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation .
Planning Engineer, may reduce the standard without a Variance if a finding is made that
the reduction will not have an adverse impact on public safety. .
d)Parking and circulation areas shall be paved and striped and wheel stops installed as
specified in Sections 31.170 and 31.190 of this Article. Required paving and other
impervious surfaces on the site shall comply with on-site stormwater management
standards as specified in Section 32.110 of this Code.
Ordinance 6021
Page 8
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 188
e)
Exception: In cases where the number of vehicular parking spaces cannot be met due
to lot size or physical constraint, the Director, in consultation with the Transportation
Planning Engineer, may reduce the standard without a Variance if a finding is made that
the reduction will not have an adverse impact on public safety.
Access onto the public right-of-way shall comply with Section 32.080 of this Code.
1. Where the property abuts an improved street, any non-conforming or unsafe curb
cuts, as determined by the Transportation Manager, shall be removed and
replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
2. Where the property abuts an unimproved street, any non-conforming or unsafe
access points, as determined by the Transportation Manager, shall be:
a. Removed by the use of fencing, extruded curbs or other method of
approved barricade; and
b. The property owner shall sign an Improvement Agreement guaranteeing
future participation in a Local Improvement District.
3. If an existing curb cut or access point is closed, the Director may require a joint
use access agreement with a neighboring property as specified in Section
32.080( 1 )(b) of this Code.
f) Concrete sidewalks shall be installed where the site abuts a curb and gutter street as
specified in Section 32.040 of this Code.
9)Streetlights shall be installed as specified in Section 32.060 of this Code.
h) The development shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 32.100 through
32.120 of this Code and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where
applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 32.120(5) of this Code.
5) Timelines and Conditions of Approval.
a) The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the standards specified in
Subsection (4) of this Section within 90 days of the Director's approval as follows:
1. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan within 30 days of the Director's approval that states
the starting date of all required improvements and that demonstrates compliance
with all conditions of approval required to meet the standards specified in
Subsection (4) of this Section. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan shall include the
following additional material, where applicable:
A. The original recorded Improvement Agreement.
B. Any required ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit.
Exception: If the ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit cannot be obtained
by the time line specified in Subsection (5)(a)1. of this Section, the Director
may defer the submittal of this document until the start of construction date
specified in Subsection (5)(a)3. of this Section.
Ordinance 6021
Page 9
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 188
C. A copy of a recorded joint use access/parking agreement.
D. A copy of a recorded private easement or the original public utility easement.
2. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 45 days of
the Director's approval of the Final Plot Plan.
3. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 90 days of the
MDS decision. If this time line cannot be met, the applicant may submit a written
request for a time line extension as specified in Subsection (5)(b) of this Section.
b) The Director may allow a one-time extension of the 90-day start of construction time line
specified in Subsection (5)(a)3. of this Section due to situations including but not limited
to, required permits from the City or other agencies, weather conditions, the unavailability
of asphalt or the unavailability of street tress. If the time extension is allowed, security
shall be provided as specified in Section 31.110 of this Article. The time line extension
shall not exceed 90 days.
c) If the time line established in Subsection (5)(a)3. of this Section is not met and the
applicant has not requested an extension as specified in Subsection (5)(b), then the
Director shall declare the application null and void if the property is occupied and the
property owner shall be considered in violation of this Code.
d) If the time line established in Subsection (5)(a)3. of this Section is not met and the
applicant has requested an extension as specified in Subsection (5)(b) and that time line
has not been met, then the Director may require that the improvements be installed as
specified in Subsection 31.11 0(4) of this Article.
Section 6: Section 31.020 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY is
hereby amended as described below:
1) Purpose. The purpose of Site Plan Review is to: Facilitate and enhance the value of
development; Regulate the manner in which land is used and developed; Ensure the provision of
public facilities and services; Maintain the integrity of the City's watercourses by promoting bank
stability; assisting in flood protection and flow control, protecting riparian functions, minimizing
erosion, and preserving water quality and significant fish and wildlife areas; Provide for connectivity
between different uses; Utilize alternative transportation modes including and walking, bicycling
and mass transit facilities; Implement the Metro Plan, applicable refinement plans and specific
area plans and specific development plans; Minimize adverse effects on surrounding property
owners and the general public through specific conditions of approval; and Otherwise protect the
public health and safety.
C
2) Applicability. Within the City and its urbanizable area, Site Plan Review shall be required for single
family and duplex dwellings on properties zoned Medium Density Residential and High Density
Residential in order to meet the minimum density requirements of these zones, multi-family
residential, commercial, public and semi-public, and industrial development or uses including
construction of impervious surface.s for parking lots and storage areas:
a)New development on vacant sites and redevelopment as a result ofdemolition and removal
of existing buildings and impervious surfaces on a formerly occupied site.
b)Additions or expansions that exceed either 50 percent of the existing building gross floor area
or 5,000 square feet or more of new building gross floor area and/or impervious surface
area.
Ordinance 6021
Page 10
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 188
Exception: The Director may determine that Site Plan Review does not apply to
certain single family and duplex dwellings on properties zoned Medium Density
Residential and High Density Residential when the lot size allows only one such
dwelling.
c)Additions and expansions and changes of use, regardless of size or intervening use, that:
1. Contain or are within 150 feet of the top of bank (as measured from the property line
of the subject property) of any Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW)
identified on the WQLW Map on file in the Development Services Department;
2. Contain or are within 100 feet of the top of bank (as measured from the property line
of the subject property) of any direct tributaries of WQLW identified on the WQLW
Map on file in the Development Services Department;
3. Are located within the City's urbanizable area, outside of the city limits; or
4. Are located within 50 feet of residentially zoned or designated land (as measured
from the property line of the subject property).
Exception: The Director may determine that Site Plan Review does not apply to certain
changes of use required under Subsections 1. through 4. if a finding is made that the
change of use will not have an adverse impact on water quality and/or residential uses. In
this case, the change of use shall be reviewed under Minimum Development Standards
procedures specified in Section 31.010(2) of this Article.
d) All Discretionary Uses, where applicable.
e) Development within the area of adopted Development Area Plans and Conceptual
Development Plans.
f) Any uses listed in Articles 16 through 30, which specifically require Site Plan Review.
g) Certain wireless telecommunications systems facilities (Article 32). Refer to Section 32.130
for siting standards and review process for applicable underlying zoning district.
3) No development permit will be issued by the City prior to approval of the Preliminary Site Plan
application.
Exception: In certain cases, the Director may issue a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit prior
to approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.
Section 7: Section 31.030 SITE PLAN REVIEW - REVIEW PROCESS is hereby amended
as described below:
1)Pre-Application Options. Although voluntary, prospective applicants are generally encouraged to
request a Pre-Application Meeting (informal process) or Pre-Application Report (formal process).
Both options allow the prospective applicant to meet with City staff to make the developer aware of
the substantive and procedural requirements of this Code and applicable Refinement Plans and to
otherwise identify policies and regulations that create opportunities or pose significant constraints
for the proposed development.
2)Review. Unless specified elsewhere in this Code, Site Plans shall be reviewed under Type II
procedure. A complete application together with all required materials shall be accepted by the
Director prior to staff review of the application as specified in Section 3.050, Application Submittal.
Ordinance 6021
Page 11
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 188
Section 8: Section 31.050 SITE PLAN REVIEW -INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS is
hereby amended as described below:
All Site Plan applications that contain structures over 4,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be
prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect or Engineer. The services of an Oregon registered Engineer
may also be required by the City in order to resolve utility issues, especially stormwater management,
street design and transportation issues, site constraint and/or water quality. A Site Plan shall contain all
the elements necessary to demonstrate that requirements of this Code are being fulfilled and shall include
but not be limited to the following:
1) General requirements. A Site Plan shall be drawn in ink on quality paper no smaller than 8 1/2" x
14" and shall contain the following information:
a) The scale (appropriate to the area involved and sufficient to show detail of the plan and
related data, such as 1" = 30',1" = 50' or 1" = 100'), north arrow, and date of preparation.
b) The street address and assessor's map and tax lot number.
c) The dimensions (in feet) and size (either square feet or acres) of the development area.
d) Proposed and existing buildings: location, dimensions, size (gross floor area), conceptual
floor plan, setbacks from property lines, distance between buildings, and height.
e) The location and height of proposed or existing fences, walls, outdoor equipment and
storage, trash receptacles, and signs.
f) Proposed number of employees and future expansion plans.
9)Area and percentage of the site proposed for buildings, structures, driveways, sidewalks,
patios and other impervious surfaces. This information is necessary to allow staff to
determine the Site Plan Review fee.
h) Observance of solar access requirements as specified in the appropriate zoning district.
i) Exterior elevations of all buildings and structures proposed for the development site.
j) Area and dimensions of all property to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for common
open spaces, recreational areas and other similar public and semi-public uses.
2) A Site Assessment of the entire development area. The Site Assessment shall be prepared by an
Oregon licensed Landscape Architect or Engineer and drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-
foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely maps and delineates the areas described below.
Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. The Director may waive
portions of this requirement if there is a finding that the proposed development will not have an
adverse impact on physical features or water quality, either on the site or adjacent to the site.
Adjacent properties include those within the distances specified in Section 31.020(2)(c) of this
Article. Information required for adjacent properties may be generalized to show the connections to
physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the following information:
a)The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses that
are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map on file in the Development
Services Department;
Ordinance 6021
Page 12
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 188
b)The 100-year f1oodplain'and f100dway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest
adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment
or Letter of Map Revision;
c) The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in Article 17 of this Code and delineated on the
Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department;
d) Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs,
watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their riparian
areas, wetlands and rock outcroppings; and
e) Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane
County.
3) An Access, Circulation and Parking Plan complying with the standards of this Code.
a) Location, dimensions and number of typical, compact and disabled parking spaces;
including aisles, landscaped areas, wheel bumpers, directional signs and striping;
b) On-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation;
c) Access to streets, alleys and properties to be served, including the location and dimensions
of existing and proposed curb cuts and curb cuts proposed to be closed;
d) Exterior lighting: including the type, height and area of illumination;
e) Location, type and number of bicycle spaces;
f)Amount of gross floor area applicable to the parking requirement for the proposed use;
9) Location of off-street loading areas;
h) Existing and proposed transit facilities;
i) A copy of a Right-of-Way Approach Permit application where the property has frontage
on an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility; and
0) A Traffic Impact Study prepared by a Traffic Engineer where the proposed development
will produce more than 250 vehicle trips per day.
4) A Landscape Plan, drawn by a Landscape Architect or other professional approved by the Director,
complying with the standards of this Code.
a)
b)
c)
Screening in accordance with Section 31.160 of this Article;
Use of plantings in erosion control and stormwater treatment facilities, if any;
Permanent irrigation system, unless specifically exempted in accordance with Section
31.140(4) of this Article;
d)Street trees in accordance with Section 32.050 of this Code;
Ordinance 6021
Page 13
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 188
e)A specifications list for all materials to be used shall accompany the Planting Plan. Plant
sizes shall be listed at the time of installation, and shown on the Planting Plan at mature
size; and
f) Description of planting methods in accordance with Section 31.150 of this Article.
5) An Improvements Plan complying with the standards of Article 32 of this Code.
a) Name and location of all existing and proposed publiC and private streets within or on the
boundary of the proposed development site including the right of way and paving
dimensions, and the ownership and maintenance status, if applicable;
b) Location of existing and required traffic control devices, fire hydrants, streetlights, power
poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units and similar public facilities;
c) Location, width and construction material of all existing and proposed sidewalks, sidewalk
ramps, pedestrian access ways and trails; and
d) Location and size of existing and proposed utilities and necessary easements and
dedications on and adjacent to the site including sanitary sewer mains, stormwater
management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate the
proposed connection points.
6)A Grading, Paving and Stormwater Management Plan drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-
foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely maps and addresses the information described
below. In areas where the percent of slope is 10 percent or more, contours may be shown at 5-foot
intervals. This plan shall show the stormwater man,agement system for the entire development
area. For Site Plans with more than 5,000 square feet of new paving area, an Oregon licensed Civil
Engineer shall prepare the plan. Where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater
management system, an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect may be required. The plan shall
include the following components:
a) Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations;
b) Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns;
c) The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not
limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality
measures; and natural drainageways to be retained;
d) Existing and proposed elevations, site grades and contours; and
e) A stormwater management system plan with supporting calculations and documentation
as required in Section 32.110 of this Code shall be submitted supporting the proposed
system. The plan, calculations and documentation shall be consistent with the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual to allow staff to determine that the
proposed stormwater management system will accomplish its purposes.
7)A Phased Development Plan. Where applicable, the Site Plan application shall include a phasing
plan that indicates any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries and
sequencing of each phase. Phasing shall progress in a sequence that promotes street
connectivity between the various phases of the development and accommodates other required
public improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer stormwater management, water
and electricity.
Ordinance 6021
Page 14
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 188
8)Additional information and/or applications required at the time of Site Plan Review applications
submittal shall include items (a) through (c) and may include, but not be limited to items (d)
through 0):
a) . A brief narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed development and the existing use
of the property.
b) If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner shall
be required.
c) A Vicinity Map drawn to scale showing bus stops, streets, curb cuts, pedestrian
connections, fire hydrants and other transportation/fire access issues within 200 feet of the
proposed development area.
d) How the proposal addresses the standards of the applicable overlay district where the
development area is within an overlay district.
e) How the proposal addresses Discretionary Use criteria.
f) A Tree Felling Permit as specified in Article 38 of this Code.
9) An Annexation application as specified in Article 6 of this Code where a development is
proposed outside of the city limits but within the City's urban services area and can be
serviced by sanitary sewer.
h) A wetland delineation approved by the Division of State Lands shall be submitted
concurrently where there is a wetland on the property.
i)Evidence that any required federal or state permit has been applied for or approved shall
be submitted concurrently.
j) A Geotechnical Report prepared by an Engineer shall be submitted concurrently if the
required Site Assessment specified in Section 31.050(2)(f) of this Article indicates the
proposed development area has unstable soils and/or a high water table as specified in the
Soils Survey of Lane County.
Section 9: Section 31.060 SITE PLAN REVIEW -CRITERIA is hereby amended as
described below:
The Director shall approve or approve with conditions: a Type II Site Plan Review application upon
determining that criteria (1) through (5) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached
to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application.
1) Compliance with the submittal requirements of Sections 3.050 and 31.050 of this Code.
2) Proposed on-site and off-site public and private improvements are sufficient to accommodate the
proposed development as specified in Articles 31, 32, the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay
district Article and any applicable refinement plan.
3)Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle
and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to
adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial
and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in Articles 31, 32,
the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay district Article and any applicable refinement plan; and
comply with the ODOT access management standards for state highways.
Ordinance 6021
Page 15
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 188
4)Physical features, including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses
shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas,
wetlands, rock outcroppings and historic features have been evaluated and protected as required
by this Code.
5) The proposed development has been designed and located in a manner that demonstrates that
state and federally designated beneficial uses of and standards for groundwater and surface
water quality will be protected as required by this Code.
Section 10: Section 31.070 SITE PLAN REVIEW - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL is
hereby amended as described below:
To the extent necessary to satisfy the criteria of Section 31.060 of this Article, comply with all applicable
standards of this Code and to mitigate identified negative impacts to surrounding properties, the Director
shall impose conditions of approval. Conditions imposed to satisfy the Site Plan application criteria shall not
be used to exclude "needed housing" as defined in OAR 660-08-015. All conditions shall be satisfied prior
to Final Site Plan approval. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
1)- Dedication of right of way when shown in TransPlan, transportation elements of refinement plans or
on the most recent Conceptual Local Street Plan Map and as specified in Table 32-1 of this Code
and/or easements as specified in Section 32.120(5) when necessary to provide services, including
but not limited to sanitary sewers, stormwater management, water and electricity, to the site and
neighboring properties. The dedication of easements shall also include any easements required to
access and maintain watercourses or wetlands that are part of the City's Stormwater Management
System.
2)
3)
7)
4)
5)
6)
Installation of a sight obscuring fence, and/or vegetative screen whenever a party of record or the
Director identifies a land use conflict.
Installation of traffic signals and signs; restricting access to and from arterial or collector streets;
requiring a frontage road; restricting and strategically locating driveways; and/or requiring the joint
use of driveways to serve 2 or more lots through a Joint Use/Access Agreement when
transportation safety issues are identified by the Transportation Planning Engineer and/or a
Transportation Impact Study.
Modification of the layout of structures caused by the location of streets, required stormwater
management systems, including but not limited to swales and detention basins or when required by
the Geotechnical report specified in Section 31.050(8)(g) of this Article.
Installation of a noise attenuating barrier, acoustical building construction and/or site modifications
as specified in Section 31.160 of this Article, or similar measures approved by an acoustical
engineer registered in the State of Oregon, to minimize negative affects on noise sensitive property
from noise found to exceed acceptable noise levels prescribed in the Oregon Administrative Rules
or the Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria. .
Limiting the hours of operation whenever a land use conflict is identified by the Director or a party of
record, including but not limited to noise and traffic generation.
Phasing of development to match availability of services when public facilities and services,
including but not limited to sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water and electric, are not
available to property that must be annexed to the City as part of development approval, as
determined by the Public Works Director.
Ordinance 6021
Page 16
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 188
8) Submittal of a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit.
9)Retention and protection of existing physical features and their functions, including but not limited
to: significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited
Watercourse Map and their riparian areas and wetlands by:
a) Planting replacement trees where encroachment is allowed into riparian areas shown on
the WQLW Map on file in the Development Services Department;
b) Re-vegetation, including but not limited to trees and native plants, of slopes, ridgelines,
and stream corridors;
c) Restoration of native vegetation;
d) Removal of invasive plant species, based upon the Invasive Plants List on file in the
Development Services Department;
e) Relocating the proposed development on another portion of the site;
f) Reducing the size of the proposed development; and/or
g) Mitigation of the loss of physical features caused by the proposed development with an
equivalent replacement either on site or on an approved site elsewhere within the City's
jurisdiction, as approved by the Director.
10) Installation of lighting for outdoor circulation, parking and safety, including approval of the type
and placement of the outdoor lighting as specified in Section 31.160(3) of this Article.
11)The Director may waive the requirement that buildable City lots have frontage on a public street
when all of the following apply:
a) The lot or lots have been approved as part of a Subdivision or Partition application; and
b) Access has been guaranteed via a private street to a public street or driveway by an
irrevocable joint use/access agreement.
12) The applicant shall submit copies of required permits to demonstrate compliance with applicable:
federal programs, regulations and statutes; state programs, regulations and statutes; and/or local
programs, regulations and statutes prior to the approval of the Final Site Plan. When a federal or
state agency issues a permit that substantially alters an approved Preliminary Site Plan, the
Director shall require the applicant to submit a Site Plan Modification as specified in Section
31.100(2) of this Article.
13) Approval of a Stormwater Management Plan for the development demonstrating compliance with
the applicable provisions of Section 32.110 of this Code and the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual.
Section 11: Section 31.100 SITE PLAN REVIEW.:.... MODIFICATIONS is hereby amended
as described below:
1)Purpose. The Site Plan Modification process establishes procedures to allow certain adjustments
to an approved Site Plan, either after Preliminary Approval or after Final Approval, but within the
time line of the signed Development Agreement as specified in Section 31.090 of this Article. This
process shall assure thatany proposed Site Plan Modification continues to comply with Section
31.060 of this Article.
Ordinance 6021
Page 17
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 188
2)Applicability.
a) The Site Plan Modification process shall only apply to Site Plan applications approved
after June 5, 1986.
b) The Site Plan Modification process shall not apply to any proposed development that
qualifies as an MDS application.
c) .Where there is a change of use on a property that received Site Plan Review approval, the
Director may perform a site visit prior to a Site Plan Modification application submittal. If the
property is currently in compliance with all criteria of approval specified in Section 31.060 of
this Article, no Site Plan Modification application will be required.
3) Site Plan Modification Review Process. The Director shall determine whether the Site Plan
Modification will be processed under the Type I or Type II review process as follows:
a) A Minor Site Plan Modification application shall be evaluated under the Type I review
process. The application shall be reviewed based upon a particular standard as specified
in this Code that does not involve a Type II or Type III Variance, e.g., a modification in the
location or type of required landscaping or an insignificant change in the number and/or
layout of parking spaces.
b) A Major Site Plan Modification application shall be evaluated under the Type II review
process. The application shall be reviewed based upon a particular criterion as specified
in Section 31.060 of this Article, e.g., a revision of the stormwater management plan, a
substantial increase in the size of the building or when commercial or industrial
development abuts property zoned residential. The Type II review process shall also be
applied when:
1. The modification involves any items listed in Subsection 31.020(2) of this Article;
2. A federal or state agency issues a permit that substantially alters an approved
Site Plan; or
3. Pad sites in shopping centers or future phases shown on an approved Final Site
Plan have not been constructed within the time line specified in Section 31.080 of
this Articl~.
c) A complete application together with all required materials shall be accepted by the Director
prior to staff review of the application as specified in Section 3.050, Application Submittal.
4)Criteria of Approval. The criteria of approval for a Site Plan Modification application shall be in
compliance with the applicable standard and/or criteria of approval specified in Section 31.060 of
this Article. '
5)Conditions of Approval. The Director may require conditions of approval as specified in Section
31.070 of this Article.
6)Final Site Plan Modification and Development Agreement. A Final Site Plan and Development
Agreement shall be required as specified in Sections 31.080 and 31.090 of this Article.
Ordinance 6021
Page 18
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 188
Section 12: Section 31.240 SITE PLAN REVIEW - WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
is hereby added as described below:
The intent of this Section is to apply water quality protection to only those sites that require Site Plan
Review approval as specified in Section 31.020 of this Article. Thefollowing standards do not apply to
single-family homes and duplexes in the Low Density Residential District as of the date of this Ordinance,
except as specified in Subsection (1 )(a) of this Section. Existing buildings that are within the riparian
areas specified in Subsections (1 )(a) and (b) shall not be considered non-conforming. Subsections
1 )(b)1. and 2. provide additional protection from a non-conforming status.
1) When addressing criteria (4) and (5) as speCified in Section 31.060 of this Article to protect
riparian areas along watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW)
Map on file in the Development Services Department, the following riparian area boundaries shall
be utilized:
a) Along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average annual stream flow greater
than 1,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) the riparian area boundary shall be a minimum of
75 feet upland from the top of each bank.
Exception:
Within the Willamette Greenway, any change or intensification of use to a single family
home or duplex requires Site Plan Review as specified in Section 25.040(1) of this Code.
In this case, the Director may reduce the size of the required riparian area if there is a
finding that the proposed development is in compliance with Article 25, Willamette
Greenway Overlay District and other applicable provisions of thisCode.
b)Along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average annual stream flow less
than 1,000 CFS the riparian area boundary shall be a minimum of 50 feet upland from the
top of each bank.
Exceptions:
1. For all watercourses Subject to Section 31.240(1)(b) of this Section other than
the Mill Race or Cedar Creek, the 50 foot riparian area standard may be reduced
to 35 feet provided an equivalent amount and function of pervious land is
established elsewhere on the property that utilizes water quality measures
including, but not limited to: wetlands, bioswales or additional trees, especially in
parking areas, and exclusive of otherwise required water quality measures and
landscape areas. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, equivalency in relation to both the
amount of pervious land (as specified above) and riparian area function (as
specified in Section 32.110(7) of this Code.
2. An existing building within a riparian area shall not be considered a non-
conforming use if destroyed by earthquake, flood or other natural disaster or fire.
In this case, the replacement building may be constructed within the same
location as the existing building. If the building is within the Willamette
Greenway, the standards in Article 25, Willamette Greenway Overlay District
shall apply.
c)Where a watercourse divides a lot and the existing riparian area along that watercourse
is degraded in riparian function, the applicant may relocate the watercourse to another
portion of the property as approved by the Public Works Director and applicable state or
federal agency.
Ordinance 6021
Page 19
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 188
d)If an expansion of the riparian area described in Subsection (1 )(a) and (b) occurs as a
result of a federal or state agency permit process, the applicant shall resubmit the
Preliminary Site Plan for additional review in accordance with Section 31.020 of this
Article or Submit a Site Plan Modification in accordance with as specified in Section
31 .160 of this Article.
2) Permitted Uses in Riparian Areas. The following uses shall be permitted in riparian areas as long
as they do not diminish riparian functions:
a) The planting of trees and native vegetation to promote bank stability, enhance riparian
areas, minimize erosion, preserve water quality and protect federally listed species. Trees
may be clustered to allow maintenance vehicles approach City maintained stormwater
facilities including but not limited to: detention basins, outfalls and culverts.
b) The felling of hazardous trees for safety reasons as specified in Article 38, Tree Felling.
c) Riparian area restoration, enhancement including the removal of invasive plant species,
where necessary.
d) Flood control structures, where necessary.
e) Stormwater management systems and outfalls, as allowed by the Public Works Director
or other regulating authority.
f) Pedestrian paths as specified in Section 32.090(2)-(4) of this Code. Pedestrian paths
shall be located along the outer edge of the required riparian area away from the
watercourse. Utilities may be extended in the pedestrian path.
g)Bikeways shown on the TransPlan Priority Bikeway System Projects Map or the Future
Bikeway Projects Map and as specified in Section 32.090(1) of this Code, provided that
the drainage falls away from the watercourse. Bikeways shall be located along the outer
edge of the required riparian area away from the watercourse. Utilities may be extended
in the bikeway.
h)Water dependent or water related uses>between the Willamette River and the Greenway
Setback Line as may be permitted in Article 25 Willamette Greenway Overlay District.
i)Private driveways, public street crossings, bridges and necessary culverts when there is
no other vehicle access to the property. Crossings should be preferably at right angles to
the watercourse. Public and private utilities shall be permitted within the driveway, public
street or bridge right-of-way.
j)Repair, replacement or improvement of utility facilities as long as the riparian area is
restored to it~ original condition.
k)Routine repair and maintenance of existing structures, streets, driveways; utilities,
accessory uses and other similar facilities.
I)Other activities similar to those listed above that do not diminish riparian function. The
Director shall make such determinations in accordance with Article 3, Interpretation.
Ordinance 6021
Page 20
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 188
3)For protection of water quality and protection of riparian area functions as specified in Section
32.110(7) of th is Code, the following standards shall apply:
a) Avoid development or redevelopment in the following circumstances:
1. Unsuitable areas, including, but not limited to unstable slopes, wetlands and
riparian areas;
2. Stream crossings - where crossings must be provided, the impacts on water
quality shall be minimized; and
3. Hardening of stream banks and shorelines.
b) Prevent:
1. Stormwater discharge impacts to water quality and quantity; and
2. Erosion and seqiment run-off during and after construction.
c) Protect:
1. Riparian areas, buffers and functions around all watercourses; and
2. Wetlands, wetland buffers and wetland functions.
d) Preserve the hydrologic capacity of any watercourses.
e)Utilize native vegetation in riparian areas to reduce the need to apply water, herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizer. The required riparian area landscaping shall be installed as part of
the building permit process. The required riparian area landscaping may be bonded as
specified in Section 31.110 of this Article.
f) Restoration and enhancement of riparian areas that are degraded in riparian function.
g) In applying Subsections (3)(a) through (3)(f) of this Section for riparian areas, protection,
preservation, restoration and enhancement measures shall be applied as follows:
1.For new development and redevelopment, existing riparian area functions shall
be protected and preserved and degraded functions shall be restored or
enhanced through thefull riparian area width, specified in Subsection (1 )(a) and
1 )(b) of this Section, and extending through the full frontage of the lot along the
watercourse on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW) Map.
2.For additions and expansions on any portion of a lot, existing riparian area
functions shall be protected and preserved through the full riparian area width
specified in Subsection (1 )(a) and (1 )(b) of this Section and extending through
the full frontage of the lot along the watercourse on the WQLW Map.
3.For additions and expansions within 100 feet of a watercourse on the WQLW
Map on a lot that has degraded riparian functions, the area for restoration or
enhancement shall be based upon the ratio of the impervious area of the addition
or expansion to the existing building or impervious area on the lot. The
restoration or enhancement shall start at the top of bank of the watercourse and
work landward.
Ordinance 6021
Page 21
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 188
Section 13: The Article 32 Title Page is hereby amended as described below:
ARTICLE 32 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS
32.010
32.020
32.030
32.040
32.050
32.060
32.070
32.080
32.090
32.100
32.110
32.120
GENERAL
STREETS - PUBLIC
STREETS - PRIVATE
SIDEWALKS, ACCESSWAYS AND PLANTER STRIPS
STREET TREES.
STREET LIGHTS
VISION CLEARANCE AREAS
ACCESS AND CURB CUTS
BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS
SANITARY SEWERS
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
UTILITIES
Section 14: Section 32.110 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT is hereby amended as
described below:
1)
2)
Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to: Provide for the effective
management of stormwater and drainage from the City into the groundwater and watercourses
within the City and its urbanizing area; Minimize demand on the City's stormwater management
system and alleviate future costs of treating the discharge; Promote water quality; Preserve
groundwater and the vegetation and rivers it supports; Reduce peak storm flows; Minimize public
and private losses due to flood conditions; and Minimize stormwater discharge impacts on water
quality and quantity and stream flow patterns, including peak and base flows in intermittent and
perennial streams, within the McKenzie River and Willamette River watersheds.
The Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public andlor private
stormwater management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works
Director, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. The
stormwater management system shall be separated from any sanitary sewer system. Surface
water drainage patterns shall be shown on every Preliminary Site Plan, or Tentative Partition or
Subdivision Plan.
Ordinance 6021
Page 22
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 188
3) A stormwater management system shall acdbh1modate potential run-off from its entire upstream
drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. The Public Works Director shall
determine the necessary size of the facility, based on Public Facility Plans and adopted Master
Plans, assuming the maximum potential watershed deveiopment permitted by the Metro Plan. The
developer shall pay a proportional share of the cost according to adopted City Council policy.
4) Run-off from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with
sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Where the Public Works Director determines that the
additional run-off resulting from the development will overload an existing stormwater management
system, the Approval Authority shall withhold Development Approval until provisions, consistent
with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, have been made to correct or
mitigate this condition.
5) A development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public
Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual, which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving
streams. The following drainage management practices may be required in order to relieve
demand on the City's piped drainage system and to alleviate future costs of treating the piped
discharge; to promote water quality, to preserve groundwater and the vegetation and rivers it
supports, and to reduce peak storm flows:
a) Temporary ponding of water;
b) Permanent storage basins;
c) Minimizing impervious surfaces;
d) Emphasizing natural water percolation and natural drainageways:
e) Preventing water flowing from the roadway in an uncontrolled fashion;
f) Stabilizing natural drainageways as necessary below drainage and culvert discharge points
for a distance sufficient to convey the discharge without channel erosion;
g) On-site filtration or skimming of run-off, which will enter natural drainageways to maintain
water quality; and
h) On-site constructed wetlands.
6) Identification of Water Quality Limited Watercourses. The Director shall maintain a Water Quality
Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map on file in the Development Services Department, which
designates certain watercourses and their direct tributaries within the City and its urbanizing area.
The WQLW Map shall contain watercourses recommended by the Public Works Director. Any
revision to the WQLW Map shall be approved by the City Council as an amendment to this Code.
Those watercourses and their direct tributaries included on the WQLW Map have been found to
warrant protective measures in support of the City's response to state and federal regulations
regarding surface and subsurface discharging stormwater management systems by satisfying the
following criteria:
a) Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW): Waters of the State that meet one or
more of the following criteria:
Ordinance 6021
Page 23
v,; O-'.'UiJ'V'V,",';UII VI ':;11.''''.'11'9 j:i'ly6'l;a, '~aCu, t::6 tJlIU lI,t:;;1I ,-um;lIun::>, 1I,I:;iuUIlIY UUl flUi illTmea
to: significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their
riparian areas and wetlands, by:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Planting replacement trees where encroachment is allowed into riparian areas shown on
the WQLW Map on file in the Development Services Department;
Re-vegetation, including but not limited to trees and native plants, of slopes, ridgelines,
and stream corridors;
Restoration of native vegetation;
Removal of invasive plant species, based upon the Invasive Plants List on file in the
Development Services Department;
Relocating the proposed development on another portion of the site;
Reducing the size of the proposed development; and/or
Mitigation of the loss of physical features caused by the proposed development with an
equivalent replacement either on site or on an approved site elsewhere within the City's
jurisdiction, as approved by the Director.
10)The applicant shall submit copies of required permits to demonstrate compliance with applicable:
federal programs, regulations and statutes; state programs, regulations and statutes; and/or local
programs, regulations and statutes prior to the approval of the Partition Plat. When a federal or
state agency issues a permit that substantially alters an approved Tentative. Plan, the Director shall
require the applicant to resubmit the Tentative Plan for additional review.
c
Ordinance 6021
Page 34
m)
U A wetland delineation approved by the Division of State Lanaswtlere thereis-awetland-c- ..
on the property, shall be submitted concurrently.
Ordinance 6021
Page 39
nereDy-aaaea-as-aescnDeaDelow:------ - -- - - . . --------- _d_ -- -- ------ ---
e
Ordinance 6021
Page 40
Attachment 3, Page 25 of 188
1.Watercourse reaches, lying within the City and its urbanizing area, that are
included by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
on its most recently adopted "303( d)" List of Impaired and Threatened
Waterbodies.
