HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 09 08 AIS SUB SubstationAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/8/2021
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW
Kristina Kraaz, CAO
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784
SPRINGFIELD Estimated Time: 10 Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure
and Facilities
ITEM TITLE: REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF REMAND FINDINGS FOR SUB ELECTRIC SUBSTATION
AND TRANSMISSION LINE, EAST END OF EAST 22ND AVENUE, GLENWOOD, CASES
811-19-000016-TYP2; 811-19-000084-TYP2 & 811-19-000085-TYP2.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Review evidence submitted into the record on remand, conduct deliberations and adopt findings to
address remanded issues arising from the Land Use Board of Appeals decision for the Tree Felling
Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site Plan Review applications, and approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the applications on remand.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and their legal counsel has submitted a request to proceed
with review of the following cases on remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals: Cases
2019-092, 2019-094 & 2019-095.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Hearings Official Decisions on Tree Felling Permit, Hillside Development and Site Plan
Review
2. PC Final Order for LUBA Remand - Tree Felling Permit
Exhibit A to Final Order - Amended Staff Report and Findings – Tree Felling Permit
3. PC Final Order for LUB Remand - Hillside Development
Exhibit A to Final Order - Amended Staff Report and Findings – Hillside Development
4. PC Final Order for LUBA Remand – Site Plan Review
Exhibit A to Final Order - Amended Staff Report and Findings – Site Plan Review
DISCUSSION:
Prior to the regular meeting on August 17, 2021, the applicant prepared and submitted additional
findings and technical analyses in support of the SUB substation and transmission line project in
Glenwood. The project extends from a vacant parcel on the south side of East 22nd Avenue and
runs approximately 1,600 feet in a southeasterly direction and generally parallel with the I-5
corridor to a connection point with existing transmission lines operated by the Eugene Water and
Electric Board (EWEB).
Staff provided an overview of the project, appeal proceedings, and issues subject to remand at the
regular meeting held with the Springfield Hearings Official on August 17, 2021. The Planning
Commission and Hearings Official closed the written record at the August 17, 2021 meeting.
The Springfield Hearings Official conducted deliberations and has issued decisions upholding the
Tree Felling Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site Plan Review previously approved for
the subject project (Attachment 1).
The Planning Commission is requested to review the information submitted into the record on
remand, and adopt final orders on the Tree Felling Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Site
Plan Review applications based on the totality of the information.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 14
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
REMAND OF TYPE II DIRECTOR’S DECISION + CASE NO. 811-19-000102-TYP3
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A TREE FELLING +
PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED LIGHT MEDIUM + FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE + AND FINAL ORDER
SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD, APPLICANT +
NATURE OF THE REMAND
The City issued the applicant’s Tree Felling Permit on April 17, 2019 as Case No. 811-19-000016-TYP2.
The Type II decision was appealed on May 2, 2019 and designated as Case 811-19-000102-TYP3. The
Planning Commission’s final decision on the local appeal was issued September 4, 2019 and
subsequently appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the permit to the
City by final opinion and order dated June 11, 2021. In response to the remand issues, the applicant has
modified its application and provided additional evidence and argument in support of its application as
modified.
The Tree Felling Permit applies to property that is partially within the incorporated City limits and partially
outside the City limits but within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
CONCLUSION
Supported by substantial evidence in the record, the amended Tree Felling Permit, Case No. 811-19-
000102-TYP3 is consistent with the applicable Springfield Development Code Criteria of Approval and
satisfactorily addresses the LUBA remand issues. Therefore, the Planning Commission upholds the
conditional approval as issued on September 4, 2019 as modified in response to the remand issues, as
noted in the Amended Staff Report and Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A. This general finding is
supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions set out in the Amended Staff Report and
Findings, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
ORDER
It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that the Tree Felling Permit issued on
September 4, 2019 as Case No. 811-19-000102-TYP3 is AFFIRMED as modified in response to the
remand issues. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on
September 8, 2021.
APPEAL
Pursuant to SDC Section 5.2-155 and 5.3-125, this decision is final unless appealed to the Oregon Land
Use Board of Appeals as specified in ORS Chapter 197.
_______________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1
TYPE II TREE FELLING PERMIT
AMENDED STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS FOR REMAND
Case Number: 811-19-000102-TYP3
Application Name: Amended Type II
Director’s Decision to conditionally approve
a Tree Felling Permit for the Springfield Utility
Board (SUB) Electric Transmission Line
and Substation project
Nature of Application: The applicant is
requesting a tree felling permit for the
removal of 272 trees from a planned electric
substation site and transmission line corridor
in Glenwood
Project Location: Generally parallel
with and northeast of I-5 in Glenwood
Zoning: Light Medium Industrial (LMI) and
Employment Mixed-Use (GEMU)
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
LMI & GEMU
Tree Felling Permit Issued: April 17, 2019
Appeal Decision Issued: September 4, 2019
LUBA Remand Issued: June 11, 2021
Final Decision on Remand Issued: August 17, 2021
APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT CONTACT INFORMATION
Appellant:
William Sherlock on behalf of
John & Brad Lerch and Café Mam
Hutchinson Cox Attorneys
940 Willamette St., Suite 400
P.O. Box 10886
Eugene OR 97401
Respondent:
Nick Amann
Springfield Utility Board
1001 Main Street
Springfield OR 97477
Respondent’s Counsel:
Mike Gelardi
Gelardi Law PC
P.O. Box 8529
Coburg OR 97408
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784
Transportation Planning Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034
Public Works Engineer Utilities Kyle Greene 541-726-5750
Public Works Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Kyle Greene 541-726-5750
Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Eric Phillips-Meadow 541-726-2293
Building Official Building Chris Carpenter 541-744-4153
E 22nd Ave
Proposed Substation Site
Transmission Line Connection Point
Nugget Way
Areas Subject to
Proposed Tree Removal
Portion of project area inside City limits
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 1 of 21
Site Information: The site proposed for tree felling comprises part of a wooded hillside that runs generally parallel
with I-5 at the southern edge of Glenwood, and a scattering of native and planted ornamental trees within a previously
disturbed industrial parcel. The overall project area is entirely within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
and consists of four adjoining tax lots (Map 18-03-03-13, Tax Lot 101; Map 18-03-03-14, Tax Lots 1000 & 1100;
and Map 18-03-04-40, Tax Lot 300). Of these properties, only Tax Lot 101 and a small portion of Tax Lot 1100 are
inside the City limits. The property that is subject of this Planning Commission decision, hereinafter the “project
area”, is limited to Tax Lot 101 and the western portion of Tax Lot 1100 that is inside the City limits. The subject
properties are currently vacant and not assigned a street address (Assessor’s Map 18-03-03-13, Tax Lot 101 and Map
18-03-03-14, portion of Tax Lot 1100). Most of the area subject to tree felling is outside the City limits but inside
the Springfield UGB. The portions of the project area outside the City limits, where about 244 trees are proposed for
removal, are outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal. The two properties within the City
limits (Tax Lot 101 and a portion of Tax Lot 1100) are within the 1999 Glenwood Refinement Plan area and are
zoned and designated for Light Medium Industrial (LMI) use. The applicant is proposing to extend an overhead
electric transmission line from a connection point near the center of Tax Lot 300 along a generally northwesterly
alignment across Tax Lot 1100 to a future substation site on Tax Lot 101. The tree removal activities associated with
the proposed electric system substation, access roads, and transmission line corridor that are within the Springfield
Planning Commission’s jurisdiction are addressed herein.
REVIEW PROCESS: This amended Type II decision is reviewed under Type III procedures listed in Springfield
Development Code (SDC) Section 5.1-130. The criteria of approval for the amended decision are the same as the
underlying decision: the Tree Felling criteria in SDC 5.19-125. The Planning Commission’s decision is the final
decision and is appealable to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals within 21 days of the decision.
Procedural Finding: The Tree Felling Permit (Case Number 811-19-000016-TYP2) was approved with conditions
on April 17, 2019. An appeal was timely filed on May 2, 2019, within 15 days of the decision according to SDC 5.3-
115.B. The appeal was heard on June 18, 2019 and the public hearing was continued to September 4, 2019. The
decision of the Planning Commission and Hearings Official was subsequently appealed to the Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA). In its final opinion and order, LUBA upheld the prior approval and remanded the matter
to the City for addressing five issues related to the Site Plan Review, Hillside Development Permit, and Tree Felling
Permit for the project. Two of the remand issues directly pertain to the subject Tree Felling Permit.
Procedural Findings: The Hearings Official hears appeals of Type II Director’s decisions for project areas outside
the City limits but inside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. The Planning Commission hears appeals of Type II
Director’s decisions for project areas within the City limits. The subject property is located inside the Urban Growth
Boundary partially within City limits and partially outside City limits. Accordingly, now that the matter has been
remanded to the City it is being presented jointly to the Planning Commission and Hearings Official.
Procedural Finding: Due to the need to reopen the written record for additional evidence regarding the remand issues,
notice of the public meeting on August 17, 2021 was provided by mailout notification on July 27, 2021 to the property
owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property, as required by SDC 5.1-130.B.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL:
Ref. Section 5.19-125 of the Springfield Development Code:
The Development & Public Works Director [in this case the Planning Commission and Hearings Official as the
approving authority] in consultation with the Fire Chief shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the request
based on the following standards.
A. Whether the conditions of the trees with respect to disease, hazardous or unsafe conditions, danger of
falling, proximity to existing structures or proposed construction, or interference with utility services or
pedestrian or vehicular traffic safety warrants the proposed felling.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 2 of 21
Applicant Submittal: “The requested tree felling is not requested due to the condition of the trees, but due to the
proposed construction (the construction of the driveway, substation, access road, utility infrastructure and
transmission line). Removal of the trees is necessary as the form and function of the substation and transmission
line cannot co-exist with trees when the trees would be within the footprint of the substation or transmission line.
Trees will be removed only as necessary. Along the perimeter of the transmission line easement, trees will be
selective[ly] removed when deemed a danger to the overhead lines. Along the access road easement, trees will
be removed only as necessary for safe access. A very large number of trees outside of the transmission line and
access road easements [sic]. Trees will remain on the adjacent I-5 right-of-way, helping to screen highway
traffic from the utility facility. Although topography prevents visibility of the utility facility from the north and
east, there will nonetheless remain a great number of trees, some in dense stands between the new transmission
line and adjacent property.”
General Finding 1: The applicant has acquired the two properties within the City limits that are affected by the
electric transmission line project, including the substation site. A Site Plan Review application has been
submitted under separate cover (Case 811-18-000084-TYP2) for the electric substation. The Site Plan Review
is also subject of appeal (Case 811-19-000129-TYP3). The affected properties are zoned and designated for
industrial uses, but are not likely to further develop with intensive urban industrial uses once the major utility
infrastructure is installed. The applicant is proposing to remove the trees to facilitate installation and operation
of the transmission line and electric substation. Trees will be left intact on both sides of the transmission line
corridor and in the vicinity of the substation because they are not within the identified construction footprint, and
do not pose an obstruction or potential threat to ongoing operation of the facility.
General Finding 2: Although it is not expected that many underground utility lines cross the area, there are utility
installations in the vicinity that could be affected by the project. The applicant is advised to call for utility locates
(or confirm the absence of utilities) within the project area prior to initiating any work on the site.
General Finding 3: The applicant’s July 16, 2019 rebuttal statement submitted into the record summarizes SUB’s
compliance with multiple alternative pathways for tree felling approval. The appellant reiterates their prior
arguments that SUB’s tree felling and planting plans are insufficiently detailed to justify SUB’s Tree Felling
Permit. The appellant is incorrect on both the relevant facts and the law. First, the appellant incorrectly claims
that SUB’s plans do not depict the individual trees that will be retained on the site. The applicant’s original
transmission line planting plan, submitted with SUB’s permit application, shows trees to be retained with cloud-
shaped lines. The applicant’s July 2, 2019 package includes this same document with retained trees colored green
to better highlight these trees. Neither the submittal requirements in SDC 5.19-115 nor the approval criteria in
SDC 5.19-125 require a permit applicant to specifically identify individual trees that that applicant does not
propose to remove. Moreover, in the case of densely wooded areas this could prove to be particularly onerous.
General Finding 4: The appellant alleges that not all trees proposed for removal need to be removed. The
applicant has met its burden of proof to show that all of the trees proposed to be removed must be removed for
construction and/or safe operation of SUB’s proposed utility facilities. Although the appellant does not specify
the trees they believe do not need to be removed, it appears that appellants are referring to trees that must be
removed for improvement of SUB’s proposed access road. This road is necessary for construction and
maintenance of SUB’s transmission line.
General Finding 5: The appellant states that lack of a recorded access easement demonstrates that the application
does not comply with the criteria of approval in SDC 5.19-125.A. Nothing in that criterion requires the “proposed
construction” or “utility services” to have recorded legal easements. However, legal access to the properties
proposed for development is a submittal requirement for all development applications, including tree felling
permits, under SDC 5.4-105.B.2. As originally conditioned, this application meets that requirement. Four of the
five properties subject to the tree removal are held under common ownership by the applicant, including Tax Lot
1000. Therefore, the applicant does not have to demonstrate that they have an easement for access to Tax Lot
1000.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 3 of 21
General Finding 6: The applicant has identified 28 trees proposed for removal on Tax Lot 101 and the portion
of Tax Lot 1100 within the City limits. The trees identified for removal pursuant to the Tree Felling Permit are
within the footprint of the substation compound and along the linear alignment of the transmission lines. Those
trees that are located east of the City limits line (about 244 of the 272 trees identified for removal) are not within
the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal. Trees within the electric transmission line corridor
must be removed because such a tree could strike the transmission lines if it fell due to windthrow, other natural
processes, or natural mortality. In light of recent weather events, including the snowfall in late February that
downed power lines throughout the County, the applicant is proposing to create a suitable buffer space around
the transmission lines to minimize the potential for damage due to tree fall. The applicant has submitted industry
best practices information into the record regarding transmission line corridor clear zones. The applicant is also
proposing to remove trees where project impacts would likely cause damage or undercutting of tree roots leading
to eventual mortality. As noted in the applicant’s supporting materials, a 100-foot buffer on either side of the
transmission line is a reasonable distance to safeguard against this risk. The applicant has demonstrated that the
condition of the trees warrants the proposed felling, with respect to proximity to existing structures or proposed
construction or interference with the applicant’s proposed utility services. Therefore, this criterion of approval
has been met.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #1: The permit approves the removal of close to 300 trees on the subject
property. However, the application does not provide evidence that removal of the vast majority of these trees is
warranted in this case. The application concedes that felling is not warranted by the condition of any of the trees
onsite. Application, p. 7. Instead, the applicant is proposing to remove the trees because they are incompatible
with the development “footprint” of the substation and transmission lines, and that several additional trees are
required to be removed along the route of an access easement. However, the applicant did not provide evidence
to support its contention. The proposal includes the removal of at least 120 trees that are not in the footprint of
the substation, transmission lines, or the proposed access. As the applicant has not demonstrated that proximity
to proposed construction warrants removal of these trees, the decision of approval should be overturned.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #2: Moreover, the decision approves the removal of several trees on Tax Lots
300 and 1000 in conjunction with the improvement of an access easement, but the applicant has failed to
demonstrate the existence of the easement. The decision erroneously approves felling of trees to facilitate this
unauthorized access.
Finding - Response to Assignments of Error #1 and #2: Tree removal is needed in this case to prevent interference
with needed utility service and avoid hazards associated with trees near SUB’s proposed transmission line and
substation. Appellant’s assertions regarding the scope of appropriate tree removal are incorrect for the following
reasons:
• SUB’s development plan leaves most of the trees on the property intact. The Site Assessment of Existing
Conditions plan sheet submitted with SUB’s Tree Felling Application (L2.0) shows the overall area of the
proposed substation and transmission line project. With a light clouded symbol, the plan shows the wooded
areas of the property. Within the proposed substation, transmission line and access road areas, individual
trees are identified by species, size and condition. The plan shows that there are significant areas of the
site where existing trees will remain.
• The Staff Report provided an excellent graphic of the felling area and remaining tree area. This illustration
shows just how much of the existing treed area will remain. The yellow highlight on the project site air
photo illustrates area of tree felling. The non-highlighted portion of the air photo illustrates the extensive
area of remaining trees.
• The “footprint” of the project includes not merely the transmission line poles and lines, but a clear zone
corridor associated with maintaining the safety, integrity and operation of the electrical transmission
facility. It is an industry best practice to maintain such clear zones. The risk of nearby trees falling onto
the poles or lines is unacceptable from the perspective of fire safety and maintaining the function of an
essential public utility.
• SUB’s proposed access road minimizes tree removal and other environmental impacts by utilizing an
existing path on the property created by the prior property owner.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 4 of 21
o SUB walked, drove, surveyed and mapped the location of the proposed access road.
o SUB utilized criteria including width, cross slope, gradient, bearing strength as well as the results of
two geotechnical analyses: [o]ne regarding slope stability and the other regarding seismic hazard.
o SUB delineated this proposed access easement across Tax Lots 3701, 1100 and 1000. The adjacent
map illustrates this effort. [Map shown on Page 3 of 11 of Applicant response to assignments of
error.]
o With the acquisition of the property, the proposed easement is no longer needed, but the alignment
illustrated by the proposed “access easement” survey is still the proposed access road.
Remand Finding 6.1: LUBA’s decision requires the City to address two related issues concerning tree
preservation on the project site. LUBA’s direction to the City on these issues is informed by other decisions in
LUBA’s opinion (see applicant’s remand submittal, Exhibit G), namely LUBA’s decision to uphold SUB’s
proposed 100-foot clear zone as consistent with the City’s tree felling rules. SUB’s remand evidence provided
as Attachment 5 to the August 17, 2021 meeting packet addresses the tree preservation issues raised by LUBA
in a comprehensive manner by inventorying tree canopy throughout the project area and evaluating the effect of
various potential transmission line alignments on this canopy. The issue of transmission line alignment
alternatives and how it addresses the utility siting standards in Glenwood is addressed in the amended Site Plan
Review staff report and findings.
Remand Finding 6.2: As LUBA explained, the City’s utility interference standard requires only that interference
with utility service “warrants” tree felling (ref. SDC 5.19-125). SUB has gone beyond this requirement by
demonstrating that SUB’s selected route preserves trees clusters (significant or not) better than potential
alternative routes on and near the project area (see below and Amended Staff Report and Findings for Site Plan
Review).
Remand Finding 6.3: LUBA’s opinion suggests that SUB should also consider whether alternative “treatments”
of trees are practicable to increase tree retention on the two GEMU-zoned parcels. The record in this case
demonstrates that a 100-foot clear zone around the transmission line is necessary to ensure the safety of the
transmission line and that trimming of trees is not an appropriate substitute for the clear zone. Monitoring and
trimming of trees as a means of increasing tree retention are not feasible measures, due to fire risk and other
public safety hazards associated with the presence of trees near the transmission lines. As described above,
preservation of an additional 15 trees north of the existing transmission structure is practicable because these
trees are not within the 100-foot clear zone and are not likely to grow into the clear zone except for certain
branches that are feasible to trim. The trees pose little risk of falling into the lines because they are downslope
from the transmission lines. This alternative treatment is not practicable for the other trees that SUB plans to
remove because the trees pose a risk of falling onto the lines due to their size and location upslope of the lines.
Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied criterion A. Assignments of error #1 and #2 are denied.
B. Whether the proposed felling is consistent with State standards, Metro Plan policies and City Ordinances
and provisions affecting the environmental quality of the area, including but not limited to, the protection
of nearby trees and windbreaks; wildlife; erosion, soil retention and stability; volume of surface runoff
and water quality of streams; scenic quality; and geological sites.
Applicant Submittal: “The proposed felling is consistent with State standards, Metro Plan policies, and City
ordinances. The environmental quality of the site and surrounding area will not be significantly impacted by the
tree removal. The removal of trees will not affect erosion, soil retention, and stability. Volume of surface runoff
and water quality of streams will not be impacted by the removal of the trees. Large numbers of trees, many in
thick wood stands, will remain. As noted above, some 35% of the substation site and better than 88% of the
transmission site will remain as is.”
General Finding 7: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) is the primary implementing ordinance for
environmental protection policies contained in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 5 of 21
Plan). SDC Article 5.19-100 - Tree Felling Standards generally implements environmental protection policies
of the Metro Plan for the subject property.
General Finding 8: The area subject to the tree felling request is inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but
is mostly outside the current City limits. Only Tax Lot 101 – the proposed electric substation site – and the
adjoining property to the east (portion of Tax Lot 1100) are currently inside the City limits. Therefore, the
Planning Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to a fraction of the overall project area and trees proposed for
removal. The subject trees are predominantly evergreen and deciduous varieties that are common to the
Willamette Valley, including Douglas-fir, Oregon ash, black cottonwood, and big leaf maple. A smaller
component of the trees proposed for removal includes some native and non-native deciduous and evergreen trees
found primarily on Tax Lot 101 such as Oregon oak, madrone, ponderosa pine, pear, and willow.
General Finding 9: The trees proposed for removal are within an urban industrial and employment mixed-use
district and are not classified as commercial timber, although the trees could have some market value. Therefore,
a permit from the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) is not specifically required for the work inside the City’s
UGB.
General Finding 10: Removal of the trees from the subject property should not have a long-term adverse effect
on the surrounding physical and visual environment because:
a) The applicant will be using the existing access roads to the extent practicable in order to minimize the
number of trees required for removal outside of the transmission line corridor;
b) The proposed tree felling will retain large, intact stands of trees along the hillside thereby contributing to
protection against windthrow and maintaining a visual buffer along the southern edge of Glenwood;
c) Installation and operation of the overhead transmission line won’t create significant barriers to terrestrial
and avian wildlife movements along the hillside;
d) The applicant will be required to obtain erosion and sediment control permits – and to install and maintain
any necessary measures to prevent such erosion – prior to initiating any tree removal or construction work
in the project area;
e) The area subject to tree removal for the transmission line are to be revegetated and not further developed
with extensive impervious surfaces, thereby retaining the existing drainage patterns and providing for soil
absorption of rainfall and runoff;
f) The proposed tree felling area is geographically and visually separated from existing residential
development to the south and west;
g) The proposed tree felling area is a hillside that is located between two existing, linear transportation
corridors (Interstate 5 and the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad line) and it is not identified as a critical
habitat area;
h) The applicant is proposing to only remove the trees that are identified as lying within the substation
footprint area and transmission line corridor, while leaving the remaining trees that lie outside the project
zone; and
i) The trees are not uncommon or specimen varieties that warrant special protection measures.
General Finding 11: During the reopened written record from August 6 to 13, 2019 the appellant introduced
recent evidence they developed for their Site Plan Review and Hillside Development appeals (Cases 811-19-
000128-TYP3 and 811-19-000129-TYP3) to argue that SUB’s plans do not sufficiently address slope stability and
erosion prevention. In this Tree Felling Permit appeal, the applicant has explained that it will minimize erosion
by leaving tree stumps in place and improving the existing access road in order to minimize new construction and
transportation of logs across the ground surface. The Tree Felling appeal record also contains geotechnical studies
commissioned by the applicant that show conclusively that slopes and hillside areas are safe for SUB’s proposed
construction. Most of the sloping and hillside areas, excepting the western edge of Tax Lot 1100, are outside the
City limits and therefore not within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction for this appeal.
General Finding 12: The Director’s Decision originally issued for the Tree Felling Permit requires the applicant
to obtain a Land Drainage and Alteration Permit (“LDAP”) before commencing tree felling activities. The LDAP
will require erosion control measures and establishment of erosion-controlling vegetation in disturbed areas. The
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 6 of 21
tree felling record therefore demonstrates SUB’s compliance with applicable criteria regarding erosion control
and slope stability. This condition has been retained herein as Condition 1 below.
General Finding 13: During the reopened written record on August 13, 2019, the appellant raised additional issues
regarding the presence of watercourses on the property. The watercourses in question are outside the City limits
and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.
General Finding 14: The criterion of approval under SDC 5.19-125.B requires only that the applicant show that
the proposed felling is consistent with “State standards, Metro Plan policies and City Ordinances and provisions
affecting the environmental quality of the area.” State standards, Metro Plan policies, and City ordinances that
are not “affecting the environmental quality of the area” are not criteria of approval under this section.
Assignment of Error #3 is not related to policies or provisions under this criterion of approval because it does not
identify any applicable Metro Plan policies that are “affecting the environmental quality of the area.”
Furthermore, the Assignment of Error #3 does not otherwise identify any conflict between this application and
the Metro Plan. The provisions of the adopted Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP), which is a refinement
plan of the Metro Plan, allow for flexibility in location, design, and alignment of key public utility lines and
installations with the intent to ensure that conceptual alignments shown on metro-wide plans do not preclude site-
specific variations in these alignments due to land ownership, topographic, engineering, or geopolitical
constraints.
General Finding 15: It is notable that most of the planned transmission line alignment is outside the City limits
and therefore mostly outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal. The alignment of the
proposed electric transmission line is depicted in Project 17A (Alvey to Glenwood to Springfield), adopted into
the PFSP by Ordinance 6341 on September 8, 2015. Project 17A (Alvey to Glenwood to Springfield) is depicted
on Map 4 of the PFSP as generally parallel with the I-5 corridor, which is consistent with the proposed alignment.
Note 2 on Map 4 states, “The general locations of facilities are shown on this map. Exact locations are determined
through local processes.” The comments cite the following language in Finding #19 adopted in support of
Ordinance 6341 and urge that language to be applied as a criteria of approval: “The transmission lines [in Project
17A] will take advantage of existing freeway, street and railroad right of ways [sic] in Glenwood to minimize
visual impacts of the planned facilities.” However, Finding #19 further states that, “The intent of the PFSP is to
show the general location of planned facilities. Design level details are not intended to be provided in the
PFSP[.]” Furthermore, Finding #19 was adopted as a factual finding in support of the PFSP amendment, and is
not part of the PFSP nor a criterion of approval for this application.
