HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02- Climate-Friendly Areas AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/24/2024
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Chelsea Hartman/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3648
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
CITY COUNCIL
Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: CLIMATE-FRIENDLY AREAS UPDATE
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide guidance to the project team on potential scenarios for Climate-Friendly
Areas (CFA) to inform next steps for outreach and identifying draft plan and code
concepts and displacement mitigation strategies.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Comprehensive planning staff have been working to implement the Climate
Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) administrative rules passed in July
2022 by Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Commission in response
to Governor Brown’s Executive Order 20-04. These rules include wide-ranging
requirements for metropolitan areas, and the City of Springfield is mandated to
comply with the rules that affect community engagement, land use, and
transportation. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one component of the rules
requires Springfield to identify and adopt one or more CFAs, which will allow
for dense urban mixed-use centers where people can choose to meet most of their
needs without relying on a car.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memo
2. Presentation
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The CFEC rules are broad reaching, complex, and change the basis for land use
and transportation in the metropolitan areas of Oregon. To assist with this State
mandated work, the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) contracted with Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to complete
technical analysis to identify potential CFA locations (Downtown, Glenwood
Riverfront, Mohawk, and Gateway/RiverBend), and with Kearns and West to
create a “toolkit” for community engagement. This work was completed in 2023
and provided a foundation for the project’s Community Engagement Plan, which
serves as a guide for project communications and outreach to inform the City’s
next steps for selecting and adopting one or more CFAs.
In early 2024, DLCD contracted with Cascadia Partners to work with city staff on
the next phase of analysis and outreach. All work done by city staff is being
supported by city funds. The project team recently conducted the first round of
early community outreach to build awareness of the project and to solicit input on
the potential areas being considered. Additionally, the project team summarized
information about Springfield’s demographics and potential displacement risk,
which LCOG analyzed in 2023. To better understand how much and what types
of development could likely occur in potential CFAs, the project team considered
infrastructure availability, major landowner willingness, and market economics.
A variety of potential scenarios could be considered that meet State requirements
for CFAs. The project team summarized the potential benefits and tradeoffs for a
few scenarios that aim to respond to the community input. Staff is sharing the
findings with Planning Commission and City Council for guidance on next steps.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 6/24/2024
To: Nancy Newton COUNCIL
From: Chelsea Hartman, Senior Planner
Jeff Paschall, Community Development Director
BRIEFING
Subject: Climate-Friendly Areas Update
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: Comprehensive planning staff have been working to implement the Climate Friendly
and Equitable Communities (CFEC) administrative rules passed in July 2022 by Oregon’s Land
Conservation and Development Commission in response to Governor Brown’s Executive Order
20-04. These rules include wide-ranging requirements for metropolitan areas, and the City of
Springfield is mandated to comply with the rules that affect community engagement, land use,
and transportation. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one component requires Springfield to
identify and adopt one or more Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs), which will allow for dense
urban mixed-use centers where people can choose to meet most of their needs without relying on
a car.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Council Goals: Mandate
BACKGROUND
The CFEC rules are broad reaching, complex, and change the basis for land use and
transportation in the metropolitan areas of Oregon. To assist with this State mandated work, the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) contracted with Lane Council of
Governments to complete technical analysis to identify potential CFAs and with Kearns and
West to create a “toolkit” for community engagement. This work was completed in 2023 and
provided a foundation for the project’s Community Engagement Plan, which serves as a guide
for project communications and outreach to inform the City’s next steps for selecting and
adopting one or more CFAs.
On January 22, 2024, Springfield City Council provided input on the project’s key messages and
provided guidance to staff on refining potential CFA locations, which include Downtown,
Glenwood Riverfront, Mohawk, and Gateway/RiverBend. This resulted in removing some
properties in land use districts that had the lowest existing compliance with the CFEC rules
(e.g., properties zoned R-1, Heavy Industrial, Light Medium Industrial, Glenwood Employment
Mixed-Use, Washburne Historic District) and removing a Commercial Mixed-Use area south of
the railroad tracks in the potential Glenwood Riverfront CFA.
On February 21, 2024, the City’s Committee for Citizen Involvement (Springfield Planning
Commission) reviewed and unanimously approved the project’s Community Engagement Plan.
This engagement plan built upon the work Kearns and West did in 2023 and includes the key
messages that Council reviewed and provided input on at their January 22 meeting. The
Committee also reviewed the draft Climate-Friendly Areas at a Glance document, which
provides an overview of CFAs and how this work applies to Springfield. These documents,
among other project materials, are available on the project webpage at bit.ly/SpringfieldCFAs.
On April 29, 2024, the project team provided a communications memo to Council to share the
Areas at a Glance document, an explanatory Handout, and to provide updates on the project’s
Community Engagement Plan, including specifics on early outreach efforts.
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 8
MEMORANDUM Page 2
CLIMATE-FRIENDLY AREAS – Project Updates in 2024
In early 2024, DLCD finalized a contract with Cascadia Partners to work with city staff on the
next phase of analysis and outreach to further refine and select one or more CFAs. There are
benefits and trade-offs when considering which and how many CFAs to choose, including
community input, potential displacement risk, infrastructure availability, market conditions, and
alignment with Springfield’s adopted plans and development regulations. Following is a
summary of project updates in 2024.