2. Watercourse reaches, lying within the City and its urbanizing area, with
significant water quality impairment identified by water quality monitoring and
sampling done in accordance with approved quality assurance/quality control
QAlQC) protocols.
b) A direct tributary to a WQLW that satisfies the following criteria:
1. Any watercourse that flows directly into a WQLW, except for those watercourses
that flow into the WQLW as a piped connection, where the pipe system extends
more than 200 feet upstream of the connection point.
2. Any watercourse that is a diversion from a WQLW and that discharges into either
a WQLW or other direct tributary to a WQLW and where the water quality of the
diverted flow at the discharge point has been degraded when compared with the
water quality at the diversion point.
7) Protection of Riparian Area Functions. A development shall be required to employ site design,
landscaping, and drainage management practices to protect, preserve, and restore the riparian
area functions of the reaches of those watercourses shown on the WQLW Map that are contained
within or abut the lot upon which the proposed development is located. For the purposes of this
Code, riparian area functions shall include, but not be limited to:
a)
b)
Maintaining temperature;
Maintaining channel stability;
c) Providing flood storage;
d) Providing groundwater recharge;
e) Removing sediments;
f) Reducing contaminants such as: excess nutrients; oils and grease; metals; and fecal
coliform;
9) Moderating stormwater flows; and
h) Providing fish and wildlife habitat.
Section 15: Subsection 32.120(5) PU,blic Easements is hereby amended as described
below:
5) Public Easements.
Ordinance 6021
Page 24
Attachment 3, Page 26 of 188
a) Utility Easements. An applicant proposing a development shall make arrangements with the
City and each utility provider for fhe dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service
the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for public utility
easements adjacent to street rights of way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other
public utility easements shall be 14 feet. However, the utility provider or the Public Works
Director may require a larger easement for major water mains, major electrical power
transmission lines, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater management systems or in any other
situation to allow maintenance vehicles to set up and perform the required maintenance or to
accommodate multiple utility lines. Where feasible, utility easements shall be centered on a
lot line.
b) Watercourse or Riparian Area Maintenance Easements. Where the Public Works Director
has determined that a watercourse or riparian area will.be part of the City Stormwater
Management System, a maintenance easement shall be required in order to maintain the
functionality of such areas. For watercourses, the easement shall be measured from either
the top of bank, ordinary high water mark or the delineated boundary of a wetland. For
riparian areas, the easement shall be measured from the delineated setback line. The
easement shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width where no equipment is required for access .
or maintenance. The easement shall be extended to a maximum of 25 feet in width to allow
City maintenance vehicles to set up and perform the required maintenance.
Section 16: The Article 34 Title Page is hereby amended as described below:
ARTICLE 34 PARTITION STANDARDS
34.010 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
34.020 TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW
34.030 TENTATIVE PLAN DRAFTING REQUIREMENTS
34.040 SUBDIVISION DETERMINATION
34.050 TENTATIVE PLAN CRITERIA OF APPROVAL
34.060 TENTATIVE PLAN WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
34.070 TENTATIVE PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
34.080 PARTITION PLAT REVIEW
34.090 PARTITION PLAT REQUIREMENTS
34.100 PARTITION PLAT CRITERIA FOR CITY APPROVAL
34.110 PARTITION PLAT LANE COUNTY RECORDATION
34.120 PARTITION PLAT CITY APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Ordinance 6021
Page 25
Attachment 3, Page 27 of 188
below:
Section 17: Section 34.010 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY is hereby amended as described
1) Purpose. The purpose of the Partition process is to: Facilitate and enhance the value of
development; Regulate land divisions that create 2 or 3 parcels within a calendar year; Maintain
the integrity of the City's watercourses by promoting bank stability, assisting in flood protection and
flow control, protecting riparian functions, minimizing erosion, and preserving water quality and
significant fish and wildlife areas; Minimize adverse effects on surrounding property owners and
the general public through specific conditions of approval; Ensure the provision of public facilities
and services; Provide for connectivity between different uses; Utilize alternative transportation
modes including and walking, bicycling and mass transit facilities; Implement the Metro Plan,
applicable refinement plans, specific area plans and specific development plans; Minimize
adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public through specific conditions
of approval; and Otherwise protect the public health and safety.
2) Applicability. The Partition process shall apply within the City and its urbanizable area. No parcel
may be created without being partitioned in accordance with the standards of this Code. No
development permit will be issued by the City prior to approval of the Partition Tentative Plan
application.
Exception: In certain cases, the Director may issue a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit prior
to approval of the Partition Tentative Plan.
Section 18: Section 34.030 TENTATIVE PLAN DRAFTING REQUIREMENTS is hereby
amended as described below:
A Partition Tentative Plan shall contain the elements necessary to demonstrate that requirements of this
Code are being fulfilled:
1) General Requirements.
a)The Partition Tentative Plan, including any required Future Development Plan, shall be
prepared by an Oregon licensed Land Surveyor on standard sheets of 18" x 24". The
services of an Oregon registered Engineer may also be required by the City in order to
resolve utility issues, especially stormwater management, street design and
transportation issues, and site constraint and/or water quality issues.
b)The scale of the Partition Tentative Plan shall be appropriate to the area involved and the
amount of detail and data, normally 1" = 50',1" = 100' or 1" = 200'.
c)
d)
A north arrow and the date the Partition Tentative Plan was prepared.
The name and address of the owner, applicant, if different, and the Land Surveyor and/or
Engineer who prepared the Partition Tentative Plan.
e)A drawing of the boundaries of the entire area owned by the partitioner of which the
proposed partition is a part.
f)The classification of each parcel or building as complying (solar lot) or not complying
non-solar lot) with Section 34.010 (3) of this Article.
Ordinance 6021
Page 26
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 188
g)City boundaries, the Urban Growth Boundary and any special service district boundaries or
railroad rights-of-way, which cross or abut the proposed partition.
h) Applicable zoning districts and the Metro Plan designation of the proposed partition and of
properties within 100 feet of the boundary of the subject property.
i) The dimensions (in feet) and size (either in square feet or acres) of each parcel
and the approximate dimensions of each building site, where applicable, and the top and
toe of cut and fill slopes to scale.
m The location, outline to scale and present use of all existing structures to remain on the.
property after platting and their required setbacks from the proposed new property lines.
k) The location and size of existing and proposed utilities and necessary easements and
dedications on and adjacent to the site including sanitary sewer mains, stormwater
management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate the
proposed connection points.
I) . The locations widths and purpose of all existing or proposed easements on and abutting
the proposed partition; the location of any existing or proposed reserve strips.
m) The locations of all areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use, with the purpose,
condition or limitations of the reservations clearly indicated.
2)A Site Assessment of the entire development area. The Site Assessment shall be prepared by an
Oregon licensed Landscape Architect or Engineer and drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-
foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely maps and delineates the areas described below.
Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. The Director may waive
portions of this requirement if there is a finding that the proposed development will not have an
adverse impact on physical features or water quality, either on the site or adjacent to the site.
Adjacent properties include those within the distances speCified in Section 31.020(2)(c) of this
Article. Information required for adjacent properties may be generalized to show the connections to
physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the following information:
a)The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses that
are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WLQW) Map on file in the
Development Services Department;
b)The 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest
adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amencjment
or Letter of Map Revision;
c)The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in Article 17 of this Code and delineated on the
Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department;
d)Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs,
watercourses shown on the (WLQW) Map and their riparian areas, wetlands and rock
outcroppings; and
e)Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane
County.
Ordinance 6021
Page 27
Attachment 3, Page 29 of 188
3)A Stormwater Management Plan drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-foot intervals and
percent of slope that precisely maps and addresses the information described below. In areas
where the percent of slope is 10 percent or more, contours may be shown at 5-foot intervals. This
plan shall show the stormwater management system for the entire development area. Unless
exempted by the Public Works Director, the City shall require that an Oregon licensed Civil
Engineer prepare the plan. Where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management
system, an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect may also be required. The plan shall include the
following components:
a) Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations;
b) Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns;
c) The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not
limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality
measures; and natural drainageways to be retained;
d) Existing and proposed site elevations, grades and contours; and
e) A stormwater management system plan with supporting calculations and documentation
as required in Section 32.110 of this Code shall be submitted supporting the proposed
system. The plan, calculations and documentation shall be consistent with the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual to allow staff to determine that the
proposed stormwater management system will accomplish its purposes.
4) A Response to Transportation Issues complying with the standards of this Code.
a)The locations, condition, e.g., fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk, AC mat, or
gravel, widths and names of all existing streets, alleys, or other rights of way within or
adjacent to the proposed partition;
b) . The locations, widths and names of all proposed streets and other rights of way to include
the approximate radius of curves and grades. The relationship of all proposed streets to
any projected streets as shown on the Metro Plan, including the TransPlan, any approved
Conceptual Development Plan and the latest version of the Conceptual Local Street Map;
c) The locations and widths of all existing and proposed sidewalks and accessways, including
the location, size and type of plantings and street trees in any required planter strip;
pedestrian trails; and shared-use paths;
d) The location of existing and proposed traffic control devices, fire hydrants, streetlights,
power poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units and similar public tacilities, where
applicable;
I
e) The location and dimensions of existing and proposed curb cuts, where applicable;
f) The location of existing and proposed street lighting: including the type, height and area of
illumination;
g) The location of existing and proposed transit facilities;
h) A copy of a Right-of-Way Approach Permit application where the property has frontage
on an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility; and
Ordinance 6021
Page 28
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 188
i)A Traffic Impact Study prepared by a Traffic Engineer where the existing and/or proposed
development will produce more than 250 vehicle trips per day.
5) A Future Development Plan. Where redivision is allowed by this Code, the Partition Tentative
Plan shall include a Future Development Plan that indicates any proposed redivision, including
the boundaries and sequencing of each proposed redivision. Any redivis,ion shall progress in a
sequence that promotes street connectivity between the various phases of the development and
accommodates other required publiC improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer
stormwater management, water and electricity.
6) Additional information and/or applications required at the time of Partition Tentative Plan
application submittal shall include items (a) through (d) and may include, but not be limited to
items (e) through (m):
a) A brief narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed partition and the existing use of the
property .
b) For common wall partitions with an existing structure, a copy of a housing inspection
obtained through the Community Services Division.
c) If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner shall
be required.
d) A Vicinity Map drawn to scale showing bus stops, streets, curb cuts, pedestrian
connections, fire hydrants and other transportation/fire access issues within 200 feet of the
proposed partition and all existing subdivisions, partitions and tracts of land immediately
adjacent to the proposed partition.
e)A draft of proposed restrictions and covenants affecting the partition, where applicable.
f) , How the proposal addresses the standards of the applicable overlay district where the
development area is within an overlay district.
9) How the proposal addresses Discretionary Use criteria.
h) A Tree Felling Permit as specified in Article 38 of this Code.
i) A Soils and Geology Report for slopes 15 percent or greater and in accordance
with Article 26 of this Code.
j) An Annexation application as specified in Article 6 of this Code where a development is
proposed outside of the city limits but within the City's urban services area and can be
serviced by sanitary sewer.
k) A wetland delineation approved by the Division of State Lands shall be submitted
concurrently where there is a wetland on the property.
I) Evidence that any required federal or state permit has been applied for or approved shall
be submitted concurrently.
m)A Geotechnical Report prepared by an Engineer shall be submitted concurrently if the
required Site Assessment Section 34.030(2)(f) of this Article indicates the proposed
development area has unstable soils and/or a high water table as specified in the Soils
Survey of Lane County.
Ordinance 6021
Page 29
Attachment 3, Page 31 of 188
Section 19: Section 34.050 TENTATIVE PLAN CRITERIA OF APPROVAL is hereby
amended as described below:
The Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Tentative Plan application upon determining that
criteria (1) through (9) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the
criteria, the Director shall deny the application.
1) The request as conditioned fully conforms to the requirements of this Code pertaining to parcel size
and dimensions.
2) The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable refinement plan diagrams.
3) Proposed on-site and off-site public and private improvements are sufficient to accommodate the
proposed development as specified in Articles 31, 32, the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay
district Article and any applicable refinement plan.
4) Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle
and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to
adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial
and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in Articles 31, 32,
the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay district Article and any applicable refinement plan; and
comply with the ODOT access management standards for state highways.
5) Physical features, including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses
shown on the (WLQW) Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and
historic features have been evaluated and protected as required by this Code.
6)The proposed development and associated site alterations have been designed and located in a
manner that demonstrates that they will protect the state and federally designated beneficial uses
of and standards for groundwater and surface water quality on and/or adjacent to the site and will
ensure that state antidegragation requirements are met.
7) Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.
8) Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
9) Where there is no concurrent annexation application submitted with a Partition Tentative Plan on
property that is outside of the city limits but within the City's urban services area, the standards
specified in Section 29.070(5) of this Code shall also apply.
Section 20: Section 34.060 TENTATIVE PLAN WATER QUALITY PROTECTION is hereby
added as described below:
The intent of this Section is to apply water quality protection to only those sites that require Partition
Tentative Plan Review approval as specified in Section 34.010 of this Article. The following standards do
not apply to single-family homes and duplexes in the Low Density Residential District existing as of the
date of this Ordinance, except as specified in Subsection (1 )(a) of this Section. Existing buildings that are
within the riparian areas specified in Subsections (1)(a) and (b) shall not be considered non-conforming.
Subsections (1 )(b)1.and 2. provide additional protection from a non-conforming status.
Ordinance 6021
Page 30
Attachment 3, Page 32 of 188
1)When addressing criteria (5) and (6) as specified in Section 34.050 of this Article to protect
riparian areas along watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW)
Map on file in the Development Services Department, the following riparian area boundaries shall
be utilized:
a) Along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average annual stream flow greater
than 1,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) the riparian area boundary shall be a minimum of
75 feet upland from the top of each bank.
b) Along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average annual stream flow less
than 1,000 CFS the riparian area boundary shall be a minimum of 50 feet upland from the
top of each bank.
Exceptions:
1. For all watercourses Subject to Section 31.240( 1 )(b) of this Section other than
the Mill Race or Cedar Creek,the 50 foot riparian area standard may be reduced
to 35 feet provided an equivalent amount and function of pervious land is
established elsewhere on the property that utilizes water quality measures
including, but not limited to: wetlands, bioswales or additional trees, especially in
parking areas, and exclusive of otherwise required water quality measures and
landscape areas. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, equivalency in relation to both the
amount of pervious land (as specified above) and riparian area function (as
specified in Section 32.110(7) of this Code.
2.An existing building within a riparian area shall not be considered a non-
conforming use if destroyed by earthquake, flood or other natural disaster or fire.
In this case, the replacement building may be constructed within the same
location as the existing building. If the building is within the Willamette
Greenway, the standards in Article 25, Willamette Greenway Overlay District
shall apply.
c) Where a watercourse divides a lot and the existing riparian area along that watercourse
is degraded in riparian function, the applicant may relocate the watercourse to another
portion of the property as approved by the Public Works Director and applicable state or
federal agency.
d) If an expansion of the riparian area described in Subsection (1 )(a) and (b) occurs as a
result of a federal or state agency permit process, the applicant shall resubmit the .
Tentative Plan for additional review in accordance with Section 35.010 of this Article.
2) Permitted Uses in Riparian Areas. The following uses shall be permitted in riparian areas as long
as they do not diminish riparian functions:
a) The planting of trees and native vegetation to promote bank stability, enhance riparian
areas, minimize erosion, preserve water quality and protect federally listed species. Trees
may be clustered to allow maintenance vehicles approach City maintained stormwater
facilities including but not limited to: detention basins, outfalls and culverts.
b) The felling of hazardous trees for safety reasons as specified inArticle 38, Tree Felling.
c) Riparian area restoration, enhancement including the removal of invasive plant species,
where necessary.
d)Flood control structures, where necessary.
Ordinance 6021
Page 31
Attachment 3, Page 33 of 188
e)Stormwater management systems and outfalls, as allowed by the Public Works Director
or other regulating authority.
f) Pedestrian paths as specified in Section 32.090(2)-(4) of this Code. Pedestrian paths
shall be located along the outer edge of the required riparian area away from the
watercourse. Utilities may be extended in the pedestrian path.
9) Bikeways shown on the TransPlan Priority Bikeway System Projects Map or the Future
Bikeway Projects Map and as specified in Section 32.090(1) of this Code, provided that
the drainage falls away from the watercourse. Bikeways shall be located along the outer
edge of the required riparian area away from the watercourse. Utilities may be extended
in the bikeway.
h) Water dependent or water related uses between the Willamette River and the Greenway
Setback Line as may be permitted in Article 25 Willamette Greenway Overlay District.
i) Private driveways, public street crossings, bridges and necessary culverts when there is
no other vehicle access to the property. Crossings should be preferably at right angles to
the watercourse. Public and private utilities shall be permitted within the driveway, publiC
street or bridge right-of-way.
j) Repair, replacement or improvement of utility facilities as long as the riparian area is
restored to its original condition.
k) Routine repair and maintenance of existing structures, streets, driveways, utilities,
accessory uses and other similar facilities.
I)Other activities similar to those listed above that do not diminish riparian function. The
Director shall make such determinations in accordance with Article 3, Interpretation.
3) For protection of water quality and protection of riparian area functions as specified in Section
32.110(7) of this Code, the following standards shall apply:
a) Avoid development or redevelopment in the following circumstances:
1. Unsuitable areas, including, but not limited to unstable slopes, wetlands and riparian
areas;
2. Stream crossings - where crossings must be provided, the impacts on water quality
shall be minimized; and
3. Hardening of stream banks and shorelines;
b) Prevent:
1.Stormwater discharge impacts to water quality and quantity; and
2.Erosion and sediment run-off during and after construction.
Ordinance 6021
Page 32
Attachment 3, Page 34 of 188
c)Protect:
1. Riparian areas, buffers and functions around all watercourses; and
2. Wetlands, wetland buffers and wetland functions.
d) Preserve the hydrologic capacity of any watercourses.
e) Utilize native vegetation in riparian areas to reduce the need to apply water, herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizer. The required riparian area landscaping shall be installed prior to
recording the Partition Plat. A performance agreement (bond), or a suitable substitute,
approved by the City has been filed with the Finance Department in sufficient amount to .
ensure the installation of the required riparian area landscaping.
f), Restoration and enhancement of riparian areas that are degraded in riparian function.
g) In applying Subsections (3)(a) through (3)(f) of this Section for riparian areas, protection,
preservation, restoration and enhancement measures shall be applied as follows:
Existing riparian area functions shali be protected and preserved and degraded functions
shall be restored or enhanced through the full riparian area width, specified in Subsection
1 )(a) and (1 )(b) of this Section, and exteriding through the full frontage of the partition
boundary along the watercourse on the WQLW Map.
Section 21: Section 34.070 TENTATIVE PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL is hereby
amended as described below:
To the extent necessary to satisfy the criteria of Section 34.050 of this Article, comply with all applicable
standards of this Code and to mitigate identified negative impacts to surrounding properties, the Director
shall impose conditions of approval. All conditions shall be satisfied prior to Partition Plat approval.
Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
1)Dedication of right of way when shown in TransPlan, transportation elements of refinement plans or
on the most recent Conceptual Local Street Plan Map and as speCified in Table 32-1 of this Code
and/or easements as speCified in Section 32.120(5) when necessary to provide services, including
but not limited to sanitary sewers, stormwater management, water and electricity, to the site and
neighboring properties. The dedication of easements shall also include any easements required to
access and maintain watercourses or wetlands that are part of the City's Stormwater Management
System.
2)Installation of a sight obscuring fence, and/or vegetative screen whenever a party of record or the
Director identifies a land use conflict.
3)Installation of traffic signals and signs; restricting access to and from arterial or collector streets;
requiring a frontage road; restricting and strategically locating driveways; and/or requiring the joint
use of driveways to serve 2 or more lots through a Joint Use/Access Agreement when
transportation safety issues are identified by the Transportation Planning Engineer and/or a
Transportation Impact Study.
4)Modification of the layout of parcel lines caused by the location of streets, required stormwater
management systems, including but not limited to swales and detention basins or when required by
the Geotechnical report specified in Section 34.030(6)(m) of this Article.
Ordinance 6021
Page 33
Attachment 3, Page 35 of 188
Installation of a noise attenuating barrier, acoustical building construction and/or site modifications
as specified in Section 31.160 of this Article, or similar measures approved by an acoustical
engineer registered in the State of Oregon, tOIl1.inimize negative affects on noise sensitive property
from noise found to exceed acceptable n61~e leV~I~ prescribed in the Oregon Administrative Rules
or the Federal Highway Administration NOise ABatement Criteria.
6) Phasing of development to match availability bf services when public facilities and services,
including but not limited to sanitary sewer, stoi'mVvater management, water and electric, are not
available to property that must be annexed to the City as part of development approval, as
determined by the Public Works Director.
5)
7) Submittal of a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit
8) The Director may waive the requirement that buildable City lots have frontage on a public street
when all of the following apply:
a) The parcel or parcels have been approved as part of a Partition application; and
b) Access has been guaranteed via a private street to a public street or driveway by an
irrevocable joint use/access agreement.
9) Retention and protection of existing physical features and their functions, including but not limited
to: significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their
riparian areas and wetlands, by:
a) Planting replacement trees where encroachment is allowed into riparian areas shown on
the WQLW Map on file in the Development Services Department;
b)Re-vegetation, including but not limited to trees and native plants, of slopes, ridgelines,
and stream corridors;
c) Restoration of native vegetation;
d) Removal of invasive plant species, based upon the Invasive Plants List on file in the
Development Services Department;
e) Relocating the proposed development on another portion of the site;
f) Reducing the size of the proposed development; and/or
9) Mitigation of the loss of physical features caused by the proposed development with an
equivalent replacement either on site or on an approved site elsewhere within the City's
jurisdiction, as approved by the Director.
10)The applicant shall submit copies of required permits to demonstrate compliance with applicable:
federal programs, regulations and statutes; state programs, regulations and statutes; and/or local
programs, regulations and statutes prior to the approval of the Partition Plat. When a federal or
state agency issues a permit that substantially alters an approved Tentative. Plan, the Director shall
require the applicant to resubmit the Tentative Plan for additional review.
Ordinance 6021
Page 34
Attachment 3, Page 36 of 188
11) Approval of a Stormwater Management Plan for the development demonstrating compliance with
the applicable provisions of Section 32.110 of this Code and the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual.
Section 22: The Article 35 Title Page is hereby amended as described below:
ARTICLE 35 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
35.010 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
35.020 TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW
35.030 TENTATIVE PLAN GENERAL
35.040 TENTATIVE PLAN DRAFTING REQUIREMENTS
35.050 TENTATIVE PLAN CRITERIA OF APPROVAL
35.055 TENTATIVE PLAN WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
35.060 TENTATIVE PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
35.070 TENTATIVE PLAN EXPIRATION DATE
35.080 SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW
35.090 SUBDIVISION PLAT DRAFTING REQUIREMENTS
35.100 SUBDIVISION PLAT CRITERIA FOR CITY APPROVAL
35.110 SUBDIVISION PLAT LANE COUNTY APPROVAL
35.120 SUBDIVISION PLAT CITY APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
35.130 SUBDIVISION PLAT EXPIRATION OF CITY APPROVAL
Section 23: Section 35,010 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY is hereby amended as
described below:
1)Purpose. The purpose of the Subdivision process is to: Facilitate and enhance the value of
development; Regulate land divisions that create 4 or more lots within a calendar year; Maintain
the integrity of the City's watercourses by promoting bank stability, assisting in flood protection and
flow control, protecting riparian functions, minimizing erosion, and preserving water quality and
significant fish and wildlife areas; Ensure the provision of public facilities and services; Provide for
connectivity between different uses; Utilize alternative transportation modes including and
walking, bicycling and mass transit facilities; Implement the Metro Plan, applicable refinement
plans, specific area plans and specific development plans; Minimize adverse effects on
surrounding property owners and the general public through specific conditions of approval; and
Otherwise protect the public health and safety.
Ordinance 6021
Page 35
Attachment 3, Page 37 of 188
2)Applicability. The Subdivision process shall apply within the City and its urbanizable area. No lots
may be created without being subdivided in accordance with the standards of this Code. No
development permit will be issued by the City prior to approval of the Subdivision Tentative Plan
application.
Exception: In certain cases, the Director may issue a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit prior
to approval of the Subdivision Tentative Plan.
Section 24: Section 35.040 TENTATIVE PLAN - DRAFTING REQUIREMENTS is hereby
amended as described below:
A Subdivision Tentative Plan shall contain the elements necessary to demonstrate that requirements ofthis
Code are being fulfilled:
1) General Requirements.
a) The Subdivision Tentative Plan, including any required Future Development Plan, shall be
prepared by an Oregon licensed Land Surveyor on standard sheets of 18" x 24". The
services of an Oregon registered Engineer may also be required by the City in order to
resolve utility issues, especially stormwater management, street design and
transportation issues, and site constraint and/or water quality issues.
b) The scale of the Subdivision Tentative Plan shall be appropriate to the area involved and
the amount of detail and data, normally 1" = 50',1" = 100' or 1" = 200'.
c) A north arrow and the date the Subdivision Tentative Plan was prepared.
d)The proposed name of the subdivision with appropriate identification of the drawing as a
Tentative Plan; the name cannot duplicate the name of any other subdivision in Lane
County unless the proposed subdivision is adjacent to that subdivision and is platted by the
same person who platted that subdivision bearing the same name.
e)The name and address of the owner, applicant, if different, and the Land Surveyor or
Engineer who prepared the Subdivision Tentative Plan.
f)The dimensions (in feet) and size (either in square feet or acres) of the entire property and -
each lot.
9)The classification of each lot or building as complying (solar lot) or not complying (non-solar
lot) with Section 35.010 (3) of this Article.
h)City boundaries, the Urban Growth Boundary and any special service district boundaries or
railroad rights-of-way, which cross or abut the proposed subdivision.
i)Applicable zoning districts and the Metro Plan designation of the proposed subdivision and
of properties within 100 feet of the boundary of the subject property.
0)The dimensions (in feet) and size (either in square feet or acres) of each lot
and the approximate dimensions of each building site, where applicable, and the top and
toe of cut and fill slopes to scale.
Ordinance 6021
Page 36
Attachment 3, Page 38 of 188
k)The location, outline to scale and present use of all existing structures to remain on the
property after platting and their required setbacks from the proposed new property lines.
I) The location and size of existing and proposed utilities and necessary easements and
dedications on and adjacent to the site including sanitary sewer mains, stormwater
management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate the
proposed connection points.
m) The locations widths and purpose of all existing or proposed easements on and abutting
the proposed subdivision; the location of any existing or proposed reserve strips.
n) The locations of all areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use, with the purpose,
condition or limitations of the reservations clearly indicated.
2) Site Assessment of the entire development area. The Site Assessment shall be prepared by an
Oregon licensed Landscape Architect or Engineer and drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-
foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely maps and delineates the areas described below.
Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. The Director may waive
portions of this requirement if there is a finding that the proposed development will not have an
adverse impact on physical features or water quality, either on the site or adjacent to the site.
Adjacent properties include those within the distances specified in Section 31.020(2)(c) of this
Article. Information required for adjacent properties may be generalized to show the connections to
physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the following information:
a) The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses that
are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map on file in the Development
Services Department;
b)The 1 OO-year floodplain and f100dway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest
adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment
or Letter of Map Revision;
c) The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in Article 17 of this Code and delineated on the
Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department;
d) Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs,
watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW) Map and their
riparian areas, wetlands and rock outcroppings; and
e) Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey ofLane
County.
3)A Stormwater Management Plan drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-foot intervals and
percent of slope that precisely maps and addresses the information described below. In areas
where the percent of slope is 10 percent or mor~, contours may be shown at 5-foot intervals. This
plan shall show the stormwater management system for the entire development area. Unless
exempted by the Public Works Director, the City shall require that an Oregon licensed Civil
Engineer prepare the plan. Where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management
system, an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect may also be required. The plan shall include the
following components:
Ordinance 6021
Page 37
Attachment 3, Page 39 of 188
a)
b)
Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations;
Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns;
c) The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not
limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality
measures; and natural drainageways to be retained;
d) Existing and proposed elevations, site grades and contours; and
e) A stormwater management system plan with supporting calculations and documentation
as required in Section 32.110 of this Code shall be submitted supporting the proposed
system. The plan, calculations and documentation shall be consistent with the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual to allow staff to determine that the
proposed stormwater management system will accomplish its purposes.
4) A Response to Transportation Issues complying with the standards of this Code.
a) The locations, condition, e.g., fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk, AC mat, or
gravel, widths and names of all existing streets, alleys, or other rights of way within or
adjacent to the proposed subdivision;
b) The locations, widths and names of all proposed streets and other rights of way to include
the approximate radius of curves and grades. The relationship of all proposed streets to
any projected streets as shown on the Metro Plan, including the TransPlan, any approved
Conceptual Development Plan and the latest version of the Conceptual Local Street Map;
c)The locations and widths of all existing and proposed sidewalks and accessways, including
the location, size and type of plantings and street trees in any required planter strip;
pedestrian trails; and shared-use paths;
d)The location of existing and proposed traffic control devices, fire hydrants, streetlights,
power poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units and similar public facilities, where
applicable;
e)The location and dimensions of existing and proposed curb cuts, where applicable;
f)The location of existing and proposed street lighting: including the type, height and area of
illumination;
9)
h)
The location of existing and proposed transit facilities; and
A copy of a Right-of-Way Approach Permit application where the property has frontage
on an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility; and
i)A Traffic Impact Study prepared by a Traffic Engineer where the existing and/or proposed
development will produce more than 250 vehicle trips per day.
Ordinance 6021
Page 38
Attachment 3, Page 40 of 188
5)A Future Development Plan. Where redivision is allowed by this Code, the Subdivision Tentative
Plan shall include a Future Development Plan that indicates any proposed redivision, including
the boundaries and sequencing of each proposed redivision. Any redivision shall progress in a
sequence that promotes street connectivity betWeen the various phases of the development and
accommodates other required public improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer
stormwater management, water and electricity.
6) Additional information and/or applications required at the time of Subdivision Tentative Plan
application submittal shall include items (a) through (e) and may include, but not be limited to
items (f) through (0):
a) A brief narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed subdivision and the existing use of
the property.
b) All public improvements proposed to be installed and the approximate time
installation is desired including the method of financing.
c) If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner shall
be required.
d) A Vicinity Map drawn to scale showing bus stops, streets, curb cuts, pedestrian
connections, fire hydrants and other transportation/fire access issues within 200 feet of the
proposed subdivision and all existing subdivisions, partition and tracts of land immediately
adjacent to the proposed subdivision.
e) A Title Report prepared within one month of the date of submittal.
f)If development is to be phased, a Future Development Plan for the remainder of
the property shall be provided, including timing and financial provisions.
g)Proposed deed restrictions and a draft of a Homeowner's Association
Agreement, where appropriate.
h)A Soils and Geology Report for slopes 15 percent or greater and in accordance
with Article 26 of this Code.
i)How the proposal addresses the standards of the applicable overlay district where the
development area is within an overlay district.
U)
k)
I)
How the proposal addresses Discretionary Use criteria.
A Tree Felling Permit as specified in Article 38 of this Code.
An Annexation application as specified in Article 6 of this Code where a subdivision is
proposed outside of the city limits but within the City's urban services area and can be
serviced by sanitary sewer.
m)A wetland delineation approved by the Division of State Lands where there is a wetland
on the property, shall be submitted concurrently.
Ordinance 6021
Page 39
Attachment 3, Page 41 of 188
n)Evidence that any required federal or state permit has been applied for or approved shall
be submitted concurrently.
0)A Geotechnical Report prepared by an Engineer shall be submitted concurrently if the
required Site Assessment Section 35:<)40(6)(0) of this Article indicates the proposed
development area has unstable soils and/or a high water table as specified in the Soils
Survey ofLane County.
Section 25: Section 35.050 TENTATIVE PLAN - CRITERIA OF APPROVAL is hereby
amended as described below:
The Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Subdivision Tentative Plan application upon
determining that criteria (1) through (8) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached
to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application.
1) The request as conditioned fully conforms to the requirements of this Code pertaining to lot size and
dimensions.
2) The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable refinement plan diagrams.
3) Proposed on-site and off-site public and private improvements are sufficient to accommodate the
proposed development as specified in Articles 31, 32, the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay
district Article and any applicable refinement plan.
4)Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle
and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to
adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial
and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in Articles 31, 32,
the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay district Article and any applicable refinement plan; and
comply with the ODOT access management standards for state highways.
5) Physical features, including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses
shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and
historic features have been evaluated and protected as required by this Code.
6) The proposed development and associated site alterations have been designed and located in a
manner that demonstrates that they will protect the state and federally designated beneficial uses
of and standards for groundwater and surface water quality on and/or adjacent to the site and will
ensure that state antidegragation requirements are met.
7) Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.
8) Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
Section 26: Section 35.055 TENTATIVE PLAN - WATER QUALITY PROTECTION is
hereby added as described below:
Ordinance 6021
Page 40
Attachment 3, Page 42 of 188
The intent of this Section is to apply water quality protection to only those sites that require Subdivision
Tentative Plan Review approval as specified in Section 35.010 of this Article. The following standards do
not apply to single-family homes and duplexes in the Low Density Residential District existing as of the
date of this Ordinance, except as specified in Subsection (1 )(a) of this Section. Existing buildings that are
within the riparian areas specified in Subsections (1)(a) and (b) shall not be considered non-conforming.
Subsections (1)(b)1. and 2. provide additional protection from a non-conforming status.
1) When addressing criteria (5) and (6) as specified in Section 35.050 of this Article to protect
riparian areas along watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW)
Map on file in the Development Services Department, the following riparian area boundaries shall
be utilized:
a) Along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average annual stream flow greater
than 1,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) the riparian area boundary shall be a minimum of
75 feet upland from the top of each bank.
b) Along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average annual stream flow less
than 1,000 CFS the riparian area boundary,shall be a minimum of 50 feet upland from the
top of each bank.
Exceptions:
1.For all watercourses Subject to Section 31.240(1 )(b) of this Section other than
the Mill Race or Cedar Creek, the 50 foot riparian area standard may be reduced
to 35 feet provided an equivalent amount and function of pervious land is
established elsewhere on the property that utilizes water quality measures
including, but not limited to: wetlands, bioswales or additional trees, especially in
parking areas, and exclusive of otherwise required water quality measures and
landscape areas. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, equivalency in relation to both the
amount of pervious land (as specified above) and riparian area function (as
specified in Section 32.110(7) of this Code.
2. An existing building within a riparian area shall not be considered a non-
conforming use if destroyed by earthquake, flood or other natural disaster or fire.
In this case, the replacement building may be constructed within the same
location as the existing building. If the building is within the Willamette .
Greenway, the standards in Article 25, Willamette Greenway Overlay District
shall apply.
c) Where a watercourse divides a lot and the existing riparian area along that watercourse
is degraded in riparian function, the applicant may relocate the watercourse to another
portion of the property as approved by the Public Works Director and applicable state or
federal C!gency.
d) If an expansion of the riparian area described in Subsection (1 )(a) and (b) occurs as a
result of a federal or state agency permit process, the applicant shall resubmit the
Tentative Plan for additional review in accordance with Section 35.010 of this Article.
2) Permitted Uses in Riparian Areas. The following uses shall be permitted in riparian areas as long
as they do not diminish riparian functions:
a) The planting of trees and native vegetation to promote bank stability, enhance riparian
areas, minimize erosion, preserve water quality and protect federally listed species. Trees
may be clustered to allow maintenance vehicles approach City maintained stormwater
facilities including but not limited to: detention basins, outfalls and culverts.
b)The felling of hazardous trees for safety reasons as specified in Article 38, Tree Felling.
Ordinance 6021
Page 41
Attachment 3, Page 43 of 188
c)Riparian area restoration, enhancement including the removal of invasive plant species,
where necessary.
d) Flood control structures, where necessary.
e) Stormwater management systems and outfalls, as allowed by the Public Works Director
or other regulating authority.
f) Pedestrian paths as specified in Section 32.090(2)-(4) of this Code. Pedestrian paths
shall be located along the outer edge of the required riparian area away from the
watercourse. Utilities may be extended in the pedestrian path.
g) Bikeways shown on the TransPlan Priority Bikeway System Projects Map or the Future
Bikeway Projects Map and as specified in Section 32.090(1) of this Code, provided that
the drainage falls away from the watercourse. Bikeways shall be located along the outer
edge of the required riparian area away from the watercourse. Utilities may be extended
in the bikeway.
h) Water dependent or water related uses between the Willamette River and the Greenway
Setback Line as may be permitted in Article 25 Willamette Greenway Overlay District.
i) Private driveways, public street crossings, bridges and necessary culverts when there is
no other vehicle access to the property. Crossings should be preferably at right angles to
the watercourse. Public and private utilities shall be permitted within the driveway, publiC
street or bridge right-of-way.
j)Repair, replacement or improvement of utility facilities as long as the riparian area is
restored to its original condition.
k) Routine repair and maintenance of existing structures, streets, driveways, utilities,
accessory uses and other similar facilities.
I) Other activities similar to those listed above that do not diminish riparian function. The
Director shall make such determinations in accordance with Article 3, Interpretation.
3) For protection of water quality and protection of riparian area functions as specified in Section
32.110(7) of this Code, the following standards shall apply:
a) Avoid development or redevelopment in the following circumstances:
1. Unsuitable areas, including, but not limited to unstable slopes, wetlands and riparian
areas;
2. Stream crossings - where crossings must be provided, the impacts on water quality
shall be minimized; and
3. Hardening of stream banks and shorelines;
b) Prevent:
1.Stormwater discharge impacts to water quality and quantity; and.
2.Erosion and sediment run-off during and after construction.
Ordinance 6021
Page 42
Attachment 3, Page 44 of 188
c)Protect:
1. Riparian areas, buffers and functions around all watercourses; and
2. Wetlands, wetland buffers and wetland functions.
d) Preserve the hydrologic capacity of any watercourses.
e) Utilize native vegetation in riparian areas to reduce the need to apply water, herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizer. The required riparian area landscaping shall be installed prior to
recording the Subdivision Plat. The required riparian area landscaping may be bonded as
speCified in Section 35.1 OO( 1)( c )3. of this Article.
f) Restoration and enhancement of riparian areas that are degraded in riparian function.
9) In applying Subsections (3)(a) through (3)(f) of this Section for riparian areas, protection,
preservation, restoration and enhancement measures shall be applied as follows:
Existing riparian area functions shall be protected and preserve~ and degraded functions.
shall be restored or enhanced through the full riparian area width, specified in Subsection
1 )(a) and (1 )(b) of this Section, and extending through the full frontage of the subdivision
boundary along the watercourse on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW)
Map.
Section 27: Section 35.060 TENTATIVE PLAN - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL is hereby
amended as described below:
To the extent necessary to satisfy the criteria of Section 35.050 of this Article, comply with all applicable
standards of this Code and to mitigate identified negative impacts to surrounding properties, the Director
shall impose conditions of approval. All conditions shall be satisfied prior to Subdivision Plat approval.
Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
1)Dedication of right of way when shown in TransPlan, transportation elements of refinement plans or
on the most recent Conceptual Local Street Plan Map and as specified in Table 32-1 of this Code
and/or easements as specified in Section 32.120(5) when necessary to provide services, including
but not limited to sanitary sewers, stormwater management, water and electricity, to the site and
neighboring properties. The dedication of easements shall also include any easements required to
access and maintain watercourses or wetlands that are part of the City's Stormwater Management
System.
2)Installation of a sight obscuring fence, and/or vegetative screen whenever a party of record or the
Director identifies a land use conflict.
3)Installation of traffic signals and signs; restricting access to and from arterial or collector streets;
requiring a frontage road; restricting and strategically locating driveways; and/or requiring the joint
use of driveways to serve 2 or more lots through a Joint Use/Access Agreement when
transportation safety issues are identified by the Transportation Planning Engineer and/or a
Transportation Impact Study.
4)Modification of the layout of parcel lines caused by the location of streets, required stormwater
management systems, including but not limited to swales and detention basins or when required by
the Geotechnical report specified in Section 35.040(6)(0) of this Article.
Ordinance 6021
Page 43
Attachment 3, Page 45 of 188
Installation of a noise attenuating barrier, acoustical building construction and/or site modifications
as specified in Section 31 .160 of this Article or similar. measures approved by an acoustical
engineer registered in the State of oregon, to minimize negative affects on noise sensitive property
from noise found to exceed acceptable noise levels prescribed in the Oregon Administrative Rules
or the Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria.
6) Phasing of development to match availability of services when public facilities and services,
including but not limited to sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water and electric, are not
available to property that must be annexed to the City as part of development approval, as
determined by thePublic Works Director.
5)
7) Submittal of a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit
8) The Director may waive the requirement that buildable City lots have frontage on a public street
when all of the following apply:
a) The lot or lots have been approved as part of a subdivision application;
b) Access has been guaranteed via a private street to a public street or driveway by an
irrevocable joint use/access agreement.
9) Retention and protection of existing physical features and their functions, including but not limited
to: significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and wetlands,
by:
a) Planting replacement trees where encroachment is allowed into riparian areas shown on
the WQLW Map on file in the Development Services Department; and
b)Re-vegetation, including but not limited to trees and native plants, of slopes, ridgelines,
and stream corridors; and
c) Restoration of native vegetation; and
d) Removal of invasive plant species, based upon the Invasive Plants List on file in the
Development Services Department; and .
e) Relocating the proposed development on another portion of the site; and
f) . Reducing the size of the proposed development; and/or
9) Mitigation of the loss of physical features caused by the proposed development with an
equivalent replacement either on site or on an approved site elsewhere within the City's
jurisdiction, as approved by the Director.
10)The applicant shall submit copies of required permits to demonstrate compliance with applicable:
federal programs, regulations C1nd statutes; state programs, regulations and statutes; and/or local
programs, regulations and statutes prior to the approval of the Subdivision Plat. When a federal or
state agency issues a permit that substantially alters an approved Tentative Plan, the Director shall
require the applicant to resubmit the Tentative Plan for additional review.
11)Approval of a Stormwater Management Plan for the development demonstrating compliance with
the applicable provisions of Section 32.110 of this Code and the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual.
Ordinance 6021
Page 44
Attachment 3, Page 46 of 188
Section 28: The Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW) Map, August 2002 is hereby
added by reference.
Section 29: A severability clause is hereby added as described below:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and individual provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions hereof.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of L for and :.L
against, this 15thdayof July , 2002.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield, this 15thdayof July 2002.
ATTEST:
dlL( ~, LQ)( \) ))()J"-'
City Recorder
Ordinance
Page 45
Attachment 3, Page 47 of 188
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY,JULY 15,2002
The city of Springfield council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room,225 Fifth Street,Springfield,Oregon,
on Monday,July 15,2002,at 7:02 p.m.,with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken,Councilors Ballew,Fitch,Lundberg,Ralston and Simmons.Also present were City Manager
Michael Kelly,Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi,City Attorney Tim Harold,City Attorney Meg Kieran,
Administrative Coordinator Julie Wilson and members of the staff.
Councilor Hatfield was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH,WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW,TO ADOPT THECONSENTCALENDAR.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Claims1.
a.Approve the June 2002 Disbursements for Approval.
2.Minutes
a.April 29,2002 -Regular Session
b.July 1,2002 -Work Session
c.July 1,2002-Regular Session
3.Resolutions
a.RESOLUTION NO.02-36 -A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARDCOMPETITIVEBIDSAMOUNTINGTOMORETHANSI5.000 DURING THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1,2002 TO SEPTEMBER 8.2002.WHILE THE CITY COUNCIL IS IN RECESS.
4.Ordinances
a.ORDINANCE NO.6020 -AN ORDINANCE VACATING A CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTCENTEREDONTHELINECOMMONTOLOTS7AND8,“COMMERCIAL PARK”.FIT E 73 SI TDF 503LANECOUNTYPLATRECORDSANDTHE14'WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED ININSTRUMENTNO,82-06981.LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS.IN THE CITY OFSPRINGFIELD.LANE COUNTY.OREGON.
5.Other Routine Matters
Attachment 3, Page 48 of 188
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 15,2002
Page 6
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG,WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH,TO TABLE ANY
ACTION REGARDING RELOCATION OF THE BARRIER AT LOCHAVEN/DON STREETS.THE MOTIONPASSEDWITHAVOTEOF4FORAND1AGAINST(RALSTON).
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1.Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments.
ORDINANCE NO.6021 -AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE,
ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 1.030 AND 1,050:ARTICLE 2DEFINITIONS.BY AMENDING SECTION 2.020;ARTICLE 31 MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSANDSITEPLANREVIEWSTANDARDSBYAMENDINGSECTION31.01Q.31.020.31.030.31.050.31.060,
31.070,AND 31.100 AND ADDING SECTION 31.240:ARTICLE 32 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
IMPROVEMENTS.BY AMENDING SECTIONS 32.110 AND 32.120:ARTICLE 34 PARTITION STANDARDSBYAMENDINGSECTIONS34.010,34.030,34,050.34,060 AND 34.070;AND ARTICLE 35 SUBDIVISIONSTANDARDSBYAMENDINGSECTIONS35.010,35.040.35.050 AND 35.060 AND ADDING SECTION35,055:ADOPTING THE WATER QUALITY LIMITED WATERCOURSE MAP BY REFERENCE:ANDADOPTINGASEVERABILITYCLAUSE.
City Planner Gary Karp presented the staff report on this issue.The intent of the proposed SDC amendments is toimplementinterimdevelopmentcodeprovisionstobringtheSDCandfuturedevelopmentwithintheCity’s land usejurisdictionclosertocompliancewiththefederalstandardsoftheCleanWaterAct(CWA),the Safe Drinking WaterAct(SDWA)and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).This project is an element of the City’s Overall response to theEndangeredSpeciesAct4(d)Rule that the City Council reviewed and approved last year.
On July 1st the City Council opened the public hearing that was continued from May 6th.This was a first reading oftheproposedordinance.There was no oral testimony regarding the proposed SDC amendments.The City Councilelectedtokeeptherecordopenfor10daysforanyadditionaltestimony.As of July 12th no additional testimony hasbeensubmitted.The proposed ordinance includes minor revisions requested by Roxie Cuellar of the Lane CountyHomeBuilder’s Association representing Jim Breeden.
Councilor Simmons would be voting in opposition of this issue.He acknowledged the quality of staff work andclarifiedthatthiswasnotthereasonforhisnovote.It was due to the issue related to the water quality map process.There is specific content that he disagreed with.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH,WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW,TO ADOPTORDINANCENO.6021.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (SIMMONS)
2.West Eugene Parkway and Associated TransPlan Amendments,and Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3,4,11,and 14.
ORDINANCE NO.6022 -AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITANAREATRANSPORTATIONPLAN('TRANSPLAN’)TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE WEST EUGENE PARKWAYWITHINTHE20-YEAR FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED ROADWAY PROJECT LIST AND TO MAKERELATEDAMENDMENTS:AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL
Attachment 3, Page 49 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 50 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 51 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 52 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 53 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 54 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 55 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 56 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 57 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 58 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 59 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 60 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 61 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 62 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 63 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 64 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 65 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 66 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 67 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 68 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 69 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 70 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 71 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 72 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 73 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 74 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 75 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 76 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 77 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 78 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 79 of 188
#City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY,JULY 1,2002
The city of Springfield council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room,225 Fifth Street,Springfield,Oregon,
on Monday,July 1,2002,at 7:00 p.m.,with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken,Councilors Ballew,Fitch,Hatfield,Lundberg,Ralston and Simmons.Also present were City
Manager Michael Kelly,Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi,City Attorney Joe Leahy,Assistant City Attorney Meg
Kieran,Administrative Coordinator Julie Wilson and members of the staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1.Rob Wallace,Eugene Sand and Gravel,presented the City of Springfield with the Concrete Pavement Award for
Excellence in Concrete for the 58^and Thurston Road Roundabout project.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Corrections noted to consent calendar:
2(e)Minutes,Regular Session -April 15,2002:Correct the name Strovack to Strobeck.The reference is contained in
the minutes document,page 6,third to the last paragraph,section 2(a)(1).
5(b)Other Routine Matters,accept bid for P20198.Correct attachment A,change date from August 2,2001 to June 26,
2002.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD,WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH,TO ADOPT THECONSENTCALENDARWITHNOTEDAMENDMENTSTOITEMS2(E)AND 5(B).THE MOTION PASSEDWITHAVOTEOF6FORAND0AGAINST.
1.Claims
2.Minutes
a.April 1,2002-Work Session
b.April 1,2002-Regular Meeting
c.April 8,2002-Work Session
d.April 15,2002 -Work Session
e.April 15,2002 -Regular Meeting
f.April 22,2002 -Work Session
g.April 29,2002 -Work Session
3.Resolutions
Attachment 3, Page 80 of 188
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 1,2002
Page -5
Development Charge credits.Arlie may choose to pay the $750.000 in two payments.The first payment shall be no
less than $375,000 and shall be required at the time of issuance of the initial Building Permit exclusive of a Land and
Drainage Alteration Permit.The remaining balance shall be due no more than 11 months from the date of the initial
payment.No occupancy certification may be requested by Arlie until the second payment is paid in full.Pertaining to
the second payment,Arlie may request alternate payment methods.The city is in no way bound to grant such an
alternative payment request.
City Attorney Joe Leahy and Mr.Stephens provided additional information regarding the language referencing
“alternative”payment requests.
Mr.Stephens entered into the record a revised annexation description to be included with exhibit 1 of the agenda item
summary packet.This new description was entered into the record and will be included with the original resolution
document.The Lane County Boundary Commission Officer had requested that a clarified annexation description be
attached to exhibit 1.
Mr.Stephens said staff is confident that the application,with the agreement negotiated,fulfills the criteria contained in
the Springfield Development Code,article 6 and recommends approval.
Mr.Stephens and Mr.Kelly further clarified information regarding the proposed new language in the draft annexationagreement1.5(a).
Mr.Stephens answered questions from council.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
Karen Rolin.Associate Planner,Arlie and Co.,722 Country Club Road,Eugene,spoke in support of the proposal.
She thanked city staff for their efforts in completing the annexation agreement.
1.
2.Larry Reed,representing Arlie and Co.,722 Country Club Road,Eugene,spoke in support of the proposal.Hesaidstaffhascoveredchangesneededintheannexation.He thanked Colin Stephens,Mike Kelly,Joe Leahy andothercitystafffortheirassistanceinthisprocess.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Lundberg thanked staff and Arlie and Co.for working together.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD,WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH,TO ADOPTRESOLUTIONNO.02-35,WITH THE NOTED REVISION TO SECTION 1(5)(A)AND THE AMENDEDDESCRIPTIONADDEDTOTHERECORD.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0AGAINST.
4.Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments.
ORDINANCE NO.5 -AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE.ARTICLE 1GENERALPROVISIONSBYAMENDINGSECTIONS1.030 AND 1.050;ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS.BYAMENDINGSECTION2.020;ARTICLE 31 MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SITE PLANREVIEWSTANDARDSBYAMENDINGSECTION31.010.31.020.31.030,31.050.31.060,31.070.AND 31.100ANDADDINGSECTION31.240:ARTICLE 32 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS.BY AMENDINGSECTIONS32.110 AND 32.120;ARTICLE 34 PARTITION STANDARDS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 34.010.34.030.34.050.34.060 AND 34.070:AND ARTICLE 35 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS BY AMENDING
Attachment 3, Page 81 of 188
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 1,2002
Page-6
SECTIONS 35.010.35.040,35.050 AND 35.060 AND ADDING SECTION 35.055:ADOPTING THE WATER
QUALITY LIMITED WATERCOURSE MAP BY REFERENCE;AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Public Works Director Dan Brown and Development Services Director Cynthia Pappas recognized and thanked staff
for their efforts related to the project.
Ms.Pappas reminded council that this item was before them,after the Planning Commission (PC)held three lengthy
work sessions in which they deliberated regarding the various components of the code amendment.At the final PC
work session meeting,Lee Beyer made the motion to recommend the council approve the new standards.The PC
unanimously supported this recommendation.Ms.Pappas said with the proposed code amendments,staff is attempting
to position the city to receive approval for NPDES permits,in March,and avoid any state or federal sanctions as well
as comply with the Clean Water Act.
City Planner Mel Oberst presented the staff report on this issue.He recognized staff for efforts related to this project.
Mr.Oberst said Roxie Cuellar,Home Builders Association (HBA),was not able to attend this evening.Ms.Cuellar
provided permission to read,into the record,an article she wrote in Government Affairs,for the HBA.
The Springfield Planning Commission is scheduled again on June 4,to take testimony on revised amendments to the
Springfield Development Code.Gary Karp,the city planner,working on the amendments,did an excellent job of
addressing the concerns we had with the first edition.All references to protecting open space or trees five inches
greater or otherwise,to the maximum extent possible,have been removed and the city will continue to rely on itstreecuttingordinancetoprotecttreesasithasdoneinthepast.Our references to staff having the discretion to
require two story homes or impose other design requirements as a condition of subdivision approval have been
removed as well.Springfield staff have assured me that it was never their intent to make residential developmentmoredifficultormorediscretionary.The goal of the amendments is to provide standards to deal with storm waterissues.The city of Springfield,like Eugene,a few years ago,must meet new regulatory standards under the FederalCleanWaterAct.Few of us like new regulations at a first glance,the proposed changes in the Springfield Code do
not look too onerous.For the most part,we have been able to live with the new rules that Eugene has imposed inthisareaandpresumably,we will be able to live with Springfield's also.
Councilor Hatfield referenced an email from Ms.Cuellar to Mayor and Council,dated 7/1/02,regarding a regulationthatwouldrequireadevelopertoidentifyproposedcurbcutsinasubdivision,before they know if they will locate thegarageontheleftorright-hand side.Mel Oberst said he spoke with Ms.Cuellar today about those comments.Mr.Oberst said the code would reflect language stating “where applicable or where necessary.”He referenced the Hillsidedevelopmentandsaidsometimesitisnecessarytoknowwherethedrivewaycutisbecauseofotherregulationsregardingthesteepness/grade of driveway.
Councilor Lundberg spoke with Ms.Cuellar and noted her appreciation for staff efforts related to the project.
Mayor Leiken recognized staff for the excellent work related to this project.
Mr.Oberst explained that the intent of the proposed SDC amendments is to implement interim development codeprovisionstobringtheSDCandfuturedevelopmentwithintheCity’s land use jurisdiction closer to compliance withthefederalstandardsoftheCleanWaterAct(CWA),the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)and the EndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA).This project is an element of the City’s Overall response to the Endangered Species Act 4(d)RulethattheCityCouncilreviewedandapprovedlastyear.
On June 18th the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing on the proposed SDC amendments that wascontinuedfromApril2nd.There were two letters submitted into the record on June 18th.One letter was written by
Attachment 3, Page 82 of 188
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 1,2002
Page-7
Tom Bowerman who was concerned that the proposed riparian areas were not large enough.The second letter was
from John Ohm who had concerns about the science relating to the size of riparian setbacks.There was no oral
testimony.The Planning Commission took both written submittals into consideration and voted 6-0 with one absent to
submit the adopting ordinance to the City Council.On June 24th staff discussed this matter at a work session with the
City Council.Today,the City Council may elect to keep the record open.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken asked council if they wanted to keep the public record open or close it.Council noted that Ms.Cuellar’s
concerns have been addressed.Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.[Note:see comments at the end of this
discussion directing that the public record remain open for 10 days.]
Councilor Simmons noted his objection to the deletion of the Irving slough /Pierce channel waterways.He said the
idea of using a map as a water quality limited description,is an interesting way to get around those legal descriptions
of waterways.He opposed that component.He said that this component is flawed.He said there is also an error in
one of the findings,and referenced the finding that whereas 100 percent of the city’s drinking comes from wells,
continued compliance for safe drinking water act is necessary through these amendments.He said SUB is currently
under construction,at the present time,with the sand filter,which will draw water that is not only surface impacted
from the wells,but will also draw water directly from the Willamette River.He said while the finding at the current
time may be correct,by October,the information will be in error.He said since the permit has been granted,the
construction is underway,that is a flawed statement to say it is 100 percent reliant on well water.
Councilor Hatfield recommended the public record be held open,for written comments,for an additional period of
time.This ordinance comes back for a second reading and voting,in two weeks.The written record will remain open
for ten days.Council concurred.
No action taken.The ordinance received a first reading by title only.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1.Curtis Greer.357 55th Street,Springfield,regarding federal and state government proposing to cut taxes.He said city
governments want to raise taxes.He discussed those on limited incomes.He said last year city taxes increased by 20-
30 percent.He said if you keep increasing the tax rate,people can’t retire in Springfield.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
L Correspondence from Kelly Dobrowski,761 N.Cloverleaf Loop,Springfield,Oregon,Regarding the Excessive Crime
in her neighborhood.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD,WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH,TO ACCEPT ANDFILETHECORRESPONDENCE.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Ms.Dobrowski testified before council regarding concerns related to public safety.
Councilor Hatfield responded to Ms.Dobrowski.He shared information regarding the possible public safety levy thatmaybebroughtbeforecouncil.
Councilor Hatfield said he and Councilors Fitch and Lundberg recently attended a meeting regarding jail issues.
Attachment 3, Page 83 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 84 of 188
inutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission:
M INUTES
Springfield Planning Commission
Regular
Springfield City Hall
225 Fifth Street,Springfield
June 4,2002
7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:Tim Malloy,Chair;Lee Beyer,Jim Burford,William Carpenter,Steve Moe,Marilyn Phillips,Members;Kay Bork,
Gary Karp,Greg Mott,Mel Oberst,Ken Vogeney,City Staff;Meg Kieman,CityAttorney’s Office.
ABSENT:Sean Wilson (Excused until Summer Recess)
Commissioner Malloy called theSpringfield Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
1.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present recited the pledge of allegiance.
2.APPROVALOF MINUTES
The following minutes were considered for approval
Commissioner Malloy noted a correction on the April 16,2002 regular session minutes:After
conferring with Mr.Mott,Page 3,the last sentence should read “Mr.Mott felt that the commission
should-not recommend it one of the choices for the commission was to not recommend it.”
Commissioner Moe moved,seconded byCommissioner Carpenter,to approve theminutes
of the worksessionheld on April 16,2002,as presentedand the regular session minutes
for April 16,2002,asamended...Themotion passed unanimously,6:0 with one
commissioner absent.
CommissionerCarpentermoved,secondedbyCommissionerBurford,to approve the
minutes of the regularsession of the Springfield Planning Commission on May7^2002,as
presented.Themotion passed unanimously,6d)with one commissionerabsent
3.REPORT OFCOUNCIL ACTION
Commissioner Phillips reported that the following topics were discussed at the last City Council meeting:
•The *911"problem was discussed and the need for increased funding.
•A discussion with ODOT to share responsibility for the 42nd Street project.The suggestion was that
Springfield would be responsible from Jasper Road to Main and that ODOT would take from Main to
Marcola Road.
•A discussion of the 20-50 programs plans on how to save the land as well as develop it up to the year 2050.
MINUTES—Springfield Planning Commission Page 1June4,2002
3-2
Attachment 3, Page 85 of 188
Commissioner Malloy also noted that he had attended the session regarding the West Eugene Parkway and that therehadbeenagreatdealofpublictestimony.
4.BUSINESS FROMTHE AUDIENCE
There was no business from the audience
5.LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
a.Amendment of Springfield Development Code-Jo.No.23002-02-0038
Mel Oberst,Planning Supervisor,said that the public testimony was closed but that staff had received further
written testimony.He gave the following overview of the staff presentations:
•Ken Vogeney,P.E.Supervising Civil Engineer,would address the technical issues surrounding the
amendments.
•Gary Karp,Planner III,would address the changes that had been made to the amendments.
•Meg Kiernan,Assistant City Attorney,would address the legal issues regardingStatewide Goals 5 and
6.
Mr.Oberst also gave the following additional background information:
•The SDC amendments are more about water quality at this time.
•Springfield needs to comply with the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
•The City adopted the “Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan”in May,1999.The SDC was
amended May,2000 by adding Article 17,“Drinking Water Protection (DWP)Overlay District.The“Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan”is currently being amended to accommodate the need
to reduce the risk of contamination of the Springfield Utility Board’s Willamette Well fields.
•The SDC amendments are in response to three different federal acts:the Clean WateT Act,the Safe
Water Drinking Act,and the Endangered Species Act.The primary focus is on the first two acts.
•The proposed amendments include measures required for water quality that are mandated by
Statewide Planning Goal 6.These measures also comply withStatewide Planning Goal 5
requirements but are not part of the City’s Goal 5 work program.
•Mr.Vogeney submitted a memo detailing the impact of the proposed riparian setbacks upon the
Buildable Lands Inventories.
•Mr.Oberst pointed out the waterway maps on the walls and noted that Gray Creek,Irving Slough,
and Pierce Channel had been dropped from the list of water quality limited watercourses.He gave
reasons for these waterways being dropped:Don’t meet the definition for inclusion water sourcefromWeyerhaeuser,not a river,water too warm,and needs site specific water controL MT.VogeneyclarifiedthattheIrvingSloughhastwootherwatersources:42nd St.runoff and high water from theMcKenzieRiver.
MINUTES—Springfield Planning Commission June 4,2002 Page 2
3-3
Attachment 3, Page 86 of 188
Commissioner Beyer asked why the UQ”Street channelwas still included as one of the protected waterways.Mr.Vogeney responded that most of the channel is the City’s largest storm drainageway,was designed forfloodcontrolandstormrunoff.He pointed out that if the channelwere piped the flood storage component
would be lost..
Mr.Oberst asked that public testimony be opened to accommodate those individuals who were in theaudience.Commissioner Carpenter asked if timely notices had been sent notifying individuals of the re-opening of public testimony.Mr.Karp said that notices had been sent to everyone who spoke or wrote fromtheApril2,2000 hearing regarding the June 4,2002 meeting.Mr.Karp added that hewas not sure if thenoticesspecificallystatedthatpublictestimonywouldbere-opened.Commissioner Carpenter expressed hisconcernthattheappropriateprocedurehadbeenfollowed.
After commissioner discussion regarding the writtenand public testimony,Assistant City Attorney Kiemansuggestedthatstaffbeallowedtogivetheirreportsinordertoassessthelevelofchangesbeforemakingadecisionregardingthetestimony.
Mr.Karp referred the commissioners to Attachment C:“Summary of Public Comment and Staff Response.”Mr.Karp began to discuss the allowance for a reduction of the riparian setback from a minimum of 50 to 35feetandthewrittenfeedbackfromRoxieCuellar,Director of Government Affairs for the Home BuildersAssociation.Commissioner Carpenter suggested that Mr.Karp’s presentation regarding public comment ontheamendmentsshouldbedelayeduntiladecisionwasmaderegardingthepublictestimony.
Commissioner Beyer asked if the setback was intended to make sure that runoff from the land was filtered.Mr.Karp responded that it was used for both coolingand filtering.Commissioner Beyer further asked why a
certain number of feet are needed and whether there could be other optionssubmitted by a developer.Mr.Vogeney explained that it was initially felt that 50 feet would be needed for filtering and then also to workwithpropertyownerstoplantatleasttworowsoftreesforshadethatwouldserveprimarilyfortemperaturecontrolHeaddedthattreerootsystemsalsoretainedsomeoftherunoffaswellashavingsomebiologicalandchemicalactionsthathelpcleanthedrainage.
Commissioner Beyer asked if there weren’t any other options.Mr.Vogeney noted that 35 feet was a
compromise.He said that at least 20 to 25 feet was needed for maintenance access along channels and 10feetwasneededfortrees.Commissioner Burford asked if there was an equation that was utilized fordeterminingthewidthofthesetbacktakingintoaccountvariablessuchasditchorchannelsize.Mr.Vogeney referred Commissioner Burford to Exhibit 13 (35a)entitled “Vegetated corridor widthsrecommendedbyvariousinvestigatorstomaintainselectedfunctions.”Mr.Vogeney pointed out thedifferentwidthofbuffersrecommendedforthedifferentvariablessuchaswatertemperaturecontrolandsedimentcontrol.He said that the 50 foot recommended buffer would be at the low end of the range of whatsciencerecommends,but that there were also other means of dealing with storm water runoff...Commissioner Burford asked if 35 feet might be too much if there were other means of dealing with therunoff.Susie Smith,Environmental Services Manager,noted that current conditions did not meet waterqualitystandardsandshedidnotthinkthattherewouldbeconcernoverdoingtoomuchbecausetherewasconsiderablecatchuptodo.(To bring the City into compliance with State &FederalStandards.)
Commissioner Carpenter asked if there would be greater controls that would need to be put on the WQ”Street Channel to control temperature because of the Irving Slough and the Pierce Channel being droppedfromthewaterways.Assistant City Attorney Kiernan pointed out an agreement that Springfield and theOregonFishandWildlifeDepartment(ODFW)have entered into with Weyerhaeuser allowing a discharge ofhightemperaturewaterintotheIrvingSloughandthePierceChannel.She said the water source was a
MINUTES—Springfield Planning Commission June 4,2002 Page 3
3-4
Attachment 3, Page 87 of 188
t
primary reason why the two waterways were not included in meSDC amendments it did not flow directly
from the river but instead through Weyerhaeuser processing.Commission Carpenter asked if there would
need to be additional control put on the “Q*Street Channel for higher water temperature issues because of
the IrvingSlough and the Pierce Channel.Ms.Smith clarified that when the City applies for its NPDES
permit,there willbe a plan to deal with water temperature in all drainage that ends up in either the McKenzie
or Willamette River.She pointed out that the plan would include the Irving Slough and the Pierce Channel.
Mr.Vogeney also indicated that there were a number of other open waterways that were not being included
in the SDC amendments for protection.The waterways that were included were those that were known
water quality limited waters and the direct tributaries that provide a direct contribution to those waters.
