HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6125 03/21/2005
. ~
.
.
.
; '"
ORDINANCE NO.
6125
(EMERGENCY)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING 43,1 ACRES OF LAND FROM MEDIDM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND 43,9 ACRES OF LAND FROM
MEDIDM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDICAL SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE GA TEW A Y REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS,
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
A, Article 12 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth criteria for amending the
Springfield Zoning Map; and
B. An application for a zone change (Jo,N02005-0002) was submitted on January 12,
2005 and was in conformance with the provisions of Section 3.050 of the
Springfield Development Code; and
C. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 14.030 of the
Springfield Development Code was provided; and
D. On January 25,2005, a public hearing on the application was convened and
concluded before the Springfield Planning Commission; the record of the
proceedings was left open for seven days; and
E. On February 8, 2004 the Springfield Planning Commission reconvened the public
meeting and voted five in favor, one opposed and one abstaining to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council; and
F, On February 22,2005, a public hearing on the application was convened and
concluded before the Springfield City Council; the record of the proceedings was
left open for seven days; the applicant was given seven days to submit rebuttal
materials into the record; and
G. On March 21,2005, the City Council reconvened the pubic hearing; the City
Council voted 6 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 abstaining to
approve the ordinance and declaring an emergency; and
H, The Development Services staff notes, including criteria of approval, findings, and
recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals of those persons
testifying at the hearing or in writing, have been considered and are part of the
record of the proceeding; and
I. Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto that the proposal
meets the requirements of Article 12 of the Springfield Development Code.
Page 1 of2
3/21/05
. "
.
.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above findings (A through I), and the findings set forth in Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted in support of
the rezoning,
Section 2: The City of Springfield Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the
zone of the property described in Exhibit B of this ordinance from Medium Density
Residential to Mixed Use Commercial and Medical Services.
Section 3: It is hereby found and determined that this Zoning Map amendment is
a matter affecting the public health, safety and welfare and that an emergency therefore
exists and that this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by the
Council and approval by the Mayor.
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision
and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of 6
Forand 0 against on this 21st day of March 2005. -
Attest:
City~~
REVIEWED & APPROVED .
3SJTO F04 W:
\' ~
D~ -~ --OS-
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
Page 2 of2
3/21/05
. "
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT
Zone Change Request
1. INTRODUCTION ............. ....... ........... .... ....... ................................... ......, ..,.'" ,.." ,.', .,.1
II. APPROVAL CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT ..,........,..,..............................,3
A. SDC 12,030(1): Consistency with the Metro Plan Diagram and Text. ..,....,....,..,..3
1. Metro Plan Principles ...................................................................,.'.'"'.'.'"""",,, 4
2. The Metro Plan Diagram .,..'...",.'.'"'..".'""'."""...'""..""",,,,.,""...,..,................5
3. Plan Elements"""""""""""",..",........,..,......,............,........................................ 9
B. SDC 12,030(2): Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, special area
studies and functional plans. ........,.....................,..,......,..,..,....,.........................:.......... ..16
1, Gateway Refinement Plan ..........................................,........................,..,..........17
2. TrarlsP1an .......................'""",'.'",..,."..,....,...."................................................. .21
3, Springfield Commercial Lands Study .............................................................. ,21
C, SDC 12,030(3): The property Carl be served by the orderly and efficient extension
of key urban facilities and services as prescribed in the Metro Plan prior to or in
conjunction with development.,................................................................",."""""."" ..23
III. RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TESTIMONY............................................,..,........,24
A. Introduction to Responsive Findings ..............................,....,.............................. ...24
B. Flooding and Channel Migration.........,..".".,......."..,...,....................................... .24
1. (4) (d) Rule Testimony and Findings.................................................................25
2. Flooding and Channel Migration Testimony and Findings...............................26
3, Seismic Hazards Testimony and Findings.........................................................29
C. Neighborhood Concerns Testimony and Findings ,............................,............,..,..31
D. Statewide Planning Goa112 and "Transportation Planning Rule" ..........................32
1, Compliance with OAR 660-012-0060 (1) (2) as revised...................................32
2. OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2) .................. ....,....... ............................................33
3, Issues Raised by Rob Zako Concerning the TPR..............................................38
E. Nodal Development Standards ",..", ",.""""""",'................,..,.,... ...... ....... ,. ..........39
F, Housing Density ,........,..,...........................................,........,.........., ~..,............,..,.., 40
G, Statewide Planning Goals.. ....... ........,........ .........., ...., ......, ..'............. ,................ ....41
1, Master Plan.,................,.......",..,.."""""""""""""."""".",...................."."""" 41
2. Zone Change Request ............................,.. ,..........,....,.. ,............. ........... .......... ...42
[37960-0001-000000/Final Zone Change Findings.DOC]
3/2l/05 3:23:06 PM
" ,
EXHIBIT A
I.