Community Engagement
The project team developed outreach materials to provide visual and interactive overviews of
what the project is, why Springfield is doing this work, and where the community can provide
input to inform the potential CFA locations. Early community engagement efforts included:
• 3,400+ letters to all owners, residents, and businesses within and near potential CFAs
• 1,300+ views of project webpage, which includes a story map, a brief recorded
presentation, an interactive map that is searchable by address, and 14 comments posted
• 160 survey responses (open April 22-May 17) to gauge early thoughts on CFAs overall
and the four potential areas that are being considered
• 6 attendees at drop-in sessions for community members to learn more or ask questions
(dates were included in letters and noted on the project webpage)
• Social media posts (Facebook, Instagram, X (Twitter), NextDoor) about the project and
input opportunities
• Tabling at events and Flyers at various locations (e.g., Downtown Art Walk,
Springfield Public Library, Willamalane Adult Activity Center)
• Interviews with the Glenwood development team that is working on a proposed master
plan concept and PeaceHealth as major landowners in some of the potential CFAs
Community input from this first phase of outreach is summarized in the presentation provided in
Attachment 2. Some key results from community engagement include:
• 38% of survey respondents were generally supportive of CFA goals for convenient
neighborhoods with transportation options and parks
• 41% of survey respondents were unsure and expressed the importance to balance
development with parks and public spaces and a preference for smaller mixed-use
buildings with ample parking
• 11% of survey respondents were not supportive and expressed concerns about
potential displacement and housing affordability, increased density and traffic, and
general concerns that State rules don’t allow for local considerations.
• Downtown was voted as “most suitable” and had the most votes to become a primary
CFA (allowed height of 85-feet and required minimum density of 25 units per acre)
while Glenwood Riverfront was voted second.
• There were some votes for Mohawk and Gateway/RiverBend to be considered for
secondary CFAs (allowed height of 60-feet and required minimum density of 15 units
per acre).
The project team heard questions and concerns during this first round of engagement and
developed a "Common Questions Answered" resource that is available on the project webpage.
There will be more targeted opportunities for community input this fall.
Demographics & Potential Displacement Risk
The CFEC rules focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles while also
supporting more equitable cities by improving transportation choices and allowing for areas
where daily needs can be met by walking, biking, or taking transit. The rules require some cities,
including Springfield, to take steps to address long-standing inequities in land use, zoning, and
transportation investment (and disinvestment) decisions in Oregon, a state with a long history of
discrimination and racism.
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 8
MEMORANDUM Page 3
Potential development and/or redevelopment in CFAs, based on what the private market does,
may increase property values over time. Those increases could result in higher property taxes
and housing costs within the area. As part of identifying and designating one or more CFAs, the
CFEC rules require that Springfield proactively consider the potential risk of displacement that
may occur as a result of rising costs. Springfield is required to:
• Identify populations that may be more at risk of displacement as new development
occurs over time
• Identify strategies that help to avoid, lessen, or alleviate the need for people to move
elsewhere because of rising housing costs
• Focus on engagement processes that strive to include the voices of underserved
community members—especially those who have been harmed by past planning,
climate, and transportation decisions
In 2023, the project team analyzed demographics and potential displacement risk. A more
detailed summary of those findings with demographic maps is available on the project webpage.
Some key demographic findings include:
• Springfield has slightly higher percentages of Indigenous people as well as people with
disabilities than Oregon as a whole.
• Low-income households (households earning less than 80% of area median income)
comprise nearly half of Springfield’s households, a higher rate than in Oregon overall.
• Springfield has a larger proportion of low- and moderate- income renters than Oregon
overall. Having high proportions of low- and moderate- income renters means that more
of the population is susceptible to potential displacement. As Springfield considers
potential CFAs, it will be important to understand that a portion of current renters and
homeowners may already struggle to keep up with the cost of housing.
The potential displacement risk analysis provides spatial information on populations in
Springfield that are subject to varying levels of risk of displacement, which will help inform
CFA location choices, as well as which displacement mitigation strategies may best suit any
CFAs that move forward for consideration. It is important to note that this analysis is based on
the State’s methodology which is imperfect and spatial data alone is not enough to understand
the nuances of displacement risk and its impact on underserved communities. This analysis can
also inform next steps for community engagement or may be useful for other citywide housing
efforts. Some key findings about potential displacement risk include:
• The potential Mohawk CFA was identified as having some Vulnerable areas.
o Vulnerable areas are identified as low-income compared to the city as a whole
and include more older or multi-unit housing stock, but neither housing market
activity nor demographic change is significant enough to indicate potential
displacement risk.
• The potential Downtown CFA was identified as having a mix of Vulnerable and Active
Gentrification areas and a very small area of Late Gentrification.
o Although not present in Downtown, Early Gentrification is the stage between
Vulnerable and Active Gentrification. Early Gentrification areas represent the
early phase in the gentrification process with relatively low-income households
and having relatively vulnerable people (e.g., people of color, people with
limited English proficiency, people with disabilities, single-parent households,
and people 65 years and older) and older or multi-unit housing, compared to the
city as a whole. Areas at this stage have relatively active housing markets, yet
no considerable changes are found in demographics related to gentrification.
o Active Gentrification areas are identified as low-income with a high share of
vulnerable people, older or multi-unit housing stock, and active housing
markets, compared to the city as a whole. They also exhibit symptoms of
gentrification as indicated by demographic change.
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 8
MEMORANDUM Page 4
• This analysis suggests that Downtown includes areas with elevated risk of potential
displacement of underserved populations, and areas where shifts in demographics and
the housing market have occurred. The Mohawk area has populations that may be
vulnerable to displacement, but there is no gentrification as of yet.