Commissioner Burford asked when the agreement regarding the IrvingSlough and the Pierce Channel
expired.Assistant Attorney Kieman said she didn’t know for the Irving Slough but thought that the Pierce
Channel may not have an expiration date.Commissioners further discussed the “Q*Street Channel.
Mr.Vogeney contributed the following item:
In response to staffs proposal to remove the Irving Slough and Gray Creek from the amendments,Mr.
Vogeney amended Exhibit 6:“Identification of Water Quality Watercourses in Springfield*and Attachment
D:“Analysis of Impacts on the Buildable Lands Inventories.*The table on the back of Attachment D shows a
significant reduction in the number of acres that are impacted because the Irving Slough and Gray Creek
were dropped from the amendments.The total number of tax lots affected drops from 44 to 36.The
number of acres affected drops from 45 to 31.
Commissioner Carpenter asked for clarification of how the setbacks in the amendments would affect the
setbacks that are already in place for the Willamette Greenway.Mr.Vogeney stated that the SDC
amendments have no impact on Willamette Greenway requirements.Mr.Oberst added that the 150 feet
from the ordinary low water mark is not a setback for buildings but is a restricted area for discretionary use...
Commissioner Carpenter asked how much acreage was involved along the Willamette in the SDC
amendments that was already under the Willamette Greenway.Mr.Oberst indicated that there was 18 acres
of residential,two and a half acres of commercial and nine and a half acres of industrial.Commissioner
Carpenter requested that a footnote be added to the amendments that let people know that impacted area
might be too large because there are already other land use restrictions involved.Greg Mott,Planning
Manager,said the Willamette Greenway law requires that a Greenway corridor be established along the
Willamette River that is a minimum distance back from the mean low water mark and that it can exceed that.
He further explained that within the Greenway there is a setback that is established that is an overlay zone
that restricts use to water related/water dependent uses and there is no exception to that stipulation.He said
that the Greenway setback is different depending on whether it is inside or outside the urban growth
boundary.Mr.Mott stated that public access is promoted within inside the boundary but is extremely
restricted outside.He noted that the Greenway is not a limitation on development but required provisions
do need to be met.Commissioner Carpenter said he would like to look at the maps to better understand the
Greenway provisions.
Assistant City Attorney Kieman said she became involved in the SDC amendment process to assure
compliance with Statewide Goals 5 and 6.She said that she had done thorough research and could tell staff
that the code amendments were in compliance with Goal 5 and were necessary to comply with Goal 6.
Kieman made the following points:
•Goal 6 states that Springfield must maintain and improve the quality of air,water and land resources of
the state and the language further explained that the City must not violate or threaten to violate state or
MINUTES—Springfield Planning Commission June 4,2002 Page 4
3-5
Attachment 3, Page 88 of 188
federal environmental quality statutes,rules and standards and that discharges shall not exceed carrying
capacity,degrade resources or threaten availability of such resources.There is a direct link between the
Endangered Species Act,the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Act and Goal 6 because of the
federally mandated regulations regarding water quality.
•State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)handles the enforcement and permitting for the
Clean Water Act.Oregon Administrative Rules adopted by DEQ guide local jurisdictions on water
quality issues.
•Goal 6 is not a mandate like Goal5 but Goal 6 still needs to be complied with.To determine if the code
amendments were necessary,Assistant City Attorney Kieman talked to a number of officials at the state
DEQ.Points from those conversations were:
o Water quality would most likely be considered a factor in applying for the NPEDS permit and
that ordinances adopted show that cities are following “best management practices.”
o If water quality standards are not where they should be citizen law suits may be brought and/or
DEQ penalties and sanctions may be levied.The likelihood that sanctions would be imposed
would be small if it was known that the City was working with them in trying to comply.
o Buffer zones and plantings are the cheapest way for local jurisdictions to control water
temperature.Chemical treatment would be prohibitively expensive.
o The obligation is to show that water temperature is not increasing.Most likely Springfield will
get a load allocation on temperature and that will probably be included in the NPDES permit.
•Other jurisdictions are also making plans to deal with the same water quality issues.The Portland Metro
area and Salem have both adopted code amendments complying with Goal 6 and not running afoul of
Goal5.
•The Goal 6 requirement that the City maintain and improve the quality of air,water and land resources
triggers identification of pollutants.One of those pollutants is defined as water temperature.There are
two practical means of dealing with water temperature:1)wateT treatment and 2)development
restrictions.Goal 6 only addresses future developments as do the code amendments and authorizes the
adoption of measures that regulate land use as a means of avoiding or reducing discharges from future
developments.
•Locating future development farther from the public waters is one means of reducing pollutants.One of
the Goal 6 guidelines is to adopt a plan that should buffer and separate those land uses which create OT
lead to conflicting requirements and impacts on the air,water and land resources.The SDC code
amendments is such a plan.
•Under Goal 5,there are a set of Oregon Administrative rules directing jurisdictions on how to comply
with Goal5.The City of Springfield is currently working on complying with the 1996 amended Goal 5.
That work is completely separate from the code amendments currendy being presented.
•One of the Goal 5 administrative rules states that the requirements of Goal 5 do not apply to the
adoption of measures required by Goal 6 and 7.To the extent that Goal 6 and 7 measures exceed the
requirements of Goal 6 and affect a Goal 5 resource site,the local government shall follow all applicable
MINUTES—Springfield Planning Commission Page 5June4,2002
3-6
Attachment 3, Page 89 of 188
steps of the Goal5 process.Staff do not believe that the SDC amendments exceed the requirements of
Goals 6 and 7 and that there is no conflict with Goal 5.
•Assistant City Attorney further discussed Goal5 and concluded that the amendments were in
compliance and necessary.
Mr.Oberst clarified that in his opening remarks he had indicated that staff had taken away any reference to
the Endangered SpeciesAct related to the habitat,but that the amendments still do forward progress towards
coming into compliance with the ESA 4(d)Rule as directed by the City Council.
Commissioner Malloysuggested a reopening of the discussion regarding the issue of public testimony.
Commissioner Moe requested that the public testimony not be reopened,because notice had been given
back in March,and staff had noticed those who testified at the April Planning Commission Hearing.After
commissioner discussion,the following motion was made:
CommissionerMalloymoved,seconded byCommissionerCarpenterto continue
deliberation untilJune Iff*1 and to reopenboth written and publictestimonyat that time.
The motion passed unanimously6&with one commissionerabsent.
b.Affordable Housing Implementation
Commissioner Malloy opened the public hearing.
Staff Report
Kay Bork,Planner II,said her presentation would be to recommend code amendments to Article 16 -Residential Zoning District,Article 34 -the Subdivision Standard and Article 2 -Definitions.She indicated
that the amendments focused on the cluster subdivision standards and adding a section called “Accessory
Dwellings.”
Ms.Bork provided the following points regarding the history of the amendments:
The project was initiated by the Planning Commission and the City Council at a work session in July of
2000.The implementation measures of the residential land study were discussed at that session and were
ranked in order of importance.Affordable housing was prioritized at that meeting and the current
amendments would address those particular implementation measures.
The current amendments were the first of many that would be presented to the Planning Commission to
address the implementation measures.
The past year staff had been working with a “Technical Advisory Committee”drafting code language.
Staff held severalwork sessions with the Planning Commission reviewing and amending the code
language.The Planning Commissioners made several recommendations that were implemented.For
instance the Washburn Historic District be exempt from the proposed “Accessory Dwelling*
amendment.
MINUTES—Springfield Planning Commission Page 6June4,2002
3-7
Attachment 3, Page 90 of 188
•The draft code language was circulated to several interested parties,to neighborhood associations,to the
Homebuilder’s Association Realtors,non-profit developers,profit developer,professional planners and
architects.Several changes were made to incorporate public comments.
•Findings are consistent with the Metro Plan,applicable State statutes and applicable state wide planning
Goals and Administrative Rules.
Ms.Bork asked that an e-mail from Commissioner Carpenter be circulated.She explained that
Commissioner Carpenter had rewritten the first couple of sentences regarding open space as follows:“At least
20%of the development site shall be designated common open space.Common open space can be wetlands,
steep slopes,natural waterways or wooded areas.Also,common open space can be created by placing on the
land amenities for community activities for residents such as playgrounds,picnic areas,gardens,or sports
features...”
Attachment 3,Page 8,under (9)Landscaping:34%25%of the landscaping requirement is satisfied.She recommended using Commissioner’s language.Ms.Bork pointed out a typo in
Testimony of Those in Support
Jim Gryte,967 Fairway Place,Springfield,Oregon,as Chair of Springfield Historic Commission,commended
the decision to exempt the Washburn Historic District from the “Accessory Dwelling”code.
He expressed his gratitude on behalf of the Springfield Historic Commission,State Historic Preservation
Office,Springfield Museum and the Washburn Neighborhood Association.
Commissioner Malloy asked if there was any additional testimony of any kind.Hearing none he asked if
there were any questions from the commissioners.He then asked if staff had any further summary remarks.
Hearing no further comments,Commissioner Malloy closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carpentermoved,seconded by Commissioner Beyer,to recommendcode
amendments Journal #2002^)6-0133,with the amendment to openspaces,be forwarded
to the CityCouncil for consideration.The motion passed unanimously 6:0 with one
commissionerabsent
6.BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Mr.Oberst indicated that Commissioner Wilson was “on the mend”and would be in attendance at one of the next
meetings.
7.BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
There was no further business.
Commissioner Malloy adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
(Recorded by Sue Jordan)
R:\2O02\CiC}o/Sprmg/wIdXPlafmmgCommis3ion\a|7c020604.u/pd
MINUTES—Springfield Planning Commission Page 7June4,2002
3-8
Attachment 3, Page 91 of 188
i' •~.
i
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 6 265 General)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITI4NPLAN
TO UPDATE THE • SPRINGFI-ELD LOCAL WETLAND •INVENTORY, THE
SPRINGFIELD INVENTORY OF NATURAL RESOURCE SITES AND THE
SPRINGFIELD NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY TO INCLUDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED
WETLAND AND :RIPARIAN SITES IN THE GLENWOOD AREA; TO ADOPT
PROTECTION MEASURES "FOR THE NEW GLENWOOD SITES AND TO UPDATE
THE .BOUNDARIES OF KNOWN :SITES; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
THE CITY COUNCIL'OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory (Wetland Inventory) was adopted by the
City Council in 1998 and identifies wetlands within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary;
and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites (NR Inventory) was adopted
by the City Council in 2004, and identifies riparian comdors within the Springfield Urban
Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Natural Resources Study (NR Study) was adopted by the City
Council in 2005 and prescribes protection measures for the resource sites identified in the
Wetland and NR Inventories; .and
WI3EREAS, a new inventory of wetland and riparian resources in the Glenwood area has
identified additional resource sites and refined the boundaries of known sites, and has prompted
the need to amend the NR Study, the NR Inventory, and the Wetland Inventory; and
WHEREAS, .amendments to the NR Study, which was .adopted as a functional .plan of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan, are processed as amendments to the Metro Plan;
and
WHEREAS, Section 5.14-100 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) sets forth
procedures for amendments to the Metro Plan; and
WHEREAS, a public open house was held on January 11, 2011 to explain the proposed
Glenwood amendments to NR Study, the NR Inventory and the Wetland Inventory. and to
receive public comment; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Glenwood
amendments to the Springfield Natural Resources Study (NR Study), the Springfield Inventory
of Natural Resource. Sites (NR Inventory) and the Springfield Local:Wetland Inventory (Wetland
Inventory) on January 19, 2011 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the.
amendments to the City Council based upon findings in support of adoption of these
amendments as set forth in the Staff Report and the Recommendation to the Council
incorporated herein by reference (Case Number LRP2010-00002); and.based on the evidence-
Attachment 1-1Attachment 3, Page 92 of 188
1
and testimonyin the record demonstrating that the proposed amendments comply with the
criteria for: approving Metro Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Elected Officials of the City of Springfield and Lane County held a public
hearing on the proposed Glenwood amendments to the NR Study, the NR Inventory and the
Wetland Inventory on February 7, 2010 and the Springfield City Council is now ready to take
action on this matter based upon the above recommendation and the evidence and testimony
already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing held
in the matter ofhearing this Ordinance adopting the Glenwood amendments to the NR Study, the
NR Inventory and the Wetland Inventory.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF -SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS :FOLLOWS:
Section l: The proposed Glenwood amendments to the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory,
attached as Exhibit A, are adopted. .
Section 2: -The proposed'Glenwood amendments to the Springfield ][nveritory ofNatural
Resource Sites, attached as Exhibit B, .are adopted;
Section 3: The proposed Glenwood amendments to the Springfield Natural Resources Study,
attached as Exhibit C, are adopted;
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion ofthis Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect
the validity ofthe remaining portion thereof.
Section 5: Notwithstanding the effective. date ofOrdinances as provided in Section 2.110 ofthe
Springfield Municipal Code, this Ordinance shall become effective upon the .date that all. of the
following have occurred: (a) the Ordinance has been acknowledged, and/or at least 30 days have
passed since the date the Ordinance was approved. .
ADOPTED by the Common Council ofthe City of Springfield by a vote of ~_ for and
0 against, this 22ndday of February , 2011..
APPROVED by the Mayor ofthe City of Springfield, this 2 2ndday of
February , 2011.
ATTEST:
t ,
Mayor
City Recorder
E~~EE®~PPR®YED
A$ TC~ ~ /~.
d ~//
y
Attachment 1-2 OFFICE OF ITl( TTORNEY
ORDINANCE N0. '6265Attachment 3, Page 93 of 188
Exhibit A-1
Exhibit A: Springfield Local Wetland Inventory Report
c+r;Ue^.,* *e~* ;~ rew,^.,°,~. Shaded text`is added.
Insert at pg. "Local Wetland Inventory Summary-9"
Wetland W I9 is 41.'65 acres and is classified as 'POW/PFO. The: wetlands were determm~ed~;
through on- and off=site methods. T11e wetlands are adjacent to the Springfield sheriff's. pisto ~.
range: andthe~ portion. of the 1VIilI Race-that has .been widened to create a .log pondfor a rriill'
Soils were dark in color with mottles. Hydrology was :indicated by the dominance of hydrophytie:
vegetation -and presence ,of surface water:.in depressions. The .wetland limits were determined:
where the ve 7etation.chan ed and there were no lon Ter indicators of h ~drolo aild throw h~.use'g g g ~ ~Y ~ . g, .
of black and white_and inft~aredaerial photo interpretation and are limited to TOB,r "~. =' ;;
W19 was inadvertently left off of the original Local Wetland Inventory descriptions] .
Wetl~andW20 is3..73acres and is classified a Palust~
f
rive Shrub-Scrub wetland. The wetland is
adjacent to Glenwood Slough and the railroad tracks. Lt is part of he Glenwood Slough. t flows'
northwest into W-2 T prior to being culverted and flowing into.the Willairiette River. W-20 is
bisected by Glenwood Blvd, but is still hydrologically connected by a culvert. The Slough. is a
topographic bowl: Hydrologic sources include stormwater from adjacent impervious surfaces, in ..
addition to groundwater and up lope surface water: A portion of W-20 was previously delineated;
WD96-0375). . ,.,
The dominant wetlandvegetation includes Oregon Ash; Sitka Willow; Red-Osier Dogwood,
Field.Mint, Begger's Tick, Soft Rush and Short Scale Sedge.
Soil types include: Chehalis silty clay loam. -
Wetland W2l Wetland W=21 is.:47 acres and isclassified, as a Palustrine Shi•ub-Scrub (PSS)
wetland. The.,wetland islocated under and east. of the Interstate S Bridge just south of Franklin
B1vd.-W-21 was delineated in 2003 (WD2003-.0273.): as'part of the ODOT'sI-S bridgeproject
and Willamette River trail. The west portion was impacted bye construction of the I=S temporary
detour -bridge. W-21 is bounded to the south by railroad tracks-.: Glenwood Slough-.flows through
the wetland.as do several .ditches used to convey stormwater. The wetland is less than one-half
aci•e and is a~ judged locally significant wetland~because of its hydrologic.~connection to~~the
Willamette River:; It is also. connected. to W22and-W23. . ~ ~ ~ ~~ .
Attachment 3-1Attachment 3, Page 94 of 188
Exhibit A-2
a
The,domiriant wetland vegetation includes Oregon Ash, Pacific Willow; Black Cotton~~~ood, 3
Red-Osierpogwood;~~Slough S~edge,~and Creeping Buttercup.
Soil ypes ,include: Chehalis -silty clay loam, _Pen~gra-Urban land complex. -~t
Wetland W22 is 2.53 acres-and is classified as a Palustrine Forested wetlands (PFO); W-22~ is a
PFO system~locatedwith~adrainage that flovvsthrough he southern portion.Portons ofthe -. ~ ,
wetland have beers previously delineated (WD's 03=0273;..00-0102; 98-0051.). PHS did not have,,'
access to the eastertlmost and southern portions of W-22,and boundaries were deterrni-ned
through off-siteobservations,.:previous delineations, andaerial photography:
The dominant wetland vegetation includes Oregon Ash, Pacific Willow., Black Cottonwood, Re_d
iAlder, Clustered~Wild Rose; Red.-Osier Dogwood, Slough Sedge,. Nipplewort and=Soft Rush. ~ =`
Soiltypes includeChehalis~-silty clay loam.
Wetland W23 is :87 acres and is classified as Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetland: VW`=23 is a ,.~ =,
scrics of small PEM .wetlands.-located within.the ODOT ROW and on private. property. The ~ `
wetlands were delineated in 2007 fol=ahe 1-5 bridge project (WD08-0140). The wetlands are
located at~ the bottom ~of a ~steep~slope:;Hydrology from the wetlands flows into a ~chan~nel~ that ~~
drains to the northwest into the Willamette River: The wetlands located in the ODOT ROW arc
lnowed~ and maintained. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
The dominant wetland vegetation includes Black Cottonwood; Wild Mint; Begger's Tick, Soft
Rush,. Sawbeak Sedge, Soft Brome, Common Velvet Grass,-English Plantain, Ta11 Fescue; and
Bluegrass species.
Soils types include: Dixonville-Philomath-Hazelair~Coinplex
Wetland 24 is .51 acres and is classified a~s a Palustrine Forested wetland (PFO). W-24 is
located~at the .bottom of surrounding steep slopes. Thereis a narrow intermittent~drainage.
channel that. flows through the middle of the wetland. This drainage continues east through a ..
long culvertunder McVay Hwy. and the railroad and out to the Willamette River. W-24 is
located between,I-5 and McVay Hwy. with residential land uses ta.the_north and south. ~ .
3
v
The dominant wetland vegetation includes Black Cottonwood; Pacific Willow-, Red-.Osier- ,
Dogwood, Reed Canary Grass, Water-Parsley, Stinging.:Nettles, Slough-Sedge and:Field
Horsetai 1.
Soil types. include: )]IXOC1Ville-Philomath~-Hazelair~Complex. ~~:
Wetlaild W25 is :4.31 acres in size and is a Palustrine Forested. wetland (PFO) area. bounded on
fall sides by~railroad;tracks. PHS was;ablefo view the wetland:from~adjacentroad-ROWS and the-.~'
Franz bakery property:to the east. t is surroundedby adjacent comt~ercial;properties. There is a
drainage located along the southern portion of the wetland. Itsflow northwest into a large culvert
Attachment 3-2
Attachment 3, Page 95 of 188
Exhibit A-3
located within the ROW of Glenwood Boulevard that is believed to flew into GS'-3/Glenwood
E
Slough;
Adjacent upland species: Acez° rrzacrophvllrr/n; Psedotsugcl mensiezii; Rubus dzscc~lor; Co~wlu~s~
coj°nzrta, L~'at~ex l~ptopodct,;Convolvulus sp., Hedera helix; A~ry~ost,s st~lonifer°a, ~Svr~~ph~s~icarpos "
albus~
Soil types include: Chehalissilty clay loam. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~
Wetland 26 is .86 acres it1 size and is a mosiac of 50%.wetland and 50% upland Located on`
undeveloped land north of I-5 at the top of a steep lope. It is relati~~ely_flat and appears to-~hav.e •~
been significantly disturbed in the past by scraping. Plant species include a-rriixture of upland . ,.
and wetland species. Several areas. had -nottling and oxidized rhizospheres, despite the;general" ..<<lack
ofdark_chromasoils. Deep tire ruts. bare evidence of seasonally wet conditions :.~ ' {Adjacent
upland` species: Rhus diver~slobrrjn, Cr°ataegr~snoj~ogvna;~ Rubes ~iscolo~~, Festrrcu artndinacea,
Derucus_caj•ota, Hype>^icitniper°fo~at~um, Cif°siirn~ vulgar~e, Clzrysunth~murrl .~ " ~~leucanthurn;
Centaitr~eaPj~~tensis . ~- ~Soil
types include:Urban1and-Hazelair-DixonviLlecomplex The
tables below summarize the size and:classificationof the wetland areas within Springfield'sUrban
Growth Boundary.Table
1. _City
of Springfield Wetlands-McKenzieRiver Basin Wetlands Site
Number X*Ot+'WA1VISignificance Acres USFWS Classification(s)Other" Created Waters Acres
M
1 4.94RLP M2
3.12PEM 10..50M3
2.73PEM/PFO .M4
Locally Significant=Wetlands ~~
Special
Interest for Protection
5.
02PEM MS
Locally~S~gnificant~Wetiands~ ~~
9.
13PFO/PSS/PEMM6
4.05PEM/PSSM7
0.2PEM M8*
0.2PSS M10*
2.72RIN 'M11*
1.01POW M
12 1.22PEM M14
Locally Significant Wetlands
33.
45PEM/PFOM
15 6.41PEM Attachment
3-3Attachment 3, Page 96 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 97 of 188
Exhibit A-5
Table. 2
City of Springfield Wetlands-Willamette River basin Wetlands
Site Number OFWAM .Significance Acres USFWS Classification(s)Other" Created Waters
Acres
W1*4.14 RLP
W2 Locally Significant
Wetlands, Special
Interest for Protectiol~
0.90 PEM
W3 1.27 PFO/PEM/POW
W4 Locally Significant
Wetlands ~~:
0.97 PFO/PEM
WS 5.6 POW/PFO/PEM
W6 5.63 PFO
W7*0 POW 36.02
W8*1.22 POW
W9 0.22 PEM
WT1 0.67 PSS
W12 Locally.~Signi~ficant
Wetlands
1.42 PFO
W10 2.25 PSS
W 13 2.24 PFO~
W14 0.97 PEM
W 15 0.79 PFO
W16 Locally_Significant
Wetlands
1.46 PFO
W17 17.21 RLP
W 18 A-C Locally :Significant ~ ~~~~
Wetlands
131.99 PEM/PFO
W-19 Locally ;Significant
Wetlands
41.65 POW, P,FO
W-20 ~~Locally Signi~fica-it ~~
Wetlands
373 PSS/PUB ~
W-21 ~Locally-Significant
Wetlalids
47 PSS
W-22 Locally. Significant
Wetlands
2.53 PFO
W-23 Locally.,Significant
Wetlands
87 PEM
W-24 Locally;Si~tiiticant
Wetlands
51'PFO
w_25 4.31 `PFO _.
W-26 86 PEM
Total Q~
233~.88,~~
36.02
denotes otf=site wetland determination and mappingz ._ __~, _. ~ -
W-L> ~~~as ina~l~ trtently left off ofthis~table in the originalSprin~ficld Local_ Wetland I1lventory Deport.
Wetlands W-2U through W-26 ale he revised resource s-ides in the Glenwood area.
Attachment 3-5Attachment 3, Page 98 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 99 of 188
Exhibit B-1
Exhibit B: Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites
c+.-.~,~,,..+ +~.,+ ;~ .-,,.~,,,.,,,,~. Shaded text is added.
Insert at pg. 18]
A ......~ . 7 2 Q
T,~-T~GVlZ-`i'lk-TT
AI~T A ~.....-..~,. 1~~~°~iTn@~ ,~-lr~r~rv
or mn~~ ;r~nronc~o +l~o r~„ml~or ~`~,;1 Z'~ev1 t`~'~~YY~'' ~ ~ y.pVJ-1i-~GIIGZLTVn Tl-~v ~;~~; c.; ~r~ ~~
Site: S25 (Formerly E39)
TYhe: Riparian
Acres: 12.3
VVH~1 score: 46-47 .. _:
WHA source: Ester Lev, 1.990
Area- map(s): 6 ~; ,~ ~ `
Description.: Site S-25 (formerly E-39) ;consists of segments of the Glenwood Slough near or.,'
adjacent to Interstate 5, Franklin Boulevard, Glenwood Boulevard and.the Union Pacific ~':
Railroad tracks`in the Glenwood area. S-25 is generally urrounded by industrial uses, railioad
tracks and a highway:
hhe western' portion ,of S-25 wraps around the Glenwood solid waste ransfer station. At-its west's
endthe slough passes under theWillametteRiver I-5 overpass. This western portionhas been ~:_;~
Ychannelizedwithcement,.sides.
The portions of 5-25 on either side of Glenwood Boulevard are more natural and contain
significant,riparan vegetation :including willows (Sala spp.); black cottonwood (Po~ulirs ~ . ;
t~°~chocarp~x)`, sedge (Cap°~x spp.), rush (Juncos spp.), cattails (7y~ha latifolia), and~reed
canarygrass (Phalar~is arundinacea). Interspersion with other natural areas islimited~~by 1-.Sand ':~
other adjacent roads,. but 5-25's proximity to .the Willamette Riyer.: may increase the number of
Attachment 4-1Attachment 3, Page 100 of 188
Exhibit B-2
wildlife s ecies~i~n the`area.~The Division of -State Lands -has determinedthat~.porti~ons of this site ~~,P
are regulated we"tlands~(W-20,W-21, and W,22). ~ ~~.,
The dominant riparian tree species include Oregotl Ash, Sitka Wi11ow, Red.-Osier Dogwood, ~ ~~~?
Black Cottonwood,.Black Locust and Oregon Maple.
No fish survey was conducted for S-25 and it is not shown on ODFW maps of fish-bearing ~. ~ `~
streams. The proximity and' open connectivity to the: Willamette River also auggests'that .fsh are '
present in the Slough.
Site: S26 - -
Type: Riparian ~ o
Aeres: 1.:56 ..,
WHA score: 17-57 ` ,
WHA source: Washburn . .
Area map(s): 6 ~.. ...:. ,
Description: Site 5-26 is; ;a perennial stream that varies in width betw:een'2-5 feet, It is
bordered to the west by `I-S: Much of the stream and d1e defined impact area are located within.
ODOTright-of-way~adjacentto~I-S andbeneath the.. Willamette. I-S Bridge. .S-26~is segmented, ~E
with a 462-foot culvert dividing the northern and southern segments of the stream. The northern.;;
egment of S-26 daylights under the Willamette I-5 Bridge before continuing north to the
Willamette River. ~~~~
The dominant riparian tree species include:Oregon Ash, Sitka Willow, Red-Osier Dogwood, .r `'
BlackCottonwood;~Black Locust, Oi`egon`~1Vlaple,~and Pacific Willow. ~ ~ ~ ~.
No known fish survey. was been conducted for S-26. The stream is not shown on ODFWkmaps..of
fish-bearing streams:. There is an unnamed perennial. drama e that b,e 7ins~n the west side of I=5 ;g ~ _.. ,
in Eugene)' and is culverted udder the freeway where it convet-ges with the culverted portion of.
S-26. ~The~ Eugene drainage that connects to S-26 has been documented by ODFW as: hav i ng
icutthroattrout. The presence of cutthroatin the Eugene drainage suggests that 5-26 is also fish- a
bearing:. `I'le proximity and~connectivity to the Willamette River alsosuggests thatfish are
ipresent ~n 5-26. _,
Site: S27 .
Type: Riparian . '
Acres: .33
W~-IA score.. 45 ,r
WHA source: Washburn
Area. map(s): 6 '
Descriptioa~: Site S-27 is a perennial stream segment that conveys water-from the Moon Mt ''
area south of I.S. The stream is largely culverted from I=5 to the Glenwood slough with .
Attachment 4-2Attachment 3, Page 101 of 188
Exhibit B-3
v_ _ _. _ ~ _ .
occasional daylighting along-the watercourse. 5-27.is oile of those daylighted segments which ~:
sopens into a 40 foot wide riparian feature. The stream segment. is-about 2:74 feet in length. and is.
abounded to the north.-and west by industrial and residential development. Some land to the south l
and. east is undeveloped,. but tale stream is eulverted as it passes beneath hat area.. _ ~ ~;
S-27 is a dense thicket, dominated by Pacific Willow, Black Cottonwood, Maple species, Alder . E
species, and Hazelnut trees. At the time the stream was assessed (July 200,9) the feature was .:"
sufficiently-shrouded`by vegetation that the consultants noted-that they.:"could-not see the :bottom
ofthe drainage due to a~steep s ope~and Salix sp.thieket." ~ ~~
No known frsh survey. was been'condueted for S=27. It is not. shown on ODFW maps of fish- .
bearing streams:-:The distance and lack of open connection to the Glenwood Slough and the x
Willamette, River argue against this being classified as afish-bearing stream.
Site: S28 - ; , _ _
Type: Riparian ~ .. ,
Acres: `.73 ,:
WHA score: 61 ,,
WHA source: Washburn ;.~
Area map(s): 6 . .
Description: S=28 is a narrow stream that meanders through a wetland area that is vegetated by
willow thickets and Reed Canary grass. It is sandwiched between-the: ODOT right-of-ways-for ,
the I-5 and McVay Hwy. ,The ystem is fed by a storm culvert from under the freeway and exits=.:`
through a~ storm culvert-under McVay Hwy.and into they Willamette Rivera
The dominant riparian free'speeies include Oregon-Ash, Douglas Fir, Red-Osier Dogwood,
BlackCotton~wood,~Indian Plum, White Oak, and Oregori.Ma~ple.
Attachment 4-3Attachment 3, Page 102 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 103 of 188
Exhibit C-1
Exhibit C: Page Inserts for the Springfield Natural Resources Study
Table 3-1. Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites [Insert at pg. 22]
Site #Acres
Tier 1
Signifcance
Criteria Met.
Tier 2 ~ Quality
WHA Score Ranking
Site Name
S03'29.7 1,2,3,4 61-62 Hi h Mill Race A (Rural)
S04 42.9 2,3,4,6 40-41 Moderate Mill Race B (Urban)
S07 23.9 1,2 34 Moderate Brand S/Natron
S09 71.9 1,2,4 50 Hi h We erhaeuser B
S10'195.0 1,4,6 70 Hi h We erhaeuser A
S12/13 39.1 2,4 45 (Trees)
36 (No
Trees
High
Moderate
Q Street Ditch
S 14 2.4 2,4 35 Moderate Gu Lee
S 17'347.2 1,2,4,6 67 High Maple. Island Slough/
McKenzie River .
S 18 13.4 2,4 22-23 Moderate SCS Channel #6
S20 19.6 1,2,4 67 Hi h Irvin Slou h North
S21 13.7 1,2,4 47 ~Hi h South Irvine Slou hand Pond
S22'44.9`1,2,4 67 Hi h Jas er Road Slou h
S24 8.0 2,3,4 55 Hi h rGra Creek
WA/WB 628.2 1,2,3,4,6 72-74
Natural)
64-66
Urban
High Willamette River
3 4~-4~
S25 12.30 1;4,5~ ~ :46~-47 ~ ~High Glenwood Slow h .~~~~ ~ ~--
526 1.56 1;4 ~~ ~17-57 ~ ~High Riverview/Au~usta:Charneh .~~~:~
S27 33 4 45 ~~High ~Petersen Equi~prrierit~° ~.
Da lighted Culvert : -.
S28 73 1,4 61 Hi h S. McVa Hwv. Channel . _
Total 1518.62
Attachment 5-1Attachment 3, Page 104 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 105 of 188
Exhibit C-3
Insert W-1V tnrou h W-14 at . 1 yoJ
w_20 Acres• 3.73 OFWAM: Locally. Associated InventoriedSite: Significant Riparian Resource.
Cowardin Class:
Wetland is within yes: S-25is-3~ Palustrine. Scrub-Shrub t/4 mile of DEQ 303
PSS), Wetland with <30% (d) listed water
canopy cover of shrubs or bod _
WHA Score: 46-47
Y
small trees
High Quality
Palustrine Unconsolidated Wetland has a Resource
Bottom (PUB) Wetland with direct surface water]
30% vegetation cover and a connection to a
surface with >25% of the salmonid stream
particles smaller than stones.
Moderate Quality
Wetlands -~
Goal 5 Recommendation: Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices
when developing within 150 feet ofthe wetland. W-20 is associated with the Glenwood Slough
S-25, formerly E-39). The Slough is protected by a 50-foot development setback described in
SDC Section 4.3-115 and the site plan review standards described in SDC Section 5.17-100.
This 50-foot setback protecting the Slough also protects W-20. Any portion of W-20 not
protected by the Glenwood Slough 50-foot setback should be protected by a 25-foot setback
under the provisions of SDC 4.3-117.
mm_..~_~_ ~.._ .--- _ ~, ~ Taxlots
R ~ e~. _ ~ ~ ~ -- ] W-20
W Illamett~ f d 0 W-20 Setbackrank~~n gw
0 Other Significant Wetlands
r _ - _-_ ~ o ~ ~Fa~
W_ 2 E 14th Ave
GS 2
m
W-21 g
GS-1) ~
W 20 ~ E 17th Ave
GS 3ve ~,
W-23 ~ ,~ ~~~, ~~'~
t~.~. ,VV-20~~ --
a (GS-3)r?