General Finding 16: There are no specific restrictions in the PFSP or any plan or code provisions that preclude
installation of the electric transmission lines and substation on property owned in fee simple by, or within
easements granted to, SUB and EWEB (local utility providers) as opposed to transportation rights-of-way owned
and operated by the Oregon Department of Transportation and/or Union Pacific Railroad. SUB Electric did
evaluate the potential of using existing rights-of-way for the transmission lines, including the adjacent I-5 freeway
corridor and the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad line. For the I-5 freeway, ODOT provided a response to SUB
Electric in September, 2018 advising that longitudinal (i.e. parallel with highway travel lanes) utility lines are
precluded from installation within the highway right-of-way unless there are extreme hardship circumstances.
Horizontal (i.e. perpendicular) crossings are allowable, and SUB does in fact have a crossing of the I-5 right-of-
way near the southern edge of the project area. According to ODOT, the section of I-5 that abuts the project area
is planned for future lane widening to create three northbound lanes between the 30th Avenue onramp and the
Glenwood Boulevard off-ramp. This future widening will necessitate removal of any obstructions within the
highway right-of-way and access control areas, which could include utility transmission lines. Therefore, routing
the transmission line along the edge of, or within, the I-5 right-of-way was not seen as a viable option. SUB
Electric also examined the railroad right-of-way that runs along the northern edge of Tax Lots 300, 1000, 1100
and 3701, and generally parallel with a segment of Newman Street. It is notable that only a very short segment
of the railroad tracks abut the City limits line along the northern edge of Tax Lot 1100. The railroad tracks are
located right at the base of the hillside and there is minimal room available within the railroad right-of-way for
any type of co-located overhead facilities, especially an electric transmission line, without severe interference
with the hillside and railroad operations and safety. Because of the constraints associated with the railroad right-
of-way, this corridor was also not seen as a viable option. The preferred option ended up being the route along
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 7 of 21
the edge of the hillside, within properties owned by utility providers, which is presented for review and approval
herein.
General Finding 17: As discussed above, the criterion of approval under SDC 5.19-125.B only requires
consistency with provisions “affecting the environmental quality of the area.” Assignment of Error #4 is not
relevant to this criterion of approval. Furthermore, aspects of this assignment of error that pertain to parcels
outside the City limits, such as Tax Lots 300 and 1000 are not within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction
over this appeal.
General Finding 18: The cited section (SDC 3.4-270.F.5) pertains to the Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan area
only, so its application is limited to Tax Lots 300 and 1000. These parcels are outside the City limits and are
therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal. It is notable that, irrespective of
the trees’ locations inside or outside the City limits, the appellant has not identified the “over 120 trees which are
not necessary for the construction” as stated in their submittals.
General Finding 19: The project area is located on a hillside and upland, not in a riparian area. SDC 4.3-115.B
applies only to riparian areas identified under SDC 4.3-115.A, which does not include the subject property.
Therefore, SDC 4.3-115.B is not an applicable criterion of approval.
General Finding 20: The applicant prepared and submitted a Slope Stability Review in Tree Felling Areas report
prepared by Foundation Engineering Inc. in December, 2018. The report was provided as part of the Hillside
Development Permit application submitted under separate cover as Case 811-19-000085-TYP2. The Planning
Commission has accepted the findings and recommendations of the applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer relative
to the tree removal activities and related project construction.
General Finding 21: For the above reasons, the criteria of approval under SDC 5.19-125.B have been met subject
to Condition 1 below. The appellant has not identified any applicable State standards, Metro Plan policies, or
City ordinances and provisions that affect the environmental quality of the area that conflict with the application.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1: Prior to initiating any tree felling, earth work, or construction activity
within the project area inside the City limits (i.e. Tax Lot 101 and a portion of Tax Lot 1100), the applicant
shall obtain a Land Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) as may be required to provide erosion and
sediment control measures during tree removal activity and project construction. Initial required
protection measures shall be installed and in place prior to commencement of any tree removal activity.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #3: The approval violates the acknowledged Metro Plan. In 2015, the City of
Springfield adopted an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services
Plan, in part, to alter the location of the proposed Glenwood Substation. As part of that process, concerns were
raised by area residents about the location of transmission lines. The Springfield Utility Board staff confirmed
at that time that proposed transmission lines would use existing public rights-of-way to site the transmission
lines. To the north, these lines would be routed along Henderson Avenue before turning east along the Union
Pacific Railroad corridor. To the south, the lines would be routed in the existing Interstate 5 right-of-way. In
fact, Finding 19 of the City’s adopted findings in support of the amendment confirms:
“The location of the planned Glenwood Substation and the associated transmission lines is shown generally on
the PFSP maps as intended. The location of the Substation is outside of the Phase I boundary for the Glenwood
Refinement Plan. The transmission lines will take advantage of existing freeway, state and railroad right of
ways in Glenwood to minimize visual impacts of the planned facilities.”
Ordinance 6341, Exhibit F, p.15 (Emphasis added). The proposed felling is inconsistent with the Metro Plan
because the felling is for the purposes of routing transmission lines outside of the “existing freeway…right of
ways in Glenwood” and contrary to plan.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #4: The approval also violates the applicable zoning for the subject property,
because it is for the purposes of facilitating the siting of a high impact transmission line on Tax Lots 300 and
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 8 of 21
1000, where such lines are not permitted by the Employment Mixed Use (Glenwood) zoning district. SDC 3.4-
250 only permits low-impact facilities, described as: “wastewater, storm water management; electricity and
water to serve individual homes and businesses.” The proposed high voltage transmission lines are not limited
to serving “individual homes and businesses.” They are “high impact facilities” that are not allowed in the
zone. Accordingly, the proposed felling is not consistent with City Ordinances and the decision should be
overturned.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #5: The approval also violates SDC 3.4-270(F)(5), which requires that trees
“be retained to the maximum extent practicable” for erosion control and other purposes. The proposed tree
removal would authorize the removal of over 120 trees which are not necessary for the construction of the
substation, road or transmission lines. Many of these trees are located on steep slopes on Tax Lots 300 and
1000. Accordingly, this provision is violated.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #6: In addition, the decision violates SDC 4.3-115(B) which limits the removal
of trees within riparian areas to only those “hazard trees” specified in Section 5.19-100. As noted, the applicant
has conceded that felling is not being proposed based on the condition of any of the trees at issue. Accordingly,
the proposed removal violates SDC 4.3-115(B).
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #7: The applicant asserts, but does not establish that the “removal of trees will
not affect erosion, soil retention, and stability.” Application, p. 7. However, it provides no evidence to
substantiate this claim. As the applicant does not carry its burden of proof, the decision of approval should be
overturned.
Finding - Response to Assignments of Error #3 – #7: Springfield Utility Board responds to the appellant’s
assertions as follows:
• In regards to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, the cited Finding 19 in the appellant’s statement
contains two sentences deserving of clarifying context and meaning.
o The first is “The location of the planned Glenwood Substation and the associated transmission lines
is shown generally on the PFSP maps as intended.” (Emphasis added.) It is a long standing
understanding that the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is a generalized planning
document and is not tax lot (nor right-of-way) specific document. The same is true for the Metro
Plan’s metropolitan-level refinement plans, such as the Public Facilities and Services Plan. The
adjacent excerpt from the Public Facilities and Services Plan regarding the Glenwood substation and
transmission line clearly illustrates the generalized nature of metro-level planning documents.
o The second is “The transmission lines will take advantage of existing freeway, state and railroad
right of ways in Glenwood to minimize visual impacts of the planned facilities." This is indeed
precisely what SUB has done. The proposed transmission line has taken advantage of the existing
Interstate-5 right-of-way. The proposed line is adjacent to and runs parallel to the freeway. The
Public Facilities and Services Plan does not require the transmission line to be within the right of
way, and the Oregon Department of Transportation determined that there is not sufficient area inside
of the Interstate 5 right of way to safely accommodate SUB’s transmission line in the right of way.
• Tax lots 1000, [most of] 1100 and 300 lots are not in the city limits. Tax Lots 1000 and 300 have a base
zone of Glenwood Employment Mixed-Use and an overlay zone of Urbanizable Fringe (UF-10). The UF-
10 overlay specifically allows “high impact facilities, subject to SDC 4.7-160.” See table in SDC 3.3-815.
SDC 4.7-160 states that high-impact facilities are permitted in residential, commercial and industrial
districts where designated in the public facilities plan. Per SDC 3.2-605(B), a Mixed-Use Employment
zone includes all three of those zoning categories – residential, commercial and industrial. The proposed
transmission line and substation has been designated in the Public Facilities and Services Plan. Therefore,
the Urbanizable Fringe zone permits the proposed transmission line facility. The City has explained this
in its 5/17 approval of the site plan for SUB’s proposed substation and transmission line and we request
that this decision be included in the record in this case for the purpose of including this explanation.
• Regarding SDC 3.4-270(F)(5), the appellant again asserts that the proposed tree removal authorizes the
removal of over 120 trees not necessary for the construction of the facility. Again, the trees included in
the approved tree felling permit are necessary for the safety, integrity and operation of the overhead
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 9 of 21
transmission line. It is a best practice in the industry to include a clear zone to minimize the risk of trees
falling onto the poles and transmission line.
• With respect to concerns for erosion control, Condition of Approval No. 1 of the Tree Felling Permit
approval requires the applicant to obtain a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP). LDAP includes
not only erosion prevention measures but the establishment of erosion-controlling vegetation in disturbed
areas.
• As for disturbed areas, the applicant intends to cut and remove trees but it will not be removing the stumps
or root systems. Thus disturbance to the existing ground will be minimal. Again, where there is
disturbance, native, drought-tolerant grasses will be planted. Regarding SDC 4.3-115(B), these rules allow
utility-related facilities in the riparian area as long as the facilities do not impede riparian function. These
rules are relevant here because Tax Lot 1100 contains a “Water Quality Limited Water Course” –a tributary
to the Glenwood Slough.
o As far as the proposed transmission line project is concerned, there is a single point of intersection
between the project and the water course. It is where the prior property owner’s existing access path
crosses the water course.
o SUB’s proposed access road will follow this existing access path. There will be no new crossing of
the watercourse.
o At this location there is only one tree proposed for removal. It is some 15-20 feet from the waterway.
Again, the tree will be removed but the stump and root system will remain. Thus, ground disturbance
will be minimal. And the seeding of native grasses will follow.
o Given these facts, SUB’s proposal is consistent with SDC 4.3-115(B) for the following reasons:
▪ (B)(2) permits the felling of trees for safety reasons. Leaving this particular tree would pose
the risk of falling or otherwise inhibiting access to the transmission line.
▪ (B)(8) permits private driveways (in this case an access road) when there is no other vehicle
access to the property.
▪ (B)(9) permits the repair, replacement or improvement of utility facilities. This access road is
an essential component of the proposed facility. It is necessary in order to reach and therefore
repair or otherwise maintain the transmission lines.
• Given this all of the above, the applicant has satisfied Criterion B.
Remand Finding 21.1: The City’s site plan review criteria require that “significant clusters of trees and
shrubs...be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.” SDC 5.17-125.E (emphasis added).
LUBA’s decision affirms that the City’s “tree felling standards govern protection of significant clusters of trees.”
As noted above, LUBA also upheld the scope of SUB’s proposed tree felling as consistent with the City’s tree
felling criteria. However, LUBA required the City to “consider and explain” how significant clusters of trees
and shrubs are protected under SDC 5.17-125.E. To address this issue, additional findings have been added to
the Amended Staff Report and Findings for the Site Plan Review application.
Remand Finding 21.2: Separately, LUBA held that the City’s Glenwood landscaping standards at SDC 3.4-
270.F.5 require an “analysis of alternative [transmission] line alignments on the subject property” to ensure that
the site “retains mature vegetation and healthy trees ‘to the maximum extent practicable’” on the two GEMU-
zoned parcels of the project area. Together these holdings indicate that the City’s “significant clusters” site plan
review standard incorporates an additional requirement for tree clearing on the two GEMU-zoned parcels of the
site (Tax Lots 1000 and 300) beyond the tree felling standards that apply to the overall project area. Specifically,
clearing of healthy tree clusters on Tax Lots 1000 and 300 must meet the GEMU “maximum extent practicable”
preservation standard as well as the utility interference standard in the tree felling rules. Because LUBA upheld
SUB’s proposed 100-foot clear zone as consistent with the tree felling rules, LUBA’s decision means that SUB
must select the practicable location for this clear zone on the site that best preserves healthy trees on Tax Lots
1000 and 300. To address this issue, SUB prepared and submitted an alternatives analysis (see applicant’s remand
submittal, Exhibit D) that is also evaluated in the Amended Staff Report and Findings for the Site Plan Review
application.
Remand Finding 21.3: The SDC does not define “significant tree cluster.” For purposes of inventorying tree
canopy, SUB utilized definitions that were recently proposed by the City of Eugene for that city’s tree
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 10 of 21
preservation standards. These Eugene definitions, which are included in the tree canopy evaluation materials in
Exhibit C of the applicant’s remand submittal, define a “significant tree cluster” as a group of five or more living
trees of at least eight inches in diameter at breast height with overlapping branches. SUB’s working definition
of “significant tree cluster” (further broken out into “good,” “fair,” and “poor” quality) is expansive enough to
capture all tree clusters that could be considered “significant” under a reasonable interpretation of the term.
“Good” quality clusters were identified based upon moderate to low plant density, primarily non-invasive
groundcover, even branching, and an upright trunk (tree is not leaning); “fair” quality tree clusters were those
with moderate to dense planting; a mix of invasive and non-invasive groundcover; some broken or uneven
branching and that may include moderate lean to the trunk; “poor” quality tree clusters had a high density
planting, primarily invasive understory, broken or uneven branching, and trees or trunks with significant lean.
Remand Finding 21.4: SUB’s tree canopy evaluation makes clear that SUB’s proposed transmission line
alignment best preserves trees on the site of all potential alternatives, regardless of which clusters are deemed
“significant.” Specifically, the selected route generally avoids the large clusters of trees along the northern and
southern boundaries of the project area by crossing the open meadow on Tax Lot 1100. It also entirely avoids
all trees within “good” quality clusters and the vast majority of trees in “fair” quality clusters throughout the site.
Both practicable alternative routes on the site involve substantially more tree cutting, including felling of trees
within a good quality cluster near the northern border of the project area. (See applicant’s remand submittal,
Exhibit D).
Remand Finding 21.5: Although the record shows that alignments in the railroad right of way and the I-5 right-
of-way are not practicable, these theoretical alignments would also require more tree felling than the selected
route. An alignment along the railroad line north of the project area would require two hillside clearings. First,
clearing would be needed of a fair quality cluster from the top of the hill on Tax Lot 300 where the transmission
structure is located to the railroad right-of-way at the base of the hill. A second hillside clearing would be needed
further north to bring the line up the hillside through a fair or good quality cluster to connect to the substation on
Tax Lot 101. (See applicant’s remand submittal, Exhibit C, pages TF1 and TF2). An alignment in the I-5 right-
of-way would require tree clearing in two larger fair quality tree clusters on the south end of the project area
along a steep hillside. (See applicant’s remand submittal, Exhibit C, pages TF2-TF4). SUB’s selected
transmission route therefore exceeds the requirement to preserve significant clusters of trees as required by the
City’s tree felling rules.
Remand Finding 21.6: SUB’s selected route also complies with the Glenwood landscaping standard of retaining
mature vegetation and healthy trees to the maximum extent practicable on Tax Lots 1000 and 300 because it
preserves more healthy trees on these parcels than any practicable alternative route. Both alternative routes on
the site that are practicable involve a northern alignment that would require clearing of a substantial portion of a
good quality tree cluster on Tax Lot 1000, as well as a larger portion of the adjacent poor quality clusters on Tax
Lots 1000 and 300. SUB has also refined its tree felling plan to preserve a group of additional trees north of the
existing transmission structure on Tax Lot 300 that are within a larger fair quality cluster. After further review
since the City’s 2019 approval of SUB’s tree felling plan, SUB has concluded that trimming rather than felling
these trees is sufficient to ensure safety of the transmission facilities. This additional tree preservation further
demonstrates that SUB’s plans retain healthy trees to the maximum extent practicable in the GEMU zone.
Conclusion: Subject to Condition of Approval #1, the applicant has satisfied criterion B. Assignments of error
#3 – 7 are denied.
C. Whether it is necessary to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements as specified in an
approved development plan, grading permits and construction drawings.
Applicant Submittal: “It is necessary to remove trees to construct the proposed development. An accompanying
Site Plan Review application and plan set document tree removal as well as areas of trees to remain.”
General Finding 22: The applicant has submitted Site Plan Review and Hillside Development applications for
the proposed electric substation and related appurtenances under separate cover (Cases 811-19-000084-TYP2
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 11 of 21
and 811-19-000085-TYP2). The Director’s Decisions for these applications were issued on May 17, 2019 and
appealed on June 3, 2019. Issuance of this Tree Felling Permit is not dependent upon (but is informed by) the
associated Site Plan Review and Hillside Development applications initiated by Cases 811-19-000084-TYP2 and
811-19-000085-TYP2 and adjudicated by appeal cases 811-19-000128-TYP3 (Hillside Development Permit) and
811-19-000129-TYP3 (Site Plan Review). Therefore, the tree felling action is being reviewed independent of
the proposed utility facilities and subject to Criterion D (below).
General Finding 23: If required, a Land Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) obtained from the City will address
other activities such as root grubbing, grading for access roads and staging areas, and other construction activities
that follow removal of trees from the site.
General Finding 24: The Director’s decision to issue the Tree Felling Permit in Case 811-19-000016-TYP2
acknowledges that the applicant did not have an approved development plan at the time of permit issuance. For
this reason, staff identified that Criterion D (below) was applicable to the Tree Felling Permit and is so reflected
in the staff report and decision issued as Case 811-19-000016-TYP2. Criterion C of the Director’s decision
indicates that grading and erosion/sediment control permits can be obtained outside of the land use approval
process and, in any event, are likely applicable to the proposed project work. The erosion and sediment control
permitting process is universal to all grading and excavation activities within the City of Springfield, including
those not associated with land use decisions.
General Finding 25: Since the issuance of the Director’s decision on April 17, 2019, the applicant has obtained
tentative site plan approval pursuant to the Director’s decision in Case 811-19-000084-TYP2. Even if tentative
site plan approval had not been issued, the Tree Felling Permit complies with the alternative criteria of approval
under Criterion D (below) for projects where no development plan has been approved.
General Finding 26: Finally, as noted in the response to Assignment of Error #5 above, as depicted on the tree
removal plans, the applicant’s requested tree removal is not limited to the exact project footprint for the
substation, access road, and transmission line. The applicant is well within their rights to propose tree removal
within areas that could pose a hazard to existing or planned infrastructure – especially large, mature conifers that
are within 100 feet on either side of the planned transmission lines and substation. As evidenced by local weather
events in February, 2019, overhead electrical transmission lines are particularly vulnerable to impacts from
downed trees. For this reason, the applicant is providing additional buffering and setback from potential
windthrow or natural toppling of trees that would potentially impact the transmission lines.
General Finding 27: The criterion of approval in SDC 5.19-125.C is not applicable to this application, because
it meets the alternative criteria of approval under SDC 5.19-125.D, below. Alternatively, if Criterion D was not
met, the application would comply with SDC 5.19-125.C at the time of the appeal hearing, because Tentative
Site Plan approval was granted by Case 811-19-000084-TYP2.
General Finding 28: For the reasons described below, however, SUB does not rely solely on its site plan approval
to demonstrate compliance with the criteria applicable to the Tree Felling Permit. SUB’s proposed tree felling is
consistent with City standards even in the absence of an approved development plan.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #8: The decision errs in concluding that it is necessary to remove the trees in
order to construct proposed improvements as specified in an approved development plan. The applicant has no
approved development plan. Moreover, its tentative plans reflect that removal of more than 120 trees are not
necessary to construct the proposed improvements. Accordingly, the decision of approval is in error, and we
respectfully request that the same be overturned.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #8: SUB’s proposed tree removal is necessary to permit SUB’s
proposed substation and transmission line. The development plan for these facilities has now been approved by
the City under Case Number 811-19-000084-TYP2. The trees shown on the Tree Felling Permit plans are located
within the transmission line corridor and are necessary for removal to provide for the safety, integrity and
operation of the electric facility. Thus, the applicant has satisfied Criterion C.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 12 of 21
Conclusion: This applicant has satisfied criterion C. Assignment of error #8 is denied.
D. In the event that no Development Plan has been approved by the City, felling of trees will be permitted on
a limited basis consistent with the preservation of the site's future development potential as prescribed in
the Metro Plan and City development regulations, and consistent with the following criteria:
1. Wooded areas associated with natural drainageways and water areas shall be retained to preserve
riparian habitat and to minimize erosion;
2. Wooded areas that will likely provide attractive on-site views to occupants of future developments shall
be retained;
3. Wooded areas along ridge lines and hilltops shall be retained for their scenic and wildlife value;
4. Wooded areas along property lines shall be retained to serve as buffers from adjacent properties;
5. Trees shall be retained in sufficiently large areas and dense stands so as to ensure against windthrow;
and
6. Large-scale clear-cuts of developable areas shall be avoided to retain the wooded character of future
building sites, and so preserve housing and design options for future City residents.
Applicant Submittal: “Approval of this tree felling permit is contingent on approval of the concurrent Site Plan
Review and Hillside Development Overlay applications.”
General Finding 29: The application is consistent with the criterion of approval under SDC 5.19-125.D which
requires felling of trees “on a limited basis consistent with the preservation of the site’s future development
potential as described in the Metro Plan and City development regulations[.]” As previously noted under
Assignment of Error #1 (above), the proposed tree felling is limited to areas necessary for the proposed
development of the substation, access road, and transmission line, including a reasonable 100-foot buffer on
either side of the transmission line for protection from windthrow and downed trees. The applicant submitted
industry best practices information for safe operation of high voltage transmission lines that substantiates this
100-foot clear zone. As previously noted in the response to Assignment of Error #4 (above), the installation of
high voltage transmission lines is allowable in accordance with the adopted Public Facilities and Services Plan
– a refinement plan to the Metro Plan – and provisions of the Springfield Development Code (SDC 3.2-400 and
3.3-800). The subject project is identified in the PFSP as Project 17A–Alvey to Glenwood to Springfield.
Because the proposed development is allowable on the tax lots that comprise the project area, the City does not
have to consider any further development on the site; the proposed transmission line and substation is the extent
of development proposed and approved for these properties. Should additional or further development be
proposed in the future – on all or part of the area covered by the Tree Felling Permit – it would be subject to
applicable land use processes including but not limited to tree removal, hillside development, wetland fill/removal
and site plan review.
General Finding 30: Assignment of Error #10 (below) does not identify the manner in which the application fails
to meet the criteria of approval in SDC 5.19-125.D. The Director’s decision issued on April 17, 2019 as Case
811-19-000016-TYP2 is tailored to the specific development (i.e. transmission lines and substation) proposed
within the project area – a project area that is owned outright by local utility providers. Similar projects elsewhere
in the City and Metro area, including electrical and water facilities, typically exclude any other types of
potentially conflicting land uses within the operational area. Nevertheless, the Tree Felling Permit (Case 811-
19-000016-TYP2) and associated Site Plan Review (811-19-000084-TYP2) and Hillside Development Permit
(811-19-000085-TYP2) in no way preclude further development on any or all of the subject properties, provided
the necessary land use approvals are obtained. The application therefore does not conflict with this criterion.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 13 of 21
General Finding 31: The proposed tree felling area is uphill and well removed from the Willamette River and its
main tributaries. There is a mapped tributary to the Glenwood Slough that runs through Tax Lot 1100 as generally
depicted on the applicant’s tree felling plan and a surface drainage ditch running generally parallel with and about
100 feet east of the mapped tributary. Both of these watercourse features are outside the City limits and therefore
not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal.
General Finding 32: There is a wetland feature on Tax Lot 101 that is identified on the City’s Water Quality
Limited Watercourses map, but it is not classified as a nationally or locally significant wetland within the project
area. There are no intact, native tree stands or wooded areas associated with the wetland feature on Tax Lot 101
so it is not classified as a “riparian area” for the purposes of this review. Nevertheless, the applicant is obtaining
a wetland fill/removal permit for the project work on Tax Lot 101. Condition 10 of the Site Plan Review approval
issued as Case 811-19-000084-TYP2 requires the applicant to obtain a wetland fill/removal permit prior to
initiating construction activities on Tax Lot 101.
General Finding 33: There is a mapped tributary channel of the Glenwood Slough on the hillside and some of
the drainage channel has been artificially channelized and directed into pipes and culverts by the actions of
previous landowners without development approval. This feature is outside the City limits and therefore outside
the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal. The subject application therefore is consistent with
Criterion D.1.
General Finding 34: The appellant correctly points out that the current zoning for the properties that comprise
the project area could allow for additional uses in the future. However, at this point, the properties inside the
City limits are owned by a utility provider and there is no indication that any other types of facilities or
improvements are planned for this area. The proposed felling is limited to only the areas necessary for the current
proposed development, as discussed in the City response to Assignment of Error #1 (above). There are no
provisions of the Director’s decision to conditionally approve the Tree Felling Permit (Case 811-19-000016-
TYP2) or associated Site Plan Review (Case 811-19-000084-TYP2) and Hillside Development Permit (811-19-
000085-TYP2) that preclude further or future development of Tax Lots 101 and 1100. The application therefore
is consistent with Criterion D.2.
General Finding 35: The project site is within existing industrial zoning, and currently there are no occupied
structures within the bounds of the tree felling area within Tax Lot 101 and the western edge of Tax Lot 1100.
Upon construction of an electric transmission line and substation on the property, should this occur, there won’t
be any residents or regularly occupied structures within the affected area. Therefore, Criterion D.2 has been met.