• While the potential Glenwood Riverfront and Gateway/Riverbend CFAs were identified
as having no risk of potential displacement according to this analysis, the demographics
show that the potential Glenwood Riverfront CFA has a higher proportion of low-
income households, persons 65 years or older, and more affordable rents and home
values. The potential Gateway/RiverBend CFA has a higher proportion of persons with
limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, and has seen increases in rents and
home values.
This information is important to consider when engaging with community members and when
identifying potential displacement mitigation strategies. This analysis demonstrates the
importance of proactively considering strategies to prevent, mitigate, or alleviate potential
displacement as part of selecting one or more CFAs, such as investments in affordable housing,
incentives for ADA accessible housing, and renter protections.
POTENTIAL HOUSING CAPACITY & EXISTING CONDITIONS
Housing Capacity
The CFEC rules require that one or more CFAs be large enough to accommodate 30% of
Springfield’s needed housing capacity (i.e. current and future housing need), which equates to
9,923 housing units based on the Springfield 2030 Residential Land & Housing Need Analysis.
Based on the State’s methodology for calculating potential housing capacity, the four potential
CFAs that Springfield is considering would accommodate more housing capacity than is
required by the CFEC rules.
Downtown is the only potential CFA that could meet this requirement on its own. Different parts
or combinations of the potential CFAs could be identified that can meet current and future
housing need. Below is a summary of potential housing capacity estimates for primary and
secondary CFAs.
Potential Areas Primary CFA Capacity Secondary CFA Capacity
Potential CFA
Area
acres
% of Needed
Housing
Dwelling
Units
% of Needed
Housing
Dwelling
Units
Downtown 238 33% 10,734 19% 6,129
Glenwood Riverfront 114 18% 6,051 10% 3,456
Mohawk 58 10% 3,412 6% 1,949
Gateway/RiverBend 175 20% 6,609 11% 3,774
Total 584 81% 26,806 46% 15,308
The State’s methodology assumes full redevelopment of entire CFAs with new mixed-use and
multi-unit residential buildings of 7-stories for primary CFAs and 4-stories for secondary CFAs.
To better understand how much and what types of development would likely occur in potential
CFAs, the project team considered infrastructure availability, major landowner willingness, and
market economics.
Infrastructure Status
The project team spoke with City and Springfield Utility Board staff to inform a high-level
assessment of existing infrastructure capacity and what level of improvements might be needed
if an area is selected as a CFA, allowing for more dense development over time. Some general
takeaways include:
• Stormwater and electric infrastructure are more costly and challenging to provide in
urban contexts, which is relevant to all potential CFAs.
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 8
MEMORANDUM Page 5
• Wastewater capacity is based on current projections for population and employment
growth, but does not account for the higher level of increased density that would be
allowed within the Downtown, Mohawk, and Gateway/RiverBend CFAs which would
impact potential infrastructure needs and associated costs in those areas. The Glenwood
Riverfront CFA area already allows for higher density development so the wastewater
capacity already accounts for those impacts.
• While there is existing infrastructure capacity in these areas, all of the potential CFAs
would need improvements to support more development over time.
• The Gateway/RiverBend CFA was identified as having the most significant
infrastructure needs and constraints.
The presentation in Attachment 2 provides more information about infrastructure conditions in
the potential CFAs and highlights infrastructure needs based on a few scenarios of how many
and which CFAs (primary or secondary) the City could consider exploring further as part of next
steps.
Major Landowner Willingness
The project team held interviews with the Glenwood development team that is working on a
proposed master plan concept for a 30-acre site within the larger 114-acre potential Glenwood
Riverfront CFA as well as with a representative from PeaceHealth, the major landowner in the
potential Gateway/RiverBend CFA. The purpose of these interviews was to understand how
their development plans align with the intent of CFAs.
The proposed concept for the Glenwood master plan area is generally aligned with CFA goals.
The potential Glenwood Riverfront CFA has the highest existing compliance with CFEC rules
and would require fewer changes to existing development regulations as compared to other
CFAs. However, the current block sizes in the proposed concept for the master plan area may
not align with State requirements. A deeper review of the CFEC rules would help determine if
there could be an allowance for block length exceptions related to site or development
constraints.
The interview with PeaceHealth revealed that CFA goals do not seem to present any barriers to
PeaceHealth’s plans, which include reserving a large portion of vacant land (currently zoned
Medical Services and Mixed Use Commercial) for future uses that align with the hospital's
needs. PeaceHealth acknowledges the need for and potential benefits of housing closer to the
hospital. If this area was selected as a CFA, it would allow for more residential development
than is currently allowed, which could be a benefit. PeaceHealth expressed being open to leasing
land to developers for housing based on market demand.
Market Economics
Cascadia Partners analyzed current market conditions to understand what types of development
the current market in Springfield could support and what could realistically be built if CFA
standards were implemented. Comparing what existing zoning allows the market to produce
today to what the market could deliver under the CFA standards informed more realistic housing
estimates. Based on current market conditions, much less housing would be built than the
capacity calculated using the State’s methodology.