INTRODUCTION
.
The Applicant ("PeaceHea1th") requested approval to change the Springfield zoning map
for 43,1 acres ofland it owns in the Gateway area of Springfield from its current Medium
Density Residential (MDR) zoning classification to the Mixed Use Commercial (MUC)
zoning district, and to change the zoning map for approximately 44 (43,9 acres) acres
from MDR to the Medical Services (MS) district.
The acreage proposed for rezoning to MUC is within the 49,5 acres approved for
redesignation on the Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan (GRP) diagrams from
MDR to Mixed Use (MU). This zone change request, however, excludes rights-of-way
dedicated for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Cardinal Way road extensions,
thus yielding the request for rezoning for 43,1 acres from MDR to MUC, Road
dedications on other portions of the property will be made as part of a subsequent
subdivision application.
PeaceHealth seeks to apply the City's MS zoning district on a portion of its RiverBend
property designated Community Commercial (CC) on the Metro Plan diagram, and locate
the future hospital on the MS portion of the subject area. The Springfield Development
Code (SDC 22,010(3)) permits the application of the MS district on areas designated CC
on the Metro Plan diagram.
Earlier this year the City Council adopted amendments to the Metro Plan and GRP upon
remand, including the redesignation of non-residential portions of the site proposed for
rezoning to MS and MUC. The City Council also adopted amendm~nts to the GRP text
that further establish as a matter of policy that it is appropriate to implement the MS
district on land designated CC, provided it is applied in conjunction with a master plan,
GRP Implementation Action 12,0 allows rezoning to MUC as part of a master plan to
implement the approved Plan diagram amendments for 49 acres of Mixed Use land use
designation, The applicant seeks to rezone 43,1 acres of the MU-designated area on the
subject site to MUC, 43,9 acres of the CC-designated area to MS, and leave existing
zoning classifications in place on the remainder of the site.
.
A explained in greater detail below, the City Council finds that approval of the requested
zone changes, concurrent with Master Plan approval, is consistent with previously
approved Metro Plan diagram amendments, provisions in the GRP and Springfield
Development Code (SDC), and other approval criteria as outlined below.
Although a portion of PeaceHealth's ownership at the RiverBend site extends into and
across a portion of the McKenzie River, this application concerns property within the
larger 158-acre RiverBend site ("the site") that is located entirely within the Springfield
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and city limits. The RiverBend site is bordered on the
east by the McKenzie River, on the west by Game Farm Road South, on the south by the
Wayside Loop subdivision, and on the north by residentially zoned and designated
property generally south of Deadmond Ferry Road. Baldy View Drive extends southeast
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 1
3/21/05
:'.
EXHIBIT A
.
from the Deadmond Ferry Road/Internationa1 Way intersection and provides access to
sing1e- family dwellings.
Current access to the site is gained off Game Farm Road South to the west, and
Deadmond Ferry Road/International Way to the north, with Baldy View Drive accessing
the northeast portion of the site. Martin Luther King, Jr, (MLK) Parkway is planned for
extension through the site to connect with the existing eastern terminus of Belt Line
Road, Through its annexation agreement with the City, PeaceHea1th is obligated to
dedicate nearly $2 million worth of right-of-way through the site for the Parkway
extension, and $2.75 million toward MLK road construction and $600,000 toward
extension of a sanitary sewer trunk line. The Parkway extension has been identified as a
needed public improvement in TransP1an and the GRP, long before PeaceHealth acquired
the RiverBend property. MLK is identified in city and county CIPs, and all necessary
funding is in place, It is anticipated that the project will be completed in 2006.
Lane Transit District has identified the second phase of the proposed Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) project to extend from north from downtown Springfield to the Gateway
neighborhood. BRT has been proposed to extend through the RiverBend site to offer
direct access to the proposed new hospital, and to other destinations in the area.
PeaceHea1th is also required to provide substantial off-site and on-site transportation
improvements, as well as the extension of major water and sanitary sewer lines, and other
infrastructure necessary to serve future development at RiverBend,
.
Except for one parcel (i,e., Assessor's Map No, 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 2200) designated
and zoned Low Density Residential (LDR), the entire RiverBend site is currently zoned
MDR, although the property subject to this application is designated on the Metro Plan
and GRP as CC and MU.