General Finding 36: The proposed felling is not along a ridgeline or hilltop, and therefore does not conflict with
the criterion of approval in subsection D.3. The Springfield Development Code does not define “ridgeline” or
“hilltop.” As used in the Metro Plan, a ridgeline is a “prominent topographic feature” (page III-E-3), as opposed
to a minor localized topographical feature. “Hilltop” is not defined in the Springfield Development code nor is
the term used in the Metro Plan, but taken in context with the word “ridgeline” in SDC 5.19-125.D.3 also means
a prominent topographic feature. The “ridgeline” and “hilltop” referred to in the appellant’s assignment of error
are localized topographic features that have been isolated and made more conspicuous by the significant road cut
associated with the adjoining I-5 freeway; they are not prominent topographical features that fall under the scope
of this criterion of approval. The freeway is immediately west and south of the tree removal area and it does not
run on a ridgeline or hilltop. If not for the intervening freeway, the hillside subject to the tree felling would
continue upward, uninterrupted, to the west. The true “hilltop” (a topographic feature locally referred to as
“Moon Mountain”) is at least 1,700 linear feet to the west within the City of Eugene where the elevation rises
significantly higher than the subject site. Because the areas of high elevation on the subject property are
artificially created and localized topographic features, they do not represent true “hilltops” or “ridgelines” that
are major topographic features identified in the Metro Plan. For this reason, the application is consistent with
this criterion of approval.
General Finding 37: The area proposed for tree felling is along a hillside and the hilltop area is actually located
across I-5 to the west on the Eugene side. The proposed tree felling will remove a narrow band of trees along
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 14 of 21
the western edge of Tax Lot 1100 to accommodate the overhead transmission line, but trees to the south along
the I-5 right-of-way and along the sloping areas within the western edge of Tax Lot 1100 that is within the City
limits will be retained. Upon installation of the transmission line and substation, should this occur, the remaining
tree stands – and the gap created by the transmission line – will remain accessible by terrestrial and avian wildlife.
Therefore, Criterion D.3 has been met.
General Finding 38: Criterion D.4 applies to property lines separating the development areas from “adjacent
properties”; it is not applicable to property lines that are internal to the development area. There is no requirement
to provide buffering or separation between two similarly-zoned, non-residential properties that are within the
project area. For this reason, the application is consistent with this criterion of approval.
General Finding 39: Much of the proposed tree felling will be occurring close to and generally paralleling the
edge of the I-5 right-of-way. Therefore, there are no developed properties per se that will require a buffer of tree
cover to be retained along the southern edge of the project area. Tree stands inside the City limits will be retained
along the northern and southern edges of the project area where it abuts the hillside area above the railroad tracks
and the I-5 freeway. Therefore, Criterion D.4 has been met.
General Finding 40: The staff decision includes findings that criterion of approval D.5 is met (see Director’s
Decision Finding D.5). The record in this matter includes substantial evidence that the trees to be retained on the
property will be protected against windthrow and in sufficiently dense stands. And, in the unlikely event that the
trees are not retained in sufficiently dense stands or windthrow does occur, the impacts would be entirely
contained within the applicant’s property and transmission line easement and would not affect third party property
owners. Furthermore, the potential for windfall and impacts to proposed improvements are the key reason for
the applicant requesting tree removal within the 100-foot buffer area beyond the specific project footprint area.
General Finding 41: The proposed tree felling will retain large, intact stands of trees along the hillside –
particularly at lower elevations of the site where trees will not be as exposed to windthrow. Therefore, Criterion
D.5 has been met.
General Finding 42: The subject site is not zoned or designated for residential use. Nevertheless, tree stands will
be retained within the properties that comprise the project area and will offer buffering, screening, and vegetative
backdrop for the proposed electric substation and transmission line and any future development along the
corridor, should this occur. This includes existing trees that are being retained along the western edge of Tax Lot
101 which is identified for construction of the electric substation. Therefore, Criterion D.6 has been met.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #9: The decision errs in failing to account for the site’s future development
potential as specified in the Metro Plan and City development regulations. As noted, the proposed installation
of high voltage transmission lines is not permitted in either the Metro Plan or the applicable zoning.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #10: In addition, the applicant and decision improperly discount any future
development potential of the property apart from the proposed substation and transmission lines.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #11: The application proposes tree felling within a Locally Significant Wetland
and a tributary of the Glenwood Slough. The application violates this criteria [sic], and the decision of approval
should be overturned on this basis.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #12: The decision erroneously concludes that once the “electric transmission
line and substation on the property [are constructed] there won’t be any residents or regularly occupied
structures within the affected area.” However, this assumption is based on unapproved development permits,
and the unsupported assumption that no other use will be made of the nearly 30 acres of property involved in the
application. The subject property is zoned for a variety of light manufacturing uses, as well as offices, hospitals,
commercial, educational and other secondary uses. See SDC 3.2-410 & 3.4-250. As neither the application nor
the decision account for the impacts to the views of these future developments, the decision should be overturned.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 15 of 21
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #13: The proposed felling would occur on a ridgeline and hilltop on Tax Lots
300 and 1000. The decision incorrectly relies on trees at lower elevations along I-5 and Oregon Pacific Railroad
tracks to justify the removal of these trees. As the decision fails to retain these wooded areas for their scenic and
wildlife value, it is erroneous and should be overturned.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #14: The proposed felling would largely eliminate an existing treed buffer
along the property line between Tax Lots 300 and 1000. As the decision fails to retain this buffer it is erroneous
and should be overturned.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #15: The application does not provide evidence demonstrating that the trees
retained will be in sufficiently large areas and dense stands to ensure against windthrow. The applicant did not
meet is [sic] burden of evidence on this issue, and the decision approval is in error, and we respectfully request
that the same be overturned.
Finding - Response to Assignments of Error #9 – 15: SUB responds to the appellant’s assertions as follows:
• In terms of the appellant’s assertion that the proposed installation of high voltage line is not permitted by
the Metro Plan or the applicable zoning, the applicant points to its testimony in B above. The transmission
line facility is in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, an adopted refinement plan to the Metro Plan, and
is permitted in the light medium industrial zone of Tax Lots 101, 3701 and 1100 as well as in the
Urbanizable Fringe of Tax Lots 1000 and 300.
• In terms of the sub-criteria D.1 through D.6, the City of Springfield has already found that the application
is in compliance with these standards. The applicant offers the following:
o D.1. There is one drainage area and one water area on the property. The impact to the drainage area
is explained above. The one crossing is existing and only one tree (but not the stump or root system)
will be removed within the setback area. The water area is the wetland on Tax Lot 101 where the
substation will be constructed. As explained elsewhere this is already a highly-disturbed wetland –
having been graded by the previous property owner for reasons not fully known. Even here there are
only four trees planned for removal while eight trees in the wetland are planned to remain. As this
standard “wooded areas”, the removal of a single tree in the setback area associated with the
drainageway and of four trees in a non-wooded wetland do not rise to the level of impacting a wooded
area.
o D.2. This standard is in regards to attractive on-site views of wooded areas by future occupants. To
be clear, there are no occupants on the property today and there will not be any occupants in the
future.
o D.3. As staff said, the transmission line corridor is along a hillside. It is not a hilltop nor is it a
ridgeline. The existing slope of the hillside is the result of the development of Interstate 5 and is not
a natural feature of the landscape. Following tree removal, trees to the southwest will still remain
along I-5 and trees to the north and northeast on the hillside adjacent to the rail road will still remain.
Wildlife will still have free access through and within the property.
o D.4. Wooded areas along property lines will still remain to serve as buffers from adjacent properties.
As noted above and shown in the photo, existing trees will still remain along the I-5 corridor, along
the railroad property, as well as to the southeast and the northwest.
o D.5. This standard calls for trees to be left in sufficiently large and dense stands to ensure against
windthrow. Windthrow most typically affects trees newly exposed to a solitary condition. This is
not a condition resulting from this action because SUB’s plan leaves a large number of trees intact
and does not leave isolated trees in locations vulnerable to windthrow.
o D.6. This standard discouraged large-scale clear-cuts to retain the wooded character of future
building sites. This property is not an area planned or zoned for housing. There will be no future
building sites or future residents.
• This information here documents that the applicant has satisfied Criterion D.
Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied criterion D. Assignments of error #9 – 15 are denied.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 16 of 21
E. Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation is an adequate substitute for the
trees to be felled.
Applicant Submittal: “The proposed development setback areas should not be disturbed so setback landscaping
is satisfied with the existing vegetation. Interior to the substation site, there will be some disturbed areas as the
substation, on-site driveway, utility infrastructure and transmission line is constructed. These areas will be
planted with approved vegetation in the stormwater treatment facilities and with grasses that are drought
resistant and don’t need irrigation in other areas. The stormwater treatment facility planning includes trees.”
General Finding 43: The applicant’s tree felling narrative indicates that replanting of the transmission line
corridor with native, non-irrigated grasses, shrubs and forbs will help to stabilize the hillside and prevent erosion
and sedimentation issues.
General Finding 44: The nature of the transmission line corridor and substation requires that tall vegetation is
excluded from the area to maintain safe clearance from overhead lines. Therefore, revegetation of the affected
area will be limited to grasses, groundcover plants, shrubs, and trees with a low growth form.
General Finding 45: In their submittal made during the reopened written record on August 13, 2019, the appellant
raises a new issue regarding alleged use of the pesticide glyphosate on the applicant’s property. Although the
appellant is correct that the grading plan submitted by the applicant on July 2, 2019 does contain a note about
glyphosate, this grading plan is part of SUB’s Site Plan Review application and pesticide use has not otherwise
been discussed in the Tree Felling Permit appeal. There are no approval criteria that prohibit or otherwise regulate
SUB’s use of glyphosate on the property.
General Finding 46: The original Director’s Decision includes findings that demonstrate compliance with the
criterion of approval in SDC 5.19-125.E. These findings remain applicable and are retained herein as General
Findings 43 and 44 (above). The replanting of grasses and forbs is the only viable option to maintain natural
vegetation within portions of the project area because of the need to keep the transmission line corridor free of
conflicting trees. Unlike other types of industrial development that would be allowable on Tax Lots 101 and
1100, the project actually has a very small footprint on the ground surface despite requiring a clear overstory to
eliminate conflicts with the transmission line. There are no specific requirements in the Tree Felling criteria
requiring a one-for-one tree replacement strategy or implementation of some form of carbon uptake mechanism
to compensate for trees to be removed. Given the proposed development of the property for a substation and
transmission line, the applicant’s proposed replanting of new trees and vegetation is “an adequate substitute.”
Therefore, this criterion of approval is met.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #16: The decision errs in concluding that the proposed replanting of grasses
on the subject property is an adequate substitute for the trees felled. The application provides no evidence that
the grasses proposed are an adequate substitute in terms of natural function, habitat, carbon sequestration,
shallow erosion, aesthetics or buffering. Accordingly, the applicant has not met its burden, and we respectfully
request that the decision of approval be overturned.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #16: Springfield Utility Board responds to the appellant’s assertions
as follows:
• Substation. The proposal includes both the removal of existing trees and the planting of new trees on and
around the substation site. Of the 46 existing trees on the substation site (Tax Lot 101), 19 are to be
removed and 27 are to remain. Of the 19 trees proposed for removal, 21 new trees will be planted.
Therefore the replanting of new trees on the substation site is more than adequate.
• Transmission Line. The proposal includes the removal of 253 trees on the transmission line tax lots. No
new trees are proposed. Where the site will be impacted, native, drought-tolerant grasses will be planted.
To understand that removing 253 trees is not that great an amount, note that of the transmission line’s 23.35
acres, only 2.70 acres are being impacted. That’s the area encompassed by the transmission line corridor
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 17 of 21
and access road. That leaves 20.65 acres untouched, including the trees thereon. That’s 88.4% of the
transmission line site untouched.
• With tree replacement on the substation site at more than 100% of tree removal and with over 88% of the
transmission line site not disturbed, the applicant’s proposed replanting of trees and other vegetation (the
proposed native grasses) is a completely adequate response to the tree felling.
• Given this, it is demonstrated that the applicant has satisfied Criterion E.
Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied criterion E. Assignment of error #16 is denied.
F. Whether slash left on the property poses significant fire hazard or liability to the City.
Applicant Submittal: “All trees and slash will be removed from the site within 72 hours. No slash or other fire
hazard posing liability to the City will result from the proposed removal of the trees.”
General Finding 47: Where necessary, removal of slash reduces fire hazards and prevents debris and sediment
from being deposited into drainage courses or conveyed downhill to adjacent properties and transportation
facilities.
General Finding 48: The applicant’s proposal to cut and remove the trees, woody material and debris from the
project area should significantly reduce the fire hazard liability on the site.
General Finding 49: The applicant will need to physically remove the trees, slash, and woody debris from the
project area because burning of slash piles cannot be done within the Springfield City limits. There are recycling
and wood processing facilities nearby that should be able to accept the trees and woody debris generated by the
proposed tree felling activity.
General Finding 50: Tax Lots 1000 and 300 are outside City limits and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the
Planning Commission for this appeal. To the extent that Assignment of Error #17 affects Tax Lots 101 and 1100,
the applicant has obtained ownership of Tax Lots 101 and 1100 as detailed in the response to Assignment of
Error #2. Therefore, right of access to the project area has been established and this criterion has been met.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #17: The decision errs in concluding that slash left of [sic] the property will be
appropriately disposed of, where the majority of cutting will take place on property – Tax Lots 300 and 1000 –
for which no right of access has been established. Accordingly, this determination is in error and we respectfully
request that the decision be overturned.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #17: Springfield Utility Board responds to the appellant’s assertions
as follows:
• As the applicant stated above in its response to Criterion A, adequate access has been established to Tax
Lots 1000 and 300.
• Given this, the applicant has satisfied Criterion F.
Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied criterion F. Assignment of error #17 is denied.
G. Whether the felling is consistent with the guidelines specified in the Field Guide to Oregon Forestry
Practices Rules published by the State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, as they apply to the northwest
Oregon region.
Applicant Submittal: “The proposed tree felling is consistent with the specified guidelines. The Oregon
Department of Forestry, through its Community and Urban Forestry program, advocates for selecting
appropriate tree species based on site conditions, avoiding invading exotic species, and reforesting the urban
environment. As discussed above, the applicant is proposing practical replacement plantings that are compatible
with the scale of the proposed development. Therefore, the Oregon Department of Forestry objectives have been
met by this tree felling proposal.”
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 18 of 21
General Finding 51: Forestry practices in the State of Oregon are governed by the State Forest Practices Act.
The Field Guide to Oregon Forestry Practices Rule provides safety and other guidelines for compliance with the
Forest Practices Act during timber harvest operations. The guidelines are standards in the industry and are
generally followed during all operations performed by licensed and bonded logging contractors.
General Finding 52: The site that is subject to the tree felling request is within the Springfield City limits. The
tree felling activity can be conducted within the identified project area without the requirement for a commercial
timber permit.
General Finding 53: The project is designed and intended to accommodate major public utility infrastructure by
removing trees from the subject area. The affected properties are zoned and designated for industrial activities,
not for public open space, parks or natural area preservation. For these reasons, the proposed tree removal does
not rise to the level of a regulated timber harvest or commercial logging operation and the activity is governed
by the applicable provisions of the Springfield Development Code. The applicant has committed to obtaining
necessary permits from the City and other local agencies, and following State forestry guidelines for safe
operations and fire prevention during the removal of trees, slash and debris approved under this permit.
General Finding 54: The criterion of approval in SDC 5.19-125.G is out of date and no longer an applicable
criterion of approval as written. It requires the felling “to be consistent with the guidelines specified in the Field
Guide to Oregon Forestry Practices Rules published by the State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, as they
apply to the northwest Oregon region.” The specific publication “Field Guide to Oregon Forestry Practices
Rules” was last published in 1980 and no longer “appl[ies] to the northwest Oregon region.” The Field Guide
has been superseded by other requirements and rules published by the Department of Forestry. This tree felling
permit is not subject to Department of Forestry rules and requirements – although it is advisable to do so – because
the proposed tree removal is inside the City limits and is not a commercial timber harvest. Therefore, this criterion
of approval is not applicable.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #18: The decision errs in concluding that the proposed tree felling conforms to
the Field Guide to Oregon Forestry Practices Rules. The application does not address these guidelines, and the
decision does not demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. Accordingly, the decision should be
overturned on this basis as well.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #18: The referenced Field Guide provides safety and other guidelines
for timber harvesting. The guidelines are standards followed by licensed and bonded logging contractors. The
proposed tree removal does not rise to the level of a regulated timber harvest or commercial logging operation
and the proposed tree felling is governed by the applicable provisions of the Springfield Development Code.
SUB will be contracting with a licensed and bonded contractor to carry out the tree felling, and this contractor
will follow the field guide guidelines. It is natural to do so in order to remain licensed and bonded. SUB has
therefore satisfied Criterion G.
Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied criterion G. Assignment of error #18 is denied.
H. Whether transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the site can be accomplished
without a major disturbance to nearby residents.
Applicant Submittal: “Construction access to the site will be from East 22nd Avenue and will pass through an
industrial neighborhood. Tree felling activities will take place between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm
Monday through Saturday, and will be of limited duration. Therefore, transportation of equipment and trees
from the site will be accomplished without major disturbances to nearby property in compliance with this
criterion.”
General Finding 55: The applicant’s tree removal plan indicates that trees will be cut and hauled offsite via
existing public roads. The primary public access from East 22nd Avenue is close to the local and regional
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 19 of 21
transportation network at Glenwood Boulevard and I-5, and it represents a preferred route to access the relatively
undeveloped project area.
General Finding 56: The existing and proposed access roads will be used to access the entire project area, which
extends beyond the City limits into the UGB. There is only one practical point of access from the site due to
topography and adjacent transportation corridors (i.e. access is not afforded from the I-5 right-of-way or the
Central Oregon Pacific Railroad line). All of the truck trips will use the same haul route and access the regional
transportation network via East 22nd Avenue and Glenwood Boulevard. The applicant has scheduled work during
normal business hours such that it will not create a disturbance to nearby residents along East 22nd Avenue.
General Finding 57: The project site is directly accessible from Glenwood Boulevard and the I-5 corridor, which
provides for quick access to local and regional sawmills and composting facilities for wood waste and debris.
The site’s location allows for trucks and equipment to access the local and regional truck routes and, if necessary,
for trees, slash and debris to be taken to a suitable disposal facility.
General Finding 58: The criterion of approval in SDC 5.19-125.H does not require access to the development
area to be along fully improved streets. The segment of East 22nd Avenue extending from Glenwood Boulevard
to the edge of Tax Lot 101 (where it becomes a private shared driveway with access easement) is classified as a
local road. West of the intersection with Henderson Avenue, East 22nd Avenue is developed as an industrial
street with striped centerline, striped shoulders, and guardrails. East of the intersection with Henderson Avenue
the street is not improved with striping. In the vicinity of the project area, East 22nd Avenue contains a mix of
uses including manufacturing facilities, equipment and vehicle storage compounds, residential dwellings, and
vacant industrial lots. There is no requirement for a street to be improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk to be
used by trucks – in fact, many industrial streets within the City do not have these improvements. The full length
of the street between Glenwood Boulevard and Tax Lot 101 serves other industrial properties in the vicinity,
including properties that are zoned and designated for light medium industrial uses but have residential dwellings
currently on the site. There is existing and ongoing truck traffic accessing the Cafeto Coffee manufacturing
facility on Tax Lot 3701 (immediately across the street to the north from the project site), and truck traffic
regularly and frequently accessing other businesses in the immediate vicinity including Pape Machinery off East
22nd Avenue and Farwest Steel off Henderson Avenue. Therefore, the short-term truck traffic associated with
the proposed tree felling is not conspicuously different to be considered a “major disturbance” to nearby residents
in a predominantly industrial area of Glenwood. Therefore, the application meets this criterion of approval.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL 2: The applicant shall provide notification to the City of Springfield and
all partner agencies involved in the project at least 5 days prior to initiating any tree felling activity on the
site.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #19: The application states that “[c]onstruction access to the site will be from
East 22nd Avenue and will pass through an industrial neighborhood.” Application, p. 8. In reality, the
application is proposing to route log trucks through a residential neighborhood along East 22nd Avenue, despite
the fact that the street is not improved to City standards with sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc. The decision does
not address the impacts of these additional truck trips on area residents, and the decision should be overturned
on this basis as well.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #19: Springfield Utility Board responds to the appellant’s assertions
as follows:
• As Springfield staff have said, trees will be hauled off of the site via East 22nd Avenue.
o East 22nd Avenue is the only point of access to the property.
o It is a short distance to regional transportation facilities, including Glenwood Boulevard and
Interstate-5.
o The applicant has scheduled this activity to occur during normal business hours such that it will not
create a disturbance to nearby residents.
• Given this, as well as the information above regarding using licensed and bonded contractors, and as
Springfield staff have said, the applicant has satisfied Criterion H.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 20 of 21
Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied criterion H. Assignment of error #19 is denied.
CONCLUSION:
The above findings and conclusions cited from the application, Director’s Decision, Applicant’s response, City
response, and response to LUBA remanded issues all demonstrate that the proposal meets the criteria of approval in
SDC 5.19-125 for Tree Felling Permit Approval subject to the conditions cited herein and listed below. The amended
staff report and findings in support of the Tree Felling Permit (Case No. 811-19-000102-TYP3) supersedes the
original Director’s Decision approved as Case 811-19-000016-TYP2, and is hereby adopted as conditioned herein.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1: Prior to initiating any tree felling, earth work, or construction activity
within the project area inside the City limits (i.e. Tax Lot 101 and a portion of Tax Lot 1100), the applicant
shall obtain a Land Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) as may be required to provide erosion and sediment
control measures during tree removal activity and project construction. Initial required protection measures
shall be installed and in place prior to commencement of any tree removal activity.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL 2: The applicant shall provide notification to the City of Springfield and all
partner agencies involved in the project at least 5 days prior to initiating any tree felling activity on the site.
Attachment 2, Exhibit A Page 21 of 21
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
REMAND OF TYPE II DIRECTOR’S DECISION + CASE NO. 811-19-000128-TYP3
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HILLSIDE +
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED +
LIGHT MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT + FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
MIXED-USE, SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD, + AND FINAL ORDER
APPLICANT +
NATURE OF THE REMAND
The applicant is responding to remand issues arising from a LUBA opinion and final order issued on
November 20, 2020. The applicant’s Hillside Development Permit was issued on May 17, 2019 as Case
No. 811-19-000085-TYP2. An appeal of the Type II decision was timely filed on June 3, 2019 with the
appropriate fee and designated as Case 811-19-000128-TYP3. The Hillside Development Permit
applies to property that is partially within the incorporated City limits and partially outside the City limits
but within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). As a result of the appeal the subject action
has been elevated to a Type III decision. In accordance with Springfield Development Code (SDC)
Section 5.3-110.A.1&2, the Planning Commission and Hearings Official shall jointly review and approve a
Type III Director’s Decision where the project extends across both incorporated and unincorporated
territory within the Springfield UGB.
CONCLUSION
Supported by substantial evidence in the record, the amended Hillside Development Permit, Case No.
811-19-000128-TYP3 is consistent with the applicable Springfield Development Code Criteria of
Approval and satisfactorily addresses the LUBA remand issues. Therefore, the Planning Commission
upholds the conditional approval as issued on September 4, 2019 as modified in response to the remand
issues, as noted in the Amended Staff Report and Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A. This general
finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions set out in the Amended Staff Report
and Findings, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
ORDER
It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that the Hillside Development Permit issued
on September 4, 2019 as Case No. 811-19-000128-TYP3 is AFFIRMED as modified in response to the
remand issues. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on
September 8, 2021.
APPEAL
Pursuant to SDC Section 5.2-155 and 5.3-125, this decision is final unless appealed to the Oregon Land
Use Board of Appeals as specified in ORS Chapter 197.
_______________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1
Type II HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
Amended staff report and findings for remand
Case Number: 811-19-000128-TYP3
Application Name: Amended Type II
Director’s Decision to allow for hillside
development associated with the
Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Electric
substation and transmission line project
Nature of Application: The applicant
is requesting the issuance of a hillside
development permit for the installation of
transmission lines and an access road
Project Location: Vacant Parcels
Identified as Map 18-03-03-13, TL 101;
Map 18-03-03-12, TL 3701;
Map 18-03-03-14, TL 1000 & 1100;
and Map 18-03-03-40, TL 300
Zoning: Light Medium Industrial (LMI)
And Employment Mixed-Use (GEMU)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: LMI (1999 Glenwood Refinement Plan) and GEMU (2014 Glenwood
Refinement Plan)
Hillside Development Permit Issued: May 17, 2019
Appeal Hearing: July 16, 2019
LUBA Remand Issued: June 11, 2021
Final Decision Issued: August 17, 2021
APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT CONTACT INFORMATION
Appellant:
William Sherlock on behalf of Royal Blue Organics
Hutchinson Cox Attorneys
940 Willamette St., Suite 400
Eugene OR 97401
Respondent:
Nick Amann
SUB Electric
1001 Main Street
Springfield OR 97477
Respondent’s Counsel:
Mike Gelardi
Gelardi Law PC
P.O. Box 8529
Coburg OR 97408
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784
Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034
Public Works Engineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036
Public Works Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Eric Phillips-Meadow 541-726-2293
Building Official Building Chris Carpenter 541-744-4153
Project Area
E 22nd Ave
E 24th Ave
Portion of Project Area Inside City Limits
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 1 of 12
Site Information: The subject development site is comprised of five adjoining tax lots on the southern edge of
Glenwood between the I-5 freeway and the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad line (Assessor’s Map 18-03-03-13, Tax
Lot 101; Map 18-03-03-12, TL 3701; Map 18-03-03-14, Tax Lots 1000 & 1100; and Map 18-03-03-40, TL 300).