The project team vetted cost assumptions for the market study with local developers to ground
truth the information based on Springfield’s context. Other feedback from local developers noted
that the cost of new construction has increased in recent years and interest rates are currently
high. Feedback also noted the importance of allowing for more housing to help drive the demand
for non-residential uses. More detailed information about the market findings is provided in the
presentation in Attachment 2. Some highlights include:
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 8
MEMORANDUM Page 6
Key findings for existing zoning: Tested development prototypes that are allowed with existing
zoning, such as small lot single units, attached/middle housing, garden apartments, and moderate
density apartments.
• Current land prices in the potential Mohawk CFA are too high to make most
development types feasible.
• As the Glenwood Master Plan Area develops, the market in the rest of the potential
Glenwood Riverfront CFA could support a wide variety of housing types.
• The potential Gateway/RiverBend CFA has a stronger market for ownership housing
(e.g., small lot single unit and attached/middle housing) as compared to the other
potential CFAs.
• Garden apartments are feasible in the potential Downtown CFA, however, other types of
development (e.g., small lot single unit, attached/middle housing, moderate density
apartments) are less viable.
Key findings for potential CFA zoning: Tested development prototypes that would be allowed
with CFA zoning, such as middle housing with varying levels of density (e.g., duplex and
fourplex), 3- and 4-story apartments, and 5- and 7-story mixed use.
• Construction costs make 5- and 7-story buildings unlikely given current market
conditions (Note: Some existing zones already allow for buildings of this height or don’t
have maximum heights.)
• Compact middle housing (e.g., fourplex) is most viable in the potential Mohawk and
Gateway/RiverBend CFAs.
• 3- and 4-story apartments are most feasible for the potential Downtown and Glenwood
CFAs. Providing less on-site parking was found to makes projects more feasible.
POTENTIAL SCENARIOS FOR CONSIDERATION
A variety of potential scenarios could be considered that meet State requirements for CFAs. The
project team summarized the potential benefits and tradeoffs for a few scenarios that aim to
respond to the community input and analyses findings so far. More information about the
benefits and tradeoffs of each scenario is provided in the presentation in Attachment 2. The
project team is seeking feedback and guidance on whether any of these scenarios, or potential
variations that are not listed, are preferred to inform next steps with outreach and identifying
draft plan and code concepts and displacement mitigation strategies. This is not a final decision
on which or how many CFAs will be selected for adoption.
The table below provides a summary of rankings showing how each potential CFA aligns with
certain State requirements based on the CFA Study findings. Most potential scenarios that are
presented meet State requirements for housing capacity, while some scenarios have more market
potential than others. Scenario B has the strongest potential for housing based on current market
conditions while Scenario A has the second strongest potential. The existing Downtown Nodal
Development Area shown in Scenario D is not large enough area to meet the State’s capacity
requirement, so next steps would include looking at an area that is larger than Nodal Area but
smaller than current potential Downtown CFA. More information about potential housing
capacity based on market conditions and infrastructure considerations for each scenario is
provided in the presentation in Attachment 2.
Ranking of Potential CFAs based on
Evaluation Criteria Downtown Glenwood
Riverfront Mohawk Gateway/
RiverBend
Development Regulation Compliance 2 1 4 3
Capacity for Housing 1 3 4 2
In or Near High-Density, Mixed Use Areas 1 2 3 4
Contain or Near Parks/Similar Amenities 1 2 4 3
High-Quality Transportation Options 1 2 4 3
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 8
MEMORANDUM Page 7
The following provides key findings related to alignment with existing plans and development
regulations as well as findings for potential displacement risk, which will inform next steps for
identifying draft plan and code concepts and displacement mitigation strategies.
Question for City Council: Should the project team focus on one of the following potential
scenarios, a different scenario, or continue exploring all four CFAs and come back with
more information to inform Planning Commission feedback and City Council’s selection of
one or more CFAs?
Scenario A*: Glenwood Master Plan Area as Primary CFA with remainder of Glenwood
Riverfront, Downtown, Mohawk, and Gateway/Riverbend as Secondary CFAs*
• Glenwood Master Plan Area is currently well aligned with primary CFA regulations.
• Some changes would be needed in other CFAs to comply with secondary CFA
regulations (e.g., maximum block lengths and allowing housing in more areas).
• No potential displacement risk identified in Glenwood Master Plan Area based on
analysis.
Scenario B*: Glenwood Riverfront as Primary CFA with Downtown, Mohawk, and
Gateway/Riverbend as Secondary CFAs*
• This is similar to Scenario A with the one difference being to include the entire
Glenwood Riverfront as a primary CFA, which is currently most compliant with primary
CFA regulations and ranked second in community survey for a primary CFA.
• Some changes would be needed in other CFAs to comply with secondary CFA
regulations (e.g., maximum block lengths and allowing housing in more areas).
• No potential displacement risk identified in Glenwood Riverfront based on analysis,
however, there are existing manufactured home parks and a concentration of people 65
years and older which should be considered.
*Consideration for Scenario A and B: The project team could explore the potential for
replacing Nodal Development Areas with CFAs. (Note: How to address Nodal Development
Areas could alternatively be explored as part of upcoming work on code amendments for mixed-
use districts.)
Scenario C: Downtown as Primary CFA with no other CFAs
• Downtown ranked highest based on CFA Study criteria and had the most votes to
become a primary CFA in the community survey.
• Existing zoning has some compliance with primary CFA regulations, but some areas
(e.g., R-2 and Mixed Use Residential) would require increases to allowed maximum
height and required minimum density. Other key changes would be to implement
maximum block lengths and allow housing in Community Commercial zones.
• Some concern about higher minimum density requirement being potentially limiting to
new housing development that cannot achieve 25 dwelling units per acre in Downtown.