On January 10, 2005, the City Council approved an amendment to the Metro Plan
diagram, which allowed redesignating approximately 43.9 acres ofland on the RiverBend
site from MDR to Community Commercial (CC) and approximately 49.5 acres from
MDR to Mixed Use (MU). The Council also approved a corresponding amendment to
the GRP diagram, The approval of the post-acknowledgement plan amendments to the
Metro Plan and GRP diagrams and the GRP text (Jo. No. 2002'-08-243 and 2002-08-244)
allows the City's Medical Services and Mixed Use Commercial zoning district to
implement the respective CC and MU Plan designations. The remaining portion of the
site retained its LDR and MDR zoning and land use designation on the Metro Plan and
GRP diagrams. These amendments are now acknowledged pursuant to ORS 197,625(2),
The PeaceHea1th-owned RiverBend site is within a larger area (approximately 180 acres
in size) termed the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site ("MDR Site") on the GRP. A portion
of the PeaceHea1th ownership extends into and across the McKenzie River. This
application and the concurrently submitted RiverBend Master Plan application only
concern the approximately 158-acre area within the existing city limits and UGH. Other
than the RiverBend site, only two parcels totaling 12.4 acres north of the site have been
annexed into the City.
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 2
3/2l/05
.~
EXHIBIT A
The MDR Site was identified as Potential Nodal Development Area 7B in the Eugene-
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransP1an). The City Council included the
entire MDR Site area as one of six potential nodal development areas in Springfield
subject to further consideration, and possible application of nodal development
designation and zoning, as part of a state grant-funded project. The Council has not yet
acted upon the recommendations from the grant-funded project.
.
II. APPROVAL CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT
The application must comply with the approval standards set forth in SDC 12,030, which
provide that the zone change demonstrates:
(1) Consistency with the Metro Plan Text and Diagram;
(2) Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, special area studies
and functional plans; and
(3) That the property can be served by the orderly and efficient
extension key urban facilities and services as prescribed in the
Metro Plan prior to or in conjunction with development.
For the reasons set forth below, the City Council finds that the application satisfies the
applicable approval criteria,
A. SDC 12.030(1): Consistency with the Metro Plan Diagram and Text.
The City Council approved an amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram on January 10,
2005, which redesignated 43.9 acres of land on the subject site from MDR to CC and
49,5 acres from MDR to MU. The City also concurrently approved redesignation for this
same acreage to CC and MU on the GRP Diagram, Pursuant to ORS 196.625(1), these
amendments are now acknowledged. The applicant now seeks to implement the CC and
MU designations by rezoning the respective areas from the existing MDR zoning
classification to the City's MS and MUC zoning districts,
.
The City Council also approved amendments to the GRP text, including a new
Residential Element Implementation Action 12,6, Implementation Action 12,6 states:
"Within the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site, the Medical Services ("MS ") zoning district
may implement the CC Plan designation if part of an approved Master Plan....". The
above GRP text follows the existing relationship established in the SDC authorizing
application of the MS zoning district in areas designated CC (SDC 22,010(3)). The SDC
was adopted by the City and acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) as conforming to the Metro Plan, statewide planning goals,
applicable administrative rules and statutes, Council amended the MS zone text in SDC
Article 22 to clarify the location standards for applying the MS zone (i,e" that the
proposed hospital must have access to an arterial street - MLK Parkway - or collector
street - RiverBend Drive - but the facility itself can front onto either an arterial or
collector street).
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 3
3/21/05
, ~,
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
The rezone to MS and MUC is intended to implement the approved Metro Plan and GRP
diagram land use designations and enable PeaceHea1th to implement its Master Plan for
the subject area with appropriate uses allowed in the MS and MUC zones. The following
Metro Plan provisions apply to this request. Provisions not referenced do not apply to
this request.
1. Metro Plan Principles
Findings are made for the applicable polices and not the goals and objectives because the
policies embody the intent of the goals and objectives of the Plan, The policies serve as
the standard to evaluate planning proposals to ensure compliance the Plan.
Growth Management
Policy 1
The urban growth boundary and sequential development shall continue
to be implemented as an essential means to achieve compact urban
growth. The provision of all urban services shall be concentrated inside
the urban growth boundary. (pg. II-B-3)
Policy 9
A full range of key urban facilities and service shall be provided to
urban areas according to demonstrated need and budgetary priorities.
(Pg. II-B-4)
The subject area is located inside the urban growth boundary and within the Springfield
_ city limits" PeaceHealth, through its annexation agreement with the City, is obligated to
contribute a significant amount of money for off-site and on-site improvements to ensure
that adequate public services and facilities will be available to serve future development.
As identified in the concurrently submitted Master Plan and as required by the SDC, all
the required urban services shall be provided prior to development through the Site Plan
Review process, moreover, the annexation agreements obligate PeaceHea1th to provide
urban services to the subject area prior to development under the Master Plan.
Consequently, when development is proposed for the site, current SDC regulations as
well as the annexation agreement will ensure that appropriate urban services are provided
to this subject property, consistent with these policies.