The project area is entirely within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and Tax Lot 101 and a portion of
Tax Lot 1100 are inside the City limits. The property that is subject of this decision, hereinafter the “project area”,
is limited to Tax Lot 101 and the western portion of Tax Lot 1100 that is inside the City limits. Currently, there is
no developed driveway access onto Tax Lot 101 although it abuts a paved private driveway extending eastward from
East 22nd Avenue. The principal access to Tax Lot 1100 is currently via a gated gravel driveway off the extension of
East 22nd Avenue. The overall project area comprises approximately 29.8 acres in total area, although the extent of
the project area within the City limits is about 8.2 acres. The tax lots comprising the project area are currently vacant
and not assigned municipal street addresses.
The proposed electric transmission line extends from a connection point within Tax Lot 300 about 1,600 feet
southeast of the subject site and runs generally northwest and parallel with the I-5 freeway across four contiguous tax
lots. The transmission line is to terminate at a new electric substation to be constructed on Tax Lot 101. However,
only Tax Lot 101 and a portion of Tax Lot 1100 are currently inside the City limits and therefore subject of this
decision. Furthermore, because of the topography and the alignment of the transmission line and gravel access road,
only a very small portion of the sloping, hillside areas potentially impacted by the project actually lie within the City
limits (i.e. the western edge of Tax Lot 1100).
Tax Lots 101 and 1100 are zoned and designated Light Medium Industrial (LMI) in accordance with the 1999
Glenwood Refinement Plan. Because most of Tax Lot 1100 is outside the City limits, it also has the UF-10 District
applied. Other properties in the vicinity of the project area are zoned and designated LMI and Glenwood Employment
Mixed-Use (GEMU). To the west of the project “terminus” on Tax Lot 101, there are areas of Low Density
Residential (LDR) zoning.
The proposed transmission line and substation are depicted on the adopted Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)
which is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan. In accordance with SDC 3.2-410, 3.3-815 and 4.7-160, high impact
public facilities that are shown on the adopted PFSP are allowable in the LMI District subject to Site Plan Review
procedures and Special Development Standards. Approval of the applicant’s Tentative Site Plan, submitted under
separate cover as Case 811-19-000084-TYP2 and upheld on appeal as Case 811-19-000129-TYP2 (incorporated
herein by reference), is a pre-requisite to this Hillside Development Overlay District approval.
REVIEW PROCESS: This Type II decision is reviewed under Type III procedures listed in Springfield
Development Code (SDC) Section 5.1-130. The required reports for the approval of a Hillside Development Permit
are the same as the underlying decision, which are the required reports listed in SDC 3.3-530. The Planning
Commission and Hearings Official’s decisions are the final decisions and are appealable to the Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals within 21 days of the decision.
Procedural Finding: The Hillside Development Permit (Case Number 811-19-000085-TYP2) was approved on May
17, 2019. The Hillside Development Permit was reviewed and issued concurrently with the tentative site plan
submitted as Case 811-19-000084-TYP2, also on May 17, 2019. An appeal was timely filed on June 3, 2019, within
15 days of the decision according to SDC 5.3-115.B. The appeal was heard on June 15, 2019 and continued to
September 4, 2019 at which time a decision was issued by the Planning Commission and Hearings Official. The
decision of the Planning Commission and Hearings Official was subsequently appealed to the Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA). In its final opinion and order, LUBA upheld the prior approval and remanded the matter
to the City for addressing five issues related to the Site Plan Review, Hillside Development Permit, and Tree Felling
Permit for the project. One of the remand issues directly pertains to the subject Hillside Development Permit.
Procedural Finding: The Hearings Official hears appeals of Type III Director’s decisions outside the City limits but
inside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Planning Commission hears appeals of Type III Director’s
decisions within the City limits. The subject property is located inside the UGB partially within City limits and
partially outside City limits. Accordingly, this Type III decision is reviewed and approved jointly by the Planning
Commission and Hearings Official. The Planning Commission has authority over the portion of the project affecting
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 2 of 12
those properties that are annexed to the City (Tax Lot 101 and a portion of Tax Lot 1100), while the Hearings Official
has authority over the portion of the project affecting the properties that are not yet annexed but are inside the Urban
Growth Boundary (Tax Lots 300, 1000 & a portion of 1100).
Procedural Finding: Due to the need to reopen the written record for additional evidence regarding the remand issues,
notice of the public meeting on August 17, 2021 was provided on July 27, 2021 to the property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the subject property, as required by SDC 5.1-130.B.
Procedural Finding: The appellant has identified 16 assignments of error which are addressed herein and are
enumerated in sequential order of presentation in the appellant’s submittal. The assignments of error have been
inserted under the applicable criteria of approval as set out in the report below.
Remand Finding: The applicant has provided supplemental information in response to a remand issue for the Hillside
Development Permit arising from the LUBA remand issued on June 11, 2021.
PURPOSE OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY APPROVAL:
SDC 3.3-500, Hillside Development Overlay District states, “the Hillside Development (HD) Overlay District is
established to ensure that development in hillside areas: minimizes the potential for earth movement and resultant
hazards to life and property; protects water quality by minimizing soil erosion and siltation; retains and protects
natural vegetation, natural water features and drainageways, scenic quality and open space by minimizing vegetation
removal in sloped areas; assures the compatibility of new development with surrounding areas; encourages site and
building design that is consistent with the natural topography in order to minimize the cost of providing public
infrastructure; provides for adequate access for emergency services; and otherwise protects the public health and
safety.”
SDC 3.3-510 – Applicability
General Finding 1: The City’s hillside development regulations intended to ensure that residential land divisions
result in lots that can be safely developed with homes. See SDC 3.3-520. These rules therefore have limited
applicability to the proposed development. That said, the City’s hillside development rules require the applicant
to perform certain studies that include recommendations to ensure safe construction.
General Finding 2: The Hillside Development Overlay District is applied in residential zoning districts above
670 feet elevation or in other zoning districts to development areas below 670 feet in elevation where any portion
of the development area exceeds 15 percent slope as determined using the slope calculation described in SDC
3.3-520.A.
General Finding 3: The portion of the proposed project area inside the City limits is zoned Light Medium
Industrial in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map. No portions of the site intersect the 670-foot elevation
contour.
General Finding 4: Portions of the project area within the City limits have slopes exceeding 15 percent, although
this area is limited to the extreme western edge of Tax Lot 1100. Tax Lot 101 does not have sloping areas that
trigger the Hillside Development permitting requirements. The project impacts to sloping areas inside the City
limits are limited to tree removal for the transmission line where it crosses the boundary between Tax Lots 1100
and 101, and an existing gravel access road that crosses a portion of Tax Lot 1100 and runs eastward.
Appellant’s Submittal: Appellant did not provide comment on this section of the Hillside Development Overlay
District.
Conclusion: The proposed project qualifies as a Hillside Development Overlay District development.
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 3 of 12
SDC 3.3-520 – Development Density and Options
A. For the purpose of calculating the allowed number of dwelling units in the development area below
670 feet in elevation, the “average slope” as defined below may be used:
B. The developer has 2 options for the development of steeply sloped land. Option “A” is designed to
correlate minimum lot/parcel sizes to the average slope of the development area. Option “B” is
designed to allow for a density transfer bonus to stimulate development on those portions of the
development area where the slope of the land is less than 15 percent. A combination of Options “A”
and “B” may be used.
General Finding 5: The developer has two options for the development of steeply sloping land, including
correlating minimum lot sizes to the average slope of the development area, or allowing for density transfer to
portions of the property that are less than 15 percent slope.
General Finding 6: The proposed development is not a residential housing project. Therefore, lot sizing and
density transfer options are not applicable.
Appellant’s Submittal: Appellant did not provide comment on this section of the Hillside Development Overlay
District.
Conclusion: The proposed project is not a residential development and does not qualify for development density
transfer or lot sizing modification. Therefore, this standard is not applicable.
SDC 3.3-525 – Street Grade Standards
General Finding 7: Streets shall be contoured in hillside areas to minimize environmental and scenic disruption.
Additionally, street grades shall be maintained below 12 percent wherever possible; below 15 percent for
stretches longer than 200 feet; and shall not exceed 18 percent grade in any circumstance.
General Finding 8: Primary access to the site is via an existing, private driveway off the extension of East 22nd
Avenue. The applicant is proposing to modify an existing gravel driveway to serve as the construction and
maintenance access road for the transmission line. However, the applicant is not proposing to modify the
alignment of the adjacent public streets or to construct new public streets to serve the development site.
Therefore, this standard is not applicable.
Appellant’s Submittal: Appellant did not provide comment on this section of the Hillside Development Overlay
District.
Conclusion: The proposed project does not involve public street construction. Therefore, this standard is not
applicable.
SDC 3.3-530 – Reports Required
Where the buildable portion of the land to be developed exceeds 15 percent average slope, the following
reports are required and their conclusions applied in order to prevent or mitigate possible hazards to life
and property and adverse impacts on the natural environment, consistent with the purpose of this Section.
The applicant shall fund peer review of the reports as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
A. Geotechnical Report. This report shall include data regarding the geology of the site, the nature,
distribution, and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures,
design criteria for corrective measures, and options and recommendations to maintain soil and slope
stability and minimize erosion of the site to be developed in a manner imposing the minimum variance
from the natural conditions. Where geologic conditions of the site indicate that a hazard may exist,
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 4 of 12
the report shall show that the proposed Subdivision or Partition shall result in lots/parcels that are
suitable for development. The investigation and report shall be prepared by a civil engineer/geologist
or a geotechnical engineer.
General Finding 9: Where the buildable portion of a site exceeds 15 percent average slope, the following reports
are required and their conclusions applied in order to prevent or mitigate possible hazards to life and property
and adverse impacts on the natural environment: geotechnical report, grading plan report, vegetation and re-
vegetation report, verification of slope and grade percentages, and development plan report. The applicant shall
fund the peer review of any reports if deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
General Finding 10: The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Investigation and Seismic Hazard Study
prepared by Foundation Engineering Inc. (September, 2018). The supplementary Slope Stability Review in Tree
Felling Areas dated December, 2018 outlines the site geology and describes the observed surface conditions and
evidence (or lack of evidence) of slope instability within the project area. The reports also provide
recommendations for slope stabilization for the areas proposed for tree felling and the maintenance access road.
The Geotechnical Engineer did not determine the presence of any significant geologic or seismic hazards within
the project area, and it is expected that the hillside will be geologically stable for the proposed project.
General Finding 11: In response to the appellant’s argument that the geotechnical analysis and grading plans are
inadequate, and in response to the appellant’s geotechnical report prepared by Geosciences Inc., SUB has
submitted supplemental information from Foundation Engineering Inc. dated August 5, 2019. The supplemental
analysis reaffirms the applicant’s original findings and conclusions that there is minimal geotechnical risk
associated with the project, particularly in the areas within the City limits along the western edge of Tax Lot
1100.
General Finding 12: The applicant has commissioned all required studies, including geotechnical analysis, grading
plans, revegetation plans and a development plan and these studies meet the requirements of SDC 3.3-530.
General Finding 13: The appellant has provided competing information about slope stability on the property and
recommendations for further study. None of the issues raised by the appellant in their arguments identify the
sloping area along the western edge of Tax Lot 1100 or the portion of gravel access road also within the western
edge of Tax Lot 1100 as being a potential hazard area.
General Finding 14: SDC 3.3-530 does not require the applicant to follow the recommendations in the appellant’s
submitted letters from Geosciences Inc. If the City believes that an applicant’s reports are inadequate, SDC 3.3-
530 allows the City to require peer review of the applicant’s reports. City staff did not do so in this case. The
appellant’s commentary was prepared by Geoscience Inc. therefore is not peer review authorized by SDC 3.3-530.
The record reflects that SUB’s geotechnical engineer did nevertheless consider Geoscience’s commentary and
explain why this commentary is inaccurate (see August 5, 2019 letter from Foundation Engineering Inc.).
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #1: “As acknowledged in the Decision, the ‘proposed development affects
slopes exceeding 15 percent and in some cases the slopes approach 50 percent.’ Decision, p.2. As such, each of
the reports specified in 3.3-530 ‘are required and their conclusions applied in order to prevent or mitigate
possible hazards to life and property and adverse impacts on the natural environment.’ As the applicant failed
to conform to these minimum requirements, the Decision of approval is in error and reversal of the Decision is
warranted.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #2: “The applicant fails to provide a geotechnical report conforming to these
requirements. As highlighted in our initial comments, subsurface exploration of the property – test pits and
boreholes – was limited almost exclusively to the ‘substation site’ on lot 101. The applicant provided no
subsurface testing on the remaining lots 1307 [sic], 1100 and 1000 that it proposed to be crossed by the
applicant’s access road and transmission lines, and no data on the ‘nature, distribution and strength of the
existing soils’ on these properties. In addition, the applicant’s report does not address the requirement that the
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 5 of 12
site ‘be developed in a manner imposing the minimum variance from the natural conditions.’ The Decision fails
to account for the applicant’s failure to provide the required study of the site. Instead it attempts to justify the
defects in the application by suggesting that geotechnical analysis is not required for roads or transmission lines:
‘The proposed alignment of the maintenance access road follows an existing driveway that has already been
installed on Tax Lots 3701, 1100, 1000 (and possibly Tax Lot 300) by the previous landowner. The applicant
is proposing to reconfigure and regrade portions of the existing road to serve as the construction and
maintenance access for the project. Finally, the applicant is not proposing any foundations within the hillside
area. Unlike lattice-style transmission towers that require a footing or concrete foundation, the applicant is
proposing to use monopoles that will be augured directly into the ground surface, similar to placing a fence
post in the ground. The design of the proposed transmission line minimizes the disturbance of the ground
surface to the circumference of the monopole. An extensive area of leveling and compaction for a poured
footing is not required for the transmission poles so they do not trigger the requirement for building
permits and associated geotechnical analysis.’ (Emphasis added).
The Decision is wrong on both the facts and the law. Factually, the decisions [sic] statements related to both the
road and the transmission towers are not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. With regard to
‘maintenance access road’, the Decision is simply incorrect in stating that the property is developed with ‘an
existing road.’ As noted in the applicant’s own ‘Slope Stability Review in Tree Felling Areas’, the property has
an existing ‘path’ supported by ‘modest cuts and fills’. Photographs provided with the same report depict a
meandering and rough cut trail, which may be wide enough for a single car, and which may be graveled in some
places, but which is largely overgrown in others. This fairly modest path is a far cry from the 18-foot wide
‘Glenwood Access Road’ that the applicant is proposing, and the attempt to equate the two in the Decision is
unwarranted. In addition, the Decision makes wholly unjustified assumptions concerning the nature of the
transmission line facilities on the subject property. The Decision’s statements concerning the nature of the poles
proposed for installation or the manner of their installation is not based on any evidence in the record and is
subject to reversal on that basis.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #3: “As set forth below, the applicant refused to provide a ‘development plan
report’ and provides no information regarding the poles or towers, guying, equipment or other site improvements
associated with the proposed lines. Moreover, even if the Decision assumptions were correct, the City has not
been provided with the required geotechnical information regarding the geology or soil types, strength or
distributions relevant to the proposed transmission line improvements, nor design criteria for corrective
measures or recommendations to maintain slope stability during and after construction of these facilities. As
this analysis is not provided in the report, the Decision cannot fully evaluate the hazards posed by the project or
rely on the limited recommendations provided for other aspects of the project. The Decision also misinterprets
the applicable law in equating the lack of foundations for the access roads or poles with a lack of required
analysis. The geotechnical report standards are not expressly or impliedly limited to structures or improvements
with foundations. As set forth above, the requirement for a geotechnical report is triggered whenever a ‘buildable
area’ has a slope in excess of 15 percent. The geotechnical standards focus on the buildable portion of the
property, rather than the type of development being proposed. Hence, contrary to the Decision’s emphasis on
foundations, the City’s geotechnical standards are not limited to a particular type of development. As the
Decision improperly construes the applicable law, we respectfully request reversal on this basis as well.”
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #1: The appellant has failed to disclose in this initial statement exactly
which of the required reports are missing. Because this information is not forthcoming in Assignment of Error
#1, the City cannot ascertain the validity of this allegation.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #2: The submittal includes all necessary elements for the City to
conclude that a minimal to negligible geotechnical risk can be attributed to the proposed installation of
transmission line poles on moderately to steeply sloping terrain along the planned alignment shown on the
applicant’s plans. The same minimal risk exists for use of the existing gravel road and extension of said road to
serve as the maintenance access for this project. Additionally, the applicant’s geotechnical engineer has
confirmed that no existing or anticipated geotechnical issues are identified along the planned transmission line
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 6 of 12
alignment after conducting intrusive testing and walking the site. The City does not require a specific number or
location of boreholes and test pits for preparation of a geotechnical report, and therefore defers to the findings
and conclusions of the geotechnical specialist who prepared the report. Most geotechnical reports submitted to
the City are done in support of occupied structures that go through the Building Permitting process, especially
residential dwellings and large commercial/industrial buildings. None of the transmission line structures (or the
access road) within the hillside area will require structural building permits so the geotechnical information serves
to inform the level of risk associated with constructing and operating these improvements (i.e. very low). The
intrusive investigation is primarily for the benefit of the electric substation site, which is planned for level to
gently sloping land – and which will require Building Permits for its various elements including footings and
utility connections.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #3: The applicant provided a development plan in the accompanying
Site Plan Review application which is cross-referenced and co-dependent upon the subject Hillside Development
Permit. Staff was also advised of the specific nature and location of the planned electric transmission line through
ongoing discussions with SUB Electric project representatives. Early on in the process SUB Electric pointed to
the existing overhead power lines that cross I-5 and run parallel with the 30th Avenue frontage road as being a
reasonable approximation of how the planned transmission lines will appear in terms of design and height. In
the current example, two parallel transmission lines with paired poles will be routed through the project area
instead of a single series of poles along the 30th Avenue frontage road. In any event, the City’s evaluation of the
submitted materials resulted in the City agreeing with the findings and conclusions of the supporting reports and
information: that minimal geotechnical risk exists for the applicant to modify the existing gravel road to serve
as a maintenance access and to install a series of paired transmission line poles along the hillside between the
connection point on Tax Lot 300 and the planned substation on Tax Lot 101. Because there are no occupied
structures associated with the planned development on the hillside, and there are no occupied structures
immediately below the project area (thereby minimizing the hazard to the public) the City determined that the
Hillside Development Permit requirements have been met.
Conclusion: This applicant has satisfied Subsection A. Assignments of error #1–3 are denied.
B. Grading Plan Report. This plan shall include the following information:
1. Existing and proposed details and contours (5-foot intervals) of property;
2. Details of terrain and area drainage;
3. Location of any existing buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed,
the location of any existing buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within
100 feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations, and
proposed or approximate locations of structures relative to adjacent topography;
4. The direction of drainage flow and the approximate grade of all streets with the final determination
to be made as specified in Subsection D., below;
5. Limiting dimensions, elevations, or finished contours to be achieved by the grading, including all
cut and fill slopes, proposed drainage channels, and related construction;
6. Detailed plans and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, dams, sediment
basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of, the
proposed work, together with a map showing drainage areas, the complete drainage network,
including outfall lines and natural drainageways which may be affected by the proposed
development, and the estimated run-off of the area served by the drains;
7. A schedule showing when each phase of the project will be completed, including the total area of
soil surface which is to be disturbed during each stage, and estimated starting and completion
dates; the schedule shall be drawn up to limit to the shortest possible period the time that soil is
exposed and unprotected. In no event shall the existing “natural” vegetative ground cover be
destroyed, removed, or disturbed more than 15 days prior to grading or construction of required
improvements. Within 15 days of grading or other pre-development activity that removes or
significantly disturbs ground cover vegetation, exposed soil shall either be built upon (i.e., covered
with gravel, a slab foundation or other construction), landscaped (i.e., seeded or planted with
ground cover) or otherwise protected; and
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 7 of 12
8. The Grading Plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #4: “The applicant’s January 25, 2019 grading plan report is limited to the
electrical substation on tax lot 101. It does not provide information concerning impacts to the majority of the
property, and is inadequate to demonstrate compliance with 3.3-530(B). In fact, the Decision finds that the
portion of the project covered by the grading plan is ‘outside of the Hillside Development area.’ Decision , p.6.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that Decision be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #5: “The Decision appears to rely on a future ‘Land Drainage Alteration
Permit’ to supply some or all of the missing information. However, the Decision does not impose a condition
requiring an LDAP permit, and the same are not required all [sic] development projects. Moreover, the
standards for the LDAP permit are not the same as the grading plan standards, and do not incorporate public
review provisions. Accordingly, it is improper for the City to attempt to defer the required grading plan analysis
to the LDAP process. The applicant’s grading plan report is limited to the ‘6.48-acre site’ where the substation
is proposed to be located. As the Decision notes, this plan is not responsive to the requirements of the Hillside
Development Ordinance. The Decision also relies on sheets C1 and C2, as well as on an exhibit that was
ostensibly submitted by the applicant on May 16, 2019. However, sheet C1 ‘Grading and Stormwater Plan’
provided with the tentative plans is limited to tax lot 101. A second ‘C1’ cover sheet is provided as an Exhibit B
to the Foundation Engineering, Inc. study but does not provide the required information. The sheet C2 to which
the Decision refers provides information only for a few isolated segments of the access road and is not sufficient
to meet these criteria. The later materials referenced are not a part of the application materials, were not
submitted until after referral to the public, and were not made available to the public as part of the planning file.
Accordingly, the Decision approving the Hillside Development permit is erroneous and should be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #6: “The applicant’s grading plan report is limited to the portions of tax lot
101 that are not within the Hillside Development Overlay. Accordingly, the Decision is not based on substantial
evidence in the whole record and the approval should be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #7: “The applicant’s grading plan report is limited to the portions of tax lot
101, that are not within the Hillside Development Overlay. Accordingly, the Decision is not based on substantial
evidence in the whole record and the approval should be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #8: “The applicant’s grading plan report is limited to the portions of tax lot
101, that are not within the Hillside Development Overlay. Accordingly, the Decision is not based on substantial
evidence in the whole record and the approval should be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #9: “The applicant’s grading plan report is limited to the portions of tax lot
101, that are not within the Hillside Development Overlay. Accordingly, the Decision is not based on substantial
evidence in the whole record and the approval should be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #10: “The applicant’s grading plan report is limited to the portions of tax lot
101, that are not within the Hillside Development Overlay. Accordingly, the Decision is not based on substantial
evidence in the whole record and the approval should be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #11: “The applicant’s grading plan report is limited to the portions of tax lot
101, that are not within the Hillside Development Overlay. Accordingly, the Decision is not based on substantial
evidence in the whole record and the approval should be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #12: “The applicant has not provided a Grading Plan for the proposed grading
within the Hillside Development Overlay that has been prepared by a civil engineer. Accordingly, this
application does not conform to this standard either, and the approval should be reversed on this basis as well.”
Finding - Response to Assignments of Error #4 & #6–12: The applicant has submitted a Grading and Drainage
Plan prepared by Branch Engineering Inc. for the proposed substation compound and gated access driveway on
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 8 of 12
Tax Lot 101. The electric substation site is not within the Hillside Development area. Although the applicant
provided a detailed grading and drainage plan for this portion of the project area that is referenced herein, the
electric substation site (Tax Lot 101) is not subject to Hillside Development permitting.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #5: A detailed grading plan for the maintenance access road that
illustrates the existing and proposed contours was prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City
on May 17, 2019. The hillside area of the maintenance access road is outside the City limits and therefore outside
the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal. However, to the extent that the Hillside Permit
requirements apply to the maintenance access road inside City limits, the grading plan meets the requirements in
SDC 3.3-530.B.
Remand Finding 14.1: The requirement for a grading plan is associated with the City’s Hillside Development
Overlay rules at SDC 3.3-530. As described above, SUB originally submitted two grading plans in support of its
Hillside Development Permit, one covering substation development on Tax Lot 101, and the other covering
access road improvements. LUBA ruled that SUB’s original submittals did not provide enough detail regarding
the drainage patterns on the property and the effect of pole placement on drainage. SUB has provided an amended
grading plan in Exhibit B of the applicant’s remand submittal. This amended grading plan provides all
information required by SDC 3.3-530.B for both transmission pole placement and access road improvements,
including the drainage details required by LUBA. SUB has thus demonstrated compliance with LUBA’s remand
order regarding SUB’s grading plans.
Conclusion: This applicant has satisfied Subsection B. Assignments of error #4–12 are denied.
C. Vegetation and Re-Vegetation Report. This report shall be as specified in Section 5.19-120, if tree
felling is proposed.
General Finding 15: The applicant has submitted a Vegetation and Re-Vegetation Report prepared by Schirmer
Satre Group for the proposed tree felling areas and transmission line corridor. Additionally, the applicant has
submitted a Tree Felling Permit under separate cover for the removal of trees from the project area (Case 811-
19-000016-TYP2). The Tree Felling Permit was issued on April 17, 2019 subject to conditions as outlined in the
staff report and decision. An appeal of the Tree Felling Permit was submitted on May 2, 2019 as Case 811-19-
000102-TYP3.
General Finding 16: The applicant is proposing to use a native seed mix for disturbed areas, which will use
drought-tolerant species for stabilization of the hillside and erosion control. Use of native trees, shrubs, grasses
and groundcover plants is acceptable in areas that are non-maintained and non-irrigated in accordance with SDC
4.4-105.G.
Appellant’s Submittal: Appellant did not provide comment on this section of the Hillside Development Overlay
District.
Conclusion: This applicant has satisfied Subsection C.
D. Verification of Slope and Grade Percentages. Prior to acceptance of the Final Plat, all streets shall be
cross-sectioned and their center-lines staked in the field, to determine the accuracy of preliminary
slope and grade percentages. If there are significant differences between preliminary and final grade
and slope determinations, i.e., density or street gradients exceed the limits specified in this Section, the
Tentative Plan shall be modified to reflect the revised information and resubmitted.