Scenario D: Glenwood Riverfront as Primary CFA with smaller portion of Downtown as
Secondary CFA to meet housing capacity requirement (no longer consider the potential
Mohawk and Gateway/Riverbend CFAs for any changes)
• This scenario focuses on the Glenwood Riverfront as a primary CFA and a smaller area
of Downtown as a secondary CFA since those areas have higher existing compliance
with CFA regulations and would require the fewest changes to existing plans and
development regulations as compared to the other scenarios. Downtown ranked highest
in the community survey with Glenwood Riverfront ranking second.
• If Scenario D is preferred, the project team will need to propose a Downtown CFA
boundary that meets the State’s housing capacity requirement as part of next steps. This
area would be larger than the existing Downtown Nodal Development Area and smaller
than the current potential Downtown CFA.
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 8
MEMORANDUM Page 8
• No potential displacement risk identified in Glenwood Riverfront based on analysis,
however, there are existing manufactured home parks and a concentration of people 65
years and older which should be considered.
Consideration for all Scenarios: The potential Downtown CFA has the highest potential
displacement risk, which will need to be considered when identifying displacement mitigation
strategies, particularly for Scenario C which would allow a higher increase in density and
potentially create more development potential in Downtown over time.
Next steps
Based on guidance from Planning Commission and City Council, the project team will work on
next steps with outreach and identifying draft plan and code concepts and displacement
mitigation strategies to help people avoid or lessen the need to move elsewhere because of rising
housing costs. There will be more opportunities for the community to provide input this fall.
In early 2025, appointed and elected officials will be asked to select one or more CFAs out of
any remaining potential locations that are still being considered. In determining which area(s)
will be designated a CFA, the project team will identify the specific changes required to land use
and zoning rules and to Springfield’s Comprehensive Plan. Depending on the area(s) selected,
staff may also need to identify changes to Springfield’s neighborhood refinement plans.
Ultimately, the City Council will formally designate one or more CFAs and adopt the
corresponding amendments to land use plans and the Development Code. If the selected area(s)
include property outside the city limits, the Lane County Board of Commissioners will also be
part of the adoption process. The project is targeted for completion by the end of 2025, but the
deadline agreed to by DLCD is the end of 2026.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide guidance to the project team on potential scenarios for
Climate-Friendly Areas (CFA) to inform next steps for outreach and identifying draft plan and
code concepts and displacement mitigation strategies.
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 8
1
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 31
Objective:
Provide guidance on potential
CFA scenarios to inform next
steps for outreach and
identifying draft plan and code
concepts and displacement
mitigation strategies
Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs) Overview
Community Engagement Feedback
Demographics & Potential Displacement Risk
Housing Capacity
Infrastructure Status
Land Owner Willingness
Market Economics
Summary of Potential CFA Options -Benefits & Tradeoffs
2
Meeting Topics
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 31
●At least one primary CFA that’s at least 25 acres
●Must accommodate at least 30% of Springfield’s 20-year housing need (9,923
housing units)
●Allow for a mix of uses (e.g., Springfield’s existing mixed use land use districts)
●Accessible via existing or planned high-quality bicycle and pedestrian networks and
within ½ mile of existing or planned high frequency transit corridors
●Strategies to help people avoid having to move elsewhere due to rising
redevelopment costs
CFAs intend to help achieve the State’s climate goals by addressing both transportation
and land use. Specific requirements include:
3
CFA OVERVIEW
What is Required in Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs)?
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 31
●Optional, but no limit to how many
are designated
(can be of any size)
●Lower allowed heights
(allowed height of at least 60 feet or 5 stories)
●More development allowed but not as
much change in density
(required minimum density of 15 units per acre)
●At least one required of a certain size
(needs to be at least 25 acres in size)
●Higher allowed heights
(allowed height of at least 85 feet or 7 stories)
●More allowed development
(required minimum density of 25 units per acre)
The State rules require at least one “primary” CFA. Cities have flexibility in designating additional
primary and secondary CFAs, each with unique requirements.
Primary CFAs
4
Secondary CFAs
Springfield can choose different combinations of primary and secondary CFAs to best meet
housing and development goals!
CFA OVERVIEW
What Are “Primary” vs. “Secondary” CFAs?
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 31
5
160 responses
COMMUNITY SURVEY
GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE38%
UNSURE41%
NOT SUPPORTIVE11%
●Convenient neighborhoods with different amenities to meet needs
●Better transportation and walk/bike options
●Prioritized investments for high quality spaces like parks
●Balance development with preserving urban spaces and parks
●Concerns about 7-story buildings being main development type
●Prefer smaller mixed-use buildings with ample parking and
transportation solutions
●Concerns over potential displacement and housing affordability
●Concerns about increased density and traffic congestion
●Concerns about State rules not allowing for local considerations
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
Survey Summary
OTHER ENGAGEMENT
●3,400+ letters
●1,300+ views of webpage
●Social media posts
●Distributed flyers
●In-person and online events
●Interviews
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 31
6
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
Survey Summary
DOWNTOWN GLENWOOD MOHAWK RIVERBEND
●Voted “most suitable”
for CFA designation
●Most votes for primary
CFA designation
●Voted second “most
suitable” for CFA
designation
●Second most votes for
primary CFA
designation
●Some votes for
secondary CFA
designation
●Some votes for
secondary CFA
designation
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 31
7
Demographics & Potential Displacement Risk
Demographics in CFAs
●Downtown: some Vulnerable and
Active Gentrification areas and a very
small area of Late Gentrification
●Mohawk: some Vulnerable areas
●Glenwood Riverfront and Gateway/
Riverbend CFAs were not identified as
having any potential displacement risk
but have some key demographics to
consider for mitigation strategies
●Glenwood Riverfront: higher proportion
of low-income households, persons 65
years or older, and more affordable
rents and home values
●Gateway/RiverBend: higher proportion
of persons with limited English
proficiency, persons with disabilities,
and increases in rents and home values
Nearly half of Springfield’s
households are low-income
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 31
8
Demographics & Potential Displacement Risk
Potential Displacement Risk in CFAs
Area Typology Low-Income Vulnerable
People
Older or Multi-
Unit Housing
Active
Housing
Market
Demographic
Shift
Vulnerable Yes Yes Yes No No
Early Gentrification*Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Active Gentrification Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Late Gentrification No Yes No Yes Yes
* Some area typologies did not appear in potential CFAs. Most of Springfield was identified as having no risk.