Policy 24
To accomplish the fundamental principle of compact urban growth
addressed in the text and on the diagram, overall metropolitan-wide
density of new residential construction but not necessarily each project,
shall average six dwelling units per gross acre over the planning period.
(Pg, II-B-7)
Future residential construction proposed through the RiverBend Master Plan on the
portions of the site to remain within the density range allowed for the MDR zoning
district (i.e., greater than 10 dwelling units to 20 d.u, per gross acre). This approval will
promote the compact urban form by allowing a mix of uses on the RiverBend site,
including residential uses proximate to employment and commercial uses to give
opportunities to live, work and shop within convenient distance of each other and
adjacent to a major transit corridor, C
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 4
3/21/05
,. '
EXHIBIT A
2.
The Metro Plan Diagram
.
Commercial
Community Commercial Centers
"This category includes more commercial activities than neighboring commercial, but
less than major retail centers. Such areas usually develop around small department store
and supermarket. The development occupies at least 5.0 acres and normally not more
than 40 acres. This category contains such general activities as retail stores, personal
services, financial, insurance and real estate offices, private recreational facilities, such
as movie theaters and tourist related facilities such as motels. When this category is
shown next to medium or high density residential, the two can be integrated into a single
overall complex, local regulations permitting," (Pg. II-E-4)
SDC Article 22 establishes a relationship between MS zoning and the CC Plan
designation and sets location criteria as to where the MS zone can be applied, The code
was adopted by the City Council and acknowledge by DLCD as being in conformance
with the Metro Plan policies, statewide planning goals, and applicable statutes and
administrative rules, The MS zoning 'district is expressly intended to provide for hospital
expansion and for suitable geographically dispersed areas for the development of
hospitals and associated medical residential facilities. These facilities shall be developed
comprehensively (e.g., PeaceHealth's Master Plan process) and shall be designed to
ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council finds that the
change of zone from MDR to MS complies with the Plan diagram, and in particular the
recently adopted Metro Plan and GRP amendments.
.
PeaceHealth's proposal retains MDR land use designation on the suoject area with
sufficient land to meet residential density target outlined in the Residential Lands Study,
as well as GRP Implementation Action 12,6, which requires the retention of a certain
quantity of residential units. The use of CC designated land for MS zoning complies with
the Metro Plan, and GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 12.6, and the
recent Court of Appeals ruling in the Jaqua v, Springfield case, which characterized
hospital uses as commercial.
Pursuant to the City's recent amendment of the Metro Plan and GRP, the Gateway MDR
site may have 43,9 acres of CC designated, for rezoning to MS, This amendment
changes the zoning map designation from the existing MDR zoning to the MS district,
consistent with the Metro Plan and GRP, and the recent amendments thereto.
This change will allow for appropriate MS uses and implement the CC plan designation,
and is consistent with the definitional language in the Metro Plan. PeaceHea1th has
identified area suitable for nodal development that can be realized in the MUC zoning
district, which will integrate uses in the MS zoned area with uses in the MUC zoned area
and the adjacent residential uses into a single overall complex,
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 5
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
Mixed Uses
.
"This category represents areas where more than one use might be appropriate, usually
as determined by refinement plans on a local level. (For example, the Whiteaker
Refinement Plan includes several areas where a mix of compatible uses, based in part on
existing development, are designated) In the absence of a refinement plan, the
underlying plan designation shall determine the predominant land use, " (Pg. II-E-13)
.
For the 49.5-acre area designated Mixed Use on the Metro Plan and GRP diagrams,
PeaceHea1th has proposed to apply the City's Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC") to
43,1 acres, The remaining 6.4 acres is within rights-of-way dedicated for the extension
ofMLK Parkway and Cardinal Way. The RiverBend Master Plan identifies development
within the 43.1-acre area proposed for MUC zoning to be a mix of medical office,
general office, and supporting commercial retail uses allowed in SDC Article 40. The
exact tenant mix in these buildings is not yet determined, but using the MUC zone
assures that appropriate uses can be accommodated in a suitably scaled environment to
support nearby hospital and residential development. The MUC zone allows for a variety
of complementary uses to be combined in a vertical format, rather than segregating office
and retail uses and spreading them horizontally across the site. Therefore, a building
devoted primarily to medical services (e,g" orthopedic practices) may _ be able to also
develop space within the building for a gym that serves patients as well as the public. Or
an office building may otherwise be able to accommodate a florist, pharmacy, deli or
other neighborhood-scale commercial use that can serve the hospital and nearby
residential development. In this way, MUC zoning allows for more efficient use of the
land base, while providing flexibility to allocate services to meet market demands. Also,
the Master Plan proposes to allow for vertical mixing of ground-floor retail uses with
residential units on upper stories in two buildings flanking McKenzie Way, The MUC
zoning would allow for this vertical mix of disparate uses, as well as differing
commercial uses, if warranted in other locations on-site.