General Finding 17: The applicant is not proposing a land division or construction of new public streets.
Therefore, this report is not applicable.
Appellant’s Submittal: Appellant did not provide comment on this section of the Hillside Development Overlay
District.
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 9 of 12
Conclusion: This applicant has satisfied Subsection D.
E. Development Plan Report. A proposed development plan shall be submitted, depicting building
envelopes for each lot/parcel, including driveway approaches and all other associated impervious
surface areas. The applicant shall specify whether trees will be felled under one Tree Felling Permit,
as specified in Section 5.19-100, as part of the subdivision construction process or by separate Tree
Felling Permit for each individual lot/parcel prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The plan shall
be based upon the findings of the required reports in this Section and the lot/parcel coverage standards
of Section 3.2-215. Building envelopes shall be specified in Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions
recorded with the Subdivision Plat.
General Finding 18: The applicant submitted a Site Plan Review application prepared by Schirmer Satre Group
under separate cover (Case 811-19-000084-TYP2). The tentative site plan approval was appealed on June 3,
2019 as Case 811-19-000129–TYP3. The tentative site plan shows and describes the area of project impact,
location of a new gated driveway serving the proposed substation compound, proposed configuration of a
maintenance access driveway, trees proposed for removal to accommodate the project, and amount of the site
area covered by impervious surfaces. The building envelope area is limited to the proposed control building
within the substation compound on Tax Lot 101, which is outside the Hillside Development Overlay component
of the project.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #13: “The application does not include the required development plan and the
Decision errs by approving Hillside Development without this plan. As highlighted in the appellant’s written
comments before the decision-maker, the applicant was aware of this study requirement, but refused to provide
the same. The Decision attempts to justify the applicant’s refusal to conform to these minimum standards based
on unspecified materials in the separate ‘Site Plan Review application submitted as Case 811-19-000084-TYP2
and the Tree Felling Permit submitted as Case 811-19-000016-TYP2.’ Decision, p. 4. The problem with the
Decision’s reliance on these other applications, however, is two-fold: (1) the separate applications for site
review and tree felling are not part of the Hillside Development application; and (2) even if they were, the
Decision’s vague findings do not identify which documents, if any, the Decision relies upon as a substitute for
the required plan. As the applicant has failed to provide the required development plan in support of its proposed
Hillside Development, its application was facially [sic] inadequate to conform to the minimum standards of the
zone, and the City’s decision of approval must be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #14: “The application is subject to denial because the proposed ‘Glenwood
Access Road’ cannot developed [sic]. As highlighted in our comments on the application, the application relies
on a ‘Water Line Easement’ and a 30-foot wide access easement as Instrument No. 9302537 in support of the
proposed access road. However, the City of Eugene’s water line easement is limited to ‘the conveyance of water
and for all purposes connected therewith,’ while the 1993 Declaration of easement was only appurtenant to tax
lot 1100. The decision suggests that this issue can be corrected because ‘SUB Electic [sic], has acquired
ownership of four of the five parcels proposed for the electric transmission line and substation’ and relies on a
condition of approval imposed in the companion site review case that requires SUB to grant its own ‘access
easement across Tax Lots 101, 3701, 1100, 1000 and 300.’ However, there are problems with both the Decision’s
findings and its proposed solution. Initially, SUB has not acquired ownership of ‘four parcels’. In fact, as the
Decision acknowledges, the City acquired ‘a portion of Tax Lot 3701.’ SUB has not partitioned the parcel or
created a legal lot. This poses a problem for the application. Under the Springfield Development Code, a lot or
parcel cannot be divided without a formal partition action, and the City cannot issue a development permit prior
to a partition:
‘5.12-105 Purpose and Applicability
* * *
B. The Partition Process regulates land divisions that create 2 or 3 parcels within a calendar year. If the
Director determines that a property proposed to be partitioned has been, or is in the process of being
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 10 of 12
divided into 4 or more lots, full compliance with the Subdivision regulations specified in this Code
may be required.
D. Applicability
* * *
3. No lot/parcel may be created without being divided as specified in this Code.
4. No development permit will be issued by the City prior to approval of the Partition or
Subdivision Tentative Plan application.’
As no partition has been approved for the division of tax lot 3701, the Hillside Development Overlay permit
could not be issued under the City’s code, and reversal of that decision is warranted.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #15: “In addition, the reliance on the condition in the site review requiring the
applicant to provide access to grant itself an access easement for tax lot 1000 is problematic. Initially, while the
Hillside Development approval is contingent upon the grant of this easement, it does not actually impose a
condition of approval in its own decision requiring that that easement be created. As there is no evidence of an
easement for the Glenwood Access Road and the decision does not impose a condition of approval requiring
such, the Decision erroneously relies upon the same and should be reversed.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #16: “Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the easement
condition is feasible. According to the applicant’s plans, its proposed Glenwood Access Road would take access
from East 22nd Avenue, over and across a paved access located on the portion of tax lot 3701 retained by Alberto
Miranda to the north of tax lot 101. The applicant has not demonstrated that it has an easement for tax lot 1000
that crosses the Miranda property or that an alternative access route located solely on their property is feasible.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Decision be overturned on this basis as well.”
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #13: The bulk of the intensive development associated with the
project is the electric substation, which is outside the hillside development area. Contrary to the appellant’s
contention, the applicant has provided information on the alignment and routing of the access road and electric
transmission lines in all three associated land use applications (Tree Felling, Case 811-19-000016-TYP2; Hillside
Development, Case 811-19-000085-TYP2; and Site Plan Review, Case 811-19-000084-TYP2). The applicant
provided additional grading details for the maintenance access road at the request of City staff on May 16, 2019,
so this information is in the evidentiary record. Finally, the decisions on this and the associated applications are
based on the totality of the information in the record, which includes but is not limited to the original application
materials, staff and referral agency comments, public comments, supplementary information provided by the
applicant, information gathered from staff field visits, and research conducted by staff using available information
on the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS), Google Maps, and the Regional Land Information Database
(RLID) of Lane County among other databases.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #14: The applicant submitted a Property Line Adjustment survey for
approval by the City on March 26, 2019. The City completed a review of the Property Line Adjustment survey
and issued approval for recording the survey on April 24, 2019. The Property Line Adjustment Survey was
recorded on July 11, 2019 as County Surveyor’s File No. 44759 and, as a result, the project area is entirely within
public ownership.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #15 and 16: As previously stated, the Hillside Development Permit
does not usually exist as a standalone permit and is submitted in conjunction with land division and/or site
development plans. The Hillside Development standards list required reports but do not have any specific criteria
of approval, particularly requirements for the applicant to demonstrate that legal and physical access is provided
to the subject properties. Therefore, while the applicant has demonstrated that a shared easement exists for legal
and physical access to Tax Lots 101 and 1100, there is no criteria of approval for this application that requires
the applicant to demonstrate that legal and physical access exists or can be obtained for the project area. Access
to the development site subject to the Hillside Development Permit is addressed in the companion Tree Felling
and Site Plan Review applications submitted as Cases 811-19-000016-TYP2 and 811-19-000084-TYP2
respectively.
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 11 of 12
Conclusion: This applicant has satisfied Subsection E. Assignments of error #13–16 are denied.
Conclusion: The proposed project has been accompanied by the required supporting technical reports. Other
assignments of error raised by the appellant are not germane to the Hillside Development Permit or have been refuted
herein. Therefore, the Planning Commission upholds the decision as revised and issued herein.
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: None.
Attachment 3, Exhibit A Page 12 of 12
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
REMAND OF TYPE II DIRECTOR’S DECISION + CASE NO. 811-19-000129-TYP3
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN +
REVIEW ON PROPERTY ZONED LIGHT MEDIUM +
INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE + FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD, APPLICANT + AND FINAL ORDER
NATURE OF THE REMAND
The City issued the applicant’s Site Plan Review approval on May 17, 2019 as Case No. 811-19-000084-
TYP2. The Type II decision was appealed on June 3, 2019 and designated as Case 811-19-000129-
TYP3. The Planning Commission’s final decision on the local appeal was issued September 4, 2019 and
was subsequently appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the land use
approval to the City by final opinion and order dated June 11, 2021. In response to the remand issues,
the applicant has modified its application and provided additional evidence and argument in support of its
application as modified.
The Site Plan Review applies to property that is partially within the incorporated City limits and partially
outside the City limits but within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
CONCLUSION
Supported by substantial evidence in the record, the amended Site Plan Review, Case No. 811-19-
000129-TYP3 is consistent with the applicable Springfield Development Code Criteria of Approval and
satisfactorily addresses the LUBA remand issues. Therefore, the Planning Commission upholds the
conditional approval as issued on September 4, 2019 as modified in response to the remand issues, as
noted in the Amended Staff Report and Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A. This general finding is
supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions referenced herein and set out in the attached
Amended Staff Report and Findings, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
ORDER
It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that the Site Plan Review issued on
September 4, 2019 as Case No. 811-19-000129-TYP3 is AFFIRMED as modified in response to the
remand issues. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on
September 8, 2021.
APPEAL
Pursuant to SDC Section 5.2-155 and 5.3-125, this decision is final unless appealed to the Oregon Land
Use Board of Appeals as specified in ORS Chapter 197.
_______________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1
Type II TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW,
AMENDED STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS FOR REMAND
Case Number: 811-19-000129-TYP3
Application Name: Appeal of a Type II
Director’s Decision conditionally
approving an electric substation and
transmission line on five adjoining parcels
Nature of Application: Amended decision
to retain findings and conclusions upheld
on appeal; and to adopt new findings and
conclusions to address issues remanded by
LUBA in its November 2020 decision
Project Location: Vacant Parcels
identified as Map 18-03-03-13, TL 101;
Map 18-03-03-12, TL 3701;
Map 18-03-03-14, TL 1000 &1100; and
Map 18-03-04-40, TL 300
Zoning: Light Medium Industrial (LMI) and Employment Mixed-Use (GEMU)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: LMI (1999 Glenwood Refinement Plan) and GEMU (2014 Glenwood
Refinement Plan)
Site Plan Review Tentative Approval Issued: May 17, 2019
Appeal Hearing: July 16, 2019
Appeal Decision Issued: September 4, 2019
LUBA Remand Issued: June 11, 2021
Final Decision Issued: August 17, 2021
APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT CONTACT INFORMATION
Appellant:
William Sherlock on behalf of
Royal Blue Organics
Hutchinson Cox Attorneys
940 Willamette St., Suite 400
Eugene OR 97401
Respondent:
Nick Amann
SUB Electric
1001 Main Street
Springfield OR 97477
Respondent’s Counsel:
Michael Gelardi
Gelardi Law P.C.
P.O. Box 8529
Coburg OR 97408
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784
Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034
Public Works Engineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036
Public Works Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Eric Phillips-Meadow 541-726-2293
Building Official Building Chris Carpenter 541-744-4153
Project
Area
E 22nd Ave
E 24th Ave
Proposed
Substation
Portion of
Project Area Inside City Limits
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 1 of 32
Site Information: The subject site consists of five adjoining parcels that generally lie between the I-5 freeway,
East 22nd Avenue, and the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad line. The project area is entirely within the Springfield
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and Tax Lot 101 and a portion of Tax Lot 1100 are inside the City limits. The
property that is subject of this decision, hereinafter the “project area”, is limited to Tax Lot 101 and the western
portion of Tax Lot 1100 that is inside the City limits. The proposed development area is vacant and has not been
assigned a municipal street address. A Tree Felling Permit was issued for the project area on April 17, 2019 (Case
811-19-000016-TYP2) in anticipation of future utility system development.
The project area is within the 1999 Glenwood Refinement Plan (Tax Lots 101 and 1100). Therefore, the applicable
Comprehensive Plan designation is based on the adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram which identifies Tax
Lots 101 and 1100 as being designated Light Medium Industrial (LMI). The current zoning for the subject property
is LMI, which is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation.
The applicant has acquired ownership of Tax Lots 101 and 1100 in their entirety, and a portion of Tax Lot 3701 that
forms a narrow peninsula lying between Tax Lots 101 and 1100 was incorporated into Tax Lot 1100 through a
property line adjustment recorded July 11, 2019 as County Surveyor’s File No. 44759. Acquisition of the affected
portions of Tax Lots 101, 3701 and 1100 was through a Stipulated General Judgement issued on February 22, 2019
and recorded on March 11, 2019 as Document 2019-008928, Lane County Deeds & Records.
The applicant is proposing to construct a linear electric transmission line that extends from an existing three pole
facility outside the City limits a distance of approximately 1,600 feet to two step-down poles near the edge of the I-
5 right-of-way. Portions of the transmission line within Tax Lots 300 and 1000, and the eastern two-thirds of Tax
lot 1100, are outside the City limits and therefore not subject of this decision. The proposed step-down poles are
inside the City limits and they would feed the electrical lines into a ~57,800 ft2 (approximately 1.36-acre) substation
compound. The electrical substation is proposed to be constructed in the southern half of Tax Lot 101 and it would
be accessed by a driveway extending from the East 22nd Avenue alignment. The applicant is also proposing to install
perimeter fencing around the substation facilities; screening vegetation in the northern half of Tax Lot 101; and
vegetated stormwater facilities to manage runoff from the site.
REVIEW PROCESS: This amended Type II decision is reviewed under Type III procedures listed in Springfield
Development Code (SDC) Section 5.1-130. The criteria of approval for the amended decision are the same as the
prior appeal decision: the Site Plan Review criteria in SDC 5.17-125. The Planning Commission’s decision is the
final decision and is appealable to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals within 21 days of the decision.
Procedural Finding: The Site Plan Review decision (Case Number 811-19-000084-TYP2) was approved, with
conditions, on May 17, 2019. An appeal was timely filed on June 3, 2019, within 15 days of the decision, accounting
for the weekend, according to SDC 5.3-115.B. The Planning Commission heard the appeal on July 16, 2019 and
the hearing was continued to September 4, 2019 at which time the original decision was upheld with conditions.
Procedural Finding: The appellant, William Sherlock, on behalf of Royal Blue Organics, appealed the decision to
the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and the matter was heard in December 2019. LUBA issued its
final order and opinion on June 11, 2021 with five issues to be addressed by the City on remand. A subsequent
appeal to the Court of Appeals reversed one of LUBA’s remanded issues pertaining to a wetland on the project site.
This amended staff report addresses the relevant issues on remand.
Procedural Finding: The Hearings Official hears appeals of Type II Director’s decisions outside the City limits but
inside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. The Planning Commission hears appeals of Type II Director’s decisions
within the City limits. The subject property is located inside the Urban Growth Boundary, partially within City
limits and partially outside City limits. Accordingly, this amended decision is presented jointly to the Planning
Commission and Hearings Official. The Planning Commission has authority over the decision as to those properties
that are annexed to the City (Tax Lots 101 and a portion of Tax Lot 1100 as adjusted by Property Line Adjustment
Survey No. 44759), while the Hearings Official has authority over the decision as to the properties that are not yet
annexed but are inside the Urban Growth Boundary (Tax Lots 300, 1000 & Portion of 1100).
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 2 of 32
Procedural Finding: Due to the need to reopen the written record for additional evidence regarding the remand
issues, notice of the public meeting on August 17, 2021 was provided on July 27, 2021 to the property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject property, as required by SDC 5.1-130.B.
Procedural Finding: The appellant identified 31 assignments of error which were previously addressed in the
adopted staff report and findings. All assignments of error were enumerated in sequential order of presentation in
the appellant’s submittal. The assignments of error were inserted under the applicable criteria of approval as set out
in the original report adopted in September 2019. Certain assignments of error and staff responses are out of
sequence with the sequentially numbered findings and conditions contained in the report. Staff has retained all of
the original assignments of error and responses and added new findings as necessary to address the issues on remand.
CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
SDC 5.17-125, Site Plan Review Standards, Criteria of Site Plan Approval provides that, on appeal, the Planning
Commission shall approve or approve with conditions a Type II Site Plan Review Application upon determining
that criteria A through E of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria,
the Planning Commission shall deny the application.
A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram,
Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
General Finding 1: The substation site (Tax Lot 101) is zoned and designated Light Medium Industrial (LMI)
in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted 1999 Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram. In
accordance with SDC 3.2-410, high impact public facilities are allowable in the LMI district subject to the
special siting requirements of SDC 4.7-160 and Site Plan Review. There are no proposed changes to the zoning
for the substation site.
General Finding 2: The electric transmission line is proposed on two parcels (Tax Lots 101 and portion of 1100)
that are zoned and designated LMI in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted 1999
Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram. The segment of electric transmission line that extends eastward from the
current City limits line across the remainder of Tax Lot 1100 and Tax Lot 1000 to the point of connection on
Tax Lot 300 is outside City limits and not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. In accordance
with SDC 3.2-410, high impact public facilities are allowable in the LMI district subject to the special siting
requirements of SDC 4.7-160 and Site Plan Review. There are no proposed changes to the zoning for Tax Lots
101 and 1100.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #1: The appellant hereby requests that the Hearings Official reverse the
Planning Director’s decision of approval. As set forth herein, and as will be addressed in greater detail at the
upcoming public hearing, the Director erred in issuing an approval that did not conform to the applicable
criteria, to wit:
“5.12-105 Purpose and Applicability
* * * * *
B. The Partition process regulates land divisions that create 2 or 3 parcels within a calendar year. If the
Director determines that a property proposed to be partitioned has been, or is in the process of being
divided into 4 or more lots, full compliance with the Subdivision regulations specified in this Code may
be required.
* * * * *
D. Applicability
* * * * *
3. No lot/parcel may be created without being divided as specified in this Code.
4. No development permit will be issued by the City prior to approval of the Partition or Subdivision
Tentative Plan Application.”
As noted in the decision, the applicant “SUB Electric, has acquired ownership of…a portion of Tax Lot 3701”
in order to site the proposed electric transmission line. Decision, p. 3. However, the applicant has not formally
partitioned tax lot 3701 into separate legal lots or parcels. As “no development permit will be issued by the
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 3 of 32
City prior to approval of the Partition…Tentative Plan application”, the City erred in approving a site plan
review on a property that was not a legal lot or parcel.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #2:
“5.17-120 Submittal Requirements
All Site Plan applications shall be prepared by an Oregon licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, Civil
Engineer or Surveyor as determined by the Director. A Site Plan shall contain all the elements deemed
necessary by the Director to demonstrate that provisions of this Code are being fulfilled and may include,
but not be limited to, the following:
A. General Requirements. A Site Plan shall be drawn in ink on quality paper and shall contain the
following information:
* * * * *
5. The location and height of proposed or existing fences, walls, outdoor equipment and storage, trash
receptacles and signs;”
The applicant failed to conform the [sic] minimum mandatory standards for a site plan, as it plans to install
extensive fencing throughout a heavily-forested portion of the subject property, but does not depict this fencing
on its site plans or address it in the body of the narrative. On May 2, 2019, the applicant posted an invitation
to bid for a proposed security fence for the “Glenwood Substation and Transmission Route Security Fence” for
an eight-foot security fence, with seven feet of chain link and topped by 3 strands of barbed wire and with corner
and end posts sunk in 3.0 deep [sic] concrete footings. As depicted on the enclosed map, the security fencing
would be located along a portion of the northern boundary of tax lot 1000, along the entire northern boundary
of tax lot 1100, and cut across a portion of tax lot 3701. See Excerpt OF19.01 Invitation to Bid. This security
fencing is not delineated on the site plans provided, and the application does not address impacts of the fence
and installation or demonstrate consistency with the applicable criteria. As the applicant’s proposal
incorporates elements that are not addressed in its site plan application, reversal of the Decision of approval is
warranted.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #3:
“5.17-125 Criteria
The Director shall approve or approve with conditions: A Type II Site Plan Review application upon
determining that approval criteria in Subsections A. through E., below have been satisfied. If conditions
cannot be attached to satisfy approval criteria, the Director shall deny the application.
A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan
diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.”
The decision errs in concluding that the proposed transmission lines are consistent with the City’s Public
Facilities and Services Plan and makes a decision that is not supported by substantial evidence in reaching that
conclusion. The Decision relies on the revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities
and Services Plan in support of the transmission lines. However, Ordinance 6341 was not adopted in
accordance with the comprehensive plan or code and is not acknowledged. Hence, the Plan provides no basis
for the proposed substation and transmission lines, and the decision approving the same is in error and should
be reversed.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #4: The Decision states that: “The alignment of the proposed electric
transmission line is depicted in Project 1&A (Alvey to Glenwood to Springfield), adopted into the PFSP by
Ordinance 6341 on September 8, 2015.” Decision, p.3. However, Ordinance 6341 contains critical defects
which call into question the validity or effectiveness of its provisions. As set out in the preamble of Ordinance
6341, it is a Type I amendment to the Public Facilities and Services Plan which required joint consideration
and adoption by the City of Springfield and Lane County. The Public Facilities and Services Plan sets out a
joint review procedure, on page 124, to wit:
“C. Processing Amendments
Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate an amendment to this
plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a citizen.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 4 of 32
a. Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the planning commissions of the respective agencies for
their recommendation, and, following their recommendation, shall be considered by the governing
bodies of all agencies.”
Ordinance 6341 reflects that is was neither subject to review by the planning commission of Lane County, nor
subject to review and consideration by “all agencies” as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. Both the Lane
Code and the Springfield Development Code also expressly require joint consideration of the proposed
amendment at a joint public hearing before the Lane County and Springfield Planning Commissions. LC
12.220(2)(b); SDC 5.14-130(B) & (C). Ordinance 6341 reflects that this joint public hearing was not held, and
that the Lane County Planning Commission was not consulted and its recommendations not provided.
Accordingly, Ordinance 6341 was not adopted in accordance with applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan or development code, and is invalid. Moreover, DLCD notice records reflect that the ordinance was never
acknowledged. ORS 197.625 provides that a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan is only deemed
to be acknowledged when the notice of proposed change and adopted change is provided to the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development as required by ORS 197.610 and ORS 197.615. DLCD
has no public notices of proposed or adopted amendments associated with the proposed amendments in 2015.
Accordingly, the same is not deemed acknowledged under ORS 197.625, and is not criteria that is applicable to
the proposed substation and transmission lines. As Ordinance 6341 was neither validly adopted nor
acknowledged by DLCD, the Eugene-Springfield Area Public Facilities and Services Plan map 4 specifies that
the proposed substation will be located on property to the east along McVay Hwy, and includes neither a
planned facility nor a substation on the subject property. The decision approving the proposed substation and
transmission lines on the property is inconsistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and should be
reversed on this basis.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #5: In addition, even if Ordinance 6341 were properly adopted and
acknowledged, and it is is [sic] not, the Ordinance does not provide for the development of transmission lines
outside of public rights-of-way. The proposed transmission lines in Ordinance 6341 tracks I-5 along its length.
This is confirmed in the findings which addressed compliance with applicable refinement plan policies by
confirming that the proposed transmission line would be located within existing right-of-way:
“Finding 19. The location of the planned Glenwood Substation and the associated transmission
lines is shown generally in the PFSP maps as intended. The location if the [sic] Substation is
outside of the Phase 1 boundary for the Glenwood Refinement Plan. The transmission lines will
take advantage of existing freeway, street and railroad rights of wa[y] in Glenwood to minimize
visual impacts of the planned facilities. Many of the policies listed in Appendix 3 (E) (7) are specific
to final location and design decisions that will be addressed at the time of construction. The intent
of the PFSP is to show the general location of planned utilities. Design level details are not intended
to be provided in the PFSP nor is such detail a requirement of Oregon Administrative Rule Division
11 Public Facilities Planning.” Ordinance 6341, F-15 (Emphasis added).
Accordingly, even under Ordinance 6341, the proposed transmission lines would located [sic] within
the existing freeway right-of-way, and reversal would be required.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #6: The decision attempts to justify its deviation from Ordinance 6341 by
suggesting that the proposed relocation was merely a construction detail, and that it was warranted based
on the applicant's inability to use the adjoining rights-of-way. However, the applicant provides no evidence
that it was unable to use the adjoining right-of-way. Moreover, as will be addressed below, the alternative
routing is not only inconsistent with the I-5 route specified in the plan, but with the applicable siting standards
in the refinement plan, and applicable code provisions requiring the transmission facilities be located at the
edge of land uses and within existing rights-of-way. The decision also errs in concluding that the proposed
transmission lines and substation are consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan. As set forth in appendix
3 of the Springfield Development Code, Electrical Facilities and Services are subject to standards for "Utility
Placement and Adverse Environment, Visual and Health Impacts." The proposed transmission lines do not
conform to these standards, and the decision fails to evaluate many of these criteria, and renders a decision
that is not supported by substantial evidence or substantial reasons. These standards require:
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 5 of 32
“E.7.b. Consider views visual pollution, public health, natural environment, and noise pollution in
locating and obscuring transmission facilities.”
This standard is not addressed in the decision. The application proposes to place transmission lines near
the top of a hillside overlooking development along East 22nd Avenue and Newman Street. The applicant
makes no provisions for protecting views, public health, the natural environment or noise pollution in locating
the facilities, and incorporates no provisions to obscure these transmission facilities. The decision should
be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #7: “E.7.b.l. Follow natural landforms in aligning transmission lines while
avoiding alignment along steep grades that expose the facilities to views, and cross hills obliquely rather than
at right angles.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. As depicted in the tentative plans provided
by the applicant, the transmission lines corridor is proposed to be straight and does not follow natural land
contours on the property. The lines will cross steep hillsides at right angles at several points along the route.