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 31
9
Primary CFA Secondary CFA
Potential
CFA
Area
(acres)
% of Needed
Housing
Estimated
Dwelling Units
% of Needed
Housing
Estimated
Dwelling Units
Downtown 238 33%10,734 19%6,129
Glenwood 114 18%6,051 10%3,456
Mohawk 58 10%3,412 6%1,949
Riverbend 175 20%6,609 11%3,774
Total 584 81%26,806 46%15,308
Potential CFAs
HOUSING CAPACITY
State’s Housing Capacity Calculation
100% of 20-Year Housing Need: 33,076
30% of 20-Year Housing Need: 9,923
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 31
10
Infrastructure
Availability Land Owner
Willingness
Market
Economics
HOUSING CAPACITY
A More Realistic Housing Calculation
●Does existing infrastructure
support additional development?
●What additional infrastructure
might be needed?
●Do major landowners in
potential CFAs support new
development?
●Is there alignment between the
development vision for
landowners and CFA goals?
●What types of development
does the current market in
Springfield support?
●What could realistically be built if
CFA standards were
implemented?Attachment 2
Page 10 of 31
11
Potential CFA Downtown Glenwood
Riverfront Mohawk Gateway/
RiverBend
Electric
Water
Wastewater
Stormwater
INFRASTRUCTURE STATUS
CFA Specific Infrastructure Needs
●Close to two electric
substations -sufficient
capacity
●Requires water pump for
buildings over 3-stories
●Requires study of
wastewater basin on east
end
●SUB is constructing new
electric substations (2026)
●Requires new water
infrastructure
●Requires wastewater pump
for McVay Hwy area and
collection system that is a
significant cost
●Adequate electric capacity
●Requires wastewater
piping capacity increase
●Has an electric substation
but the least amount of
capacity
●Water capacity likely an
issue -analysis and new
piping needed
●Requires wastewater pump
station and force main
Takeaways
Attachment 2
Page 11 of 31
12
Key Takeaways
●The development vision for the site is generally
compatible with CFA goals and standards -
allow for mixed-uses and housing options for the
30-acre site
●Predominantly multi-unit buildings with strong
placemaking elements and options for biking
and walking
●Current block sizes in proposed concept may
not align with State requirements and may
require an exception
●The remaining acreage within the potential CFA
boundary needs further investigation in terms of
development efforts
LAND OWNER WILLINGNESS
Glenwood Development Vision
Attachment 2
Page 12 of 31
13
Key Takeaways
●PeaceHealth is nearing full utilization of their existing shelled
space –future needs would likely require new construction
●A 40-acre portion of PeaceHealth’s land north of the existing
campus is already zoned for residential (R-2) and could
benefit from increased density with CFA standards
●Portions of PeaceHealth’s site zoned Medical Services and
Mixed Use Commercial are reserved for future health care
uses
●PeaceHealth could benefit from having housing closer to the
hospital for both staff and patients
●CFA requirements do not seem to present any barriers to
PeaceHealth’s plans -most of the area is envisioned for
more hospital uses with the potential for some housing based
on market conditions.
LAND OWNER WILLINGNESS
PeaceHealth at Gateway/RiverBend
Attachment 2
Page 13 of 31
14
MARKET ECONOMICS
Development Considerations for Tall, Mixed-Use Buildings
Wood Frame -> Wood Frame -Fire Rated -> Wood Frame Over Podium -> Steel & Concrete
Factors Impacting Feasibility of “CFA-Style” Construction:
●Higher construction costs compared
to traditional wood frame buildings
●Retail increases costs and
negatively impacts feasibility
●High interest rates for financing
●Current rental rates in Springfield
generally do not support higher
density products given other cost
factors
●Primary CFAs allow 85 ft buildings –
more costly construction for wood
frame over podium make this type of
development unlikely based on
current market economics
Building HeightConstruction Cost / Sqft$
$$
$$$
$$$
Construction Type
Needed to Reach 85ft
Construction Type Springfield’s
Market Currently Supports
Attachment 2
Page 14 of 31
15
7 units per acre
Existing Entitlements
MARKET ECONOMICS
Development Prototypes
Small Lot Single Unit Attached / Middle
Housing
Garden Apartments Moderate Density
Apartments
14 units per acre
28 units per acre 70 units per acre
What does existing zoning allow the
market to produce today?