The Gateway Refinement Plan recognizes that more than one use is appropriate for the
areas to be zoned MUC. The mix of uses proposed on-site is consistent with direction in
GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 2,0:
"Ensure availability of adequate supplies of land appropriate for low-, medium-
and high-density residential development, while allowing for an appropriate mix
of commercial, employment, and residential uses. "
The Master Plan reserves ample land to provide an adequate number of housing units at
MDR densities, while also providing for employment and commercial services proximate
to the residential areas and to the transit corridor extendi;ng through the site. Economic
analyses provided by PeaceHealth demonstrate that the MUC zoning can provide land for
medical and general office uses that are needed by the City to reduce its deficit of
commercial lands, while also fulfilling other objectives for mixing uses and supporting
the nodal development concept.
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 6
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
Furthermore, the zone change request is directly applicable to GRP Residential Element
Implementation Actions 12,0 and 12.1, which respectively state:
''Allow rezoning of land within the 'McKenzie-Gateway MDR site' to MediCal
Services ("MS") on land designated Community Commercial or Mixed Use on the
Metro Plan diagram, and rezoning to Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC") on land
designated Mixed Use on the Metro Plan diagram as implemented during a
Master Plan or during the City's nodal implementation project."
"Redesignation of a total of 99 acres [oj] land within the city limits at the
McKenzie/Gateway MDR site to Community Commercial and/or Mixed Use
through the Metro Plan amendment process shall be allowed and shall be
implemented by application of Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC'') or Medical
Services ("MS'') zoning district through Master Plan approval and/or during the
City's nodal implementation project. "
The zone change request before the City directly supports the above GRP Actions, as it
precedes the City's nodal implementation project, is being made concurrent with the
RiverBend Master Plan application, and proposes to rezone parts of the site designat~d
Mixed Use and Community Commercial from MDR to the MUC and MS districts,
respectively.
Similar policy direction is found in the GRP's Commercial Element, Implementation
Action 5.1 states:
"Rezoning of land within the city limits at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site to
Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC'') and Medical Services ("MS'') shall be allowed
to implement the Mixed Use and/or Community Commercial plan designations.
Zone changes shall demonstrate the ability to meet the demand for commercial
lands identified in the Springfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS) Policy i-B.
Commercial uses allowed in zoning districts pursuant to Policy 5,0 above shall be
subject to Master Plan approval and shall be planned in a manner to minimize
traffic, noise, and lighting conflicts with adjacent residential uses, "
The proposal is for MUC and MS zoning within areas designated MU and CC,
respectively as allowed by the above policy. SCLS Policy I-B states: "Ensure that an
adequate amount of commercial land is designated in undeveloped identified nodes such
as Jasper/Natron and McKenzie/Gateway, to accommodate a portion of the demarId for
commercial acreage, and to implement the policies arid objectives of the TransPlan."
(SCLS, pg. 34) The SCLS showed that the City has a deficit of more than 150 acres of
needed commercia11and in both larger and smaller sites, As noted in the SCLS, "Given
the current shortage of larger sites, rezoning or annexation may be necessary for this to
occur, "
Market studies submitted by PeaceHealth show that the zone charIge proposal helps
reduce the deficit of needed commercial lands by providing space for medical and
general office uses, and complementary commercial support services in the MUC zone.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 7
3/21/05
,t .
,.'
.
.
.
~ \.
EXHIBIT A
.
These studies also show that in rezoning the requested acreage, there is still demand for
such uses in other potential node sites,
Therefore, approval of the zone change request for 43,1 acres from MDR to MUC on the
Mixed Use designated portion of the site is consistent with the intent and defInition of
Mixed Use in the Metro Plan and supporting refinement plans,
Nodal Development Area
"Nodal development is a mixed-use pedestrian friendly land use pattern that seeks to '
increase concentration of population and employment in well defined areas with good
transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, public and private
improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented." (Pg. II-E-9)
Fundamental characteristics of nodal development require:
.
. Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit use,
walking and bicycling;
. A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 'l4 mile) of anywhere in
the node;
. Mixed-uses so that services are available within walking distance;
. Public spaces, such as parks and private open space, and public facilities, that can
be reached without driving; and
. A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net of at
least 12 units per net acre.