The decision should be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #8: “E.7.b.2. Align transmission lines along the edges of land uses to avoid
scenic areas and to avoid dividing land use patterns.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. The
proposed transmission lines would cross directly through vacant property designated for future employment
uses. The lines are not oriented to avoid dividing this land use pattern, an existing riparian tributary on the
property or scenic hillsides. Instead, the proposed transmission lines would permanently dominate these
vacant properties, and without regard to any development of the same in the future. The decision should be
reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #9: “E.7.b.3. Utilize trees to provide a backdrop to minimize the visual
silhouette of transmission lines against the sky.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. The
applicant purports to rely on existing trees to obscure the transmission towers and lines, but provides no
information concerning the location, size or elevation of trees that are purportedly being retained for
buffering. The decision should be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #10: “E.7.b.4. Reduce the length of visible elements of transmission lines by
interrupting views with trees or offsetting the location of segments behind trees and other topographic features
where long views of the transmission lines would otherwise occur.” This standard is not addressed in the
decision. The applicant has failed to establish that it will obscure the transmission lines with trees or
topographic features. The decision should be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #11: “E.7.b.5. Minimize the ‘tunnel effect’ of long, straight, uninterrupted
views along transmission lines by only clearing vegetation that threatens the lines and by jogging the alignment
at road crossings.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. As depicted in the tentative plans, the
applicant is proposing long, straight transmission line corridors along the entire path of the line on lots
1000 and 1100, which will provide a significant tunnel effect. In addition, the applicant clears excessive
vegetation, particularly on lot 1000. The decision should be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #12: “E.7.b.6. Minimize the number of transmission poles and consider
color and materials in designing the appearance of transmission poles and line attachments so that they blend
harmoniously with their surroundings.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. The applicant does
not propose a system of transmission lines that will blend harmoniously with their surroundings. The
decision should be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #13: “E.7.b.7. Route and locate transmission lines to minimize or eliminate
the need for vegetation management.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. The applicant failed
to route its lines to minimize of eliminate the need for vegetation management. Despite large area on the
properties that are relatively free of vegetation, the applicant selected a route that would require the removal
of nearly 300 trees. The decision should be reversed on this basis as well.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 6 of 32
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #14: “E.7.b.8. Route and locate transmission lines to minimize potential
health effects on Glenwood residents.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. Neither the applicant
nor the decision acknowledge[s] the development potential of the vacant properties or the variety of uses
allowed outright on the subject properties. The decision should be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #15: “E.7.b.9. Route and locate transmission lines to minimize potential
effects on avian migratory patterns.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. The application relies
on unspecified trees to protect birds in the area without assessing flight patterns, pole or line heights, nesting
areas, or the presence of bird attractants in close proximity to the lines. The decision should be reversed
on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #16: “E.7.e.2, Obscure the substation and transformer from public
view and attenuate the noise generated by these facilities by means of plant materials, earth berms,
or enclosure walls.” This standard is not addressed in the decision. As addressed below, the proposed
substation does not conform to minimum screening standards, either with or without the decision's
proposed conditions of approval. Accordingly, the decision should be reversed on this basis as well.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #1: The applicant submitted a Property Line Adjustment survey for
approval by the City on March 26, 2019. The City completed a review of the Property Line Adjustment survey
and issued approval for recording the survey on April 24, 2019. The Property Line Adjustment Survey was
recorded on July 11, 2019 as County Surveyor’s File No. 44759. The property that is subject of this review are
two existing legal parcels, and the portions inside the City limits (i.e. all of Tax Lot 101 and a portion of Tax
Lot 1100) are therefore subject to land use approvals issued by the City of Springfield.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #2: Installation of property line/security fencing that falls within
allowable heights does not require land use approval in any land use district. Therefore, the applicant is entirely
within their rights to install chain link fencing along the boundary of the subject site outside of the land use
application (and appeal) process. The proposed fencing design and height is permitted in accordance with
Section 4.4-115, Table 4.4-1.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #3: The Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan
(“PFSP”) is part of the Metro Plan. The PFSP was amended in 2015 to enable and guide the siting of SUB’s
proposed Glenwood substation and transmission line. The appellant argues that the 2015 PFSP amendment is
invalid because it was not properly “acknowledged” by the state Department of Land Conservation and
Development (“DLCD”). In support of the appellant’s argument at the public hearing on July 16, 2019, the
appellant’s attorney produced a list of plan amendments shown in an online DLCD database that includes notices of post-
adoption plan amendments (PAPA) submitted by the City to DLCD in 2015 that does not include the PFSP
amendment. The DLCD database does not purport to be an exhaustive list of PAPA notices, and absence of the
2015 PFSP amendment in this database does not demonstrate that the amendment was not properly
acknowledged.
The record shows that the City of Springfield and Lane County co-adopted amendments to the Public Facilities
and Services Plan in September, 2015. Notice of Adopted Change to the PFSP was issued by DLCD on
September 21, 2015. There were no appeals filed within the appeal period, therefore the adopted amendments
were deemed acknowledged as set forth in ORS 197.625(1)(a). Evidence supporting this conclusion is found
in the DLCD letter, the City’s notice of decision, Springfield adopting Ordinance 6341, and the Lane County
adopting ordinance PA1318, that are included in the record of this appeal.
The 2015 PFSP amendment was properly acknowledged. Furthermore, the PFSP amendment is intended to
facilitate siting of SUB’s proposed substation and transmission line, and therefore provides important policy
direction to land use permitting of these facilities. Finally, the appellant’s argument about the validity of the 2015
PFSP amendment is not valid.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 7 of 32
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #4: As discussed at length above, the cited amendments to the
Public Facilities and Services Plan – a Refinement Plan to the Metro Plan – were adopted by Springfield
Ordinance 6341 on September 8, 2015 and Lane County Ordinance PA 1318 on September 15, 2015. The
amendments were accepted by the DLCD and deemed acknowledged as no appeals were filed within the appeal
period. It is now too late to raise any of the issues cited by the appellant regarding the adoption process.
Finding - Response to Assignments of Error #5 & 6: The provisions of the adopted Public Facilities and
Services Plan (PFSP), which is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan, allow for flexibility in location, design,
and alignment of key public utility lines and installations with the intent to ensure that conceptual alignments
shown on metro-wide plans do not preclude site-specific variations in these alignments due to land ownership,
topographic, engineering, or geopolitical constraints. Arguments pertaining to location of the transmission line
along the I-5 corridor affect properties outside the City limits and therefore fall outside the Planning
Commission’s jurisdiction over this appeal.
Finding - Response to Assignments of Error #7–16: At the outset of the original Director’s Decision, the
following statement is provided:
“DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Approval. The standards of the Springfield
Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval are listed herein and are
satisfied by the submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for
compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a
limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision
is final. Please read this document carefully.” (Underlined emphasis added).
The portion of the project within the City limits is not subject to provisions of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed
Use Plan District found in Appendix 3 of the City’s Development Code. For this reason, the City found the
application met this criterion and accepted the applicant’s findings and conclusions cited in their application
materials or as modified by staff findings that are rested herein. No conditions of approval were required for
the applicant to meet this sub-part of the criterion, and no additional conditions of approval are recommended
herein.
Conclusion: This applicant has satisfied Criterion A.
B. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity;
sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be
exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development,
unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Development & Public
Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues.
General Finding 4: This criterion is designed to ensure sufficient public and private infrastructure to support the
proposed use, such as local roads, sewer and water service. The appellant argues that SUB has not demonstrated
compliance with this criterion because the project area lacks access to a public road. The record shows that SUB
owns a series of contiguous tax lots that take access directly from East 22nd Avenue as a result of SUB’s
settlement with the adjacent property owner (Alberto Miranda). The property includes Tax Lots 101 and 1100 that
are subject of this review. The applicant has proposed improvement of a private access road across the parcels as
part of its site plan review application. The Planning Commission should therefore find that SUB has secured
access for its proposed development.
General Finding 5: Approval of this proposal would allow for construction of an approximately 57,800 ft2
electrical system substation compound with perimeter fencing, gated access driveway, screening vegetation, and
vegetated stormwater management facilities (all on Tax Lot 101); and a segment of electric transmission lines
across a portion of Tax Lot 1100 and extending eastward outside the City limits.
General Finding 6: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer
to design the site improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 8 of 32
Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to
provide construction inspection services.
Water and Electricity Improvements
General Finding 7: SDC 4.3-130 requires each development area to be provided with a water system having
sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for
maintenance. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield
city limits.
General Finding 8: The proposed development is an unmanned electric system transmission line and substation
and it will not contain any facilities that require potable water. Therefore, extension of public water to the
subject property is not required. In the event that extension of public water service is required in the future,
there are existing public water lines nearby in the East 22nd Avenue alignment.
General Finding 9: Based on the applicant’s submittal, the existing and proposed water and electricity
improvements are adequate for the proposed development.
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities
Sanitary Sewer
General Finding 10: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each
new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers
shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
General Finding 11: Section 4.3-105.C of the SDC requires that proposed sewer systems shall include design
consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Metro Plan.
General Finding 12: Section 2.02.1 of the City’s EDSPM states that when land outside a new development will
logically direct flow to sanitary sewers in the new development, the sewers shall be public sewers and shall
normally extend to one or more of the property boundaries.
General Finding 13: The proposed development does not have any potable water service or sanitary sewer
drains, therefore extension of public sanitary sewer is not required for the electric substation and transmission
line. In the event that extension of public sanitary sewer service is required in the future, there is an existing
public sanitary sewer line near the northwest corner of Tax Lot 101 in the East 22nd Avenue alignment.
General Finding 14: There are no loading docks or material transfer areas proposed on the electric substation
site, and therefore the additional provisions for sanitary sewer drains found in Section 3.6 of the City of Eugene
Stormwater Management Manual do not apply.
Stormwater Management (Quantity)
General Finding 15: SDC 4.3-110.B requires that 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 Development & Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM.
General Finding 16: SDC 4.3-110.C states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential
runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development.
General Finding 17: SDC 4.3-110.D requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved
stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.
General Finding 18: SDC 4.3-110.E requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that
minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 9 of 32
General Finding 19: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D & E, stormwater runoff from the site will be directed
into a series of vegetated rain gardens, grassy swales and a vegetated detention basin prior to discharge into the
public system. The public stormwater management system is located in the East 22nd Avenue alignment near
the northwest corner of Tax Lot 101.
General Finding 20: As part of the Final Site Plan approval process, the applicant will be required to enter into
a maintenance agreement with the City whereby the applicant will provide routine functional maintenance of
the vegetated rain gardens, grassy swales, and vegetated detention basin.
Condition of Approval 1:
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the
City of Springfield, whereby the applicant will provide routine maintenance for functionality of the
vegetated rain gardens, grassy swales, and vegetated detention basin serving the development site.
Stormwater Management (Quality)
General Finding 21: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA),
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield has obtained a
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City to
demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP).
General Finding 22: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City’s
MS4 plan to address six “Minimum Control Measures”. Minimum Control Measure 5, “Post-Construction
Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment”, applies to the proposed development.
General Finding 23: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and
enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City also must
develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management
Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community.
General Finding 24: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other
regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent
allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City’s EDSPM and
the Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP).
General Finding 25: Section 3.02 of the City’s EDSPM states the Development & Public Works Department
will accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the
policies and procedures of the City’s EDSPM and the City of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual.
General Finding 26: Sections 3.02.5 and 3.02.6 of the City’s EDSPM states all public and private development
and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination
are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by
the development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop
impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods and
100% of the area shall be pre-treated.
General Finding 27: To meet the requirements of the City’s MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code,
and the City’s EDSPM, the applicant has proposed vegetated rain gardens, grassy swales, and a vegetated
detention basin.
General Finding 28: The vegetation proposed for use in the rain gardens, grassy swales, and vegetated detention
basin will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater runoff. Satisfactory pollutant
removal will occur only when the vegetation has been fully established.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 10 of 32
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #29:
“4.3-110 Stormwater Management
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; oil and grease; metals; and fecal
coliform;
7. Moderating stormwater flows; and
8. Providing fish and wildlife habitat.”
As highlighted in the City's Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map, Tax lot 1100 is crossed
by a tributary to a water quality limited water course, and a significant portion of tax lot 101 is a wetland
identified on the same map. The application acknowledges the presence of both features but does not
incorporate any “design, landscaping and drainage management practices to protect, preserve and
restore the riparian functions” of the tributary, or wetland. Application, p. 20. Instead, the application
merely notes that it has applied for a fill/removal permit for its impacts to the wetland, and that with
regard the tributary “the proposed transmission line will not impact this resource.” Id. However, the
application does not address pole placement activities, the proposed fence construction, the proposed
both road construction/maintenance or tree removal within the riparian setback of the tributary; or the
wholesale destruction of the wetland area to site the substation. Significantly, it proposes no measures
to “protect, preserve and restore” any of the riparian functions of this feature. The decision does not
address these impacts or apply the standard, and reversal of the decision is appropriate on this basis as
well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #30:
“4.3-115 Water Quality Protection
* * * *
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.
* * **
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.
* * * *
C. For protection of water quality and protection of riparian functions as specified in Section 4.3-
110, the following standards apply:
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 11 of 32
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 to water quality shall
be minimized;
* * * *
3. Protect:
a. Riparian areas, buffers and functions around all water courses;
b. Wetlands, wetland buffers and wetland functions.
4. Preserve the hydrologic capacity of any watercourses.
* * * *
6. Restore and enhance riparian areas that are degraded in riparian function.
7. In applying Subsections 4.3-115C.l 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 through the full frontage
of the lot/parcel along the watercourse on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW)
Map.”
The applicant is proposing to develop a substation and associated improvements within the riparian area4 of a
watercourse5 identified on the WQLW Map. The applicant has performed a formal wetland delineation and identifies
the same as approximately 2.84 acres in size, but claims that the same is not a “watercourse.” Application, p. 21.
However, as noted herein, the term watercourse refers to “wetlands” and specifically those identified on the WQLW
Map, including the wetland on lot 101. Development of this watercourse is not a permitted use of the riparian area
under Section 4.3-115(B), and is also prohibited by subsection (C)(1)(a) of that provision as wetlands are “unsuitable
areas” for development. The City decision does not address these impacts or these water quality standards and
reversal of the decision is appropriate on this basis as well.
Footnote 4: “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.”
Footnote 5: “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 watercourses that are protected by this Code are those
shown on the water quality Limited Watercourse Map.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #31: The application also acknowledges the presence of the tributary on the subject
property, and asserts generally that “[i]t and its setback corridor will not be impacted by the proposed transmission
line facility or existing access road other than removal of trees within the transmission line and access road
easements.” Application, p. 22. However, this representation ignores the applicant's planned fencing improvements,
and does not account for improvements to the existing partially graveled path on the subject property, or stream
crossings by heavy equipment associated with the pole placement. In addition, the tree removal being proposed is
not the removal of hazardous trees that pose safety risks, and would be done within the wetland buffer without
proposed restoration. As the decision fails to apply these standards, and does not address the impacts of the
proposed development on the tributary, reversal of the decision is appropriate on this basis as well.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #29: The City has multiple overlapping rules concerning the conservation
of wetlands and riparian areas. In addition, disturbance of wetlands and waterways is heavily regulated by federal and
state law. SUB has demonstrated compliance with all relevant water quality-related requirements based on the evidence
in the record and the City’s site plan review condition of approval requiring SUB to obtain the required federal and state
environmental permits for its proposed wetland fill/removal. It is feasible for SUB to obtain required federal and state
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 12 of 32
wetland permits based on the wetland delineation study and wetland fill/removal plan submitted by SUB with its joint
permit application.
The existing wetland features on Tax Lot 101 have been heavily disturbed by activities of previous landowners or
neighbors and are not considered locally or nationally significant. However, the wetland feature is shown on the City’s
local wetland inventory as a Water Quality Limited Watercourse within the City of Springfield. Therefore, certain
provisions of SDC 4.3-115 pertain to the wetland features on Tax Lot 101. The City is accepting of the applicant’s
wetland delineation report and, once obtained by the applicant, wetland fill/removal permits issued by state and federal
agencies as sufficient mitigation for proposed development on this site. The City’s water quality protection regulations
found in SDC 4.3-115 apply to non-significant wetlands and other waters, although non-significant wetlands do not have
the same level of protection through the City’s Development Code as locally and nationally significant wetlands. The
condition and “significance” of the wetland features present on Tax Lot 101 notwithstanding, the state and federal
permitting requirements for wetland fill/removal remain the same. SUB has avoided development of wetlands to the
extent practicable and has protected wetlands within the meaning of SDC 4.3-115 through the development plan and
mitigation plan submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands (“DSL”) for
permits. An excerpt of SUB’s wetland development and mitigation plan is in the record.
The appellant suggests that SDC 4.3-115 entirely prohibits development in wetlands, which would be a more stringent
standard than required by federal and state environmental law. This interpretation is contrary to the PFSP, which
specifies that SUB will place its proposed substation in a wetland area. This interpretation would also jeopardize other
existing and proposed City infrastructure located in wetland areas, including but not limited to constructed stormwater
management facilities.
The federal Clean Water Act and the Oregon Wetland Removal-Fill law both require an applicant for a wetland
development permit to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands to the extent practicable, taking into account the purpose
of the applicant’s proposed development. All impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized must be fully mitigated. SDC
4.3-115 sets a similar standard for impact avoidance and wetland protection; this interpretation is required in order to
avoid a conflict with the PFSP and a result that would prohibit development of critical infrastructure at other locations
throughout the City.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #30: The Planning Commission disagrees with the appellant’s interpretation
that the wetland feature on Tax Lot 101 comprises a “watercourse”. As described in the applicant’s wetland delineation
report (ref. Pages 272-355) there is no measurable flow or defined channel within Tax Lot 101 that could be construed
as a “watercourse” and, even if there was, the applicant can submit for necessary state and federal permits to modify or
eliminate said watercourse. Under the existing condition the drainage from Tax Lot 101 flows primarily to the East
22nd Avenue alignment and enters the piped public stormwater system. Because the applicant’s wetland delineation
report did not identify a watercourse on Tax Lot 101, the City did not impose a condition requiring special riparian
protection or other measures beyond the requirements of the aforementioned state and federal wetland fill/removal
permits.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #31: Staff has accepted the applicant’s proposed development plans which
do not propose development within the tributary channel – itself heavily impacted by channelization and piping installed
by prior landowners. Additionally, the applicant is required to obtain permits and install necessary mitigation measures
for erosion and sediment control before project construction begins on the site. As stated in the response to Assignment
of Error #2 (above), there are no specific permits required for installation of perimeter security fencing that meets the
provisions of the City’s Development Code for height and style of fencing. The installation of fencing along the
northern boundary of Tax Lot 1000 and 1100 are outside the City limits and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the
Planning Commission.
General Finding 29: In conclusion, the Planning Commission finds that SUB has demonstrated compliance with the
stormwater management standards found in SDC 4.3-110 and the site plan review conditions of approval requiring
construction and maintenance of SUB’s proposed stormwater treatment facilities. SUB’s proposed stormwater
management plan shows that it is feasible for SUB to comply with the City’s stormwater and water quality protection
requirements.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 13 of 32
Condition of Approval 2:
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan
satisfactory to the City to ensure viable long-term maintenance and operation of the vegetated rain gardens,
grassy swales, and vegetated detention basin. The operations and maintenance plan shall designate the
responsible party for operating and maintaining the system and shall be distributed to all property owners and
tenants of the site. A record of this plan shall be filed against the property deed with Lane County Deeds and
Records.
Condition of Approval 3:
To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield’s MS4 permit, the
Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the infiltration rain gardens, grassy swales, and vegetated
detention basin shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to issuance of final occupancy
and commencement of operations. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and
maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Development & Public
Works Department that will suffice until such time as the rain garden, swale, and detention basin vegetation
becomes fully established. The interim erosion control measures shall be in addition to the required plantings
for the site.
Streets and Traffic Safety Controls
General Finding 30: SDC 4.2-105.G.2 requires that whenever a proposed land division or development will increase
traffic on the City street system and that development has unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street,
that street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications.
General Finding 31: Immediately to the west of the proposed substation site, East 22nd Avenue terminates at the edge
of Tax Lot 101 and becomes a private shared driveway. A joint access easement covers a portion of the East 22nd
Avenue alignment along the Tax Lot 101 frontage to the point where it becomes a public street to the west. Because
the proposed substation site does not have an appreciable amount of frontage on a public street, and the facility will
generate minimal traffic once constructed and in operation, further improvements to the paved, shared access driveway
are not required by this decision.
General Finding 32: The existing and proposed transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the
anticipated vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns generated by the development in a safe and efficient manner.
Conclusion: Subject to Conditions of Approval #1–3, the applicant has met Criterion B. Assignments of error #29–31
are denied.
C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards
contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.
General Finding 33: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code standards.
The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise
noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C are listed
below:
1. Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100
• Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130)
• Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140)
2. Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, SDC 3.2-400 Light Medium Industrial Zoning
District, and SDC 4.7-100 Specific Development Standards
• Establishment of Industrial Zoning Districts (3.2-405)
• Light Medium Industrial Zoning District – Primary and Secondary Uses (3.2-410)
• Light Medium Industrial Zoning District – Development Standards (3.2-420)
• On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100)
• High Impact Public Facilities (4.7-165)
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 14 of 32
3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
• Hillside Development Overlay District
• Glenwood Refinement Plan (1999)
C.1 Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100
Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130)
Access
General Finding 34: All fire apparatus access routes are to be all-weather surfaces able to support an 80,000 lb. imposed
load in accordance with the 2014 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D102.1. Access to the project
area is afforded from the East 22nd Avenue alignment.
General Finding 35: Eugene-Springfield Fire Marshal’s Office advises that the fire apparatus access routes need to
provide at least 20 feet clear width. The applicant is proposing to construct a gated access driveway to the electric
substation compound, which itself is equipped with a second access gate. The applicant has indicated that the driveway
swing gate is to be manually operated so it will need to be equipped with a Knox padlock for emergency access. The
sliding gate at the electric substation compound will need to be equipped with a Knox pad lock if manually operated,
or a Knox keyed gate switch if electrically operated.
General Finding 36: The applicant is proposing to construct an emergency vehicle turnaround hammerhead along the
edge of the substation compound, which meets the requirements for emergency access to the facility.
General Finding 37: At least three (3) feet of clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of all fire
hydrants in accordance with SFC 507.5.5. Working space around fire department connections shall be maintained 3
feet in width on both sides of the connection point; 3 feet in depth in front of the connection; and 78 inches in height
above the connection in accordance with SFC 912.3.2.
General Finding 38: In accordance with SFC 912.3, immediate access to fire department connections shall be
maintained at all times and without obstruction by fences, trees, shrubs, walls or any other objects.
Water Supply
General Finding 39: There is an existing fire hydrant on the north side of the East 22nd Avenue alignment across the
street from the proposed access driveway. Based on the existing fire hydrant location, the proposed control house
building is within 400 feet of a hydrant as measured to the furthest point on the building along an approved route in
accordance with 2014 Springfield Fire Code 507.5.1, Exception 2.
Condition of Approval 4:
The Final Site Plan shall provide for a Knox padlock for any manually operated gates or a Knox keyed gate
switch for any electrically operated gates serving the access driveway and electric substation compound.
Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140)
General Finding 40: SDC 4.3-130.A requires each development area to be provided with a water system having
sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and provide sufficient access for
maintenance. SUB coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits. As previously stated
herein, the proposed electric substation and transmission line does not require potable water service.
General Finding 41: There is an existing 30-foot wide joint access easement along the East 22nd Avenue alignment that
affords legal and physical access to Tax Lots 101 and 3701 from the public street system (Document 2019-009076,
Lane County Deeds & Records). East of this point, the applicant has indicated on the site plan that a 30-foot wide
access easement (Document 9302537, Lane County Deeds & Records) covers the existing gravel access driveway that
extends beyond the City limits (across a portion of Tax Lot 1100, and Tax Lots 1000 & 300). The applicant has
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 15 of 32
submitted an access easement into the record that demonstrates legal access has been provided across the portions of
Tax Lots 101 and 1100 that are inside the City limits (Document 2019-009076, Lane County Deeds & Records).
General Finding 42: The applicant is depicting a variable-width transmission line easement across portions of Tax Lots
1100 and 101 to accommodate the proposed transmission poles and lines. The transmission line easement will need to
be recorded against all tax lots subject to the project prior to approval of the Final Site Plan and initiation of construction.
Condition of Approval 5:
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record a variable-width electric
transmission line easement across Tax Lots 101 and 1100, as generally depicted on the tentative site plan, and
provide evidence thereof to the City.
C.2 Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review; SDC 3.2-400, Industrial Zoning Districts; SDC
3.4-200, Employment Mixed-Use District; and SDC 4.7-100, Specific Development Standards
Establishment of Industrial Zoning Districts (3.2-405)
General Finding 43: In accordance with SDC 3.2-405.B, the Light Medium Industrial (LMI) District establishes sites
that are generally involved with manufacturing, processing, transportation, warehousing, communications and utilities.
Light Medium Industrial Zoning District – Primary and Secondary Uses (3.2-410)
General Finding 44: In accordance with SDC 3.2-410, high impact public utility facilities are allowable in the LMI
District subject to Site Plan Review and the Specific Development Standards of SDC 4.7-160 (see below). High impact
facilities are defined as public facilities that serve development and that require special design features to mitigate
potential land use conflicts such as visual, olfactory or auditory impacts.
Light Medium Industrial Zoning District – Development Standards (3.2-420)
General Finding 45: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, the minimum size for an LMI parcel is 10,000 ft2 with at least
75 feet of frontage. The requirement for frontage on a public street can be waived where the access has been guaranteed
via a private street or driveway with an irrevocable access easement.
General Finding 46: The development site for the electric substation is approximately 6.4 acres and it has about 370
feet of frontage on a private street (extension of East 22nd Avenue) that has an irrevocable joint access easement. The
adjoining parcels to the east exceed the minimum parcel dimensions and have access provided by an irrevocable access
easement created for the access driveway across Tax Lots 101, 3701 and 1100 (Document 2019-009076, Lane County
Deeds & Records).