E 21st
Attachment 5-3Attachment 3, Page 106 of 188
Exhibit C-4
Description: ~
W-20 is a Palustrine Shrub-Scrub wetland. It is part of a system known as the Glenwood Slough.
It flows northwest into W-21 prior to .being culverted and flowing into the Willamette River. W-
20 is bisected by Glenwood Blvd, but is still hydrologically connected by a culvert. The Slough _
is a topographic bowl. Hydrologic sources include stormwater from adjacent impervious ~
surfaces, in addition to groundwater and upslope surface water. A portion of W-20 was
previously delineated (WD96-0375).
Dominant Wetland Ve etation
Trees/ Shrubs Vines/ Herbs
Fraxinus lati olia Ore on Ash Mentha arvensis Field mint
Salix sitchenius Sitka Willow Biden s ~Be er's tick.
Corpus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood Juncus e usus Soft Rush
Carex le to oda Short-Scale Sed e
Adjacent upland species: Symphoricarpos albus, Rubus discolor, Corpus stolonifera; Rubus
ursinus, Corylus cornuta, Fraxinus latifolia, Carex leptopoda, Dipsacus sylverstris, Tolmiea
menziesii
Soils-Ma ed Series Chehalis silt cla loam
H drolo is Source Groundwater
Wetland and Impact Area Summary
Wetland Acrea e 3.73
Im act Area Acrea e 11.74
Combined Wetland and Im act Area 15.50
Vacant Acres within the Combined Area 3.73
Number of Parcels Affected 14
Combined Parcel Acrea e 51.26
Conflicting Uses by Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LDR PLO LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-20 11 0 2.88 2.99
W-20
Im act Area
1.07 89 9.78 11.74
Total 1.18 92 12.66 14.73
This number varies from the total wetland acreage since portions of the wetland and its impact
area are within railroad and street right-of--way which have no zoning.
Attachment 5-4Attachment 3, Page 107 of 188
Exhibit C-5
Conflicting Uses by Vacant Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LDR PLO LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-20 0 0 13 13
W-20
Im act Area
0 89 2.71 3.60
Total 0 89 2.84 3.73
Existing Protections
Is the site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards described
in Section 4.3-115 of the Springfield Development Code? Yes.
W-20 is associated with the Glenwood Slough (S-25, formerly E-39). The Slough is a tributary
to a water quality limited watercourse (Willamette River) and is protected by a 50-foot setback
and a site plan review requirement.
The Glenwood Refinement Plan includes policies that give direction for environmental design
affecting S-25 (formerly E-39). The Refinement Plan states, "Signifcant wetland areas in
Glenwood shall be protected from encroachment and degradation in order to retain their
important functions and values related to fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, sediment, and
erosion coritrol, water quality control, and ground water pollution control," (Policy 1, pg. 92,
Environmental Element).
Site Specific ESEE Analysis for W-20
This section discusses ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, see the General ESEE Analysis found in Section 8 of this report.
Environmental Consequences
W-20 is rated as a "Moderate Quality Wetland." The wetland overlaps with a riparian resource
site, S-25. S-25 is rated as a "High Quality Resource" site with a WHA score of 46-47. The
OFWAM analysis concluded that the wetland's water quality and hydrologic control functions
are impacted or degraded. The resource provides habitat for some species, although the. fish
habitat is degraded. Fully allowing conflicting uses would.mean the loss of what little function
and habitat that W-20 does provide.
Social Consequences .
The OFWAM analysis indicates that W-20 is not aesthetically pleasing, nor is it appropriate for
educational or recreational uses. The Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive
Plan shows no anticipated park facilities or natural areas near the resource site. The site has
moderate potential for enhancement which may make it more of a community amenity.
Attachment 5-5Attachment 3, Page 108 of 188
Exhibit C-6
Economic Consequences
The OFWAM analysis indicates that the water quality and hydrologic control functions of the
resource are already degraded. These functions could be mimicked using engineered facilities at
a significant cost. Fully protecting the resource site would mean the loss of 3.73 acres of vacant
industrial land within the combined wetland and impact area boundaries.
Energy Consequences
None of note.
Recommended Program for Protection
Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices when developing within
150 feet of the wetland. W-20 is associated with the Glenwood Slough. (5-25, formerly E39).
The slough is protected by a 50-foot development setback described in SDC Section 4.3-115 and
the site plan review standards described in SDC Section 5.17-100. This 50-foot setback
protecting the slough also protects W-20. Any portion of W-20 not protected by the Glenwood
Slough 50-foot setback should be protected by a 25-foot setback under provisions of SDC
Section 4.3-117.
Impact of Protection Measures on Vacant Acreage and Buildable Land Inventory
Impact on Vacant Acreage by Zoning District
SITE ID PLO LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-20 0 13 13
W-20 50-ft. Setback 03 67 70
Total 03 80 83
About .13 acres of W-20 is classified as vacant by the Lane County Assessor's Office. The
vacant acreage includes portions of 1 lot. Limiting conflicting uses would allow some
development to occur within the wetland area where the developer could show how the essential
functions of the wetland could be preserved or enhanced. A 50-foot development setback is
already required for the wetland under Section 4.3-115 of the Springfield Development Code.
No additional setback is proposed.
A 50-foot setback would affect .67 acres of vacant industrial land. The affect of the setback on
buildable land could be reduced by aligning development such that yards and other open space
are within the setback. Stormwater management facilities required for development can be
placed within the setback under SDC 4.3-115.
Employing low impact development practices within 150 feet of the wetland could reduce the
impact of nearby development on the resource. Some low impact development practices are
already incorporated into the stormwater quality protection standards found in SDC 4.3-115.
Attachment 5-6Attachment 3, Page 109 of 188
Exhibit C-7
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable." These
classifications are not the same used. by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Protecting W-20 and its 50-foot setback area from future development effectively reduces the.
CIBL inventory by a total of .73 acres and the RLS by a total of .44 acres, for a total of 1.17
acres.
Impact of Recommended Protection on
Commercial, Industrial and Residential Land Inventories
Site W-20
Zonin
Redevelopable Vacant Total Acres
LDR 44 0 44
LMI 71 02 73
Total Acres 1.15 02 1.17
The cumulative effect of fully protecting all commercial and industrial lands that are impacted by
riparian or wetland resources could increase the need for UGB expansion to meet land needs.
A 50-foot development setback is required under stormwater provisions of the Springfield
Development Code, and thus the 1.17 impact of protecting W-20 with the setback is not
attributed to this report.
Attachment 5-7Attachment 3, Page 110 of 188
Exhibit C-8
Acres:.47 OFWAM: Locally Significant Associated.
Site: ~-21 Inventoried Riparian
Cowardin Class• Wetland is within '/4 mile of Resource?
DEQ 303 (d) listed wateris-1~ Palustrine Scrub body Yes: S-25Shrub (PSS)
Wetland with <30% Wetland has a direct surface WHA Score: 46-47
canopy cover of water connection to a
shrubs or small salmonid stream High Qualitytrees.Resource
Moderate Quali Wetlands
Goa15 Recommendation: Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices
when developing within 150 feet of the wetland. W-21 is associated with the Glenwood Slough
5-25). The slough is protected by a 50-foot development setback described in SDC Section 4.3-
115 and the site plan review standards described in SDC Section 5.17-100. This 50-foot setback
protecting the slough also protects W-21. Any portion of W-21-not protected by the Glenwood
Slough 50-foot setback should be protected by a 25-foot setback under the provisions of SDC
4.3-117.
0Taxlots
W-21
W-21 Setback
0 Other Significant Wetlandsy
300 0 300 600 Feel
1
Rw e~
J illan~' lin Blvdrank
W_ 2 E 14th AvE
GS 2)
m
p ,'fl~.~,~ o
rd ~~~. .'. ~~,~ W-21 o
GS-1) ~
W-2 ~ ~ E 17th Ave
ve (GS-3)
t
W-23
a,~~~
s~ W-20
a GS-3)
Attachment 5-8Attachment 3, Page 111 of 188
Exhibit C-9
Description:
Wetland W-21 is .47 acres and classified as a Palustrine Shrub-Scrub (PSS) wetland. The
wetland is located under and east of the Interstate 5 Bridge just south of Franklin Blvd. W-21
was delineated in 2003 (WD2003-0273) as part of the ODOT's I-5 bridge project and Willamette
River trail. The west portion was impacted by construction of the I-5 temporary detour bridge.
W-21 is bounded to the south by .railroad tracks. Glenwood Slough flows through the wetland as
do several channels used to convey stormwater. The wetland is less than one-half acre and is a
judged locally significant wetland because of its hydrologic connection to the Willamette River.
It is also connected to W22 and W23.
Dominant Wetland Ve etation
Trees/ Shrubs Vines/ Herbs
F'raxinus lati olia Ore on Ash Carex obnu to Slou h Sed e
Po ulus trichocar a Black Cottonwood Ranunculus re ens Cree in Butter-Cu
Corpus stolonifera ~Red-Osier Dogwood
Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow
Adjacent upland species: Populus trichocarpa, Alnus rubra, Fraxinus latifolia, Corpus
stolonifera, Robinia pseudoacacia; Rubus discolor, Cytisus scoparius, Festuca arundinacae,
Plantago lancelata, Lathyrus latifolius, Daucus carota, Cirsium arvense, Dipsacus sylvestris,
unidentified mixed grasses
Soils-Ma ed Series Chehalis silt cla loam, Pen ra-Urban land com lex
H drolo is Source Groundwater
Wetland and Impact Area Summary
Wetland Acrea e 47
Im act Area Acrea e 4.54
Combined Wetland and Im act Area 5.01
Vacant Acres within the Combined Area 0
Parcels Affected (Includin Im act Area)2
Combined Parcel .Acrea e 43.54
Conflicting Uses by Acre and Zoning ®istrict _
SITE ID LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-21 31 31
W-21
Im act Area
4.54 4.54
Total 4.85 4.85
Portions of the wetland fall within right-ot=way which has no zoning designation; thus this
figure is less than that shown above for wetland acreage.
Attachment 5-9Attachment 3, Page 112 of 188
Exhibit C-10
Conflicting Uses by Vacant Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LM TOTAL ACRES
W-21 0 0*
W-21 ~
Im act Area
0 0*
Total 0 0 *
W-21 lies within County owned land that has been developed as a Solid Waste Transfer Site.
The wetland is locatedwithin ODOT and Union Pacific right-of--way that bisects the County
property. What appears to be vacant resource land within the County parcel is in fact committed
for transportation uses.
Existing Protections
Is the site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards described
in Section 4.3-115 of the Springfield Development Code? Yes.
W-21 is associated with the Glenwood Slough.. The Slough is a tributary to a water quality
limited watercourse (Willamette River) and is protected by a 50-foot setback and a site plan
review requirement. This 50-foot setback also protects W-21. Any portion of W-21 not
protected by the Glenwood Slough 50-foot setback should be protected by a 25-foot setback
under provisions of SDC Section 4.3-117.
The Glenwood Refinement Plan includes policies that give direction for environmental design
affecting S-25 (formerly E-39). The Refinement Plan states, "Significant wetland areas in
Glenwood shall be protected from encroachment and degradation in order to retain their
important functions and values related to fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, sediment, and
erosion control, water quality control, and groundwater pollution control," (Policy 1, pg. 92,
Environmental Element).
Site Specific ESEE Analysis for W-21
This section discusses ESEE. impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequerices of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, se,e the General ESEE Analysis found in Section 8 of this report.
Environmental Consequences
W-21 is rated as a "Medium Quality Wetlands." The wetland overlaps with a riparian resource
site, E-39. E-39 is rated as a "High Quality Resource" site with a WHA score of 46-47. The
OFWAM analysis indicates that the wetland's water quality and hydrologic control functions are
degraded. The resource provides.habitat for some species, although the fish habitat is degraded.
Fully allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of what little function and habitat that W-21
does provide. .
Attachment 5-10Attachment 3, Page 113 of 188
Exhibit C-11
Social Consequences
The OFWAM analysis concluded that W-21 is not aesthetically pleasing, nor is it appropriate for
educational or recreational uses. The Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive
Plan shows no anticipated park facilities or natural areas near the resource site. The site has high
potential for enhancement which may make it more of a community amenity.
Economic Consequences
The OFWAM analysis indicates that the water quality and hydrologic control functions of the
resource are already degraded. These functions could be mimicked using engineered facilities,
but at a significant cost. Portions of the affected tax lot have been developed as Lane County's
Glenwood Solid Waste Transfer Site. The wetland itself is located beneath the Willamette River
I-5 Bridge and adjacent to the Union Pacific Railway right-of--way. Fully protecting the resource
site would mean no loss to the remaining vacant industrial land within the combined wetland and
impact area boundaries.
Energy Consequences
None of note.
Recommended Program for Protection
Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices when developing within
150 feet of the wetland. W-21 is associated with the Glenwood Slough. The slough is protected
by a 50-foot development setback described in SDC Section 4.3-115 and the site plan review
standards described in SDC Section 5.17-100. This 50-foot setback protecting the slough also
protects W-21. Any portion of W-21 not protected by the Glenwood Slough 50-foot setback
should be protected by a 25-foot setback under provisions of SDC Section 4.3-117.
Impact of Protection Measures on Vacant Acreage and Buildable Land Inventory
Impact on Vacant Acreage by Zoning District
SITE ID LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-21 0 0
W-21 50-ft. Setback 0 0
Total 0 0
The land containing W-21 is not classified as vacant by the Lane County Assessor's Office.
Limiting conflicting uses would allow some re-development to occur within the wetland area
where the developer could show how the essential functions of the wetland could be preserved or
enhanced. A 50-foot development setback is already required' for the wetland under SDC
Section 4.3-115. This 50-foot setback protecting the slough also protects W-21. Any portion of
W-21 not protected by the Glenwood Slough 50-foot setback should be protected by a 25-foot
setback.
Attachment 5-11Attachment 3, Page 114 of 188
Exhibit C-12
A 50-foot setback would not affect any vacant industrial land. The affect of the setback on
buildable land could be reduced by aligning development such that yards and other open space
are within the setback. Stormwater management facilities required for development can be
placed within the setback under SDC Section 4.3-115.
Employing low impact development practices within 150 feet of the wetland could reduce the
impact of nearby development on the resource. Some low impact development practices are
already incorporated into the stormwater quality protection standards found in SDC Section 4.3-
115. ~
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a ,shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable." These
classifications are not the same used by the Lane County Assessor's Office.. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Neither the CIBL nor the RLS showed W-21 or its setbacks as inventoried land. Protecting W-
21 will not cause a reduction in those inventories.
Attachment 5-12Attachment 3, Page 115 of 188
Exhibit C-13
Site: ~-22 Acres: 2.53 OFWAM: Locally Significant Inventoried
Riparian Resource?
Cowardin Class:
1Wetlandiswithin /4,mile of
CJS-2~Palustrine Forested DEQ 303 (d) listed water yes: S-25
bodyPFO) Wetland with
trees growing in Wetland has a direct surface
WHA Score: 46-
standing water or water connection to a ,
47
saturated soils, or small salmonid stream
wetlands entirely High Quality
beneath an Moderate Quality Wetlands
Resource
overhanging forest
canopy.
Goal 5 Recommendation: Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices
when developing within 150 feet of the wetland. W-22 is associated with the Glenwood Slough
S-25). The slough is protected by a 50-foot development setback described in SDC Section 4.3-
115 and the site plan review standards described in SDC Section 5.17-100. This 50-foot setback
protecting the slough also protects W-22. Any portion of W-22 not protected by the Glenwood
Slough 50-foot setback should be protected by a 25-foot setback under the provisions of SDC
4.3-117.
i _ ,,, ~ Taxlots
ver ~'"~~ 0 W-22 SetbackJlllame~te f rank~in Blvd 0 Other Significant Wetlands
o ~ ~ ~e~
W 22 E 14th Ave
W-21 0
GS-1) 3 Q
W-20 ~ E 17th Ave
4 jt
I.'.ti i
I~
E 21st
Attachment 5-13Attachment 3, Page 116 of 188
Exhibit C-14:%
Description:
Wetland W-22 is 2.53 acres and is classified as a Palustrine Forested wetlands (PFO). W-22 is a
PFO system located with a drainage that flows through the southern portion. Portions of the
wetland have been previously delineated (WD's 03-0273, 00-0102, 98-0051). PHS did not have
access to the easternmost and southern portions of W-22 and boundaries were determined
through off-site observations, previous delineations, and aerial photography.
Dominant Wetland Ve etation
Trees/ Shrubs Vines/ Herbs
Fraxinus lati olia Ore on Ash Carex obnu to Slou h Sed e
Populus trichocarpa Black Cottonwood Biden s Be er's tick.
Corpus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood Juncus e usus Soft Rush
Shcix lasiandra Pacific Willow La sana communis Ni lewort
Alnus Ruba Red Alder
Rosa iscocar a Clustered Wild Rose
Adjacent upland species: Acer macrophyllum, Fraxinus latifolia, Populus trichocarpa, Rubus
discolor, Symphoricarpos alba, Corylus cornuta, Cytisus scoparium, Holodiscus discolor,
Hypericum perforatum, Festuca arundinacea, mowed unidentified grasses
Soils-Ma ed Series Chehalis silt cla loam
H drolo is Source Groundwater
Wetland and Impact Area Summary
Wetland Acrea e 2.53
Im act Area Acrea e 12.22
Combined Wetland and Im act Area 14.75
Vacant Acres within the Combined Area 2.84
Parcels Affected (Includin Im act Area)12
Combined Parcel Acrea e ~67.43
Conflicting Uses by Acre and Zoning ®istrict
SITE ID LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-22 2.53 2.53
W-22
Im act Area
12.22 12.22
Total 14.75 14.75
Attachment 5-14Attachment 3, Page 117 of 188
Exhibit C-15
Conflicting Uses by Vacant Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LM TOTAL ACRES
W-22 ~56 56
W-22
Im act Area
2':28 2.28
Total 2.84 2.84
Existing Protections
Is the site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards described
in Section 4.3-115 of the Springfield Development Code? Yes.
W-22 is associated with the Glenwood Slough-North Channel (S-25). The channel is a tributary
to a water quality limited watercourse (Willamette River) and is protected by a 50-foot setback
and a site plan review requirement. ~ - .
The Glenwood Refinement Plan includes policies that give direction for environmental design
affecting S-25 (formerly E-39). The Refinement Plan states, "Significant wetland areas in
Glenwood shall be protected from encroachment and degradation in order to retain their
important functions and values related to fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, sediment, and
erosion control, water quality control, and ground water pollution control,." (Policy 1, pg. 92,
Environmental Element).
Site. Specific. ESEE Analysis for W-22
This section discusses ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, see the General ESEE Analysis found in Section 8 of this report.
Environmental Consequences
W-22 is rated as a "Moderate Quality Wetland." The wetland overlaps with a riparian resource
site, S-25. S-25 is rated as a "High Quality Resource" site with a WHA score of 46-47. ~ The
OFWAM analysis concluded that W-22's water quality and hydrologic control functions are
impacted or degraded. The resource provides habitat for some wildlife species, although the fish
habitat is degraded. Fully allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of what little function
and habitat that W-22 provides. _
Social Consequences
The OFWAM analysis indicates that W-22 is not aesthetically pleasing, nor is it appropriate for
educational or recreational uses. The Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive
Plan shows no anticipated park facilities or natural areas near the resource site. The site has
moderate potential for enhancement which may make it more of a community amenity.
Attachment 5-15Attachment 3, Page 118 of 188
Exhibit C-16
Economic Consequences
The OFWAM analysis indicates that the water quality and hydrologic control functions of the
resource are already degraded. These functions could be mimicked using engineered facilities at
a significant cost. Fully protecting the resource site would mean the loss of 2.84 acres of vacant
industrial land within the combined wetland and impact area boundaries.
Energy Consequences
None of note.
Recommended Program for Protection
Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices when developing within
150 feet of the wetland. W-22 is associated with the Glenwood Slough-North Channel (S-25,
formerly E39). The channel is protected by a 50-foot development setback described in SDC
Section 4.3-115 and the site plan review standards described in SDC Section 5.17-100.. This 50-
foot setback protecting the channel also protects W-22.
A small portion of W-22 (about .06 acres) is not protected by the 50-ft setback provided by the
stormwater WQLW standards found in SDC Section 4.3-115. This unprotected segment of W-
22 should be covered by a 25-foot development setback and the protections afforded by SDC
Section 4.3-117. Any portion of W-22 not protected by the Glenwood Slough-North Channel
50-foot setback should be protected by a 25-foot setback.
Impact of Protection Measures on Vacant Acreage and- Buildable Land Inventory
Impact on Vacant Acreage by Zoning District
SITE ID LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-22 -56 56
W-22 25 to 50-ft. Setback 79 79
Total 1.35 1.35
About .56 acres of W-22 is classified as vacant by the Lane County Assessor's Office. The
vacant acreage includes portions of 3 lots.. Limiting conflicting uses would allow some
development to occur within the wetland area where the developer could show how the essential
functions of the wetland could be preserved or enhanced. A 50-foot development setback is
already required for the wetland under SDC Section 4.3-115. A small portion of W-22 (about
05 vacant acres) is not protected by the 50-ft setback, but is protected by a 25-foot setback under
the provisions of SDC Section 4.3-117. A 25-foot setback~applied to the unprotected wetland
area affects about .09 acres of the total setback acres shown for W-22.
A 25 to 50-foot setback would affect .79 acres of vacant industrial land. The affect of the
setback on buildable land could be reduced by aligning development such that yards and other
Attachment 5-16Attachment 3, Page 119 of 188
Exhibit C-17
open space are within the setback. Stormwater management facilities required for development
can be placed within the setback under SDC Section 4.3-115.
Employing low impact development practices within 150 feet of the wetland could reduce the
impact of nearby development on the resource. Some low impact development practices are
already incorporated into the stormwater quality protection standards found in SDC Section 4.3-
115. '
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable." These
classifications are not the same used by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Protecting W-22 and its 25-50 foot setback area from future development effectively reduces the
CIBL inventory by a total of 2.26 acres.
Impact of Recommended Protection on
Commercial, Industrial and Residential Land Inventories
Site W-22
Zonin
Redevelopable Vacant Total Acres
LMI 91 1.35 2,.26
Total Acres 91 1.35 2.26
The cumulative effect of fully protecting all commercial and industrial lands that are impacted by
riparian or wetland resources could increase the need for UGB expansion to meet land needs.
A 50-foot development setback is already required under stormwater provisions of the
Springfield Development Code, and thus the 2.26 acre impact of protecting W-22, including its
setback, is not attributed to this report.
Attachment 5-17Attachment 3, Page 120 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 121 of 188
Exhibit C-19
Description:
Wetland W-23 is .87 acres and classified as Palustrine Emergent (PEIVI) wetland. W-23 is a
series of small PEM wetlands located within the ODOT ROW and on private property. The
wetlands were delineated in 2007 for the I-5 bridge project (WD08-0140). The wetlands are
located at the bottom of a steep slope. Hydrology from the wetlands flows into a channel that
drains to the northwest into the Willamette River. The wetlands located in the ODOT ROW are.
mowed and maintained.
By state mandate; the Oregon Freshwater Wetl-and Assessment Methodology (OFWAM) is used
to~determine if a wetland is "locally significant" under Oregon law. W-23 fails all criteria for the
significance test with the exception that portions of the wetland are within '/a mile of a water
body listed by DEQ as awater-quality limited water body, and the wetland has an impacted or
degraded water quality function.
Dominant Wetland Vegetation
Trees/ Shrubs Vines/ Herbs
Po ulus trichocar a Black Cottonwood Mentha arvensis Wild mint
Biden s Be er's tick.
Juncus e usus ~Soft Rush
Carex sti ata Sawbeak Sed e
Bromus hordeaceus Soft Brome
Holcus Lanatus Common Velvet
Grass
Planta o Lanceolata En lish Plantain
Festuca arundinacea Tall Fescue
Poa s Blue rass s ecies
Adjacent upland species: Populus alba, Rubus discolor, Daucus carota, Cytisus scoparium,
Vicia sp., Festuca arundinacea,. Taraxacum officinale, Trifolium pretense
Soils
Soils-Ma ed Series Dixonville-Philomath-Hazelair Com lex
H drolo is Source Groundwater
Wetland and Impact Area Summary
Wetland Acrea e 87
Im act Area Acrea e 5.34
Combined Wetland and Im act Area 6.21
Vacant Acres within the Combined Area 2.05
Parcels Affected (Includin Im act Area)S
Combined Parcel Acrea e 12.67.
Attachment 5-19Attachment 3, Page 122 of 188
Exhibit C-20
Conflicting Uses by Acre and Zoning district
SITE ID -LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-23 53 53
W-23
Im act Area
5.34 5.34
Total 5.87 5.87
Portions of the wetland fall within right-of--way which has no zoning designation; thus this
figure is less than that shown above for wetland acreage.
Conflicting Uses by Vacant Acre and Zoning District .
SITE ID LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-23 49 49
W-23
Im act Area
1.56 1.56
Total 2.05 2.05
Existing Protections
Is the site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards described
in Section 4,3-115 of the Springfield Development Code? Yes, in part. Portions of W-23 are
not currently protected.
W-23 is adjacent to, but a part of the Riverview/Augusta Channel (S-26). The Channel is a
tributary to a water quality limited watercourse (Willamette River). and is protected by a 50-foot
setback and by a site plan review requirement. -.
The Glenwood Refinement Plan includes policies that give direction for environmental design.
The Refinement Plan states, "Significant wetland areas in Glenwood shall be protected from
encroachment and degradation in order to retain their important functions and values related to
fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, sediment, and erosion control, water quality control, and
ground water pollution control," (Policy 1, pg. 92, Environmental Element).
Site Specific ESEE Analysis for W-23
This .section discusses ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, see the General ESEE Analysis found in Section 8 ofthisreport.
i
Environmental Consequences
W-23 is rated as a "Moderate Quality Wetlands." The wetland's water quality and hydrologic
control functions are impacted or degraded. The resource provides habitat for some species, but
the OFWAM analysis concludes that it does not provide a diverse wildlife habitat. Fully
Attachment 5-20Attachment 3, Page 123 of 188
Exhibit C-21
allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of what little function and habitat that W-23
provides.
Social Consequences
W-23 is not aesthetically pleasing, nor is it appropriate for educational or recreational uses. The
Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan shows no anticipated park
facilities or natural areas near the resource site. The OFWAM analysis noted that the site is not
appropriate for recreational use. The wetland does not have any point of access. The site has
some potential for enhancement which may make improve its wetland function.
Economic Consequences
Fully allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of the water quality and hydrologic control
functions of the resource. These functions could be mimicked using engineered facilities at a
significant cost. Fully protecting the resource site would mean the loss of 1.56 acres of vacant
industrial land within the combined wetland and impact area boundaries.
Energy Consequences
None of note.
Recommended Program for Protection
Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices when developing within
150 feet of the wetland. Maintain an average 25-foot development setback from the wetland.
The adjacent Riverview/Augusta Channel is protected by a 50-foot development setback and site
plan review standards described in Section 4.3-115 of the Springfield Development Code.
Portions of this setback overlap the recommended 25-foot setback for W-23. Any portion of W-
23 not protected by the Riverview/Augusta Channel 50=foot setback should be protected by a 25-
foot setback.
Impact of Protection Measures on Vacant Acreage and Buildable Land Inventory
Impact on Vacant Acreage by Zoning District
SITE ID LMI TOTAL ACRES
W-23 49 49
W-23 25-ft. Setback 68 68
Total 1.17 1.17
About .49 acres of W-23 is classified as vacant by the Lane .County Assessor's Office. The
vacant acreage includes portions of 2 lots. Limiting conflicting uses would allow some
development to occur within the wetland area where the developer could show how the essential
functions of the wetland could be preserved or enhanced.
Attachment 5-21Attachment 3, Page 124 of 188
Exhibit C-22
A 25-foot setback would affect .68 acres of vacant industrial land. The affect of the setback on
buildable land could be reduced by aligning development such that yards and other open space
are within .the setback. stormwater management facilities required 'for development can be
placed within the setback under Section 4.3-115 of the Springfield Development Code.
Employing low impact development practices within 150 feet of the wetland could reduce the
impact of nearby development on the resource. Some low impact development practices are
already incorporated into the stormwater quality protection standards found in Section 4.3-115.
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential. Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable.": These
classifications are not the same used by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Protecting W-23 and its 50-foot setback area from future development effectively reduces the
CIBL inventory by a total of 1.02 acres.
Impact of Recommended Protection on
Commercial, Industrial and Residential Land Inventories
Site W-23
Zonin
Redevelopable Vacant ~Total,Acres
LMI 49 53 1.02
Total Acres 49 53 1.02
The cumulative effect of fully protecting all commercial and industrial lands that are impacted by
riparian or wetland resources could increase the need for UGB expansion to meet land needs.
A 50-foot development setback is required under stormwater provisions of the Springfield
Development Code, and thus the 1.02 impact of protecting W-23 with the setback is note.
attributed to this report.
Attachment 5-22Attachment 3, Page 125 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 126 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 127 of 188
l Exhibit C-25
SITE ID LD PL ~TOTAL ACRES
Total 53 33 86
Existing Protections
Is the site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards described
in Section 4.3-115 of the Springfield Development Code? No. '
The Glenwood Refinement Plan includes policies that give direction for environmental design.
The Refinement Plan states, "Significant wetland areas in Glenwood shall be protected from
encroachment and degradation in order to retain their important functions and values related to
fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, sediment, and erosion control, water quality control, and
ground water pollution control," (Policy 1, pg. 92, Environmental Element).
Site Specific ESEE Analysis for W-24
This section discusses ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, see the General ESEE Analysis found in Section. 8 of this report.
Environmental Consequences
W-24 is rated as a "Moderate Quality Wetlands." The wetland's water quality and hydrologic
control functions are impacted or degraded. The resource provides habitat for some species, but
the OFWAM analysis concludes that it does not provide a diverse wildlife habitat. Fully .
allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of what little function and habitat that W-24
provides.
Social Consequences
W-24 is isolated and not easily accessible to the public. It is not appropriate for educational or
recreational uses. The Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan shows no
anticipated park facilities or natural areas near the resource site. The site has moderate potential
for enhancement. which may make it more of a community amenity.
Economic Consequences
Fully allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of the water quality and hydrologic control
functions of the resource. These functions could be mimicked using engineered facilities at a
significant cost. Fully protecting the resource site and its impact area would mean the loss of .86
acres of vacant residential land within the combined wetland and impact area boundaries.
Energy Consequences
None of note.
Attachment 5-25Attachment 3, Page 128 of 188
Exhibit C-26
Recommended Program for Protection
Limit conflicting uses that.may impact the wetland. Maintain an average 25-foot development
setback from the wetland. Allow development within the t 50-foot impact area using low impact
development practices that are appropriate for the soil, water table and other site characteristics.
Impact of Protection Measures on Vacant Acreage and Buildable Land Inventory -
Impact on Vacant Acreage by Zoning District
SITE ID LD PI TOTAL ACRES
W-24 0 0 0
W-24 25-ft. Setback 02 0 02
Total 02 0 02
About .02 acres of W-24 is classified as vacant by the Lane County Assessor's Office. The
vacant acreage includes portions of 3 lots. Limiting conflicting uses would allow some
development to occur within the wetland area where the developer could show how the essential
functions of the wetland could be preserved or enhanced.
A 25-foot setback would affect .02 acres of vacant residential land. The affect of the setback on
buildable land could be reduced by aligning development such that yards and other open space
are within the setback. Stormwater management facilities required for development can be
placed within the setback under SDC Section 4.3-117.
Employing low impact development practices within 150 feet of the wetland could reduce the
impact of nearby development on the resource. Some low impact development practices are
already incorporated into the stormwater quality protection standards found in SDC Section 4.3-
115.
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable." These
classifications-are not the same used by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Neither the CIBL nor the RLS showed W-24 or its setbacks as inventoried land. Protecting W-
24 will not cause a reduction in those inventories.
Attachment 5-26Attachment 3, Page 129 of 188
Exhibit C-27
Insert 5-Z5 throu h 5-28 at .253]
Site: Associated Wetlands: Acres: WHA Score'
5-25 ~~w-2o, W-21, 12.30. 46-47
W-22
Formerly E39) Moderate Quality High Quality Resource Site
RGS-1,3,4,5,
Wetlands
and 7)
Goa15 Recommendation: Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices
when developing within 150 feet of the watercourse. S-25 is associated with the Glenwood
Slough; the Glenwood North Channel and. a section of the Moon Mt. System. The Slough and
North Cannel are protected by a 50-foot development setback described in SDC Section 4.3-115
and the site plan review standards described in SDC Section 5.17-100. This 50-foot setback
protecting the slough also protects S-25. A 339 ft. segment of S-25 is not protected by the 50-ft
setback provided by the stormwater WQLW standards found in SDC Section 4.3-115. This
unprotected segment of S-25 should be covered by a 25-foot development setback and the ,
protections afforded by SDC Section 4.3-117.