This zone change application and concurrently submitted Master Plan application
precedes the City's nodal development implementation project. Consequently, the nodal
zone is not being applied to the subject property, nor is the Metro Plan description of
nodal applicable to this application. These findings, however, demonstrate that the
approved zone change will not preclude nodal implementation. Crandall Arambula, the
city's state-sponsored urban design consultant, identified a portion of the area proposed
for MUC zoning as being within a core nodal development area. Their analysis
concluded that successful implementation of the node concept required the ability to
provide commercial enterprises proximate to the MLK Parkway extension, The
application of the MUC zone on the RiverBend site will assist the City with nodal
development implementation in this area by allowing a vertical mix of commercial and
residential uses to occur near other residential, medical and general offices uses arid the
large employment base associated with the proposed hospital campus. The City has not
yet applied the Nodal Development land use designation in the Metro Plan, but may do so
as a product of the City's nodal implementation project, The nodal development concept
outlined in PeaceHea1th's Master Plan can be realized without applying either the Nodal
Development Metro Plan designation or the nodal overlay zoning district.
.
It should be noted that amended GRP Residential Implementation Actions 2, 12,0 and
12,1 of the GRP ensure that adequate land subject to this zone change application will be
available for the retail component of nodal development. Market analysis indicates that
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 8
3/21/05
,: '
EXHIBIT A
the proposed retail component identified in the RiverBend Master Plan is feasible, and
that the Master Plan is consistent with these Actions.
.
In addition, GRP Implementation Action 13,6 requires identification of nodal
development areas as part of the Master Plan process, if adopted prior to the City's own
process for assessing and implementing nodal development, to ensure requirements of
nodal development as outlined in the Metro Plan are satisfied. PeaceHea1th has
demonstrated compliance with the City's nodal development objectives through the
RiverBend Master Plan, consistent with Action 13.6.
3. Plan Elements
Residential Land Use and Housing Element ,
Policy A.l
Encourage the consolidation of residentially zoned parcels to facilitate
more options for development and redevelopment of such parcels.
(Pg, III-A-6)
PeaceHealth has consolidated ownership of a number of residentially zoned parcels into
the approximately 160-acre RiverBend site to facilitate the ability to comprehensively
Master Plan the site for future development with a suitable mix of employment,
residential, and commercial uses, while preserving residential densities as required in
GRP Implementation Action 12.6
Policy A.2
Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned
consistent with the Metro Plan and applicable plans and policies;
however, existing agricultural zoning may be continued within the area
between the city limits and the UGB until rezoned for urban uses.
(Pg.III-A-6)
.
This approval results in making the zoning of the subject area consistent with the Metro
Plan and GRP diagrams, with respect to residential land, as well as the CC and MU
portions. The Metro Plan and GRP diagram designate the applicable portions of the
property CC and MU.
Policy A.3 Provide an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the UGB
for the 20-year planning period at the time of Periodic Review. (Pg. 111-
A-6)
The Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Land and Housing Study Policy
Recommendation Report (RLS), dated August 1999, was prepared as a periodic review
task and acknowledge by DLCD. The report concludes that the area has a surplus of
3,646 MDR designated units through the planning horizon, There is approximately
828 acres of MDR designated land with a demand of 589 acres, leaving a surplus of
239 acres. The request to change 43.1 acres ofMDR to MUC and 43,9 acres ofMDR to
MS for a hospital and associated uses, leaves a surplus of approximately 1,584 MDR
designated units and 152 acres through the planning horizon (the surplus of housing is
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002 '
PAGE 9
3/21/05
, L . ,.
EXHIBIT A
.
based on a ratio of 16 units per flat buildable acre, which is consistent with the ratio used
in the RLS).
The recently adopted Metro Plan and GRP amendments redesignated approximately
99 acres of residentially-designated land to CC and MU, In approving those amendments
the City Council' found that this policy was met because of the remaining surplus of
buildable land as identified in the RLS, as adopted in the Metro Plan (III-A-2-4), Thus,
the City Council has already affirmatively determined that under the Metro Plan that the
removal of up to 99 acres of residentia11and will provide an adequate supply of buildable
residentia11and as required by Policy A.3, There have been no amendments to the Metro
Plan or the adopted and acknowledged buildable lands inventory. Consequently, the
City's action in approving the requested rezoning merely implements the City's earlier
decision to redesignate land on the Metro Plan and GRP diagrams to CC and MU.
Consequently, the requested zone change is consistent with this policy and the recently
adopted and acknowledged amendments to the Metro Plan and GRP.
.
In addition, the surplus identified in the RLS does not include any density allocations to
land in Springfield that may be developed subject to provisions of SDC Article 27
(Floodplain Development Overlay Zone), Nor does it account for potential housing in
other land use designations and/or in nodal development areas. Nor did the RLS include
approximately 20 acres of land owned by PeaceHea1th in Eugene zoned R-2, but
designated High Density Residential (this oversight has been acknowledged by Lane
Council of Governments and submitted into the record during the public hearing process
for the recently adopted Metro Plan and Refinement Plan amendments),
If this additional area not included in the RLS were factored in to the supply calculation,
then the existing surplus of needed residential housing would be higher still.