General Finding 47: The appellant argues that the adjusted Tax Lot 1100 (after property line adjustment) does not meet
the frontage requirement for the LMI zone. The LMI zone frontage requirements in SDC 3.2-420 are not applicable
criteria under SDC 5.17-125.C for several reasons. First, the development that SUB proposes through its site plan review
application does not affect the frontage of the subject property. Second, at the frontage requirements only apply to the
creation of new lots or parcels, and neither lot 3701 nor lot 1100 is a new lot or parcel – even after the recent property
line adjustment. Third, the property line adjustment between these two existing lots was lawfully approved by the City
pursuant to Case No. 811-19-000076-TYP1, as required by court order previously submitted into the record. The
appellant’s frontage argument is an improper collateral attack on this decision.
General Finding 48: The proposed site plan meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-420 for minimum building, parking
area, and front yard setbacks even though the property does not technically have frontage on a public street. The
applicant is proposing to retain existing vegetation on the site to the extent practicable, and re-seed disturbed areas with
native seed mix to provide for low-maintenance, drought-tolerant ground cover once it has become established. Use of
native plants for low-maintenance, non-irrigated landscaping is an acceptable practice in Springfield.
General Finding 49: There are no other specific development standards listed in SDC 3.2-420 that apply to this site as
it meets the provisions for setbacks, building coverage, and building height. However, the applicant has not provided
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 16 of 32
elevation details for the control house building or the other structures within the substation compound. Side elevation
details of the substation, including the control house building, are needed for the final site plan submittal.
General Finding 50: Specific Development Standards for high impact public facilities are discussed under SDC 4.7-
160 below.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #17: As will be addressed in greater detail in the next section, public improvements
are not available to serve the site at the time of development, because tax lot 1000 lacks access to a public road.
“C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction
standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.”
“3.2-420 Base Zone Development Standards
The following base zone industrial development standards are established.
* * * *
Minimum Frontage...75 feet (LMI).”
The portion of tax lot 3701 that is incorporated into the application does not meet this standard, as it has no
frontage on a public road. The application acknowledges that it lacks the required frontage on a public street,
but seeks to rely on an easement to substitute for the required frontage. Application, p. 11. While 3.2-420(3),
does allow the director to “waive the requirement that buildable City lots/parcels have frontage on a public
street,” it is only where “the lots/parcels have been approved as part of a Development Area Plan, Site Plan,
Subdivision, or Partition application.” As is set forth above, the portion of tax lot 3701 involved in the
application has not been lawfully divided, and is not a “lot” or “parcel” to which this exception could apply.
Accordingly, the decision approving the application violates City frontage requirements, and should be
reversed.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #18:
“3.4-250 Schedule of Use Categories
In Subareas A, B, C and D, the following uses shall be permitted in the base zoning districts as indicated,
subject to the provisions, additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not specifically
listed may be approved as specified in Section 3.4-260. Prohibited uses are listed in Section 3.4-255.
* * * *
Low impact facilities are any public or semi-public facility that is permitted subject to the design standards of this Code, including, but not limited to, wastewater; stormwater management; electricity and water to serve individual homes and businesses; other utilities that have minimal olfactory, visual or auditory impacts; street lights and fire hydrants.”
Tax lots 300 and 1000 are designated as Employment Mixed-Use in the Glenwood Phase I Refinement Plan,
and on the City's zoning map. The MUE zone only permits “low impact” facilities, including “electricity and
water to serve individual homes and businesses” as a permitted use in the zone. The high voltage transmission
lines on the subject property do not electricity [sic] to an individual home and business and are not allowed
under the applicable zoning. As the decision authorizes development of high voltage transmission lines on the
subject property it violates the development code, and should be reversed on that basis.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #19: The decision ignores the fact that the proposed high voltage transmission lines
are not a permitted use in the MUE zone, and urges instead that the lines are permitted as “High Impact Facilities”
under the City's Urbanizable Fringe Overlay Zone. Decision, p. 4. However, the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay zone
does not establish permitted uses with MUE zone. What's more, even if it were deemed to do so, the purpose of
overlay is to impose additional limits on urban development in the u rbanizable area, it does not expand the
permitted uses under the MUE plan district. See SDC §§ 3.3-8052 & 3.4-100.3 The decision's conclusion to
the contrary misapplies applicable law, and should also be reversed on this basis.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 17 of 32
Footnote 2: “3.3-805 Purpose. The Urbanizable Fringe (UF-10) Overlay District is established to effectively
control the potential for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization to achieve the goal of compact growth. This
concept will remain the primary growth management technique for directing geographic patterns of urbanization
in the City. The UF-10 Overlay District limits the division of land and prohibits urban development of
unincorporated urbanizable land which will eventually be annexed to the City. All interim development shall
be designed and constructed to City standards.”
Footnote 3: “3.4-100 Plan Districts....The Plan District provisions may modify any portion of the regulations of the base zone, overlay zone, or other regulations of this Code. The provisions may apply additional
requirements or allow exceptions to general regulations. When there is a conflict between Plan District
regulations and the base zone, overlay zone, or other regulations of this Code, the Plan District shall control.”
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #20:
“3.4-265 Base Zone Development Standards
The following base zone development standards are established for the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan
District:
* * * *
(2) While there is no minimum frontage standards all lots/parcels shall have frontage on a public street
unless the proposed development has been approved as part of a Master Plan, Site Plan, or land division, and
access has been guaranteed via a private driveway with an irrevocable joint use/access agreement as specified
in Subsection 4.2-120A.”
As pointed out in our comments, tax lot 1000 does not have frontage on a public street, neither has access been-
guaranteed via a private driveway with an irrevocable joint use/access agreement. The decision
mischaracterizes this issue by suggesting that the “access and utility easements described in the applicant's
project narrative and shown on the site plan may not grant full, unfettered access across the project area in the
event that all or portions of the affected parcels are transferred to third party ownership in the future.”
Decision, p. 3. That is not the issue. The facts are that the applicant takes access to 22nd Avenue across property
to the north owned by Alberto Miranda, and that the applicants have no easement that provides access across
Mr. Miranda's property to tax lot 1000. Accordingly, the decision violates the code and should be reversed on
this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #21: The decision attempts to remedy the applicant's access defect by imposing
a condition of approval requiring that the “applicant shall execute and record an access easement across Tax
Lots 101, 3701, 1100, 1000 and 300 for the maintenance access driveway as generally depicted on the tentative
site plan.” Decision, p. 18. However, the applicant cannot grant itself an access easement across property that it
does not own. Accordingly, this condition of approval is not feasible, and cannot establish compliance with the
applicable approval criteria.
“4.2-120 Site Access and Driveways
A. Site Access and Driveways - General.
1. All developed lots/parcels shall have an approved access provided by either direct access to a:
a. Public Street or alley along the frontage of the property;
b. Private street that connects to the public street system. The private street shall be constructed as
specified in Section 4.2-110 (private streets shall not be permitted in lieu of public streets shown
on the City's adopted Conceptual Street Plan or TransPlan); or
c. Public street by an irrevocable joint/use access easement serving the subject property serving the
subject property [sic] that has been approved by the City Attorney, where:
i. A private driveway is required in lieu of a panhandle driveway, as specified in Section
3.2-220B; or
ii. Combined access for 2 or more lots/parcels is required to reduce the number of
driveways along a street as determined by the Public Works Director.”
The subject property does not take access from a public or private road. Instead, the applicant relies on “an existing Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 18 of 32
30-foot wide easement serving the subject property.” However, as noted the easement does not serve tax lot 1000,
and the portion of tax lot 3701 at issue is not a “lot” or “parcel” to which this exception could apply. In addition,
the applicant provides no evidence that the Public Works Director has determine [sic] that a combined access is
required to reduce driveways along the common street. Accordingly, the decision violates minimum access standards,
and should be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #22:
“4.3-135 Major Electrical Power Transmission Lines
A. When necessary to increase the capacity of major transmission lines, utility providers shall
provide the increase by use of existing rights-of-way or easements.”
The subject property adjoins two existing linear rights-of-way- the I-5 corridor and the Pacific Railroad line.
Either right-of-way would provide a clear and reasonably level route for the proposed transmission lines. The
decision of approval locating the lines through the forested interior of the properties violates this infrastructure
standard, and reversal is appropriate on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #23: The decision seeks to justify location of the transmission lines outside of these
rights- of-way by reference to an exception available when a utility provider “cannot provide the increase by use of
existing rights-of-way or easements” and allowing the provider to site the lines “as specified in the Metro Plan's
Public Facilities and Services Plan.” Decision, p. 6. However, as is set forth above, the applicant has failed to
established that these existing rights- of-way cannot accommodate the proposed transmission lines, and, in any case,
the Public Facilities Plan calls for the use of these rights-of-way for the lines. Accordingly, the decision violates this
standard as well, and reversal is also appropriate on this basis.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #24:
“4.4-110 Screening.
* * * *
A. Unless otherwise specified in this Code, screening shall be required:
* * * * 2. For outdoor mechanical devices and minor and major public facilities;”
B. Screening shall be vegetative, earthen and/or structural and be designed to minimize visual and
audible incompatible uses from adjacent properties. Unless specified elsewhere in this
Subsection, screening shall be continuous to at least six feet above ground level.”
The applicant's proposed substation is not screened as required by this standard. The applicant proposes to install
“grouping of randomly placed native conifers” for vegetative screening. Application, p. 26. However, to conform
to applicable standards for vegetative screening, the screening must be “continuous”- and not in random clusters.
Moreover, as is addressed below, the applicant refuses to install irrigation to support this vegetative screen, in
violation of express planting requirements. The applicant's proposed structural screening is a cyclone security fence,
which will do nothing to screen the substation. Accordingly, the decision violates this standard, and is subject to
reversal on this basis as well. The decision fails to apply these screening requirements to the substation, and instead
concludes that the applicant is providing the required screening “on the west, northwest and north edges of the
substation site.” Decision, p. 14. This finding is contrary to law and not supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Moreover, to the extent that the same imposes a condition for the additional screening along the southern
edge of the property, this condition is inadequate, both in that it fails to screen the substation from property to the
east, and because the decision fails to determine whether it is feasible to provide such screening on the site given
the lack of irrigation and the impacts to protected physical features on site.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #17: As stated previously, Tax Lot 3701 in its previous and newly adjusted
configuration is a legal parcel. The applicant submitted a Property Line Adjustment survey for approval by the City on
March 26, 2019. The City completed a review of the Property Line Adjustment survey and issued approval for recording
the survey on April 24, 2019. Upon recording the Property Line Adjustment Survey and Deeds on July 11, 2019 the
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 19 of 32
project area as generally depicted on the map prepared by City staff is now entirely within public ownership. Tax Lot
101 and a portion of Tax Lot 1100 are existing legal parcels inside the City limits and therefore may be subject to land
use approvals issued by the City of Springfield.
Finding - Response to Assignments of Error #18, 19 & 23: The proposed transmission line development on Tax Lots
300 and 1000 is outside the purview of the Planning Commission for this appeal.
Finding - Response to Assignments of Error #20 & 21: The appellant’s contention that there is no joint access easement
across Tax Lot 3701 (and therefore the decision should be overturned) is ironic because the appellant’s property at 4000
East 22nd Avenue is mostly if not entirely dependent upon SUB Electric’s property (Tax Lot 101) for legal and physical
access to their site. The Lane County tax records and property line information show the boundary between Tax Lots
3701 and 101 as running more or less in the center of the existing paved access road that provides joint access to these
properties (and, by extension, to Tax Lots 1100, 1000 and 300 beyond). Because of the current property line
configuration, commercial and private vehicles seeking to access 4000 East 22nd Avenue (the appellant’s property) – by
necessity and in deference to maintaining a proper lane of travel on the southern half of the road while travelling
eastbound – cross Tax Lot 101. It is not until vehicles would be parked on the north side of the joint access road or
heading westbound that they would be on the appellant’s property. All of this overlooks, of course, the access easement
for ingress and egress of vehicles that incorporates said portions of Tax Lots 3701 and 101 and that was executed by
Mr. Alberto Miranda on February 26, 2019 and recorded at Lane County Deeds & Records on March 12, 2019 as
Document 2019-009076. Therefore, SUB Electric has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have been
granted legal and physical access across portions of Tax Lot 3701 under Mr. Miranda’s ownership – as has Mr. Miranda
across portions of Tax Lot 101 under SUB’s ownership.
Regarding the issue of establishing legal and physical access across the balance of the project area, this issue affects
parcels outside the City limits and is therefore outside the purview of the Planning Commission for this appeal.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #22: This issue affects parcels outside the City limits and is therefore
outside the purview of the Planning Commission for this appeal.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #24: In accordance with SDC 4.4-110.B.3.b, the proposed chain link fencing
around the electric substation can have fence slats installed to provide the required structural screening. The applicant
also has the option to provide additional (or different) screening measures through vegetation, structures or earthen
berms. The height of the screening has to be at least 6 feet above the ground surface, which will be met with the
proposed vegetation and screening fence. There is no specific requirement in the Development Code to provide
screening of features that protrude above the 6-foot level (such as transmission towers, wires, and transformers);
therefore, the City has not imposed a condition requiring such screening. Screening of the fenced compound is
addressed in subsection 4.7-160 below.
Condition of Approval 6:
The Final Site Plan shall provide elevation details for the control house building and other structures within the
substation compound.
On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100)
General Finding 51: In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.1, light standards in industrial developments cannot exceed 25
feet high or the height of the principal structure, whichever is less. The applicant is not proposing to install lighting
fixtures on the site so this requirement is not applicable.
High Impact Public Facilities (4.7-160)
General Finding 52: In accordance with SDC 4.7-160.A, high impact public facilities shall be designated on the Public
Facilities and Services Plan or approved through Type III Discretionary Use procedures. The proposed electric
substation and transmission line are projects identified in the adopted Public Facilities and Services Plan so this
requirement has been met.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 20 of 32
General Finding 53: In accordance with SDC 4.7-160.B, high impact public facilities shall be screened as specified in
Section 4.4-100. The applicant is proposing to use vegetative screening along the west, northwest and north edges of
the substation site where it faces the East 22nd Avenue alignment. However, screening has not been provided for the
southern edges of the compound which are visible from I-5 and residential properties to the south across I-5. The
applicant will need to install structural or vegetative screening on the perimeter of the substation compound in
accordance with SDC 4.7-160.B. Because of potential conflicts with vegetation and the overhead transmission lines
that enter the substation compound along the southern boundary, structural screening is recommended. Structural
screening can include earthen berms or slatted fencing.
General Finding 54: The appellant argues that the substation will not be adequately screened from view in violation of
SDC 4.4-110. The site plan review condition of approval (see Condition 7 below) requiring additional screening of the
substation ensures compliance with this standard, and that it is feasible for SUB to comply with this condition based on
the availability of suitable screening materials. The Planning Commission finds that screening is not necessary on the
east side of the substation because the substation will not be visible from this direction and SUB owns the land east of
the substation. Moreover, the intent of the screening requirement is to obscure the view of the utility facility from nearby
residential areas and the public way.
Condition of Approval 7:
The Final Site Plan shall provide for suitable structural and/or vegetative screening of the substation compound
enclosure, including portions that are visible from the I-5 corridor and residential properties to the south across
I-5.
C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
General Finding 55: Tax Lots 300, 1000 and 1100 are outside the City limits but within the Springfield Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB). Therefore, provisions of the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District (UF-10) apply to these parcels.
Because these parcels are outside the City limits the provisions of the UF-10 District are outside the jurisdiction of the
Planning Commission.
General Finding 56: Portions of the transmission line alignment and associated project work are within areas that exceed
15 percent slope, and portions exceed 35 percent slope. Components of the project that lie within steeply sloping hillside
areas – including the maintenance access road and transmission line poles – has triggered the requirement for a Hillside
Development Permit. The applicant has submitted a Hillside Development Permit application under separate cover
(Case 811-19-000085-TYP2). The sloping areas subject to the Hillside Development Permit are outside the City limits
and therefore outside the purview of the Planning Commission for this appeal. However, it is notable that issuance of
the Hillside Development Permit will be required before the Final Site Plan can be approved and construction is initiated.
General Finding 57: Tax Lots 101 and 1100 are within the 1999 Glenwood Refinement Plan area. The 1999 Refinement
Plan identified the requirement for an EWEB substation southeast of Glenwood to manage increasing electric loads in
the neighborhood. Policy 1 of the Water and Electric Services section of the Refinement Plan states that SUB shall
provide water and electricity service to the Glenwood area either directly or by contract. Consistent with this policy,
SUB Electric is upgrading and expanding the electric system in Glenwood through the installation of the proposed
transmission line and substation. There are no other specific policies applicable to electric service in the 1999 Glenwood
Refinement Plan.
General Finding 58: The 1999 Glenwood Refinement Plan does not identify any potentially significant or regulated
wetlands within the proposed project area. The site is identified on the City’s local wetland inventory and is classified
as Not Locally Significant. The applicant is required to obtain necessary state and federal permits for wetland
fill/removal before any construction can occur on Tax Lot 101.
General Finding 59: The appellant raises the issue of visual impact and the accuracy of the photo simulations prepared
and submitted by the applicant for the project. The applicant has argued that the proposed substation and transmission
lines conflict with policies in the Phase 1 Glenwood Refinement Plan (2014), Public Facilities and Services Section,
regarding minimizing the visual impact of electric system facilities. The Planning Commission’s jurisdiction of this
appeal is limited to Tax Lots 101 and 1100, which are within the City limits, and are not within the Phase 1 Glenwood
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 21 of 32
Refinement Plan. Therefore the policies cited by the applicant are not applicable to the Planning Commission’s review
of this appeal.
Remand Finding 59.1: The applicant has prepared a supplemental analysis (see below; also see applicant’s remand
submittal, Exhibit D) that provides additional alternatives analysis regarding the alignment and design of SUB’s
proposed transmission line under the siting standards for electrical facilities in the 2014 Glenwood Refinement Plan (the
“Siting Standards”), which is applicable only to the Hearing Official’s decision. The following information is being
provided by staff to inform the Hearing Official’s decision.
The Siting Standards apply to the two southeastern-most parcels of the subject property, tax lots 1000 and 300, because
these two parcels are within the boundary of the 2014 Glenwood plan. SUB evaluated its compliance with the Siting
Standards in its original April 2019 Site Plan Review application narrative and supplemented this analysis during the
local appeals that followed. This prior analysis, however, did not compare SUB’s chosen transmission line alignment
to other potential alternatives that SUB has considered. Because LUBA’s decision requires SUB to evaluate alternative
alignments for purposes of tree preservation, SUB has chosen to reconsider the Siting Standards by comparing SUB’s
chosen alignment to the other alternatives that SUB has evaluated. The analysis provided by the applicant also provides
additional facility design information relevant to the Siting Standards. This analysis supersedes SUB’s prior 2019
analysis of the Siting Standards.
Applicant’s Submittal to Address Remand Issue:
SDC Appendix C: Policy E.7. - Electric Facilities and Services-Utility Placement and Adverse Environmental, Visual,
and Health Impacts.
Policy E.7.a. - Coordinate with SUB to develop criteria for locating and obscuring electric facilities that consider
visual, auditory, health and environmental impacts; pedestrian mobility; operational ease; and initial costs and
maintenance costs in association with proposed development in the Glenwood Riverfront.
Applicant’s Response: SUB coordinated with the City on a 2015 amendment to the Metro Plan’s Public Facilities and
Services Plan (the “PFSP”) that establishes the general location of the proposed substation and transmission line
between I-5 and the railroad corridor adjacent to Newman Street. As stated in the PFSP, the Metro governments and
SUB selected this location because it minimizes the visual impact of the substation and the transmission line as required
by Siting Standard E.7.
Policy E.7.b. - Consider views, visual pollution, public health, natural environment, and noise pollution in locating and
obscuring transmission facilities.
Applicant’s Response: SUB’s proposed transmission line is bounded on the southeastern end by the existing
transmission structure on the subject property that connects to the Bonneville Power Administration’s Alvey Substation
in Goshen. The line is bounded on the northwestern end by the substation site on Tax Lot 101. The Central Oregon
Pacific Railroad Line and Newman Street are adjacent to the subject property to the north. SUB evaluated siting the
transmission line along these rights-of-way and concluded that this route is not feasible. This is because the railroad
line is adjacent to a steep hillside and there is minimal room along the railroad right of way for the transmission facilities.
Even if the transmission line could be located in the railroad or street right of way, this route would require two hillside
clearings. First, clearing would be needed from the top of the hill on Tax Lot 300 where the transmission structure is
located to the railroad right-of-way at the base of the hill. A second hillside clearing would be needed further north to
bring the line up the hillside to connect to the substation on Tax Lot 101. (See tree canopy maps in applicant’s remand
submittal, Exhibit C.) These clearings would have significant visual impact from McVay Highway (aka Franklin Blvd)
and would have a greater environmental impact than the selected route due to the clearing and grading of the steep
slopes. The I-5 right-of-way is adjacent to the subject property to the south. ODOT rules generally prohibit linear
facilities in the interstate right-of-way, and ODOT instructed SUB that ODOT would not approve siting of the
transmission line in the I-5 right-of-way. Even if SUB could site the transmission line in the I-5 right of way, this route
would require tree clearing in two larger fair quality tree clusters near the south end of the property along a steep hillside.
(See applicant’s remand submittal, Exhibit C.) This would produce greater visual impact along I-5 than the selected
route and also greater environmental impact due to clearing and grading on the slope. Given this geography, SUB has
limited options to traverse the subject property to connect between the existing structure on Tax lot 300 and the proposed
substation on Tax Lot 101.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 22 of 32
SUB evaluated two alternative routes through the subject property in addition to SUB’s selected route. As shown in
Exhibit D of the applicant’s remand submittal, Alternative 1 was two separate transmission lines, one along roughly the
southern portion of the property and the other through roughly the center of the property. Alternative 1 was attractive
from the standpoint of operational reliability because it would minimize the probability that a single event would take
out both lines. But SUB rejected Alternative 1 because it would require cutting two separate 100-foot clear zones of
trees, which would have greater environmental and visual impact than the selected route.
Alternative 2 was a double transmission line along a more northerly route than the selected route. SUB rejected
Alternative 2 because it would increase tree felling in comparison to the chosen alignment, particularly through a good
quality cluster of young ash trees and another good quality mixed species cluster of trees. (See applicant’s remand
submittal, Exhibit D.) Alternative 2 would also have had greater visual impact associated with tree cutting from the
northeast because of tree felling that would be needed from near the top of the slope above the rail line and running a
fair distance across the face of that slope. That tree felling area would have been visible from McVay Highway. This
hillside is shown in the current conditions photos taken from McVay Highway and Nugget Way, included in Exhibit E
of the applicant’s remand submittal. SUB’s chosen alignment is a double line along the portion of the property bounded
by I-5. SUB concluded that there is enough open space along this route to safely locate two lines spaced 30 feet apart.
This alignment also avoids steeper slopes along the northern border of the property. Traversing the edge of the property
also minimizes tree cutting overall and preserves trees on both the south and north borders of the property to minimize
the visual impact of the lines. In addition, SUB’s proposed access road minimizes environmental impact by maximizing
use of the existing road and only expanding the road where needed for access to the transmission facilities. Public
health impacts are minimized by locating the facilities between I-5 and the railroad line away from residential areas.
There is no difference in public health impacts among the different alternative alignments given the geography of the
property.
Policy E.7.b.1. - Follow natural landforms in aligning transmission lines while avoiding alignments along hillcrests or
steep grades that expose the facilities to views; and cross hills obliquely rather than at right angles.
Applicant’s Response: The selected transmission route avoids alignment along hillcrests and steep slopes where
possible. The selected route is within a large-scale cut out of the Moon Mountain hillside. The roadbed for I-5 was cut
into the northeast flank of Moon Mountain, whose hilltop and ridge is to the southwest of the Interstate in Eugene’s
Laurel Hill Valley neighborhood. The selected transmission route sets the lines into this cut, making the transmission
line oblique to the Moon Mountain hillside. As described above, other potential routes for the transmission line would
require more tree felling on steep grades that would expose the transmission line to broader views. This includes
theoretical alignments within the I-5 or railroad rights of way and Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternatives 1 and 2 would
both require tree felling near the top of the crest of the hillside above the rail line, which would expose views of the
transmission line from McVay Highway and the Eugene Mobile Village.
Policy E.7.b.2. - Align transmission lines along edges of land uses to avoid scenic areas and to avoid dividing land use
patterns.
Applicant’s Response: The selected route places the transmission corridor along the southern edge of Tax Lot 1000
and along the northwestern edge of Tax Lot 300. The corridor is also along the edges of the tree clusters on these
parcels to retain forested areas to the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives 1 and 2, by contrast, would place a
transmission corridor through the center of Tax Lot 1000 and further from the edge of Tax Lot 300.
Policy E.7.b.3. - Utilize trees to provide a backdrop to minimize the silhouette of transmission lines against the sky.
Applicant’s Response: The selected route retains most of the trees on the property and more trees than would be retained
under Alternatives 1 or 2. Trees that will remain near the top of the crest above the rail line and north and east of I-5
will minimize the silhouette of the transmission line along the selected route.
Policy E.7.b.4. - Reduce the length of visible segments of transmission lines by interrupting views with trees or offsetting
the location of segments behind trees and other topographic features where long views of the transmission lines would
otherwise occur.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 23 of 32
Applicant’s Response: Under the selected route, trees that currently exist within the I-5 right-of-way will not be touched
and will interrupt the view of the transmission lines from I-5. As shown in the additional attached photo simulations
(applicant’s remand submittal, Exhibit D), the selected route also retains trees along the north side of the property that
will obscure views of the transmission line from McVay Highway. There will be no view of the transmission line from
East 22nd Street to the west of the property (including the opponents’ coffee facility), nor from Eugene Mobile Village,
as shown in the attached photographs. Alternatives 1 and 2, as well as a theoretical alignment along the railroad line,
by contrast, would expand the length of visible transmission line from McVay Highway. A theoretical alignment in the
I-5 right of way would expose more of the line to views from I-5.