Land Use Districts Faux Podium
Apts.Garden Apts.Attached
Housing
Small Lot
Single Unit
Mixed Use Commercial X X X X
Community Commercial X X X
R-2 X X
Glenwood Office Mixed
Use X
R-1 X X
Booth Kelly Mixed Use X X
Glenwood Residential
Mixed Use X
Glenwood Commercial
Mixed Use X
R-3 X X
Mixed Use Residential X X X X Attachment 2
Page 15 of 31
16
35 units per acre
MARKET ECONOMICS
Development Prototypes
Compact Middle
Housing
5-Story Mixed-Use
(reduced parking)
7-Story Mixed-Use
(market parking)
112 units per acre 177 units per acre
CFA Standards
These represent development types that
could occur in areas where CFA
regulations are implemented, if market
conditions were supportive.
What could CFA standards allow
the market to deliver in the future?
Attached / Middle
Housing*
22 units per acre
3-Story Apartment
(reduced parking)
77 units per acre
4-Story Apartment
(reduced parking)
95 units per acre
* Secondary CFA only
Attachment 2
Page 16 of 31
X?
17
MARKET ECONOMICS
What is Residual Land Value (RLV)?
SOFT COSTS
HARD COSTS
PROFIT
LAND COST
FIXED $300,000
$75,000
$50,000
$500,000
The Residual Land
Value is the highest
price a developer can
pay for land knowing
other project costs.
TOTAL SALE PRICE
Attachment 2
Page 17 of 31
18
MARKET ECONOMICS
Knowing RLVs Helps Estimate Market Potential
Different product types have different
Residual Land Values
Land that costs less than or equal to the
calculated Residual Land Value is financially
suitable for that type of development
Attachment 2
Page 18 of 31
EXISTING ZONING
19
Residual Land Value / Square Foot (SF) by Prototype
Downtown Glenwood Mohawk RiverBend
A negative RLV indicates
that the land must be free
and additional subsidies are
required to make the project
viable
A positive RLV indicates the
maximum land price per
square foot that the project
can sustain
The 5th percentile land
value shows the cost of the
cheapest land in each CFA
Attachment 2
Page 19 of 31
EXISTING ZONING
20
Residual Land Value / Square Foot (SF) by Prototype
Downtown Glenwood Mohawk RiverBend
5th Percentile Land
Value per Square Foot
Small Lot Single
Unit
Attached / Middle
Housing
Garden
Apartments
Moderate Density
Apartments
Attachment 2
Page 20 of 31
EXISTING ZONING
21
Residual Land Value / SF by Prototype
Downtown Glenwood Mohawk RiverBend
Key Takeaways:
•Garden apartments are
feasible Downtown,
however, other types of
development are less viable
•As the Glenwood Master
Plan Area develops, the
market in the rest of the
Glenwood Riverfront CFA
could support a wide
variety of housing types
•Current land prices in
Mohawk are too high to
make most development
types feasible
•Gateway/RiverBend has a
stronger market for
ownership housing (small
lot single unit,
attached/middle housing
Attachment 2
Page 21 of 31
22
Residual Land Value / SF by Prototype
Attached /
Middle Housing*
Compact Middle
Housing
3-Story
Apartment
4-Story
Apartment
5-Story Mixed
Use
7-Story Mixed
Use
CFA ZONING
Downtown Glenwood Mohawk RiverBend * Secondary CFA only
5th Percentile Land
Value per Square Foot
Attachment 2
Page 22 of 31
Downtown Glenwood Mohawk RiverBend
23
Residual Land Value / SF by Prototype
CFA ZONING
Downtown Glenwood Mohawk RiverBend
Key Takeaways:
•3- and 4-story apartments
are most feasible for
Downtown and Glenwood.
Lower parking ratios make
projects more feasible
•Compact middle housing is
most viable in Mohawk and
Gateway/RiverBend
•Construction costs make 5-
story and 7-story buildings
unlikely given current market
conditions
Attachment 2
Page 23 of 31
24
ALL CALCULATION METHODS
Dwelling Unit Yield by Potential CFA
Yield by CFA -Study vs Market
Capacity All CFAs as Primary All CFAs as Secondary Existing Code All CFAs as Primary All CFAs as Secondary
Downtown 10,734 6,129 402 2,797 1,560
Glenwood Riverfront 6,051 3,456 2,249 4,222 2,715
Mohawk 3,412 1,949 0 658 368
Gateway/RiverBend 6,609 3,774 720 1,393 780
Total Capacity 26,806 15,308 3,372 9,070 5,422
State-Mandated Calculation Market-Constrained Calculation
Assuming state-mandated
calculations, a Downtown
primary CFA or many
different CFA combinations
would meet capacity
requirements.
If we take current market
conditions into account, getting
close to the 30% requirement
would require broad application
of primary CFAs.
30% of Springfield’s 20-Year Housing Need:
9,923 units
Attachment 2
Page 24 of 31
25
Glenwood MPA Primary, All Others Secondary
Scenario A
Primary CFA Secondary CFA
Needed Infrastructure Investments:
●In Glenwood Master Plan Area (MPA), water and sewer service
expansion to serve area.