VJd1aR`ette
ve
i-
I.
ice'
1 ~ ~ ~
i S-25
RGS-3)
S-26 `~lRGS-
T ~~ `
h-' `~ V"
I-5 OFFRA1p
a:. _ _~,___
y
I
Attachment 5-27
Attachment 3, Page 130 of 188
Exhibit C-28
Description:
Site S-25 (formerly E-39) consists of segments of the Glenwood Slough-North Channel and a .
section of the~Moon Mt. system near or adjacent to Interstate 5, Franklin .Boulevard, Glenwood
Boulevard and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the Glenwood area. S-25 is generally
surrounded by industrial uses, railroad tracks and a highway.
The western portion of 5-25 wraps around,the Glenwood solid waste transfer station. At its west
end, the slough passes under the Willamette River I-5 overpass. This western portion has been
channelized with cement sides.
The portions of 5-25 on either side of Glenwood Boulevard are more natural and contain
significant riparian vegetation including willows (Salix spp.), black cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa), sedge (Carex spp.), rush (Juncus spp.), cattails (Typha latifolia), and reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Interspersion with other natural areas is limited by I-5 and .
other adjacent roads, but 5-25's proximity to the Willamette River may increase the number of
wildlife species in the area. The, Division of State Lands has determined that portions of this site
are regulated wetlands (W-20, W-21, and W-22).
No fish survey was conducted for S-25 and it is not shown on ODFW maps offish-bearing
streams. The proximity and open connectivity to the Willamette River also suggests that .fish are
present in the Slough.
Observed Vegetation
Wood Ve etation Herbaceous Ve etation
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash Festuca arundinacea Tall Fescue
Salix sitchenius.Sitka Willow ~Planta o lanceolata En lish Plantain
Corpus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood Daucus carota Queen Anne's Lace
Rubus discolor Himalayan
blackber
Aira caryophyllea Silver Hairgrass
Po ulus trichocar a Black Cottonwood Lath rus s Wild Pea
Robinia seudoacacia Black Locust Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle
Rubus armeniacus Armenian
Blackberr
mixed grasses
unidenti ied)
Acer macro h llum Ore on Ma le
Wetland Vegetation
Trees/ Shrubs Vines/ Herbs
Fraxinus lati olia Ore on Ash Mentha arvensis Field mint
Salix sitchenius Sitka Willow Biden s Be er's tick.
Corpus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood `-Juncus e usus Soft Rush
Carex le to oda ~Short-Scale Sed e
Attachment 528
Attachment 3, Page 131 of 188
i
Exhibit C-29
Soils
Soils-Ma ed Series Chehalis silt cla loam
H drolo is Source Groundwater
Summary of Riparian Functional Assessment
Riparian Reach Stream/Riparian Water Flood Thermal Wildlife
ID Length Pond ~Width Quality Management Regulation Habitat
Width
RGS-1 1,681 120 ft.50 ft.H H H M
ft.
RGS-3 2,706 50-75 100 ft.H L-M H M-H
ft. ft.
RGS-4 780 ft.50-75 ~ 50-75 ft.H M H H
ft.
RGS-5 339 ft. ~2-6 ft.75 ft.M M H M
RGS-7 1,669 8-10 ft.120 ft.H L H M
ft.2
Total Length: 7185 ft.Modal H M H M
Avera e
Resource and Impact Area Summary
Resource Acrea e:12.30
Im act Area Acrea e:45.01.
Combined Resource and Im act Area:55.02
Vacant Acres within the Combined Area:8.57
Parcels Affected (Includin Im act Area :32
Combined Parcel Acrea e:308.09
Conflicting Uses by Acre and Zoning ®istrict
SITE ID LDR LMI PLO
Right-of-
Wa TOTAL ACRES
S-25 17 7.71 4.42 7.88
S-25
Im act Area
1.09 28.23 1.01 14.68 30.33
Total 1.26 3 5.94 1.01 16.81 3 8.21
ttight-ot-way does not typically have a zoning designation. As such, the right-of--way acreage .
shown for the conflicting use acreage is not counted towards the total. The right-of--way acreage
is shown here because a large portion of the resource and its impact.area are within ODOT and
railroad right-of--ways. .
Attachment 5-29
Attachment 3, Page 132 of 188
Exhibit C-30
Conflicting Uses by Vacant Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LDR LMI PLO TOTAL ACRES
S-25 0 67 0 67
S-25
Im act Area
0 6.89 1.01 7.90
Total 0 7.56 1.01 8.57
Existing Protections
Is the site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards described
in Section 4.3-115 of the Springfield Development Code? Yes.
S-25 includes the Glenwood Slough, the Glenwood North Channel and a section of the Moon
Mt. system. The Glenwood Slough and the North Channel are tributaries to a water quality
limited watercourse (Willamette River) and are protected by a 50-foot setback and a site plan
review requirement. '
S-25 overlaps protected wetlands W-20, W-21, and W-22. The Glenwood Refinement Plan
includes policies that give direction for environmental design affecting S-25. The Refinement
Plan states, "Significant wetland areas in Glenwood shall be protected from encroachment and
degradation in order to retain their important functions and values related to fsh and wildlife
habitat, flood control, sediment, and erosion control, water quality control, and ground water
pollution control," (Policy 1, pg. 92, Environmental Element).
Site Specific ESEE Analysis for S-25
This section discusses ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, see the General ESEE Analysis found in Section 8 ofthis report.
Environmental Consequences
With WHA scores ranging from 22 to 61 for five individual reaches of the stream, S-25 is rated
as a high quality resource site. The Riparian Functional Assessment prepared by Pacific Habitat
Services rated S-25's various reaches as well. The mode average of the assessment scores for S-
25's Water Quality and Thermal Regulation Functions was "High."; S-25's Flood Management
and Wildlife Habitat functions average was "Medium."
Much of S-25 includes inventoried locally significant wetlands (W-20, W-21, and W-22). The
water quality and hydrologic control functions of these wetland sites are impacted or degraded.
The resource provides habitat for some wildlife species, although the fish habitat is degraded.
Fully. allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of the riparian and wetland functions that S-
25 provides.
Attachment 5-30
Attachment 3, Page 133 of 188
Exhibit C-31
Social Consequences
5-25 is located in an area that is heavily impacted by existing industrial and residential
development. The stream is not easily accessible to the public and it is not located near a school.
The Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan shows no anticipated park
facilities or natural areas near the resource site. For these reasons it is not appropriate for
educational or recreational uses.
Economic Consequences
Fully allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of the riparian and wetland functions of the
resource. These functions could be mimicked using engineered facilities at a significant cost.
Fully protecting the resource site would mean the loss~of 7.56 acres of vacant industrial land
within the combined resource and impact area boundaries.
Energy Consequences
None of note.
Recommended Program for Protection
Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices when developing within
150 feet of the watercourse. S-25 includes the Glenwood Slough, the Glenwood North Channel
and a section of the Moon Mt. system. The Slough and the North Channel are protected by a 50-
foot development setback described in .SDC Section 4.3-115 and the site plan review standards
described in SDC Section 5.17-100. This 50-foot setback protecting the slough also protects.S-
25. A 339 ft. segment of S-25 is not protected by the 50-ft setback. This unprotected segment of
S-25 should be covered by a 25-foot development setback and the protections afforded by SDC
Section 4.3-117.
Impact of Protection Measures on Vacant Acreage and Buildable Land Inventory
Impact on Vacant Acreage by Zoning District
SITE ID PLO LMI TOTAL ACRES
S-25 67 67
5-25 25/50-ft.
Setback
04 2.45 2.49
Total 04 3.12 3.16
A 339-ft segment of S-25 falls outside of the 50-ft protection of the stormwater WQLW
program. This segment is protected by a 25-ft. setback.
About .67 acres of S-25 is classified as vacant by the Lane County Assessor's Office. The
vacant acreage includes portions of 5 lots. Limiting conflicting uses would allow some
development to occur within the riparian resource area where the developer could show how the
Attachment 5-31Attachment 3, Page 134 of 188
Exhibit C-32
essential functions of the riparian corridor could be preserved or enhanced. A 50-foot
development setback is already required for the riparian area under SDC 4.3-115. No additional
setback is proposed.
A 25-to-50-foot setback would affect 3.12 acres of vacant industrial land. The affect of the
setback on buildable land could be reduced by aligning development such that yards and other
open space are within the setback. stormwater management facilities required for development
can be placed within the setback under SDC Section 4.3-115.
Employing low impact development practices within 150 feet of the riparian area could reduce
the impact of nearby development on the resource. Some low impact development practices are
already incorporated into the stormwater quality protection standards found in SDC 4.3-115.
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable." These
classifications are not the same used by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Protecting S-25 and its 25-50 foot setback area from future development effectively reduces the
CIBL inventory by a total of 3.26 acres and the RLS by a total of 1.11 acres, for a total of 3.75
acres.
Impact of Recommended Protection on
Commercial, Industrial and Residential Land Inventories
Site S-25
Zonin
Redevelopable Vacant Total Acres
LDR 49 49
EMI-2.15 l.ll 3.26
Total Acres 2.64 1.11 3.75
The cumulative effect of fully protecting all commercial and industrial lands that are impacted by
riparian or wetland resources could increase the need for UGB expansion to meet land needs.
A 50-foot development setback is already required under stormwater provisions ofthe
Springfield Development Code, and thus 2.39 acres of the 3.75 acre impact of the setback is not
attributed to this report.
Attachment 5-32Attachment 3, Page 135 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 136 of 188
Exhibit C-34
Description:
Site S-26 is a perennial stream that varies in width between 2-5 feet. It is bordered to the west by
I-5. Much of the stream and the defined impact area are located within ODOT .right-of--way
adjacent to I-5 and beneath the Willamette I-5 Bridge.
S-26 is segmented, with a 462-foot culvert dividing the northern and southern segments of the
stream. The northern segment of S-26 daylights under the Willamette I-5 Bridge before
continuing north to the Willamette River. The left & right banks are similar but the average
slope of the right bank is 10% and the impervious surface is between 10-25%. About 75% of
both banks of S-26 are affected by development.
No known fish survey was been conducted for S-26. The stream is not shown on ODFW maps
of fish-bearing streams. There is an unnamed perennial drainage that begins on the west side of
I-5 (in Eugene) and is culverted under the freeway where it converges with the culverted portion
of S-26. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representative, Jeff Ziller, said this Eugene
drainage that connects to S-26 has cutthroat trout. The presence of cutthroat in the Eugene
drainage suggests that 5-26 is also fish-bearing. The proximity and connectivity to the
Willamette River also suggests that fish are present in S-26. "
Observed Vegetation
Wood Ve etation Herbaceous Ve etation
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash Festuca arundinacea Tall Fescue
Salix sitchenius Sitka Willow Planta o lanceolata En lish Plantain
Corpus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood Daucus carota -Queen Anne's Lace
Rubus discolor Himalayan
blackberr
Aira caryophyllea Silver Hairgrass
Po ulus trichocar a Black Cottonwood Lath rus s Wild Pea
Robinia seudoacacia Black Locust Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle
Rubus armeniacus Armenian
Blackberr
mixed grasses
unidenti aed
Acer macro h llum Ore on 1VIa le Di sacus s lvestris ~Common Teasel
Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow Hypericum " -
er oratum
St. John's Wort
C tisus sco arius Scotch Broom Juncus e usus Common Rush
S m horicar os alb'us Snowberr
Wetland Vegetation
Trees/ Shrubs Vines/ Herbs
Fraxinus lati olia Ore on Ash Mentha~arvensis Field mint
Salix sitchenius Sitka Willow Biden s ~Be er's tick.
Corpus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood Juncus e usus ~Soft Rush
Carex le to oda Short-Scale Sed e
Attachment 5-34Attachment 3, Page 137 of 188
Exhibit C-35
Soils
Soils-Ma ed Series Chehalis silt cla loam
H ,drolo is Source Groundwater
Summary of Riparian Functional Assessment
Riparian
ID
Reach
Length
Stream
Width
Riparian
Width
Water
Quality
Flood
Management
Thermal
Regulation
Wildlife
Habitat
RGS-2 1,740 2-5 feet 40-75 ft.M M H M
Resource and Impact Area Summary
Resource Acrea e:1.56
Im act Area Acrea e:14.73
Combined Resource and Im act Area:16.29
Vacant Acres within the Combined Area:1.99
Parcels Affected (Includin Im act Area):8
Combined Parcel Acrea e:57.07
Conflicting Uses by Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LMI Ri ht-of-Wa TOTAL ACRES
S-26 57 99 57
5-26 ~
Im act Area
5.12 9.61 5.12
Total 5.69 10.60 5.69
Right-of--way does not typically have a zoning designation. As such, the right-of--way acreage
shown for the conflicting use acreage is not counted towards the total. The right-of--way acreage
is shown here because a large portion of the resource and its impact area are within ODOT .and
railroad right-of--ways.
Conflicting Uses by Vacant Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LMI TOTAL ACRES
5-26 52 52
S-26
Im act Area
1.47 1.47
Total 1.99 1.99
Existing Protections
Is the site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards described
in SDC Sections 4.3-115 and 5.17-100? Yes.
Attachment 5-35Attachment 3, Page 138 of 188
Exhibit C-36
5-26 is associated with the Riverview-Augusta Channel. The channel is protected by a 50-foot
development setback described in SDC Section 4.3-115 and the site plan review standards
described in SDC Section 5.17-100.. This 50-foot setback protecting the channel also protects S-
26:
Site Specific ESEE Analysis for S-26
This section discusses ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, see the General ESEE Analysis found in Section 8 of this report.
Environmental Consequences
Although S-26 is highly disturbed, it achieved a WHA score that ranged between 17 for the
northern segment to 57 for the southern segment. S-26 is rated overall as a high quality resource
site, despite the low score for the northern segment. The northern segment has restoration
potential. and will likely receive attention as part of a larger riparian restoration project for the
area disturbed by. construction of the new Willamette I-5 Bridges.
The Riparian Functional Assessment conducted by Pacific Habitat Services indicated that the
Water Quality, Flood Management and Wildlife Habitat functions were rated "Medium." The
Thermal Regulation function was rated "High." Fully allowing additional conflicting uses would
cause the loss ofthese functions.
Social Consequences
5-26 is located in an area that is heavily impacted by existing. industrial development. The
stream is not easily accessible to the public nor is it near a school. For these reasons it is not
appropriate for educational or recreational uses.. The Willamalane Park and Recreation District
Comprehensive Plan shows no anticipated park facilities or natural areas near the resource site.
Economic Consequences
Fully allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of the water quality, flood management,
thermal regulation and wildlife habitat functions of S-26. These functions could be mimicked
using engineered facilities at a significant cost. Fully protecting the resource site would mean
the loss of 1.99 acres of vacant industrial land within the combined resource and impact area
boundaries.
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was ;completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of industrial lands. The majority of small sized commercial and industrial parcels
needed for future growth shall be met within the existing UGB on small vacant and or
redeveloped parcels. Protecting 5-26 would reduce the available vacant industrial land within
the UGB to meet these needs. The cumulative effect of fully protecting all commercial and
industrial land that are impacted by riparian or wetland resources could increase the need for
UGB expansion to meet land needs.
Attachment 5-36Attachment 3, Page 139 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 140 of 188
Exhibit C-38
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable." These
classifications are not the same used by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Protecting S-26 and its 50 foot setback area from future development effectively reduces the
CIBL inventory by a total of 1.3 acres.
Impact of Recommended Protection on
Commercial, Industrial and Residential Land Inventories
Site S-26
Zonin
Redevelopable Vacant Total Acres
LMI 0 1.3 1.3
Total Acres 0 1.3 1.3
The cumulative effect of fully protecting all commercial and industrial lands that are impacted by
riparian or wetland resources could increase the need for UGB expansion to meet land needs.
A 50-foot development setback is required under stormwater provisions of the Springfield
Development Code, and thus the 1.3 acre impact of protecting the resource and its setback is not
attributed to this report.
Attachment 5-38Attachment 3, Page 141 of 188
Exhibit C-39
Site: Associated Acres: WHA Score•
Wetlands: ~ ,33S_27 None
45
High Quality Resource Site
RGS-9)
Goal 5 Recommendation: Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices
when developing within 150 feet of the watercourse. Establish a 25-foot development setback
and apply standards and protections found in SDC section 4.3-117. S-27 is not covered by any
other existing riparian or wetland protection.
r 0 Taxlots
c ~ ~ S-27
5-25 ~ S 27 Setback
Other Riparian Areas
Cj~'t " ~ (RGS-3) 17TH ~ ~o o xo ~t'% - m
S-2) °a ak~~sv o ~ S- ~ ~
4a z (RG -)
5-26 _ 1 TRGS-
1
1
S=25o.! `Ai ~~ RGS-5) S-25
S- 6 (RGS-7
G -
2
s-2
RG 9)
5 OFFR
w _. »_
24TH
i
i
I
2 ~ ~;1
Description: `
Site 5-27 is a perennial stream segment that conveys water from the Moon Mt. area south of I-5.
The stream is largely culverted from I-5 to the Glenwood slough, with occasional daylighting
Attachment 5-39 ~" 'Attachment 3, Page 142 of 188
Exhibit C-40
along the watercourse. S-27 is one of those daylighted segments which opens into a 40 foot wide
riparian feature. The stream segment is about.274 feet in length and is bounded to the north and
west by industrial and residential development. Some land to the south and east is undeveloped,
but the stream is culverted as it passes beneath that area.
S-27 is a dense thicket, dominated by willow species. At the time the stream was assessed (July
2009) the feature was sufficiently shrouded by vegetation that the consultants noted that they
could not see the bottom'of the drainage due to a steep slope and Salix sp. thicket."
No known fish survey was been conducted for S-27. It is not shown on ODFW maps of fish-
bearing streams. The distance and lack of open connection to the Glenwood Slough and the
Willamette River argue against this being classified as afish-bearing stream.
Observed Vegetation
Wood Ve etation Herbaceous Ve etation
Populus trichocarpa Black
Cottonwood
Dispsacus species Teasel
Acer s ecies Ma le Fallo is 'a onica Knotweed
Alnus s ecies Alder
Calocedrus decurrens Cedar
Cor lus s ecies Hazelnut
Salix lasiandr~a ~Pacific Willow
Rubus
armeniacusldiscolor
Blackberry
Hedera helix En lish Iv
Soils
Soils-Ma ed Series Bell ine silt cla loam
Summary of Riparian Functional Assessment
Riparian
ID
Reach
Len th ~
Stream
Width
Riparian
Width
Water,
Quali ~
Flood
Mana ement
Thermal
Re ulation
Wildlife
Habitat
RGS-9 274 ft..40 feet 35 ft.M M H M
Resource and Impact Area Summary
Resource Acrea e:33
Im act Area Acrea e:3.57
Combined Resource and Im act Area:3.90
Vacant Acres within the Combined Area:.2.24
Parcels Affected (Includin Im act Area):9
Combined Parcel Acrea e:8.16
Attachment 5-40Attachment 3, Page 143 of 188
Exhibit C-41
Conflicting Uses by Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LDR LMI TOTAL ACRES
S-27 26 07 33
S-27
Im act Area
3.57
Total 3.90
Conflicting Uses by Vacant Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LDR LMI TOTAL ACRES
5-27 31 06 37
S-27f ~~,
Im act Area
21 2.03 2.24
Total ~52 2.09 2.61
Existing Protections
Is the,site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards described
in SDC Sections 4.3-115 and 5.17-100? No.
Site Specific ESEE Analysis for 5-27
This section discusses ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, see the General ESEE Analysis-found in Section 8 of this report.
Environmental Consequences
With a WHA score of 45, S-27 is rated as a high quality resource site. The Riparian Functional
Assessment prepared by Pacific Habitat Services rated the Water Quality, Flood Management,
and Wildlife Habitat as Medium. The Thermal Regulation function was rated as High. Fully
allowing additional. conflicting uses would cause the loss of these functions.
Social Consequences
S-27 is located in an area that is heavily impacted by existing industrial development. The
stream is not easily accessible to the public nor is it near a school. For these reasons it is not
appropriate for educational or recreational uses. The Willamalane Park and Recreation District
Comprehensive Plan shows no anticipated park facilities or natural areas near the resource site.
Economic Consequences
Fully allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of the Water Quality, Flood Management,
Thermal Regulation and Wildlife Habitat functions of S-27. These functions could be mimicked
Attachment 5-41Attachment 3, Page 144 of 188
Exhibit C-42
using engineered facilities at a significant cost. Fully protecting the resource site would mean
the loss of 2.61 acres of vacant land within the combined resource and impact area boundaries.
It would cause the loss of about 2.09 acres of industrial land and about :52 acres of low density
residential land.
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of industrial lands. The majority of small sized commercial and industrial parcels
needed for future growth shall be met within the existing UGB on small vacant and or
redeveloped parcels. Protecting S-27 would reduce the available vacant industrial land within
the UGB to meet these needs. The cumulative effect of fully protecting all commercial and
industrial land that are impacted by riparian or wetland resources could increase the need for
UGB expansion to meet land needs.
The recently completed Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Study (2009) did not
show the affected residential properties on its inventory of vacant residential lands that will be
needed to accommodate future residential growth.
Energy Consequences
None of note.
Recommended Program for Protection
Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices when developing within
150 feet of the watercourse. Establish a 25-foot development setback from the resource and
apply the standards and protections found in SDC Section 4.3-117.
The disturbed nature of the site and lack of open connectivity to the Glenwood Slough and the
Willamette River reduces the likelihood that this is vital fish habitat. The site has other habitat
values and the existing vegetation provides a valued thermal regulation function. The 25-foot
development setback would not substantially reduce those functions and would allow some
nearby development to meet industrial and residential needs. ~
Impact of Protection Measures on Vacant Acreage and Buildable Land Inventory
Impact on Vacant Acreage by Zoning district
SITE ID LDR LMI TOTAL ACRES
S-27 25 ~06 31
S-27 25-ft. Setback 38 22 60
Total 63 28 91
About .31 acres of S-27 is classified as vacant by the Lane County Assessor's Office. The
vacant acreage includes portions of 6 lots. Limiting conflicting uses would allow some
development to occur within the riparian resource area where the developer could show how the
essential functions of the riparian corridor could be preserved or enhanced.
Attachment 5-42Attachment 3, Page 145 of 188
Exhibit C-43
A 25-foot setback would affect .22 acres of vacant industrial land and .38 acres of low density
residential land. The affect of the setback on buildable land could be reduced by aligning
development such that yards and other open space are within the setback. Stormwater
management facilities required for development can be placed within the setback under SDC
Section 4.3-115.
Employing low impact development practices within 150 feet of the riparian area could reduce
the impact of nearby development on the resource. Some low impact development practices are
already incorporated into the stormwater quality protection standards found in SDC Section 4.3-
115.
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable." These
classifications are not the same used by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Protecting S-27 and its 25 foot setback area from future development effectively reduces the
CIBL inventory by a total of .19 acres and the RLS by a total of .38 acres, for a total of .57 acres.
Impact of Recommended Protection on
Commercial, Industrial and Residential Land Inventories
Site S-27
Zonin
Redevelopable Vacant Total Acres
LDR 38 0 38
LMI 13 06 19
Total Acres 51 06 57
The cumulative effect of fully protecting all commercial and industrial lands that are impacted by
riparian or wetland resources could increase the need for UGB expansion to meet land needs.
Attachment 5-43Attachment 3, Page 146 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 147 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 148 of 188
Exhibit C=46
Summary of Riparian Functional Assessment
Riparian Reach Stream Riparian Water Flood Thermal Wildlife
ID Len th Width Width Quali Mana ement Re ulation Habitat
R-WR-6 331 2-3 feet 120 feet H ~H H M
feet
Resource and Impact Area Summary
Resource Acrea e:73
Im act Area Acrea e:5.04
Combined Resource and Im act Area:5.77
Vacant Acres within the"Combined Area:39
Parcels Affected (Includin Im act Area):5
Combined Parcel Acrea e:36.35
Conflicting Uses by Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LDR PLO Right-of-Way TOTAL ACRES
S-28 41 0 32 41
S-28
Im act Area
1.24 6 3.20 1.84
Total 1.65 6 3.52 2.25
Right-of=way does not typically have a zoning designation. As such, the right-of--way acreage
shown for the conflicting use acreage is not counted towards. the total. The right-of--way acreage
is shown here because a large portion of the resource and its impact area are within ODOT and
railroad right-of--ways.
Conflicting Uses by Vacant Acre and Zoning District
SITE ID LDR ~PLO (Right-of-Way TOTAL ACRES
S-28.0 0 0 0
S-28
Im act Area
0 39 0 39
Total 0 39 0 39
Kight-ot-Way does not typically have a zoning designation. As such, the Right-of--Way acreage
shown for the conflicting use acreage is not counted towards the total.
Existing Protections
Is the site protected by minimum development .setbacks and site plan review standards described
in SDC Sections 4.3-115 and 5.17-100? No.
The Glenwood Refinement Plan includes policies that give direction for environmental design
affecting S-28. The Refinement Plan states, "Significant wetland areas in Glenwood shall be '
Attachment 5-46Attachment 3, Page 149 of 188
Exhibit~C-47
protected from encroachment and degradation in order to retain their important functions and
values related to fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, sediment, and erosion control, water
quality control, and ground water pollution control," (Policy 1, pg. 92, Environmental Element).
Site Specific ESEE Analysis for S-28
This section discusses ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader
discussion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses on
wetlands, see the General ESEE Analysis found in Section 8 of this report.
Environmental Consequences
With a WHA score of 61, S-28 is rated as a high quality resource site. Much of S-28 includes
inventoried a locally significant wetland (W24). The Riparian Functional Assessment prepared
by Pacific Habitat Services rated the Water Quality, Flood Management, and Thermal
Regulation functions as High. The Wildlife Habitat function was rated Medium.
The wetland's water quality and hydrologic control functions are impacted or degraded. The
resource provides habitat for some species, but the OFWAM analysis concludes that it does not
provide a diverse wildlife habitat.
Fully allowing additional conflicting uses would cause the loss of these riparian and wetland
functions.
Social Consequences
S-28 is isolated and not easily accessible to the public. It is not near a school. The Willamalane
Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan shows no anticipated park facilities or natural
areas near the resource site. For these reasons it is not appropriate for educational or recreational
uses.
Economic Consequences
Fully allowing conflicting uses would mean the loss of the water quality, flood management, and
thermal regulation and wildlife habitat functions that are provided by S-28. These functions
could be mimicked using engineered facilities at a significant cost. Fully protecting the resource
site would mean the loss of .39 acres of vacant Public Land and Open Space within the combined
resource and impact area boundaries.
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was~completed in 2009 did not
identify S-28 as providing needed commercial or industrial land. The Springfield Residential
Land and Housing Needs Study (2009) did not show the affected residential properties on its
inventory of vacant residential lands that will be needed to accommodate future residential
growth.
1
Attachment 5-47Attachment 3, Page 150 of 188
Exhibit C-48
Energy Consequences
None~of note.
Recommended Program for Protection
Limit conflicting uses and employ low impact development practices when developing within
150 feet of the watercourse. Establish a 25-foot development setback from the resource and
apply the standards and protections found in SDC Section 4.3-117.
The small stream width lack of open connectivity to the Willamette River reduces the likelihood
that this is vital fish habitat. The site has other habitat values and the existing vegetation
provides a valued thermal regulation function. The 25-foot development setback would not
substantially reduce those functions and would allow some future redevelopment to meet
residential needs.
Impact of Protection Measures on Vacant Acreage and Buildable Land Inventory
Impact on Vacant Acreage by Zoning District .
SITE ID LDR PLO TOTAL ACRES
S-28 0 0 0
S-28 25-ft. Setback 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
None of the zoned acreage within the resource site or the 25-foot setback for 5-28 is classified as
vacant by the Lane County Assessor's Office.. Fully protecting the resource would restrict the
redevelopment of about .35 acres of low density residential land for additional housing on the
site.
Reduction in the Buildable Land Inventory:
The Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands Study (GIBE) that was completed in 2009 identified
a shortage of commercial and industrial lands. The Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS)
that was also completed in 2009 identified a small surplus of residential lands. These inventories
include some Glenwood sites and classified each as "Vacant," or "Redevelopable." These
classifications are not the same used by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These
classifications stem from judgments made by ECONorthwest in collaboration with a steering
committee that helped frame assumptions about what is redevelopable and vacant.
Protecting S-28 and its 25-foot setback area from future development effectively reduces the
CIBL inventory by a total of .29 acres and the RLS by a total of .38 acres, for a total of .6'7 acres.
Attachment 5-48Attachment 3, Page 151 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 152 of 188
Exhibit C-50
Proposed Amendments to the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites [Insert at
pg. 284]
x~u ~ C,.,,ro u ~ ~,,,,r;.o
irJ>J7 pn1VJ 7~ QL. J V n~-c~r T ocr
7 7
7
7
7
7
vA vuvv v ~
a+4~~ ~v~ ~~ 4r-, ~ n n.4v ~ nSTrfC~~CCGCI-VPCCZLCI2l'x:
Site~ ~ ~Listea LWI Acres WHAScore yVI=IA~~~Soui-c~e`=. `ArealVlap#~
5-25,(Formerly E3~9) ~` ~~Yes X12:30 46-47 ~~ ~Estei:~Lev,6, ~Z ~~~-~;`
R-GS-1, 3, 4, 5:, 7)
Description:
Site S-25 (formerly: E-39) consists of segments of the Glenwood Slough near or adjacent t
I~lterstate.,5, Fi°ankl~in Boulevard, Glenwood Boulevard and the`Union Pacific Railroad tracks :~~~
in the Glenwood area. S-25 is generally surrounded by.i»dustrial uses, railroad tracks and a .
Highway. ...
The western portion of S-25 wraps around the Glenwood solid waste transfer station. At its .`.
west end, the slough passes udder d1e WillametteRiv:er I-5 overpass: This western portion-
has been channelized with cement sides.
The porti"ons of'S-25 on either side of"Glenwood Boulevard are more natural a~1d contain ~~
significant :riparian vegetation itlcluding.willows ~(,Scrlrxspp.), black cottonwood-~(P~pulus~
t~°ichoca>'pa), sedge (Crn~ex spp.), rush (Jirncirs spp.), cattails;(Typlra l~itifolicr), and:reed
canarygr•ass-(~'hcxla~is ur•ur~dincrceu). lnterspersion with other natural areas is limited`by I-5
and other adjacent roads, but 5-25's prohimit_y to-the Willamette River may increase the:".
numb~er of wildlifespecies in~ the area.The Division of State Landshas determined that ~~
portions of this site~are regulated~wetlands (W-20,~ W2], and W-22).
The dominant riparian tree 'species include Oregon Ash, Sitka Willow,. Red-Osier Dogwood,
Black Cottonwood, Black Locust and Oregon ,Maple.
No fish survey was conductedfor S-25 arld i is not shown on ODFW maps offish-bearing.. ,
streams. The proxitnityand open connectivity to the Willamette River also suggests that fish
are present in the Slough.: ~ ~ -
Attachment 5-50Attachment 3, Page 153 of 188
Exhibit C-51
Site ListedrLWI.Acres WHA Score WHA Source Area Map# .
S-26 -Yes 56 -17-57 Washburn 6, 7
R-GS-2)v
Description: ~ . .
Site;~S-26.~i~s a~perennial stream thatvaries inwidth between-2-S.feet: It~is bordered tothe..west~~,..
by I-5: Much; of the stream acid the ,defined ..impact area are located within ODOT .right-of-way
a~dj~acent~to I-S.aud beneath the Willamette I-S~Bridge. 5-26is segmented, with~a-462-foot
culvertdividing_thenorthern and southern segments of the stream~._Theilorthernsegrnent of ~,~~
S-26 daylights under the Willamette~I-S:Bridge before continuingnorth to the. Willamette
River.
The dominant riparian tree; species include .Oregon Ash,. Sitka Willow, Red-QOsier Dogwood;
Black Cottonwood, Black Locust, Oregon Maple; and Pacific Willow. ~ ~, ~ ~~
No known-fish. survey was been conducted for 5-26. The stream is not-shown on ODFW mapsHoffsh-bearing streams: There is~: an unnamed. perennialdrainage thatbegins~on the west side ~~ ,~.~
of I=S~(in:;_~ugene) and is culverted -under the freeway where it''converges with the culverted
portion of 5-26~:The Eugene drainage that connects to.S-26 has beendocusnented b~y ODFW ~. ~~
as having cutthroat trout. The,presence of cutthroat in the:Eugene drainage suggests that 5-26
is also fish-bearing... The.proximity and connectivity to the Willamette River also.suggest
that fish ar•e,present in S-26. '~
Site ~Lisfed-LWI Acres `WHAScore~WHA Source AreaMap#~„
5-27 Yes 33 45 Washburn 6, 7 .:.
R-GS-9)
Description: - :.