Consequently, the zone map amendment, being consistent with the Metro Plan and GRP,
will not affect the City's ability to provide an adequate supply of housing,
GRP Implementation Action 12.6 ensures adequate housing is retained to meet the
existing surplus of needed housing at densities within the MDR range, In response to
questions posed by the Springfield Planning Commission and City Council, staff
identified that 780 dwelling units would be needed within the annexed portions of the
MDR Site to remain consistent with the residential densities targeted for this area in the
RLS. The RiverBend Master Plan demonstrates alternative housing concepts, each of
which can provide more than the minimum number of dwelling units needed for the
entire MDR Site, much less for the subject property, and therefore demonstrates
consistency with Action 12.6 and the above policy.
Policy A.ll Generally locate higher density residential development near
employment of commercial services in proximity to major transportation
systems or within transportation-efficient nodes. (Pg, III-A-8)
.
Higher density residential development on site will be located proximate to existing and
future employment and commercial services, as well as future high capacity transit (i.e.,
Phase 2 of the Bus Rapid Transit system). PeaceHealth's contribution of right-of-way
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 10
3/21/05
.
.,' . II
EXHIBIT A
and construction funding for extension of the MLK Parkway, as well as the development
of an internal collector street system within the subject area, will provide convenient
transit access to serve future employment and residential development at densities
conducive to supporting transit services. A mix of commercial uses and medical uses
would be located near higher density residential uses within an area identified in the
TransP1an as Nodal Development Area 78. PeaceHealth is including a core mixed use
commercial area within the RiverBend Master Plan consistent with the recommendations
made by the urban design consultant engaged by the City and DLCD to incorporate the
elements of nodal development, The location of the MUC zoning in close proximity to
residential development in the MDR portion of the site complies with this policy.
.
Policy A.12 Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of
adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban
amenities. (Pg. III-A-8)
The subject area proposed for a change of zone has been annexed into the City of
Springfield, By annexation agreement with the City of Springfield, PeaceHealth is
required to extend all urban services necessary for future development of the site,
including the extension of sanitary sewer and water trunk lines, and the extension of
Pioneer Parkway. Provision of open space and other uses and services will be the subject
of a future master plan submittal that is also required of the annexation agreement. GRP
Implementation Action 13.4 and the annexation agreement ensure that the provisions for
open space and public access to McKenzie River will be included in the Master Plan.
Policy A.13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating
more opportunity for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and
mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on
historic, existing andfuture neighborhoods. (Pg, III-A-8)
.
The proposed zone change will create an opportunity for effectively designed in-fill by
enabling a variety of mixed uses, otherwise not permitted in the MDR zoning district,
while maintaining higher than average residential densities. This effective mixes of uses
(i.e., medical, office, residential and appropriately scaled commercial retail use) will
serve existing and future neighborhoods in the Gateway area.
Policy A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and
existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development
regulations. (Pg. III-A-I0)
This zone change will allow a greater variety of uses to be located near newly developing
residential uses than what would otherwise be permitted by the current zoning. The
MUC zoning specifically allows a mix of uses to be located in the newly developing
Gateway MDR site, consistent with this Policy,
Economic Element
Policy 1
Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially
those providing above average wage and salary levels, an increased in
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 11
3/21/05
.
.
.
, ,
EXHIBIT A
variety of job opportunities, a rise in the standard of living, and
utilization of our existing comparative advantage in the level of
education and skill of the resident labor force.
The Gateway area of Springfield is an area of growing interest for commercial and
industrial uses, An extension of MLK Parkway, which is a required element under the
recently approved Metro Plan and GRP amendments, will foster commercial and
industrial uses in the vicinity due to the vastly improved transportation facilities. The
MUC zoning district in this area will allow a wide range of commercial uses and will
benefit from the extension of the ,Parkway. A greater variety of commercial uses that
may be developed in this area through the MUC zoning will increase the interest in
residential housing for this area. Any residential housing currently in the area will also
directly benefit from the development of commercial uses in the subject area. In
addition, a hospital developed in the MS zoning district will bring employment with
above average wage and salary levels into the community, All these uses (i.e"
commercial, residential and hospital/medical) are interdependent and increase the
economic viability of this area from what would otherwise occur with the current zoning,
consistent with this policy.
Policy 3
Encourage local residents to develop job skills and other educational
attributes that will enable them to fill existing job opportunities.
c
The development enabled by both zone changes will improve and diversify the
Metropolitan area economy by providing a mix of uses and various employment
opportunities. The development is expected to employ the resident labor force in a
variety of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled positions, The zoning map amendments do
not directly relate to the City's obligations under this policy to encourage citizens to
develop job skills, but by providing MUC and MS zoning, the City and the applicant are
providiI?-g opportunities for local residents to develop new job skills, consistent with this
policy.