●Development in RiverBend requires new pump station, sewer, and
water lines / lacks parks access
●Additional electric transformers and feeders ($10-15 million)
Displacement Risk:
●No risk in Glenwood Master Plan Area based on analysis
Zoning Compliance:
●Glenwood Master Plan Area is well aligned with primary CFA
regulations
●Some changes needed in other areas to comply with secondary
CFA regulations (e.g. maximum block lengths and allowing
housing in more areas)
Housing Capacity*:
15,308 units
Market Potential**:
*30% of 20-year housing need: 9,923 units
**Market potential to meet 30% housing need
●●●○○
Attachment 2
Page 25 of 31
26
Glenwood Riverfront Primary,
Others Secondary
Scenario B
Primary CFA Secondary CFA
Needed Infrastructure Investments:
Reliance on Glenwood means:
●Major new water and wastewater infrastructure needed
●Lacks access but has plans for parks and civic spaces
●Requires an additional electric substation ($15-20 million)
Displacement Risk:
●No risk in Glenwood Riverfront based on analysis -however, there
are existing manufactured home parks and a concentration of
people 65 years and older which should be considered
Zoning Compliance:
●Similar to Scenario A as Glenwood Riverfront is most compliant
with primary CFA regulations
●Some changes needed in other CFAs to comply with secondary
CFA regulations (e.g. maximum block lengths and allowing
housing in more areas)
Housing Capacity*:
17,903 units
Market Potential**:
*30% of 20-year housing need: 9,923 units
**Market potential to meet 30% housing need
●●●●○
Attachment 2
Page 26 of 31
27
Downtown Primary, No Other CFAs
Scenario C
Primary CFA Secondary CFA
Needed Infrastructure Investments:
Reliance on Downtown means:
●Development over 3 stories requires water pump
●Requires study of wastewater basin on east end
●Requires an additional electric substation ($15-20 million)
Displacement Risk:
●Downtown has varying levels of potential displacement risk (most
risk out of all potential CFAs) which will need to be considered
when identifying mitigation strategies
Zoning Compliance:
●Mixed Use Commercial and Community Commercial zones are
mostly compliant with primary CFA regulations
●R-2 and Mixed Use Residential would need to allow increased
density and height
●Would allow housing in Community Commercial zone
Housing Capacity*:
10,734 units
Market Potential**:
*30% of 20-year housing need: 9,923 units
**Market potential to meet 30% housing need
●●●●○
Attachment 2
Page 27 of 31
28
Needed Infrastructure Investments:
All improvements in scenarios A, B, and C plus:
●Additional sewer and water extensions throughout Glenwood
●Improved parks access, particularly western portion of Glenwood
Displacement Risk:
●No risk in Glenwood Riverfront based on analysis -however, there
are existing manufactured home parks and a concentration of
people 65 years and older which should be considered
●Smaller Downtown area has vulnerable and active gentrification
areas to consider when identifying mitigation strategies
Zoning Compliance:
●Glenwood Riverfront is most compliant with primary CFA
regulations and would require the least changes
●Smaller Downtown area would have to be determined as part of
next steps considering housing capacity and other findings
Glenwood Riverfront Primary,
Smaller Downtown Secondary
Scenario D
Primary CFA Secondary CFA
Housing Capacity*:
7,787 units
Market Potential**:
*30% of 20-year housing need: 9,923 units
**Market potential to meet 30% housing need
●●●●○
Attachment 2
Page 28 of 31
29
MARKET-CONSTRAINED CAPACITY
Dwelling Unit Yield by Potential CFA and Scenario
Yield by CFA and Scenario -
Market-Constrained Scenarios
Scenario A:
Glenwood Master Plan Area
Primary, All Others
Secondary
Scenario B:
Glenwood Riverfront Primary,
All Others Secondary
Scenario C:
Downtown Primary, No Other
CFAs
Scenario D:
Glenwood Riverfront Primary,
Smaller Downtown Secondary
Downtown 1,560 1,560 2,797 287
Glenwood Riverfront 2,715 4,222 N/A 4,222
Mohawk 368 368 N/A N/A
Gateway/RiverBend 780 780 N/A N/A
Market-Constrained Method 5,422 6,929 2,797 4,509
State Calculation Method 15,308 17,903 10,734 7,787
Most scenarios comply
with State requirements
Some scenarios have more
market potential than others
30% of Springfield’s 20-Year Housing Need:
9,923 unitsAttachment 2
Page 29 of 31
30
PROJECT SUMMARY
Key Takeaways
1.Most scenarios meet the State-calculated requirements for housing capacity.
2.Taking current market conditions into account, none are likely to reach the housing
capacity set by CFEC rules, but some scenarios offer better opportunities to meet 20-year
housing needs than others.
3.Buildings over 4-5 stories are unlikely to be financially feasible until market conditions
improve.
4.Tomorrow’s market won’t look like today’s: public investments could improve market
conditions / lending and labor environment could change in 5-10 years.
Attachment 2
Page 30 of 31
31
2023 2025*2024-2025
STUDY ADOPTSELECT
●Early
community
consultation
●Displacement
risk analysis
●Identify potential
CFAs
●Community feedback on potential CFAs
●Council selection of CFA(s)
●Community feedback on
draft plan and code
concepts
●Public hearings on
proposed plan and code
amendments for CFA(s)
●Adopt plan and code
amendments along with
displacement mitigation
strategies for CFA(s)
Spring
●City Council and Planning Commission
consider narrowing CFA options
●Analyze remaining potential CFA(s)
Summer
●Identify displacement mitigation strategies
and share benefits and tradeoffs of
potential areas for community feedback
Fall-Winter
Next Steps
*State deadline: 2026
Attachment 2
Page 31 of 31