Site 5-27 ~is a perennial stream segment that conveys water-from the Moon Mt: urea south of I=~~
5. The stream~.is~~largelyculverted fromI-5 to theGlenwood slough, witlioccasional ~ , ~ .
daylighting along the watercourse. ; S-27 .is one of those daylighted s~gi'nents which opens.Tnto°`
a`40~foot wideriparian feature.:'.-The streamsegment i~sabout~274.feet ir1 length arid~~is~
bounded to the north and west by industrial and residetltial development. Some larid to the:
south and east is: undeveloped; but the stream is~~ culverted as it -passes beneath. that area.
S-27 is a dense thicket, dominated by Pacific Willow, Black Cottonwood, Maple species,
Alder species, and Hazelnut trees.' At the time~the stream was assessed (July 2009) the feature ~
was su~fficientlyshrouded" by vegetation~~that the consultants noted that they "couldnot~ see the ~~.
bottom of the drainage due to a steepslope and Salix sp. thicket." ~ ~ ~ :.~~
No. known fish survey was been conducted for 5-27. Lt is not..sh~wn on ODFW maps:offish-~
bearing.streams.'The distance and-lack of open connection to the Glenwood Slough an:d the :. .
Willamette Ri~~er argue against his being classified as a fish-bearing stream.
Attachment 5-51Attachment 3, Page 154 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 155 of 188
Exhibit C-53
Amendments to the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory Site Descriptions [Insert at pg.
303]
t~~~n~~r
C~-r z ra
CAI
f~~--&i~l--t~
Site: W20 ~Type: -Acres:OFWAM:
PSS, PUB 3.73 Locally
Significant
Wetland
Descri tion: '
W-20 is 3.73 acres,and is classified a Palustrine Shrub-Scrub' wetland: The wetland is adjacent°~
to Gicllwood Slough acid the railroad tracks ~ It°is part of the Glenwood Slough. 1t flowsr.-.
northwest into W-21 prior to being- culverted and flowing into he Willamette River: W-20 is..
bisectedby Glenwood~Blvd, but issti11~ hydrologically connected by a culvert. The Slougl is a ~.
topographic bowl. Hydrologicsources-include stormwater from adjacent impervioussurfaces, ~~~
in additionto groundvuater'and~ upslope surface water. A portion of W-20 was previously
delineated (WD96-0375).
The.dominant wetland vegetation includes Oregon Ash; Sitka Willow, Red.-Osier Dogwood,
Field`Mint;~Begger's-Tick; SoftRush and Short Scale Sedge. - ~ ~~ ,~
Soil t : es` include:. Chehalis silt cla loam. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -
Site: W21 Type:Acres:OFWAM:
PSS 47 Locally
Signif cant.'
Wetland
Description: p; . , a
Wetland W-21'is .47acres andisclassificd as a~Palustrine Shrub-Scrub (PSS) wetlarid.EThe
etland is located under and east ofthe Interstate S B`rid e 'ust south of Franklin Blvd. 'W=21
Attachment 5-53Attachment 3, Page 156 of 188
Exhibit C-54
was delineated in 2003 (WD2003-0273) as4pa-t of the ODQT's I-5 bridge project and
Wi llamette: River trail. Tile west portion- was".impacted by construction: of the I-S .temporary
detour bridge.,W-2l~isbounded to the south~~by railroadtracks.~Glenwood~Slougliflows
thr•ough the wetlandas doseveral~ditches used to~convey stormwater.-The wetland islessthan~~
one-half acre and is a judged locally significant wetland because of its hydrologic connection
to the Wi~llamette:River. It isalso connected to'W22 and W23: ~~
The dominant wetland vegetatio 1 includes Oregon Ash, Pacilrc Willow, Black Cottonwood,
Red-Osierpogwood, Slough Sedge, and Creeping ButtercL~p. °~
Soil types ~include:~C}ehalis silty clay loam, Pengra-Urban land complex. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-
Site: W22 Type:Acres:OFWAM:
PFO 2.53 Locally
Sr~rlificant ,:
Wetland
Description: : . ~ _....
Wetland W-22 is 2.53 acres and is classified as a Palustrine Forested wetlands (PFO)-W=22 rs.~`
a:PFO. system Located with a drainage that flows through the'southertl portion. Portjons;of the:. A.
wetland have been.previously delineated (WD's 03-027.3;.00.-0102; 9,8=005.1.). PHS didLL~not
haveaccess~to the easternmost~and~~~southel-n portions o~fW-22,and boundaries were
determined throe h off-site observations revious delineations and aerial hoto ra hg ~P ~ p g p y• ~...
The dorm-pant wetland vegetation includes_OregoniRsh, Pactic Willow, Black Cottonwood,
Red Alder, Clustered Wild` Rose, Red-Osier Dogwood, Slough Sedge, Nipplewor•t and -Soft
Rush • _ y
Soil types include.Chehalis silty clay loam.
Site: W23 Type:;Acres:OFWAM: -
PEM 87 `Locally
Significant
Wetland
Description::.
Wetland W-23 is .87 acres and is classified as Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetland.- ~?V-23 is a
series `of small PEM wetlands located within the ODOT ROW and on private property:,.The
wetlands. were delitleated in 2007 for the I-5 bridge project (WD08-0140): The wetlands are ,.
located at'.the bottom of a steep slope. Hydrology from. the wetlands flows into achannel that.~~
ar•ains o the northwest into the w'illamette River: The wetlands located i~1 the ODOT,ROW
are.. mowed,and maintained.
The dominant wetland vegetation includes Black-Cottonwood, Wild Mint, Begger's Tick,''So,ft -
Rush; Sawbeak~~Sedge, Soft Brome,~ Common Velvet Grass:.English Plantain, Tall Fescue; and~~~
Blue' sass ecies. , -
Attachment 5-54Attachment 3, Page 157 of 188
Exhibit C-55
Soils typesinclude:~Dixonville-Philoinath-Hazelair Complex ~ ~ ~ ~ _
Site:`VV24 Type:Acres:OFWAM:
PFO 51 Locally
Significant .
Wetland
I)escri~tion:: .
W-24~~.5 t acres`.and is~ classified.as a Palustrine: Forested wetland (PFOj.. W-24 is located at .
the bottom of surrounding steep slopes. There is a Harrow intermittent drainage channel~tllat
flowsthrough the i-niddle of-the wetland. This drainage continues,'-east through a long~~'culvert
unde~r:McVay Hwy. and therailroad andout to t}e Willamette River. W-24is located'~between~
I-S and :McVay Hwy. with residential land uses to the north and- south..
The dominant wetland vegetation includes Black Cottonwood, Pacifie Willow, Red=Osier
Dogwood, Deed Canary.Grass,..Water-Parsley, Stinging Nettles; Slough Sedge and--Field
Horsetail. ~ .
a: Soil types nclude~'Dixonville-Philor~ath-Hazelair Complex.. ~ - ~ '
Site: W25 T e:Yp Acres:OFWANI:`e
PFO ~4.31 DoesNotMcct
Significance Criteria -`
Description:
W-25 is adepressional PFO area bounded on all_ sides by ~ra~ilroad tracks. P~HS w~as,able to ~~
view .the wetland from adjacent road ROWS atld the Frariz bakery property to,,the~east. It=is -.
surrounded by adjacent commercial properties vThere is a drainage located,~'along. the southern
portion of the wetland. It flows northwest into°a=large culvert located with.ir`the ROW of ;
Glenwood-Boulevard that is believed to flow'.into the Glenwood Slough (W-20).` ~ ~.
The dominant wetland vegetation includes-:Black Cottonwood, Nootka Rose, Pacific Willow;
Red-Osier Dogwood, Slender Rush, Slough,Sedge,--Wild Mint, Reed Canary Grass,. Water-a
Parsle Deadl Ni7htshade Cree in> Buttercu and Field Horsetail.. ~ ~ ~ ~'~Y> ;, _ Y g ~ p g P~
Soil ;Types include: ~~Chehalissilty-clay loam.
Site: W26 TYPe~,Acres: -OFWAW
PEM 86 es N~~ Meet
SignificanceCritcria
W-26 rs a rrrosaic of 50% wetland and 50% upland located on undevelgped land north of I-S-at
the top of a~steep slope.Itis relatively-flat and appears to have been~significantlydisturbed in ~~~`
the past by scraping.:Plant species, include a rriixture of upland and. wetland species.. Several
areas had mottl.in and oxidized rhinos heres, des ite the:~eneral; lack of dark chromaaoils:..
Attachment 5-55Attachment 3, Page 158 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 159 of 188
Attachment 3, Page 160 of 188
4 w.
Exhibit C-58
W-1) ~~ as inadvertently left ~.-- ~ _ .- _ ,__ ~ _~~. -__ __ _ _ -~ ._ _ _ ._off of his tablein the original-.Springfield Local Wctl~lnd~
Inventor~ r_eport.,Wetlands, W-20 through W-~6 are the revi ed resource sites in the Glenwood
re~..
Attachment 5-58 .Attachment 3, Page 161 of 188
City ofSpringfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 20.11
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the.Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 7 at 7:00 ~p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE `
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Ralston, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Woodrow,
and Pishioneri. Also present were~City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Assistant City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder
Amy Sowa, and members ofthe staff. '
Present from Lane County Board of Commissioners were Board Chair Stewart, and Board.
Members Leiken, Sorenson, Handy, and Bozievich.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
PUBLIC HEARING -JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH LANE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,.~.;
1. Glenwood Update of the Springfield Natural Resources Study and Related Inventory
Documents, Which are Components of the Metro Plan. Planning File No. LRP2010-0002.
ORDINANCE NO. 1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITANPLANTO UPDATE THE SPRINGFIELD LOCAL WETLAND
INVENTORY, THE SPRINGFIELD INVENTORY OF NATURAL .RESOURCE SITES
AND THE SPRINGFIELD NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY TO INCLUDE NEWLY
IDENTIFIED WETLAND AND RIPARIAN SITES IN THE GLENWOOD AREA• TO
ADOPT PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE NEW GLENWOOD SITES AND TO
UPDATE_THE BOUNDARIES OF KNOWN SITES; AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (FIRST READTNG~
City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staffreport on this item. Lane County Planner
Stephanie Schulz also sat at the table with Mr. Metzger. A new inventory of wetlands and riparian
corridors in Glenwood had identifed four new wetlands and three new. riparian sites that were not
currently included in Springfield's resource inventory and protection program. The proposed
amendments were insert pages and replacement pages that would update Springfield's Local
Wetland Inventory, the Springfield Inventory ofNatural Resource Sites (Riparian Inventory) and.
the Springfield Natural Resources Study to include the' Glenwood sites. These documents were
previously adopted as components ofthe Metro Plan (as part of the last periodic review process).
To become effective throughout Glenwood, the amendments'must be approved by the. City
Council. and the Board of County Commissioners.. -
Attachment 3, Page 162 of 188
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes -
February 7, 2011
Page 2
Three mailed notices and two public open houses were used to explain these amendments to
affected Glenwood owners and residents over the last 11 months. Only about 3.3 acres of
developable land were affected by the inventory additions and recommended new protections.
The Springfield Planning Commission conducted 'a public hearing on the matter on January 19,
2011. The actual amendments were minor in scope and impact and accordingly, no public
testimony had been received. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that .
the Council and the Commissioners approve the proposed Glenwood natural resource ~'
amendments. ..
Mr. Metzger said Glenwood sites were mentioned in the current document, but with the
Glenwood Refinement Plan Update, they determined that the natural resource inventories were
deficient. When the Springfield Natural Resource Study was originally drafted., Eugene had
jurisdiction of Glenwood until the late 1990's when there was a jurisdictional transfer to
Springfield. At that time, they took the natural resource inventory information Eugene had and
incorporated it into Springfield's documents. They were aware it was not complete, and this
amendment would update those inventories. Staff was taking the opportunity, .with the update of
the Glenwood Plan, to go back and do more thorough analysis of the wetland riparian areas in
Glenwood. That work was completed almost a year ago 'and the results were taken to Glenwood
residents. They identifed four new wetland areas and three new riparian areas and discussed-
those with the Glenwood residents. Necessary papers were filed to update our Local Wetland
Inventory with the Oregon Department of State Lands last summer. Legal notices were also
mailed out to Glenwood residents. Another open house was held a few weeks ago with Glenwood
residents.
Mr. Metzger said staff was bringing forward insert sheets that would go into the notebook,
replacing some Glenwood information and providing additional information. In addition to the
Inventory book, there was a Local Wetland Inventory and Inventory of Natural Resource Sites.
The volume ofmaterial provided with the packet was not an indication of the number of changes,
but was required. The City was required to do in depth analysis, and out of that analysis came the
recommendation for action at the proposed sites. Staff was recommending that they keep the 50
foot setbacks 'as noted in the existing stormwater management program, and a 2~ foot ~.
development setback fore-the new sites.
Mr. Metzger referred to page 3 of the Executive Summary, Attachment 2 ofthe agenda packet.
He discussed Table 1 which showed acreage affected by Glenwood wetland and riparian . .
amendments, and explained each of the figures. He also discussed Table 2 which showed the
affected acreage outside ofright-of--ways. The total number ofacreage affected was about 58
acres, but subtracting out those within right-of--way where building couldn't occur anyway, the
figure was about 34 acres. People wanted to know how it affected their land ifthey chose to .
develop. For lands that were vacant or redevelopable and not in aright-of--way, the acreage was .
about 10.8 acres. Most sites proposed were already protected. He further described the impact.
Protection measures were not retroactive, but would affect future development or redevelopment
of existing properties. Since 2005, Franz Bakery and FedEx had moved into the area and although
their sites were affected by the wetlands, were able to work with those and build.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how many residential properties would be affected in the figure of 3.3
acres ofresidential. He asked the same. question regarding industrial property.
Attachment 3, Page 163 of 188
City of Springfield ;
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 7, 2011
Page 3
Mr. Metzger said he didn't know exactly how many, but it could be about two or three in
residential. He knew ofone residence that was an established home and the back yard backed up
to one ofthe proposed sites.
Councilor Pishioneri wanted to determine the type of affect this would have on those living there.
Mr. Metzger said he couldn't say how many lots without looking at ,the spreadsheet.
Commissioner Leiken said Glenwood residents had usually been forthcoming when something
affected them. He asked if staff had received any response from the citizens that would be
affected, or if they had a, sense of the overall attitude of the residents.
Mr. Metzger said this process had been going on for some time. About 30 people attended the
first open house and staff answered their questions in a way that made sense to those citizens: The
Pape family, one of the industrial use.. property owners, was concerned about a wetland identified
by the inventory that didn't, by State criteria, rise to the level of being called a locally significant
wetland. That term was defined by the State. There was a wetland on their property that was not
significant, so they were.: given the option of working with the State. Often in cases where a
wetland was not locally significant, the State would work with the property owner to allow
mitigation and make use ofthe property. With each mail notice that went out, they had people
calling asking questions. With the most recent mailing, theyreceived only 3 phone calls. Notices
went to people with properties within a 300 foot buffer of affected properties, but were not
actually affected. There was only one person at the last open house, and there was no one at the
Planning Commission who spoke in opposition. Notices were mailed to residents and' were placed
in the newspaper.
Commissioner Leiken said he appreciated that. Glenwood residents were close knit and talked
with each other about issues. This was a lot ofwork to satisfy the goals.
Commissioner Handy referred to Table 1 page 3 of Attachment 2 and asked about the figures and .
how the additional acres were calculated to address the 50 foot setback.
Mr. Metzger said these features were long and linear so the 50 foot stretch over a "long distance
accumulated more acres., Staff used GIS and the buffering function to establish that acreage. '"
Commissioner Handy asked about draft finding number 58 listed on page 22, which stated,
Based on our review ofpotential riparian~widths within Glenwood's more urbanized center, the
majority of the riparian areas are already developed: houses, industrial development, and
impervious surfaces encompass much ofthe riparian corridors. It is likely that designating up to
120-foot wide riparian corridors :...within already developed areas will not result in additional
riparian protection." He asked Mr. Metzger to explain that finding.
Mr. Metzger said Pacific Habitat Services was hired by the State to train people how to do
wetland delineation and riparian studies. They did the work in Glenwood. One common approach
to defining riparian width was to look at the site potential tree height of 120 feet. The City could
go that way using the 120 foot riparian width; but in the context ofthese particular wetlands and
riparian areas inland in development areas, the additional distance would not result in additional
protection. He wanted to emphasize that in their opinion, setting 120 foot wide riparian widths
inland would, in this context, not achieve more protection.
Attachment 3, Page 164 of 188
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 7, 2011
Page 4
Commissioner Handy asked about finding 60, on page 22 of Attachment 2, which stated, "The
City of Springfield has already taken action to revise its Development Code to respond to
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II, the Clean Water Act, the
DrinkingWater Protection Act, and is in the process of devising a response to the Endangered
Species Act for listed species in our area. The proposed amendments do not change this response
to these federal regulations."
Mr. Metzger said the. protections proposed tonight were not related to a response to the NPDES.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No. one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
Mayor Lundberg noted that this was a first reading for Springfield and no action was required.
Councilor Moore said she appreciated having the minutes from the Planning Commission
meeting in the agenda packet.
Board Chair Stewart asked ifLane County needed to take action tonight..
Mr. Metzger said the City Council would hold a second reading. He understood from Lane .
County staffthat the Board preferred to~take action after the City of Springfield. He would notify
Ms. Schulz once that action was taken.
Discussion was held regarding when this would come back to the County for their second and
third readings.
Mr. Metzger said the second reading-for Springfield could be scheduled for February 22. He
would notify Lane County staff once the decision was made so they could report to the Board
during their first meeting after February 22.
BOARD CHAIR STEWART READ INTO THE RECORD ORDINANCE NO. PA-1277 IN
THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD LOCAL WETLAND
INVENTORY, THE SPRIl`TGFIELD INVENTORY OF NATURAL RESOURCE SITES,
AND THE SPRINGFIELD NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY, TO INCLUDE NEWLY
IDENTIFIED WETLAND AND RIPARIAN SITES AND TO UPDATE THE
BOUNDARIES OF KNOWN SITES WITHIN THE GLENWOOD AREA, AND
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. APPLICANT: SPRINGFIELD, FILE NO. PA -
10-6053) FOR THE SECOND READING, SET THE TIHRD READING AND LEAVE
THE RECORD OPEIVT UNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 2011. THE ACTION WAS MOVED BY
COMMISSIONER LEIKEN WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOZIEVICH.
THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
7:35 p.m.: The County Commissioners adjourned and left the meeting.
7:39 p.m.: The Springfield City Council resumed their meeting.
i
Attachment 3, Page 165 of 188
oo
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OFTHE CITY OFSPRINGFIELD
JO.NO.LRP2010-00002—INDINGS,CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
This proposal seeks to amend the Metro Plan by adopting amendments to the "Springfield Local Wetland Inventory,"the "Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites,"and the "Springfield Natural Resources Study."TheamendmentsaddnewlyidentifiedGlenwoodwetlandandripariansitestothesedocumentsandupdatetheboundariesofpreviouslyinventoriedsites.The amendments also Include protective setbacks for the newly identifiedsiteswhicharethesimilartothoseappliedtootherSpringfieldwetlandsandripariansites.
The proposed amendments will go with the Planning Commission's recommendation to boththe Springfield CityCouncilandtheLaneCountyBoardofCommissionersforapprovalsincesomeoftheresourcesitesareoutsideof thecitylimitsbutwithintheSpringfieldUGB.Separate but substantively identicalordinances for the proposedamendmentswillbepreparedforadoptionbytheCityandCountyforsiteswithinthecitylimitsandthosewithinoutsideofthecitylimitsbutwithintheSpringfieldUGB.
The application conforms to the provisions of Section 5.4-105 of the Springfield Development Code.Timely andsufficientnoticeofthepublichearing,pursuant to Section 5.2-115 of the Springfield Development Code wasprovided.
1.
OnJanuary 19,2011,a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory,the Springfield Inventoryj of Natural Resource Sites,and the Springfield Natural Resources Study was held.TheDevelopmentServicesstaffnotes,Includingcriteria of approval,findings,and recommendations,together withthetestimonyandsubmittalsofthosepersonstestifyingatthehearingorinwriting,have been considered andarepartoftherecordofthisproceeding.
2.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record,the proposal to amend the Metro Plan by adoption of amendments to the Springfield LocalWetlandInventory,the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites,and theSpringfield Natural Resources Study is.consistent with the criteria ofapproval for such amendmentsfoundin Section5.6-110 ofthe Springfield DevelopmentCode.Thisgeneral finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff Report and attachedhereto.
RECOMMENDATIONS
it is RECOMMENDED by the PlanningCommission ofSpringfield that Journal Number LRP2010-00002,Amendments to•the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory,the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites,and the Springfield NaturalResourcesStudytoaddnewlyIdentifiedsitesandtoupdatetheboundariesforpreviouslyinventoriedGlenwoodsites,be (approved),(be approved with revisions)(be denied)by the Springfield City Council.
This RECOMMENDATION was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission onJanuary 19,2011.
ATTEST:
WES:
ROES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
<1
ng Commission Chairperson
Date Received:jdllljlPlanner:MEM 1Attachment8-1
Attachment 3, Page 166 of 188
o o 'Si
EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF
THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD
Wednesday,19,2011
DRAFT
The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in Regular Session in the City Council Chambers at the
Springfield City Hall,225 Fifth Street,Springfield,Oregon on Wednesday,January 19,2011at 7:00 p.m.,
with Frank Cross as PlanningCommission Chair.The minutes below cover the portion of the meeting
agenda concerned with the agenda item:"Springfield Natural Resources Study Glenwood Update.File
No.LRP2Q1Q-00Q02."
ATTENDANCE
Present:Chair Frank Cross;Vice Chair Johnny Kirschenmann;and Planning Commissioners Gregory
James;Denise Bean;Bob Brew;Stacy Halladay;and Steve Moe.Absent:None
Staff in Attendance:James Donovan,Planning Manager;Mark Metzger,Planner III;Administrative
Specialist Brenda Jones,and Mary Bridgette Smith,Assistant City Attorney.
Springfield Natural Resources Study Glenwood Update File No.LRP2010-00002
Opening of the Public Hearing
•Mary Bridget Smith,Assistant City Attorney,instructed the Commission and audience on
procedural requirements to be followed for quasi-judicial hearings.
•Chair Cross opened the hearing and asked if there were any declarations of exparte contact.
None were offered.:
STAFF REPORT•Mark Metzger provided background and a summary of the proposed amendments to the
Springfield Local Wetland Inventory,Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites and the
Springfield Natural Resources Study.!
rI"-.
•The amendments stem from wetland and riparian inventory work commissioned by the City for
the Glenwood area in preparation for an update of the Glenwood Refinement Plan.It was
explained that when the Springfield wetland and riparian inventories were adopted,a
comprehensive inventory for Glenwoodhad not been completed.Glenwood was under the
planning jurisdiction of the City of Eugene until 1999 when it was transferred to Springfield.
•Pacific Habitat Services and Lane Councilof Governments provided new information which
confirmed the location and boundaries of the wetlands and riparian corridors that had been
previously inventoried andprovided the mapping and analysis needed for the City to update its
natural resource inventories to include four new wetlands and three new riparian sites.
•Staff explained that in addition to the inventory and mapping of the new sites,the proposed
amendments included recommendations for protecting the newly identified sites.Staff also
explained that the proposed protections follow the policies adapted city wide in 2005.It was
pointed out that several of that five of the seven new sites are already protected by 50-foot
i
Attachment 8-2.«.»•4•-#'
Attachment 3, Page 167 of 188
oo
development setbacks that were adopted by Council in These protections rely upon existingstormwatermanagementsetbacksandpoliciesthatwereadoptedbyCouncilin2002,which callfor50-foot deve opment setbacks.
•The total acreage affected by the footprint and recommended protections is about 58.54 acres.Much of this land is located within the railroad right-of-way and ODOTright of way.Much ofthelandisalsoisalsoalreadydeveloped.About 10.87 acres of land are outside of the right ofwaysandarevacantorredevelopment.Most of the 10.87 acres is already protected by the2002stormwaterprotections.Only about 3.3 acres of land are vacant and not alreadyprotected.
•In response to the mailed notice to property owners and residents living within 300-feet of theGlenwoodsite,staff received three phone calls and one e-mail asking about the impact of theproposedamendmentsandrecommendedprotections.Two of the three calls were from FranzBakeryandFedExmanagers,inquiring about potential impacts.Both of these businesses builtfacilitiesinGlenwoodadjacenttoriparianandwetlandsitesthatarepartoftheseamendments.Both entities incorporated the 50-foot protective setbacks into the design for their facilities.These businesses will not be affected by the protections unless they choose to expand theirfacilities,in which case they must continue to observe the established setback.The third phonecallwasfromacitizenwholivesacrosstherailroadtrackfromoneofthewetlandsites.Staffassuredhimthattheamendmentswouldhavenodirectimpactonhisproperty.
•Staff explained that if a person's property is inundated by a resource area and its protectionssuchthatallreal'development value is lost,there is a process by which that owner can seekrelief.Springfield's protection program and state planning law allow for a variance to theprotectivesetbackstoallowpropertyownerstoreceivesomeeconomicreturnontheir
property.This return may not be ail that the owner would like,but the policy seeks to makeapplicationoftheprotectionsfairtothoseaffected.
•The proposal tonightis to amend the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory,the SpringfieldInventoryofNaturalResourceSitesandtheSpringfieldNaturalResourcesStudytoinclude thenewlyidentifiedGlenwoodwetlandandripariansitesandtheirprotections.-..'i:.7 :,"r.v
•Staff is recommending that the existing 50-foot development setbacks established through the2002stormwaterjmanagementprogrambeacceptedassufficientfortheGlenwoodsiteswheretheyapplyandthat25-foot setbacks be applied to the two sites which are not alreadyprotected.
Staff directed Commissioners to the maps in their packets starting on page 1-6 of their packets.Staffwentthrougheachofthemapsandpointedoutthelocationofeachofthewetlandandriparianareasthatarethesubjectoftheamendmentsanddescribedtheproposedprotections.Staff noted those siteswhicharealreadyprotectedandthosewhicharenotcurrentlyprotected.Staff noted that several ofthewetlandandripariansitesoverlap,which is common.
The proposed amendments are insert sheets and replacement pages that will gointo the variousdocumentsmentionedbystaff.Staff concluded by stating that there is sufficient findingsand evidence
Attachment 8-3
Attachment 3, Page 168 of 188
o o
provided in the staff report and attached materials to support a recommendation to approve the
proposed amendments.Staff concluded its remarks and stood for questions.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION
•Commissioner Kirschenmann pointed out that two of the sites in the summary tables had an
asterisk that indicted that they were going from a 50-foot setback to a 25-foot setback.Staff
explained that the asteriskindicate that two of the sites were protected in part by 50-foot
setbacks but that portions of the sites were without protection.The proposed amendments
would keep the existing50-foot setback and apply 25-foot setbacks to those portions that are
not protected.
•Commissioner Brew -With the addition of sites S27 and S28 which are proposed for 25-foot
setbacks,is the council going to see changes to the stormwater plan.Staff explained that the
stormwater management program that was adopted in 2002,identified the larger,more
important drainageways and riparian corridors.S27 and S28 are smaller resource features that
were not included in the stormwater plan.This doesn't mean that that plan missed these sites
and need to be corrected.The Glenwood inventory work used a finer toothed comb to identify
sites with resource value.The smaller sites and fragments of sites recommended for protection
by 25-foot setbacks are worthy of protection,but staff believes that the recommended 25-foot
setback is adequate.
•Commissioner Brew noted that on page 1-30,W19 wasleft off the local inventory.Is this
housekeeping?Staff responded that W19 was inadvertently left off of the summary tables and
staff wanted to use this opportunity to correct the oversight.
•Commissioner Brew asked staff to clarify the boiler plate language used to describe theImpact
that protecting each site would have on buildable land inventories.Staff described how parcel
specific information obtained from the Lane County Assessor's Office was used to identify
whether land is currently vacant or developed.Staff also explained that an assumption was
made that 'Tract Land"identified by the Assessor is re-developable.The Assessor's database
includes property class code numbers that indicate whether a property is vacant or developed
and whether it is residential,commercial or industrial.Using GIS in conjunction with the
Assessor's information,staff south to quantify the impact of the protecting the proposed sites.
Staff indicated that the database and GIS information was used in place of site visits and
measurements.The goal was to provide a reasonably accurate assessment of the impact of the
amendments.
:•
•Commissioner Bean sought to affirm that existing properties with owners wouldn't be affected
by the protections until they want to do something.Staff responded that properties would be
affected if they wanted to build structures that create impervious surfaces within the setbacks.
Structures or landscapingthat do not create impervious surfaces may be allowed.
!
I
•Commissioner Moe expressed a concern that once the resource footprints are placed in the
record,they may affect property in the future.He stated that people may not realize that these
protections could impact them in the future when they want to do something.Staff responded
by indicating that one reason for the lack of participation in the hearing may due to the public
Attachment 8-4
Attachment 3, Page 169 of 188
oo4)
meetings and communications with residents and owners that preceded the hearing.Public
meetings were held as far back a February 2010 to alert citizens to the presence of the resource
sites on or near their property and the impact that protections may have on them.More than
30 persons participated in the February meeting.As late as January 11th,a drop-in session was
held to discuss the amendments with affected residents and owners.One citizen participated.
•Commissioner Salladay asked for confirmation that the proposed amendments did not land lock
any properties.Mark responded that nothing we are doing tonight will land lock any property.i
i •Commissioner James asked a procedural question,referring to Finding #62 on page 1-23.He
asked if staffhad spoken to Greg Hyde with Willamalane about the section in the staff report
discussing impact on recreational facilities.Staff indicated that the 2004 Willamalane
Comprehensive Park Plan was used to identify future park facilities.The Willamalane Plan is an
adopted Metro [j'lan document that includes a map showing future park facilities.The Plan map
did not show any of the sites conflicting with future Willamalane facilities.
•Chair Cross asked about why staff indicated that there would only be a 3.3 acre impact on
vacant land and no impact on developed land was provided.Staff indicated that in the summary
tables at the beginning of the staff report focused on the vacant/re-developable acres in
anticipation of the Planning Commission's interest and because state law requires a calculation
of the estimated impact of protections for each site on the buildable lands inventory.Staff
directed the Commissioners to Attachment 1-58 through 1-60 to show that the amendments
include insert sheets whichindeed show the impact on developed property as well as vacant
property.In this case the insert sheets for wetland W23 were used to show the Commissioners
where the estimated impact on both vacant land and developed land could be found.
•Staff reiterated that Exhibits A,B,and C are the insert and replacement pages that willgo into
the original documents.
•Chair Cross directed staff to page 1-21and asked what the difference is between an impact area
and a setback.Staff responded that an impact area is the area around a resource feature within
which development might affect the resource.Identifying an impact area is required by state....
planning law.Staff researched professional literature to determine an appropriate impact area
to adopt.In this1case ISO-feet.Impact areas are not development setbacks.They provide a
focus within which to conduct the required wetland and riparian analysis.
•Brew asked about how setbacks are measured.Where do you start?Staff indicated that
riparian setbacks are measured from "top-of-bank."Top-of-bank is defined in the Development
Code.Wetlands are measured from the delineated edge of the wetland.Determining the
delineated edge of a wetland requires the services of a soil scientist who examines soil types
and vegetation types to establish where a wetland starts and stops.!
•Chair Cross asked about a number of misspellings in the staff report.Staff explained that an
unexplained glitch occurred in the conversion of the Microsoft Word document to a .pdf
document for printing.In several instances the first letter of a word was replaced with a
random letter.These were not typographical errors,but a function of the conversion to .pdf.
Staff referred the Commissioners to an errata sheet that was handed out to correct a more
Attachment 8-5
Attachment 3, Page 170 of 188
II
c
tL <
l »
T'
serious fragmentation of Finding #32 which made it unreadable.The errata sheet does not
correct each instance where a single letter was replaced.The sheet does provide the content of
Finding #32.
3
•Staff reiterated that the role of the Commission the action was not to approve it,but to forward
a recommendation to the City Council and to the Lane County Board of Commissioners.1
SUMMATION FROM STAFF•None
REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT•None
:CLOSE OF THE HEARING•The hearing was closed by Chair Cross.
>;
i PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION•NonetJ:
MOTION•Moe made a motion to approve Springfield Natural Resources Study Glenwood Update,File No.
LRP2010-00002.•Commissioner Bean seconded the motion.•The proposal was approved by a vote of 7:0:0
;
.
i1J•i-i
1
i.
II:
III
f l \'1 i r .
i •i
HI ;
i.
..
i!I
!iJ 1.:
i
ii
iiT
I
;
i
Attachment 8-6•I•;li4
Attachment 3, Page 171 of 188
Section 4.3-100 Infrastructure Standards—Utilities
4.3-110 Stormwater Management
A. Stormwater Management Regulations. By implementing the policies set forth in the currently
approved Stormwater Management Plan, provide for the effective management of stormwater and
drainage from the City into the groundwater and watercourses within the City and its urbanizing area;
minimize demand on the City’s stormwater management system, and alleviate future costs of treating the
discharge; promote water quality; preserve groundwater and the vegetation and rivers it supports;
reduce peak storm flows; minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions; and minimize
stormwater discharge impacts on water quality and quantity and stream flow patterns, including peak
and base flows in intermittent and perennial streams, within the McKenzie River and Willamette River
watersheds.