Policy E.7.b.5. - Minimize the “tunnel effect” of long, straight, uninterrupted views along transmission lines by only
clearing vegetation that threatens the lines and by jogging the alignment at road crossings.
Applicant’s Response: The transmission lines will be located in a segmented alignment. SUB will only clear vegetation
that threatens the transmission lines or impacts the substation site. All potential alternative alignments would create a
greater tunnel effect than the chosen route. A theoretical alignment in the I-5 right-of-way would create uninterrupted
views along the freeway. A theoretical alignment along the rail line would require two tunnel-like clearings of the
hillside to reach the transmission structure on the south end of the property and the substation on the northern end of
the property. Alternatives 1 and 2 would create greater uninterrupted views along McVay Highway.
Policy E.7.b.6. - Minimize the number of transmission poles and consider color and materials in designing the
appearance of transmission poles and line attachments so that they blend harmoniously with their surroundings.
Applicant’s Response: For the safety of the public and to meet standard construction practices, these transmission poles
must be placed about every 250 feet along the line. SUB’s selected transmission line design is consistent with this
standard and therefore minimizes the number of poles to the extent practicable. SUB considered potential colors and
materials for the transmission poles and chose a wood pole equivalent galvanized steel design. Steel is preferable to
wood poles for fire safety and longevity. The grey color of the galvanized steel is consistent with the existing
transmission poles on and in the vicinity of the subject property and blends in against background sky.
Policy E.7.b.7. - Route and locate transmission lines to minimize or eliminate the need for vegetation management.
Applicant’s Response: SUB will only clear vegetation that threatens the transmission lines or impacts the substation
site. SUB’s replanting plan minimizes the need for vegetation management by selecting drought tolerant native shrubs
and forbs in the transmission line clear zone and drought tolerant incense cedar trees for substation screening.
Policy E.7.b.8. - Route and locate transmission lines to minimize potential health effects and noise pollution on
Glenwood residents.
Applicant’s Response: The selected route minimizes potential health effects and noise pollution by locating the lines
away from residential areas. The subject property is isolated from public areas and residential areas by I-5 to the south
and the rail line to the north.
Policy E.7.b.9. - Route and locate transmission lines to minimize potential effects on avian migratory patterns.
Applicant’s Response: The transmission lines will be surrounded by trees, many of which are as tall as or taller than the
transmission lines, minimizing the effect on aviation migratory patterns.
Policy E.7.e. - Consider views and visual pollution in locating and obscuring the future substation.
Applicant’s Response: The substation site location and screening minimize views of the substation. The Army Corps
of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands have both concluded that there is no practicable alternative to
SUB’s proposed substation location, as shown in the wetland permitting files included with SUB’s remand submittal.
Policy E.7.e.1. - Locate the substation in an industrial or employment designated parcel outside of the boundary of the
Phase I Glenwood Riverfront.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 24 of 32
Applicant’s Response: The substation will be located in the LMI industrial zone outside of the Phase I Glenwood
Riverfront.
Policy E.7.e.2. - Obscure the substation and transformer from public view and attenuate the noise generated by these
facilities by means of plant materials, earth berms, or enclosure walls.
Applicant’s Response: Vegetation that currently exists on the undisturbed portions of the site will be used to help screen
the substation on Lot 101. In addition, SUB will plant native conifer trees to further obscure and buffer the substation.
In addition, the substation will have a fence with slats along the south side of the compound.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #26:
“3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards
The following public and private development standards are established for the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use
Plan District:
* * * *
F. Private Property Landscape Standards.
* * * *
3. General Landscape Standards.
* * * *
i. Irrigation. The intent of this standard is to ensure that plants will survive the critical establishment period
when they are most vulnerable due to lack of watering. All landscaped areas shall provide an irrigation
system as follows:
i. A permanent built-in irrigation system with an automatic controller; or
ii. An irrigation system designed and certified by a licensed landscape architect or certified landscape
professional as part of the landscape plan that provides sufficient water to ensure that the plants will
become established. The system does not have to be permanent if the plants chosen can survive
adequately on their own once established; or
iii. Irrigation by Hand. If the applicant chooses this option, the inspection required in Subsection 3.4-
270F.3.h.i(c) shall ensure that the landscaping has become established.
iv. The following options will be encouraged in order to reduce the amount of potable water used for
landscape irrigation by the use of:
(a) Capture rainwater;
(b) Recycled wastewater;
(c) Water treated and conveyed for non-potable uses; and/or
(d) Other non-potable water sources, including, but not limited to, stormwater, air conditioning
condensate, irrigation wells, and foundation drain water.
v. The final irrigation plan diagram, if necessary, shall be submitted with the Final Site Plan Review
application.”
The applicant is proposing to replace approximately 300 trees on the subject property with a “native grass seed
mix." L 4.1 (Planting Plan). However, the applicant refuses to provide irrigation support to ensure that these
plantings will become established, stating: "[i}nstalled plant material on this project will not be irrigated.”
Application, p. 15. This is a violation of the City's landscaping standards, and reversal of the decision is appropriate
on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #27: The decision attempts to justify its failure to conform to these minimum
standards by contending that the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay standards are the only standards applicable to the
project. Decision, p. 5. However, the Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District standards at Section 3.4-270 control over
the Urbanizable Fringe Standards as is set forth in the code. Accordingly, the decision of approval is in err [sic],
and should be reversed on this basis as well.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #28:
“5. Existing mature vegetation and healthy trees, excluding those plants on the Nuisance Plants List as
specified in the Springfield Engineering Design and Procedures Manual, shall be retained to the maximum
extent practicable. However, plantings intended to mitigate for the loss of natural resources values shall
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 25 of 32
be subject to the applicable standards as specified in Sections 3.4-280, 4.4-115, 4.4-117 and the Springfield
Engineering Design [Standards] and Procedures Manual."
The applicant is proposing to remove approximately 300 healthy trees for the proposed project, over a third of which
bear little to no relationship with the improvements, and without mitigation. It has also failed to specify the number
of trees or existing vegetation which will be removed for its planned fencing. This is not retaining “mature vegetation
and healthy trees...to the maximum extent practicable” and is a violation of this provision. The decision fails to
apply this standard, and the reversal of the decision is warranted on this basis as well.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #26: The Public and Private Development Standards in SDC 3.4-270 cited
by the appellant in this assignment of error do not apply to Tax Lots 101 and 1100, and therefore this issue is outside
the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal. For Tax Lot 101 and the portion of Tax Lot 1100 within
the City limits, the revegetated areas along the segment of transmission line and the landscaping associated with the
non-occupied electric substation do not require an automatic irrigation system according to SDC 4.4-105.G, because
these areas will be planted with drought resistant native species and plant communities. The applicant will be subject
to the provisions of the City’s Development Code (ref. SDC 4.4-105.E) pertaining to establishment periods for
vegetation and replacement of plant material that fails to establish during this period.
The appellant questions the lack of a permanent irrigation system in SUB’s revegetation plans. SDC 4.4-105.G allows
for alternative measures for sites planted with native species or plant communities, or as otherwise exempted by the
Approving Authority. For the SUB project, the revegetation and landscaping plans have been designed by a landscape
professional. SUB has explained that it has developed such a system for the property designed by SUB’s landscape
architecture firm, and the record includes SUB’s proposed revegetation plan. The Planning Commission finds that SUB
has demonstrated compliance with this criterion based on this evidence.
To address this issue, the applicant has agreed to provide hand watering of new vegetation during the establishment
period as needed. The applicant also has agreed to a condition of approval requiring this additional irrigation safeguard,
and that it is feasible for SUB to provide hand watering as needed given SUB’s access to the property and willingness
to perform this task.
The appellant also raised concerns about erosion associated with SUB’s proposed development, including erosion
associated with tree removal. Erosion control is one of the purposes of the City’s landscaping standards at SDC 4.4-105.
Condition 1 of the City’s tree felling decision requires SUB to obtain a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP)
before commencing tree felling. The LDAP permitting process requires installation of erosion control measures and
establishment of erosion-controlling vegetation in disturbed areas. In addition, the applicant will be minimizing erosion
associated with tree felling by leaving tree stumps in place, and utilizing an erosion control plan for road improvement
in the record. The Planning Commission finds that compliance with erosion control requirements, including SDC 4.4-
105 and the City’s EDSPM, are based on this evidence and provisions of the LDAP permit that will be obtained by SUB
permit prior to the start of construction
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #27: This assignment of error pertains to three parcels that are outside the
City limits (i.e. Tax Lots 1000, 1100 and 300) and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission for
this appeal.
For Tax Lot 101 and the portion of Tax Lot 1100 inside the City limits, the Planning Commission has granted the project
an exemption from the requirement for an underground irrigation system due to the isolated nature of the project, the
potential impacts of installing and maintaining such an underground system, and based on the applicant’s proposed
revegetation plan using exclusively drought-tolerant native plant species and commitment to use hand watering as
necessary to ensure successful vegetation establishment (see Condition 9 below).
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #28: The applicant has already responded to the tree removal issue which
is being adjudicated through a separate appeal (Case 811-19-000102-TYP3). There are no additional trees proposed
for removal for installation of the perimeter fencing. Therefore, this assignment of error is not relevant to the criteria
of approval for this appeal.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 26 of 32
Condition of Approval 8:
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain a Hillside Development Permit for the project
as initiated by Case 811-19-000085-TYP2.
Condition of Approval 9:
The Final Site Plan for the electric substation and segment of transmission line within the City limits shall provide
for hand watering and other supplementary irrigation measures as necessary to ensure successful vegetation
establishment in the landscaped and revegetated areas depicted on the applicant’s site plan.
Conclusion: Subject to Conditions of approval #4–9, the applicant has met Criterion C. Assignments of error #17–24
and #26–28 are denied.
D. 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 this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT
access management standards for State highways.
General Finding 60: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The greater
number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. Effective ways to reduce the probability of traffic
crashes include: reducing the number of driveways; increasing distances between intersections and driveways; and
establishing adequate vision clearance areas where driveways intersect streets. Each of these techniques permits a
longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the number and difficulty of decisions that drivers must
make, and contributes to increased traffic safety.
General Finding 61: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C, site driveways shall be designed to allow for safe and efficient
vehicular ingress and egress as specified in Tables 4.2-2 through 4.2-5, the City’s EDSPM, and the City’s Standard
Construction Specifications. Ingress-egress points must be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid
congestion, and minimize curb cuts on public streets.
General Finding 62: The appellant has not challenged the applicant’s compliance with this criterion. However, to the
extent that the ingress-egress standards in SDC 5.17-125.D overlap with the appellant’s access argument, the applicant
has appropriate ingress and egress to the subject property for the reasons described above. For this reason, the findings
in the original Director’s decision regarding SDC 5.17-125.D are listed herein and adopted with this decision.
General Finding 63: The applicant is proposing to construct a new driveway approach to the substation site on Tax Lot
101. The applicant is proposing to pave the first 18-feet of the driveway as measured from the edge of pavement along
the East 22nd Avenue alignment, which exceeds the requirements for commercial and industrial driveways under Table
4.2-2 of the Springfield Development Code.
General Finding 64: The applicant is proposing to use an existing gravel access road that runs within Tax Lots 3701,
1100 and 1000 for much of the maintenance access road depicted on the site plan. This part of the project is outside the
City limits and therefore outside the jurisidiction of the Planning Commission for this appeal.
Conclusion: The applicant has met Criterion D. The findings and conclusion stated herein are upheld.
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with
susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality
Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and
areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760,
358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.
General Finding 65: The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Local Wetland
Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted and there are
no natural features or resources on the property that warrant protection. However, as previously discussed, the applicant
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 27 of 32
is required to obtain a wetland fill/removal permit for planned project work on Tax Lot 101. The applicant has submitted
copies of the wetland delineation study and their wetland fill/removal permit submittal to the Oregon Department of
State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers. Issuance of the wetland fill/removal permit will be required before
approval of the Final Site Plan and initiation of construction.
General Finding 66: Portions of the project area are located within steeply sloping hillside areas that trigger the
requirement for a Hillside Development Permit. The applicant has submitted for a Hillside Development Permit under
separate cover (Case 811-19-000085-TYP2). As previously stated and conditioned herein, issuance of the Hillside
Development Permit is required prior to approval of the Final Site Plan and initiation of construction. Additional details
on the proposed hillside development are found in the accompanying Hillside Development Permit submitted under
separate cover as Case 811-19-000085-TYP2 and incorporated by referenced herein.
Remand Finding 66.1: The Hillside Development Permit approved by the Planning Commission and Hearings Official
as a result of the appeal is referenced herein as Case 811-19-000128-TYP3.
General Finding 67: SDC 5.17-125.E requires protection of various “physical features . . . as specified in [City] Code
or State or Federal law.” The Site Plan test was met at SDC 5.17-125.C as it relates to compliance with relevant City
Code requirements. SUB has complied with all other relevant local criteria concerning protection of physical features
for the reasons outlined in the findings listed herein:
• Tree Preservation: The City’s tree felling permit ensures tree preservation consistent with SDC 5.17-125.E.
SUB will be required to obtain a final tree felling permit prior to tree removal.
• Wetlands and Riparian Areas: SUB has complied with all relevant City wetland and water quality-related
protection standards for the reasons described herein. The applicant’s permit applications to the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands will ensure SUB’s compliance with federal and state
wetland development laws.
• Slope protection: The evidence presented by the applicant’s geotechnical consultant and SUB staff
demonstrates that the proposed development will protect slopes. This evidence is further discussed in the Hillside
Development Permit submitted under separate cover and also subject of an appeal (Case No. 811-19-000128-TYP3).
Overall, the applicant’s argument and supporting studies and analysis is more persuasive than the documents prepared
by Geoscience for the appellant because SUB’s evidence includes actual subsurface exploration, sampling, and
lab testing. The applicant’s geotechnical consultant also draws from his experience with other nearby properties
in assessing the subject property.
Remand Finding 67.1: The City’s site plan review criteria require that “significant clusters of trees and shrubs...be
protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.” SDC 5.17-125.E (emphasis added). LUBA’s decision
affirms that the City’s “tree felling standards govern protection of significant clusters of trees.” As noted above, LUBA
also upheld the scope of SUB’s proposed tree felling as consistent with the City’s tree felling criteria. In its remand
order, LUBA requires the City to “consider and explain” how significant clusters of trees and shrubs are protected under
SDC 5.17-125.E.
Remand Finding 67.2: Separately, LUBA held that the City’s Glenwood landscaping standards at SDC 3.4-270.F.5
require an “analysis of alternative [transmission] line alignments on the subject property” to ensure that the Project
“retains mature vegetation and healthy trees ‘to the maximum extent practicable’” on the two GEMU-zoned parcels of
the site. Together these holdings indicate that the City’s “significant clusters” site plan review standard incorporates an
additional requirement for tree clearing on the two GEMU-zoned parcels of the Property (Tax Lots 1000 and 300)
beyond the tree felling standards that apply to the overall site. Specifically, clearing of healthy tree clusters on Tax Lots
1000 and 300 must meet the GEMU “maximum extent practicable” preservation standard as well as the utility
interference standard in the tree felling rules. Because LUBA upheld SUB’s proposed 100-foot clear zone as consistent
with the tree felling rules, LUBA’s decision means that SUB must select the practicable location for this clear zone on
the site that best preserves healthy trees on Tax Lots 1000 and 300.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 28 of 32
Remand Finding 67.3: The SDC does not define “significant tree cluster.” For purposes of inventorying tree canopy,
SUB utilized definitions that were recently proposed by the City of Eugene for that city’s tree preservation standards.
These Eugene definitions, which are included in the tree canopy evaluation materials in Exhibit C of the applicant’s
remand submittal, define a “significant tree cluster” as a group of five or more living trees of at least eight inches in
diameter at breast height with overlapping branches. SUB’s working definition of “significant tree cluster” (further
broken out into “good,” “fair,” and “poor” quality) is expansive enough to capture all tree clusters that could be
considered “significant” under a reasonable interpretation of the term. “Good” quality clusters were identified based
upon moderate to low plant density, primarily non-invasive groundcover, even branching, and an upright trunk (tree is
not leaning); “fair” quality tree clusters were those with moderate to dense planting; a mix of invasive and non-invasive
groundcover; some broken or uneven branching and that may include moderate lean to the trunk; “poor” quality tree
clusters had a high density planting, primarily invasive understory, broken or uneven branching, and trees or trunks with
significant lean.
Remand Finding 67.4: SUB’s tree canopy evaluation makes clear that SUB’s proposed transmission line alignment best
preserves trees on the site of all potential alternatives, regardless of which clusters are deemed “significant.”
Specifically, the selected route generally avoids the large clusters of trees along the northern and southern boundaries
of the project area by crossing the open meadow on Tax Lot 1100. It also entirely avoids all trees within “good” quality
clusters and the vast majority of trees in “fair” quality clusters throughout the site. Both practicable alternative routes
on the site involve substantially more tree cutting, including felling of trees within a good quality cluster near the
northern border of the site. (See applicant’s remand submittal, Exhibit D).
Remand Finding 67.5: Although the record shows that alignments in the railroad right-of-way and the I-5 right-of-way
are not practicable, these theoretical alignments would also require more tree felling than the selected route. An
alignment along the railroad line north of the project area would require two hillside clearings. First, clearing would be
needed of a fair quality cluster from the top of the hill on Tax Lot 300 where the transmission structure is located to the
railroad right-of-way at the base of the hill. A second hillside clearing would be needed further north to bring the line
up the hillside through a fair or good quality cluster to connect to the substation on Tax Lot 101. (See applicant’s remand
submittal, Exhibit C, pages TF1 and TF2). An alignment in the I-5 right-of-way would require tree clearing in two
larger fair quality tree clusters on the south end of the Property along a steep hillside. (See applicant’s remand submittal,
Exhibit C, pages TF2-TF4). SUB’s selected transmission route therefore exceeds the requirement to preserve significant
clusters of trees as required by the City’s tree felling rules. As LUBA explained, the City’s utility interference standard
(SDC 5.19-125) requires only that interference with utility service “warrants” tree felling. SUB has gone beyond this
requirement by demonstrating that SUB’s selected route preserves trees clusters (significant or not) better than potential
alternative routes on and near the project area.
Remand Finding 67.6: SUB’s selected route also complies with the Glenwood landscaping standard of retaining mature
vegetation and healthy trees to the maximum extent practicable on Tax Lots 1000 and 300 because it preserves more
healthy trees on these parcels than any practicable alternative route (see Subsection C.3 above). Both alternative routes
on the site that are practicable involve a northern alignment that would require clearing of a substantial portion of a
good quality tree cluster on Tax Lot 1000, as well as a larger portion of the adjacent poor quality clusters on Tax Lots
1000 and 300. SUB has also refined its tree felling plan to preserve a group of additional trees north of the existing
transmission structure on Tax Lot 300 that are within a larger fair quality cluster. After further review since the City’s
2019 approval of SUB’s tree felling plan, SUB has concluded that trimming rather than felling these trees is sufficient
to ensure safety of the transmission facilities. This additional tree preservation further demonstrates that SUB’s plans
retain healthy trees to the maximum extent practicable in the GEMU zone.
General Finding 68: The Planning Commission finds that SUB’s proposed development will protect significant clusters
of trees and mitigate hillside erosion, as required by the standards of the Springfield Development Code, for the reasons
described above.
General Finding 69: Stormwater runoff from the subject site eventually flows to the Willamette River system. This
river is listed with the State of Oregon as a “water quality limited” stream for numerous chemical and physical
constituents, including temperature. Provisions have been made in this decision for protection of stormwater quality.
The proposed on-site stormwater treatment system consists of a series of vegetated rain gardens, grassy swales and a
vegetated detention basin.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 29 of 32
General Finding 70: As previously noted and conditioned herein, groundwater protection must be observed during
construction on the site. The applicant shall maintain the private stormwater facilities on the site to ensure the continued
protection of surface water and groundwater resources.
Appellant’s Assignment of Error #25: The decision violates Section 5.17-125(E) by failing to protect physical features
as required by law. In particular, the decision relies on a deficient tree felling permit to protect “significant clusters
of trees and shrubs,” which is subject to a separate appeal, rather than evaluating tree preservation under applicable
standards. Likewise, the City decision improperly conflates compliance with state fill/removal law with compliance
with applicable City standards governing protection of wetlands and water courses. Indeed, the decision at page 6
describes the wetland on tax lot 101 as merely an “interfere[nce] with natural drainage patterns” in an attempt to
ignore the City's resource protections. As is addressed below, the wetland on tax lot 101 is protected by the City's
water quality standards. Moreover, the decision's description of resource area is based on no evidence in record.
As the decision approves an application that does not protect resources on the site, reversal of the decision is
appropriate on this basis as well.
Finding - Response to Assignment of Error #25: The wetland feature on Tax Lot 101 is protected by the City’s water
quality standards. However, as is the case with proposed development throughout the City, applicants can obtain the
necessary permits to facilitate said development. Section 4.3-117.B.1.c is applicable to Tax Lot 101, whereby “[d]uring
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.” The wetland on Tax Lot
101 is not depicted on the City’s adopted natural resources inventory. Therefore, the City followed protocol by having
the applicant submit the wetland delineation report to Federal and State agencies and obtain necessary wetland
fill/removal permits for the proposed development. There are no indications from the wetland delineation report
prepared by the applicant and submitted into the record that the subject wetland warrants addition to the City’s Local
Wetland Inventory Map as a Locally or Nationally Significant Wetland. As such, the wetland feature on Tax Lot 101
falls within the parameters of SDC 4.3-117.B.1.b whereby “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.” Therefore, upon receipt
of wetland fill/removal permits from said Federal and State agencies, the applicant can proceed with development of
the site.
Condition of Approval 10:
Prior to issuance of any City permits for initiation of construction within Tax Lot 101, the applicant shall obtain
approval of a wetland fill/removal permit from applicable state and federal agencies and provide evidence
thereof to the City.
Condition of Approval 11:
The property owner or their designee shall be responsible for ongoing and perpetual maintenance of the private
stormwater facilities on the site to ensure they function as designed and intended, and to ensure protection of
groundwater resources. Annual maintenance records shall be kept by the property owner or their designee and
provided to the City for review upon reasonable request – normally within five business days.
Conclusion: Subject to Condition of Approval #10, the applicant has met Criterion E. Assignment of error #25 is
denied.
CONCLUSION:
The above findings and conclusions cited from the application, the original Director’s Decision, applicant’s response, City
response, final applicant rebuttal, supplementary materials including but not limited to acknowledged comprehensive plans,
recorded agreements and easements, and correspondence from state agencies, and final applicant response to issues
remanded by LUBA all demonstrate that the proposal meets the criteria of approval in SDC 5.17-125 for Site Plan Review
subject to the conditions cited herein and listed below. The appellant’s assignments of error are denied and the decision to
conditionally approve the Site Plan Review in Case 811-19-000084-TYP2 and as amended and superseded by Case 811-
19-000129-TYP3 (as modified by the applicant in response to the remand) is hereby upheld.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 30 of 32
Condition of Approval 1:
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City of
Springfield, whereby the applicant will provide routine maintenance for functionality of the vegetated rain gardens,
grassy swales, and vegetated detention basin serving the development site.
Condition of Approval 2:
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan satisfactory
to the City to ensure viable long-term maintenance and operation of the vegetated rain gardens, grassy swales, and
vegetated detention basin. The operations and maintenance plan shall designate the responsible party for operating
and maintaining the system and shall be distributed to all property owners and tenants of the site. A record of this
plan shall be filed against the property deed with Lane County Deeds and Records.
Condition of Approval 3:
To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield’s MS4 permit, the Springfield
Development Code and the EDSPM, the infiltration rain gardens, grassy swales, and vegetated detention basin shall
be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to issuance of final occupancy and commencement of
operations. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim
erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Development & Public Works Department that will suffice
until such time as the rain garden, swale, and detention basin vegetation becomes fully established. The interim
erosion control measures shall be in addition to the required plantings for the site.
Condition of Approval 4:
The Final Site Plan shall provide for a Knox padlock for any manually operated gates or a Knox keyed gate switch
for any electrically operated gates serving the access driveway and electric substation compound.
Condition of Approval 5:
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record a variable-width electric transmission
line easement across Tax Lots 101 and 1100, as generally depicted on the tentative site plan, and provide evidence
thereof to the City.
Condition of Approval 6:
The Final Site Plan shall provide elevation details for the control house building and other structures within the
substation compound.
Condition of Approval 7:
The Final Site Plan shall provide for suitable structural and/or vegetative screening of the substation compound
enclosure, including portions that are visible from the I-5 corridor and residential properties to the south across I-
5.
Condition of Approval 8:
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain a Hillside Development Permit for the project as
initiated by Case 811-19-000085-TYP2.
Condition of Approval 9:
The Final Site Plan for the electric substation and segment of transmission line within the City limits shall provide
for hand watering and other supplementary irrigation measures as necessary to ensure successful vegetation
establishment in the landscaped and revegetated areas depicted on the applicant’s site plan.
Condition of Approval 10:
Prior to issuance of any City permits for initiation of construction within Tax Lot 101, the applicant shall obtain
approval of a wetland fill/removal permit from applicable state and federal agencies and provide evidence thereof
to the City.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 31 of 32
Condition of Approval 11:
The property owner or their designee shall be responsible for ongoing and perpetual maintenance of the private
stormwater facilities on the site to ensure they function as designed and intended, and to ensure protection of
groundwater resources. Annual maintenance records shall be kept by the property owner or their designee and
provided to the City for review upon reasonable request – normally within five business days.
Attachment 4, Exhibit A Page 32 of 32