B. The Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or
private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works
Director, consistent with the policies set forth in the Stormwater Management Plan and the Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual. The stormwater management system shall be separated from
any sanitary sewer system. Surface water drainage patterns shall be addressed on every Preliminary Site
Plan, or Tentative Partition or Subdivision Plan.
C. A stormwater management system shall accommodate potential run-off from its entire upstream
drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. The Public Works Director shall determine
the necessary size of the facility, based on adopted Public Facility Plans and Stormwater Facility Master
Plans. The developer shall pay a proportional share of the cost according to adopted City Council policy.
D. Run-off from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system
with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Where the Public Works Director determines that the
additional run-off resulting from the development will overload an existing stormwater management
system, the Approval Authority shall withhold Development Approval until provisions, consistent with
the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, have been made to correct or mitigate this
condition.
E. Any development with a stormwater threshold management requirement of 1,000 square feet of
impervious surface area shall be required to employ stormwater management practices consistent with
the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, which minimize the amount and
rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams. The following stormwater management practices
may be required in order to relieve demand on the City’s piped drainage system, alleviate future costs of
treating the piped discharge, promote water quality, preserve groundwater and the vegetation and rivers
it supports, and reduce peak storm flows:
1. Temporary ponding of water;
2. Permanent storage basins;
3. Minimizing impervious surfaces;
Attachment 3, Page 172 of 188
4. Emphasizing natural water percolation and natural drainageways;
5. Preventing water flowing from the street in an uncontrolled fashion;
6. Stabilizing natural drainageways as necessary below drainage and culvert discharge
points for a distance sufficient to convey the discharge without channel erosion, as
permitted/allowed by City, State and Federal regulations;
7. On-site filtration or skimming of run-off, that will enter natural drainageways to maintain
water quality;
8. On-site constructed wetlands; and
9. The riparian area boundary, as specified in Subsection 4.3-115A., may be utilized to
meet City on-site stormwater management requirements for flood control and water quality
treatment provided the design is complementary to and supportive of the primary objective of a
properly functioning riparian habitat condition. Where the riparian boundary is not of sufficient
size to meet these on-site requirements, the additional area needed shall be located contiguous
to the riparian boundary to form a consolidated stormwater feature for operational and
maintenance efficiencies and that is designed to be compatible with and complementary to the
riparian area boundary.
F. Identification of Water Quality Limited Watercourses. The Director shall maintain a Water Quality
Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map on file in the Development Services Department, which designates
certain watercourses and their direct tributaries within the City and its urbanizing area. The WQLW Map
shall contain watercourses recommended by the Public Works Director. Any revision to the WQLW Map
shall be approved by the City Council as an amendment to this Code. Those watercourses and their direct
tributaries included on the WQLW Map have been found to warrant protective measures in support of the
City’s response to State and federal regulations regarding surface and subsurface discharging stormwater
management systems by satisfying the following criteria:
1. Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW): Waters of the State that meet one or more
of the following criteria:
a. Watercourse reaches, lying within the City and its urbanizing area, that are
included by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on its
most recently adopted “303(d)” List of Impaired and Threatened Waterbodies.
b. Watercourse reaches, lying within the City and its urbanizing area, with
significant water quality impairment identified by water quality monitoring and sampling
done in accordance with approved quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols.
2. A direct tributary to a WQLW that satisfies the following criteria:
a. Any watercourse that flows directly into a WQLW.
Attachment 3, Page 173 of 188
EXCEPTION: Those watercourses that flow into the WQLW as a piped connection,
where the pipe system extends more than 200 feet upstream of the connection point.
b. Any watercourse that is a diversion from a WQLW and that discharges into either
a WQLW or other direct tributary to a WQLW and where the water quality of the diverted
flow at the discharge point has been degraded when compared with the water quality at
the diversion point.
G. Protection of Riparian Area Functions. A developer shall be required to employ site design,
landscaping, and drainage management practices to protect, preserve, and restore the riparian area
functions of the reaches of those watercourses shown on the WQLW Map that are contained within or
abut the lot/parcel upon which the proposed development is located. For the purposes of this Code,
riparian area functions shall include, but are not limited to:
1. Maintaining temperature;
2. Maintaining channel stability;
3. Providing flood storage;
4. Providing groundwater recharge;
5. Removing sediments;
6. Reducing contaminants, for example: excess nutrients; oils and grease; metals; and fecal
coliform;
7. Moderating stormwater flows; and
8. Providing fish and wildlife habitat. (6279; 6249; 6238)
4.3-115 Water Quality Protection
These regulations apply water quality protection to only those sites that require Site Plan Review approval as
specified in Section 5.17-100, and Land Divisions (Partition Tentative Plan and Subdivision Tentative Plan)
approval as specified in Section 5.12-100. The following standards do not apply to single-family homes and
duplexes in the Low Density Residential District as of July 15, 2002, unless as specified in Subsection 4.3-115A.1.
Existing buildings that are within the riparian areas specified in Subsections 4.3-115A.1. and 2. shall not be
considered non-conforming. Subsections 4.3-115A.2.a. and b. provide additional protection from a non-
conforming status.
A. When addressing criterion E. (as specified in Sections 5.12-125 and 5.17-125) to protect riparian
areas along watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map, the following
riparian area boundaries shall be utilized:
Attachment 3, Page 174 of 188
1. Along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average annual stream flow
greater than 1,000 cubic feet per second (CFS), the riparian area boundary shall be 75 feet
landward from the top of the bank. Existing native vegetative ground cover and trees shall be
preserved, conserved, and maintained between the ordinary low water line and the top of bank
and 75 feet landward from the top of bank.
EXCEPTION: Within the Willamette Greenway, any change or intensification of use to a single-
family home or duplex requires Site Plan Review as specified in Section 3.3-315. In this case, the
Director may reduce the size of the required riparian area if there is a finding that the proposed
development is in compliance with Section 3.3-300, the Willamette Greenway Overlay District,
Section 3.2-280 and other applicable provisions of this Code.
2. Along all watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average annual stream flow less
than 1,000 CFS the riparian area boundary shall be 50 feet landward from the top of the bank.
Existing native vegetative ground cover and trees shall be preserved, conserved, and maintained
both between the ordinary low water line and the top of bank and 50 feet landward from the top
of bank.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. For all watercourses subject to Subsection 4.3-115A.2., other than the Mill Race
or Cedar Creek, the 50-foot riparian area standard may be reduced to 35 feet, provided
an equivalent amount and function of pervious land is established elsewhere on the
property that utilizes water quality measures including, but not limited to: wetlands;
bioswales; and additional trees, especially in parking areas, exclusive of otherwise
required water quality measures and landscape areas. The burden of proof shall be on
the applicant to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director,
equivalency in relation to both the amount of pervious land (as specified above) and
riparian area function (as specified in Section 4.3-110G.).
b. An existing building within a riparian area shall not be considered a non-
conforming use if destroyed by earthquake, flood or other natural disaster, or fire. In this
case, the replacement building may be constructed within the same footprint as the
existing building. If the building is within the Willamette Greenway, the standards in
Section 3.3-300, Willamette Greenway Overlay District apply.
3. Where a watercourse divides a lot/parcel and the existing riparian area along that
watercourse is degraded in riparian function, the applicant may relocate the watercourse to
another portion of the property as approved by the Public Works Director and applicable State or
Federal agency.
4. If an expansion of the riparian area described in Subsections 4.3-115A.1. and 2. occurs
as a result of a Federal or State agency permit process, the applicant shall:
a. Resubmit the preliminary Site Plan for additional review, as specified in Section
5.17-105;
Attachment 3, Page 175 of 188
b. Submit a Site Plan Modification application, as specified in Section 5.17-145; or
c. Resubmit the Tentative Plan for additional review as specified in Section 5.12-
105.
B. Permitted Uses in Riparian Areas. The following uses are permitted in riparian areas as long as
they do not diminish riparian functions:
1. The planting of trees and native vegetation to promote bank stability, enhance riparian
areas, minimize erosion, preserve water quality and protect federally listed species. Trees may be
clustered to allow the preservation of views; or to allow maintenance vehicles to approach City
maintained stormwater facilities including detention basins, outfalls, culverts and similar
stormwater facilities as may be permitted by the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual.
2. The felling of hazardous trees for safety reasons as specified in Section 5.19-100, Tree
Felling.
3. Riparian area restoration and enhancement including the removal of invasive plant
species, where necessary.
4. Flood control structures, where necessary.
5. Stormwater management systems and outfalls, as specified in the
Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual or as required by other
regulating authorities.
6. Multi-use paths for pedestrian and/or bicycle use shall be permitted, provided that the
multi-use path drains away from the watercourse. Multi-use paths shall be located along the
outer edge of the required riparian area and away from the watercourse. The multi-use path shall
be located at the outermost edge of the 75-foot-wide Riparian Setback to the maximum extent
practicable. Utilities may be extended within a multi-use path.
7. Water-dependent or water-related uses between the Willamette River and the Greenway
Setback Line as may be permitted in the Willamette Greenway Overlay District.
8. Private driveways, public street crossings, bridges and necessary culverts when there is
no other vehicle access to the property. Crossings shall be preferably at right angles to the
watercourse. Public and private utilities shall be permitted within the driveway, public street or
bridge right-of-way.
9. Repair, replacement or improvement of utility facilities as long as the riparian area is
restored to its original condition.
Attachment 3, Page 176 of 188
10. Routine repair and maintenance of existing structures, streets, driveways, utilities,
accessory uses and other similar facilities.
11. Other activities similar to those listed above that do not diminish riparian function. The
Director shall make the interpretations as specified in Section 5.11-100.
C. For protection of water quality and protection of riparian area functions as specified in Section
4.3-110, the following standards apply:
1. Avoid development or redevelopment in the following circumstances:
a. Unsuitable areas, including, but not limited to, unstable slopes, wetlands and
riparian areas;
b. Stream Crossings. Where crossings have to be provided, the impacts on water
quality shall be minimized; and
c. Hardening or armoring of stream banks and shorelines.
2. Prevent:
a. Stormwater discharge impacts to water quality and quantity; and
b. Erosion and sediment run-off during and after construction.
3. Protect:
a. Riparian areas, buffers and functions around all watercourses; and
b. Wetlands, wetland buffers and wetland functions.
4. Preserve the hydrologic capacity of any watercourses.
5. Utilize Native Vegetation in Riparian Areas. The required riparian area landscaping shall
be installed as part of the building permit process and may be bonded as specified in Section
5.17-150.
6. Restore and enhance riparian areas that are degraded in riparian function.
7. In applying Subsections 4.3-115C.1. through 6., riparian area protection, preservation,
restoration and enhancement measures shall be applied as follows:
a. For new development and redevelopment, existing riparian area functions shall
be protected and preserved. Degraded functions shall be restored or enhanced through
the full riparian area width, as specified in Subsections 4.3-115A.1. and 2., and extending
Attachment 3, Page 177 of 188
through the full frontage of the lot/parcel along the watercourse on the Water Quality
Limited Watercourse (WQLW) Map.
b. For additions and expansions on any portion of a lot/parcel, existing riparian
area functions shall be protected and preserved through the full riparian area width
specified in Subsections 4.3-115A.1. and 2., and extending through the full frontage of
the lot/parcel along the watercourse on the WQLW Map.
c. For additions and expansions within 100 feet of a watercourse on the WQLW
Map on a lot/parcel that has degraded riparian functions, the area for restoration or
enhancement shall be based upon the ratio of the impervious area of the addition or
expansion to the existing building or impervious area on the lot/parcel. The restoration or
enhancement shall start at the top of bank of the watercourse and work landward.
(6316; 6279)
4.3-117 Natural Resource Protection Areas
A. The purpose of this Subsection is to protect identified natural resources in order to:
1. Implement the goals and policies of the Metro Plan;
2. Satisfy the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5;
3. Safeguard the City’s locally significant wetland and riparian areas, especially the
hydrologic and ecologic functions these areas provide for the community;
4. Safeguard fish and wildlife habitat;
5. Safeguard water quality and natural hydrology, to control erosion and sedimentation, and
to reduce the adverse effects of flooding;
6. Safeguard the amenity values and educational opportunities for City’s wetlands and
riparian areas for the community; and
7. Improve and promote coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies regarding
development activities near wetlands and riparian areas.
B. This Subsection shall apply to natural resource protection areas that include land within the
wetland and/or the riparian resource boundary and the development setback area, specifically:
1. Locally significant protected wetlands, listed in the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory
and shown on the Local Wetland Inventory Map.
Attachment 3, Page 178 of 188
a. The City shall determine which wetlands are locally significant through
application of the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology to the Local
Wetland Inventory.
b. Inventoried wetlands which are not deemed to be locally significant shall not be
subject to the development setbacks and other protections described in this Subsection,
but shall continue to be protected under permitting authority of applicable Federal and
State agencies.
c. During the application review process, if a property is found to contain a wetland
that has not been inventoried, the applicable Federal and State agencies shall be notified.
Based upon the Federal and State agency review, both the Springfield Local Wetland
Inventory and the Local Wetland Inventory Map may require amendment.
2. Locally significant protected riparian areas, listed in the Springfield Inventory of Natural
Resource Sites and shown on the Natural Resources Inventory Map. The City has determined
which riparian areas are significant in accordance with rules adopted by the Oregon Department
of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).
3. EXCEPTIONS: The protections described in this Subsection shall not apply to:
a. Properties that received development approval or were submitted for processing
before December 28, 2005.
b. Properties with approved wetland or riparian fill and mitigation plans, permits or
other approved actions issued by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and or
the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) or other approving authority with jurisdiction over
wetland and riparian resources.
c. Sites shown on the City’s Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map that
are already protected with 50-foot or 75-foot development setbacks in accordance with
Section 4.3-115.
4. Inventory map corrections: The Director may correct the location of a wetland or riparian
boundary shown on the Local Wetland Inventory Map and/or the Natural Resources Inventory
Map when it has been demonstrated by a property owner or applicant that a mapping error has
occurred and the error has been verified by DSL. Wetland delineations verified by DSL shall be
used to automatically update and replace the City’s Local Wetland Inventory mapping. No
variance application shall be required for map corrections where approved delineations are
provided.
C. Development Setbacks for Locally Significant Wetland and Riparian Areas.
1. Development setbacks are the primary element of the City’s protection program for
locally significant wetland and riparian areas. Development setbacks shall be determined as
follows:
Attachment 3, Page 179 of 188
a. Locally significant wetlands on the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory which are
not shown on the WQLW Map shall be protected by a 25-foot wide development setback.
b. Locally significant riparian areas identified on the Springfield Inventory of Natural
Resource Sites which are not shown on the WQLW Map shall be protected by a 25-foot
wide development setback.
c. Where a locally significant wetlands or riparian area is only partially shown on the
WQLW Map, that portion which is not protected by the City’s Stormwater Quality
Management Program shall be protected by a 25-foot wide development setback.
d. Development setbacks from locally significant wetland areas shall be measured
from the delineated edge of the wetland as acknowledged by DSL.
e. Development setbacks from locally significant riparian areas shall be measured
from the “top of bank” as defined in Chapter 6.
f. Where locally significant wetlands and riparian areas overlap, the development
setback area shall be measured from the edge of the delineated wetland.
2. The Springfield Local Inventory Map and the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource
Sites Map shall be used to provide a visual reference for locating known wetland and riparian
areas, but shall not be relied upon as the final authority for locating the actual boundaries of
these areas. The final authority shall be a delineation required as specified in Sections 5.12-120B.
and/or 5.17-120B. in order to locate the boundaries of the resource for the purpose of applying
development setbacks or other protections described in this Section.
D. Site Plan Review as specified in Section 5.17-100 shall be required for commercial, industrial and
multi-unit residential developments which are proposed within 150-feet of a locally significant wetland or
riparian area.
EXCEPTIONS: Site Plan Review shall not be required for:
1. Single-family homes and duplexes in the Low Density Residential District as of December
28, 2005. However, the natural resource protection standards of this Subsection shall apply to
these single-family homes and duplexes; and/or
2. Land divisions that comply with water quality protection standards specified in Section
4.3-115.
E. Permitted Uses Within Locally Significant Wetland and Riparian Natural Resource Protection
Areas.
1. The following uses and activities uses shall be permitted within a locally significant
wetland or riparian natural resource protection area, including the development setback area,
with no additional State or Federal permits:
Attachment 3, Page 180 of 188
a. Any use, building or structure that lawfully existed as of December 28, 2005 shall
be allowed to continue and required maintenance may occur.
b. The maintenance and alteration of pre-existing ornamental landscaping shall be
permitted as long as no additional native vegetation is disturbed.
c. These uses permitted in Subsections a. and b., above shall not be affected by
any change in ownership of property.
2. The following uses and activities shall be permitted within a locally significant wetland or
riparian natural resource protection area, including the development setback area, provided that
any applicable Federal, State or local permits are secured:
a. Wetland and or riparian restoration and rehabilitation activities.
b. Restoration and enhancement of native vegetation, including the addition of
canopy trees.
c. Cutting and removal of trees that pose a hazard to life or property due to threat
of falling.
d. Perimeter mowing and other cutting necessary for hazard prevention.
e. Removal of non-native vegetation, if replaced with native plant species at a
density that prevents soil erosion and encourages the future dominance of the native
vegetation.
f. Normal farm practices such as grazing, plowing, planting, cultivating and
harvesting, that meet the following criteria and limitations:
i. The farm practices were in existence or occurring on the property as of
December 28, 2005;
ii. The farm practices are of no greater scope or intensity than the
operations that were in existence as of the December 28, 2005; and
iii. Normal farm practices shall not include new or expanded structures,
streets, or other facilities involving placement of fill material, excavation, or new
drainage measures.
g. Maintenance of existing drainage ways, ditches, or other structures to maintain
flows at original design capacity and mitigate upstream flooding, provided that
management practices avoid sedimentation and impact to native vegetation and any
spoils are be placed in uplands.
Attachment 3, Page 181 of 188
h. Waterway restoration and rehabilitation activities such as channel widening,
realignment to add meanders, bank grading, terracing, reconstruction of street crossings,
or water flow improvements.
i. Maintenance and expansion of existing public drinking water facilities and the
establishment of new public drinking water facilities. This includes essential and ancillary
infrastructure and services needed for the operation of these drinking water facilities.
j. Replacement of a permanent, legal, non-conforming building or structure in
existence as of December 28, 2005 with a building or structure on the same building
footprint, if it does not disturb additional area, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 5.8-100, Non-Conforming Use. Access to and around the building footprint shall
be allowed as needed for the delivery of building materials and reconstruction, but this
access shall not cause unnecessary disturbance to vegetation within the resource
protection area. Land within the resource protection area that is disturbed by
reconstruction shall be restored to its original condition.
k. Expansion of a permanent, legal, non-conforming building or structure in
existence on December 28, 2005, if the expansion area is not within and does not disturb
the locally significant wetland or riparian resource boundary, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 5.8-100, Non-Conforming Use.
l. Emergency stream bank stabilization to remedy immediate threats to life or
property (Federal, State or local emergency authorization may be needed for in-stream
work).
m. Maintenance and repair of existing streets, including repaving and repair of
existing bridges, and culverts, provided that these practices avoid sedimentation and
other discharges into the locally significant wetland or riparian resource boundary.
n. Public multi-use paths, access ways, trails, boardwalks, picnic areas, or
interpretive and educational displays and overlooks, including benches and outdoor
furniture;
o. Construction of public and private transportation facilities, sewers, drainage
ways, utilities, and other infrastructure which cannot be feasibly located outside of the
locally significant wetland or riparian resource boundary, as determined by the Public
Works Director. These facilities shall be subject to the development standards specified in
Subsections k. and l., above.
p. New fencing may be permitted by the Director where the applicant demonstrates
that the following criteria can be satisfied:
i. The fencing shall not affect the hydrology of the natural resource
protection area;
Attachment 3, Page 182 of 188
ii. The fencing shall not present an obstruction that would increase flood
velocity or intensity;
iii. Fish habitat shall not be adversely affected by the fencing;
iv. The fencing shall be the minimum necessary to achieve the applicant’s
purpose; and
v. Applications for new fencing within a locally significant wetland or
riparian resource boundary shall contain a scale drawing that clearly depicts the
resource boundary and the development area setback, where applicable.
F. The following uses and activities shall be permitted within the development setback area only,
provided all required Federal, State or local permits are secured:
1. Docks, boat shelters, piers, boat ramps, and similar water dependent uses;
2. Utilities including but not limited to water, wastewater, stormwater, electrical facilities,
natural gas facilities, telecommunications or other public improvements;
3. Streets or bridges where necessary for access or crossings;
4. Bioswales or similar water quality improvement projects;
5. Public multi-use paths, access ways, trails, picnic areas, or interpretive and educational
displays and overlooks, including benches and outdoor furniture; and
6. Wetland and riparian restoration.
G. The following uses and activities shall be prohibited within a locally significant wetland or riparian
natural resource protection area, including the development setback area, unless permitted elsewhere in
this Code:
1. Placement of new structures or impervious surfaces;
2. Excavation, drainage, grading, fill, or removal of vegetation except for fire protection
purposes or removing hazard trees;
3. Expansion of areas of landscaping with non-native species, such as a lawn or garden,
into the protected areas;
4. Disposal or temporary storage of refuse, yard debris, or other material;
5. Discharge or direct runoff of untreated stormwater; and
6. Uses not allowed in the list of permitted uses for the underlying zone.
Attachment 3, Page 183 of 188
H. Conservation and Maintenance of Locally Significant Wetland and Riparian Areas and
Development Area Setbacks. When approving applications for Land Divisions, Site Plans, Master Plans,
Discretionary Use Permits, Variances, and Land and Drainage Alteration Permits or for development
permits for properties containing all or a portion of a wetland or riparian area, the City shall assure long
term conservation and maintenance of the wetland or riparian area through one or more of the following
methods:
1. The area shall be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement recorded on deeds
and plats prescribing the conditions and restrictions specified in Subsections E. through G., above
and any conditions imposed by State or Federal permits; or
2. The area shall be protected in perpetuity through ownership and maintenance by a
private nonprofit association through a conservation easement or through conditions, covenants,
or restrictions (CC&Rs), prescribing the conditions and restrictions specified in
Subsections E. through G., above and any conditions imposed by State or Federal permits; or
3. The area shall be transferred by deed to a willing public agency or private conservation
organization with a recorded conservation easement prescribing the conditions and restrictions
specified in Subsections E. through G., above and any conditions imposed by State or Federal
permits.
4. Other mechanisms for long-term protection and maintenance as deemed appropriate and
acceptable by the Director. These mechanisms shall be consistent with the purposes and
requirements of this Section.
I. Notification and Coordination with State Agencies. The Director shall notify DSL in writing of all
applications to the City for development activities, including development applications, Building Permits,
and other development proposals, that may affect any wetland or riparian areas identified in the
Springfield Local Wetlands Inventory or the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resources Map. This applies
to both locally significant and non-significant wetlands and riparian areas.
J. Development Setback Area Variances.
1. Variance applications for development setback areas shall require compliance with either
the Major Variance criteria specified in Section 5.21-130 or the Minor Variance criteria specified in
Section 5.21-125; and
2. In the case of loss of use of the property, the following additional criteria shall apply:
a. The application of the standards of this Section renders the property
unbuildable;
b. The applicant has exhausted all other options available under mapping errors
specified in Subsection B.4., above and the development area setback variance specified
in Subsection 3., below;
Attachment 3, Page 184 of 188
c. There shall be no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion, or slope
stability, or these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible; and
d. The loss of native vegetative cover shall be minimized.
3. In the case of varying the development setback area, such as averaging the setback area
width, the applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating compliance with the additional criteria:
a. There shall be equal or better protection of the wetland or riparian area to be
ensured through restoration, enhancement, or similar means;
b. In the case of setback averaging, the required plan shall show the proposed
average setback width with measurements made at no greater than 50 foot intervals
over the distance the property involved in the setback averaging; and
c. In no case shall the activities prohibited in Subsections G.1. through 3., above
occupy the locally significant riparian area or wetland or more than 50 percent of the
development setback area.
K. Transportation Facilities and Structures Development Standards. The following standards shall
apply to transportation facilities and structures within wetland protection areas, including streets and
driveways, bridges, bridge crossing support structures, culverts, and pedestrian and bike paths:
1. Wetland and riparian protection areas shall be crossed only where there are no
practicable alternatives to avoid the resource;
2. Transportation facilities and structures crossing wetland and riparian protection areas
shall be no wider than necessary to serve their intended purposes; and
3. Within buffer areas, new streets, driveways, and pedestrian and bike paths shall be
located or constructed so as not to alter the hydrology of the adjacent wetland or riparian
corridor.
L. Utility Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to permitted crossing,
trenching, or boring for the purpose of developing a corridor for communication, energy, or other utility
lines within or crossing properties within wetland or riparian protection areas:
1. Utility maintenance access roads in or crossing protected resources shall meet applicable
standards for transportation facilities and structures in protected resources as specified in
Subsection K., above; and
2. For underground utilities, the following additional standards shall apply:
a. Boring under the waterway, directional drilling, or aerial crossing is preferable to
trenching. If trenching is the only alternative, it shall be conducted in a dry or dewatered
area with stream flow diverted around the construction area to prevent turbidity;
Attachment 3, Page 185 of 188
b. Common trenches, to the extent allowed by the Building Code, shall be required
in order to minimize disturbance of the protected resource;
c. Materials removed or excavated during trenching, boring, or drilling shall be
deposited away from the protected resource, and either returned to the trench as back-
fill, or if other material is to be used as back-fill in the trench, excess materials shall be
immediately removed from the protected resource and its associated buffer. Side-casting
of removed material into a protected resource shall not be permitted;
d. Backfilling of trenches shall utilize excavated soils from the site whenever
possible. If other materials are used for backfill, they shall not be of a pervious nature
that would cause the trench to become a conduit for runoff or change the original
hydrology of the protected wetland or riparian site;
e. The ground elevation of a protected resource shall not be altered as a result of
utility trench construction or maintenance. The finished elevation shall be the same as
starting elevation; and
f. Topsoil and sod shall be conserved during trench construction or maintenance,
and replaced on top of the trench.
3. Hydraulic impacts on protected resources and removal of native vegetation shall be
minimized; and
4. Where feasible, crossings of wetland and riparian protection areas shall be perpendicular
to the protected area to minimize the impact.
M. Vegetation Management Standards. The following standards shall apply to vegetation in wetland
and riparian protection areas:
1. Vegetation removal, pruning, or mowing in a locally significant wetland or riparian
boundary shall be the minimum necessary and in no case shall substantially impair any resource
functions and values. Vegetation removal, pruning, or mowing in the development area setback
shall be the minimum necessary. Removal, pruning, or mowing of vegetation shall be allowed if
the applicant demonstrates one of the following:
a. The action is necessary for the placement of a structure or other allowed use for
which a Building Permit has been issued;
b. The action is necessary for maintenance of an existing structure or
transportation facility;
c. The action is necessary for correction or prevention of a hazardous situation;
d. The action is necessary for completion of a land survey;
Attachment 3, Page 186 of 188
e. The action involves the maintenance of a landscaped area that existed prior to
December 28, 2005;
f. The action is part of an approved restoration, enhancement, mitigation, or
erosion control plan, including, but not limited to, invasive or noxious species removal
and replacement with native species, and wetland area restoration, mitigation, or
enhancement; or
g. The action is part of a landscape plan approved by the City, and any other
appropriate agencies, in conjunction with a Building Permit that minimizes adverse
impacts on protected resources.
2. Planting shall be permitted in accordance with the following standards:
a. The planting is part of an approved restoration, enhancement, mitigation, or
erosion control plan;
b. The planting is part of a landscape plan using appropriate native plant species,
and the plan is approved by the City in conjunction with approval of a Building Permit; or
c. The planting is to replace dead or damaged plants that were either part of a
maintained landscape or part of the existing native plant community.
6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms
***
Direct Tributary to a Water Quality Limited Watercourse. A direct tributary to a Water Quality Limited
Watercourse (WQLW) is one that flows directly into a WQLW, excluding those watercourses that flow into the
WQLW as a piped connection, where the pipe system extends more than 200 feet upstream of the connection
point or is one that is a diversion from a WQLW and that discharges into either a WQLW or other direct tributary
to a WQLW and where the water quality if the diverted flow at the discharge point has been degraded when
compared with the water quality at the diversion point.
***
Riparian Area. Riparian areas are vegetated areas (generally consisting of trees, shrubs, and grasses) located
along both sides of water bodies and are transitional boundaries between land and water environments. Riparian
zones act as buffers to protect surface waters from contamination and are habitats for a large variety of animals
and birds.
Riparian Area Functions. These functions include, but are not limited to, maintaining temperature; maintaining
channel stability; providing flood storage; providing groundwater recharge; removing sediments; reducing
contaminants, for example, excess nutrients, oils and grease, metals, and fecal coliform; moderating stormwater
flows; and providing fish and wildlife habitat. Degraded riparian function means that one or more of the functions
listed above are at risk.
Attachment 3, Page 187 of 188
***
Stormwater Management Plan. A policy document adopted and, as modified from time to time, approved by
resolution of the City Council setting forth the policies and procedures to be used in reviewing development
proposals that alter or affect the natural, pre-development flow of stormwater. These policies and procedures are
to be applied to public and private improvements and allow City staff to provide certainty to developers and
consultants to permit them to design and submit for approval safe, efficient, and cost effective stormwater
management system projects within the City and its Urban Growth Boundary.
***
Watercourse. Rivers, streams, sloughs, drainages including intermittent stream and seeps, ponds, lakes,
aquifers, wetlands and other waters of the State. This definition also includes any channel in which a flow of
water occurs, either continuously or intermittently, and if the latter with some degree of regularity. Watercourses
may be either natural or artificial. Specific watercourses that are protected by this Code are those shown on the
water quality Limited Watercourse Map.
Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW). Those watercourses within the City and its urbanizing area
that are specified on the WQLW Map.
Waters of the State. These waters include lakes, bays, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, rivers,
streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Pacific Ocean within the territorial limits of the State of
Oregon, and all other bodies of surface or underground waters, natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or
salt, public or private (excluding those private waters which do not combine or effect a junction with natural
surface or underground waters), which are wholly or potentially within or bordering the State or within its
jurisdiction.
Wetlands. Areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances to support, a prevalence of hydophitic vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include swamps, marches, bogs, and similar areas excluding those
constructed as water quality or quantity control facilities.
***
(6412; 6376; 6352; 6292; 6286; 6279; 6267; 6249; 6238; 6212)
Attachment 3, Page 188 of 188
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
FINAL ORDER FOR:
SUB ELECTRIC FORMAL INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES ] 811-20-000248-TYP2
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
This is a Formal Interpretation of terms and phrases under Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.11-
125, which the Director has elevated for Type III review by the Springfield Planning Commission as
provided in SDC 5.11-130.A., to interpret the terms “watercourse,” “riparian area,” and “water quality
limited watercourse” as these terms relate to the City’s water quality rules in SDC 4.3-115; to clarify
which watercourses and riparian areas depicted on the City’s Water Quality Limited Watercourse map
are subject to riparian area restrictions of SDC 4.3-115.A & B; and to clarify which watercourses and
riparian areas are regulated by the provisions of SDC 4.3-115.C. This formal interpretation pertains
specifically to the applicant’s property identified as a vacant parcel on East 22nd Avenue, Glenwood
(Map 18-03-03-13, Tax Lot 101).
On January 20, 2021, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted
deliberations on the Formal Interpretation. The staff report, written comments, and any testimony of
those who spoke at the public hearing were entered into the record. Timely and sufficient notice of the
public hearing has been provided, pursuant to SDC 5.2-115.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the Springfield Planning Commission adopts the following interpretation of
the following terms and phrases, consistent with the criteria in SDC 5.11-125.B:
1. As used in SDC 4.3-115, the term “riparian area” means the areas that are within the
“riparian area boundaries” defined in SDC 4.3-115.A, which are associated with
“watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map.” The
phrase “watercourses shown on the WQLW Map” in SDC 4.3-115 means only the features
that are specifically shown on the August 2002 WQLW Map as a “Water Quality Limited
Watercourse (>1000 cfs),” a “Water Quality Limited Watercourse (<1000 cfs),” or a
“Tributary to a Water Quality Limited Watercourse (<1000 cfs),” and identified with a callout
on the map.
2. The wetland on SUB’s property (Map 18-03-03-13, Tax Lot 101), as identified in the
application, does not appear on the August 2002 WQLW Map. It is adopted only as a “locally
non-significant wetland” in the Local Wetland Inventory and has not been adopted as a
Water Quality Limited Watercourse or its tributary. Therefore, the wetland is not subject to
the requirements or standards in SDC 4.3-115.A, B, or C, but is subject to applicable
requirements for locally non-significant wetlands in SDC 4.3-117.
This interpretation is supported by the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report and Findings,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 2
ORDER/RECOMMENDATION
It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that this Formal Interpretation in Case Number
811-20-000248-TYP2, be adopted. This matter should be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for
consideration on this record, as provided in SDC 5.11-130.C.1.
____________________________ ____________________
Planning Commission Chairperson Date
ATTEST
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 2