Policy 6
Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial uses
and commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of
suitability and availability with the projections of demand.
See the responses to Policies lA, IB, and 3A of the Springfield Commercial Lands
Study, which are incorporated herein.
Policy 11
Encourage economic activities, which strengthen the metropolitan
area's position as a regional distribution, trade, health and service
denter.
This zone change is consistent with the above policy by helping achieve PeaceHealth's
master planning objectives and thereby furthering Springfield's contribution to the
region's healthcare service delivery system. The approval demonstrates positive interest
in expanding employment in the existing local medical services industry, which tends to
offer higher employment income.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 12
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
Policy 22
Review local ordinances and revise them to promote greater flexibility
for promoting appropriate commercial development in residential
neighborhoods.
This zone change request is made in direct compliance with Policy 22 and is made for the
purpose outlined in Policy 22. The change of MDR to MUC will allow a greater range of
commercial uses to proximate to and serving existing and future residential
neighborhoods. In addition,' SDC 22.010(3) requires the MS district be applied on sites
that have access to a collector or arterial street where Community Commercial, Major
Retail Commercial, or Mixed Use Metro Plan designations exist. The MS District
through the provisions of SDC is appropriate for the CC designation. The CC
designation also allows for integration with MDR "into a single overall complex",
thereby allowing uses permitted in the MS zoning district to be appropriately mixed with
residential neighborhoods, also integrating the mix of uses allowed in the MUC zone into
a single master planned development area, Both the MUC and MS zoning districts will
provide greater flexibility for appropriate commercial development for existing
residential development, and future residential uses located on the RiverBend site,
Policy 28
Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in
providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood.
The request to change the zone to MUC and MS is made to allow a variety of commercial
and medical uses to be developed to provide such services, consistent with the
requirements of this policy,
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 1
Springfield, Lane County and Eugene shall consider downstream
impacts when planning for urbanization, flood control, urban storm
water runoff, recreation, and water quality along the WillameUe and
McKenzie Rivers.
There is nothing inherent in the City's approval of a zone change from MDR to MS and
MU that implicates this Policy because the underlying property has been planned and
zoned for urban uses for a considerable period of time, More importantly, this policy has
been implemented through various provisions of the SDC, including Article 27 and the
City's site plan review procedures, The City's urbanization, flood control, storm water,
recreation and water quality provisions referenced by this policy are implemented
through the City's various standards in the SDC. Consequently, when development of the
site is proposed, all such development must comply with the SDC provisions
implementing the referenced elements. However, it should be noted that the annexation
agreement (see Sections 1.10 and 1.13 of the annexation agreement) obligates
PeaceHealth to develop the site in accordance with state-of-the-art storm water quality
measures to protect surface and groundwater quality by adequately managing and treating
storm water runoff from the development site, PeaceHea1th has prepared a storm water
management plan, which includes all the Best Management Practices and requirements of
the City to ensure off-site water quality is preserved. Any downstream impacts from
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 13
3/21/05
,r '
.
.
.
I ~. . r.
EXHIBIT A
.
development of the site, urban water runoff or other impact to the McKenzie River from
development will be reviewed during the Master Plan process. PeaceHealth will be
required to comply with all applicable policies and regulations in the SDC that address
water quality and uses along McKenzie River.
Policy 2
Except as otherwise allowed according to FEMA regulations,
development shall be prohibited in jloodways if it could result in an
increased jlood leveL The jloodway is the channel of a river or other
watercourse and the adjacent land area that must be reserved to
discharge a one-percent-chance jlood in any given year.
.
SDC Article 27 implements the requirements of this Policy, Nothing inherent in the
zoning request will affect the floodway. The zone change neither allows new
development within the floodplain nor otherwise affects the City's acknowledged
floodplain regulations, Any development proposed within the floodway portion of the
subject area would not be habitable space and would be required to not increase flood
elevation downstream, The only use in the floodway proposed in the Master Plan is a
passive, low impact multi-use trail. PeaceHealth, through its annexation agreement with
the City, provided floodplain analysis of pre-development and post-development
conditions in conjunction with a required master plan (see section 1.11 of the annexation
agreement). The pre-development floodplain analysis concludes that the existing FEMA
flood elevations in error and are nearly one foot higher than the true 100-and 500-year
flood elevations on-site. Thus portions of the site indicated by the FEMA maps as being
at or above the 500-year floodplain are in reality substantially above the 500-year flood
elevation. In addition, Section 1.12 of PeaceHealth's annexation agreement with the City
requires development of a plan to mitigate potential impacts projected from development
on abutting properties. The annexation agreement requires the mitigation plan to provide
that the rise in water surface elevation of base flood be no more than one foot of rise, as
provided in SDC Article 27. The post-development floodplain analysis indicates that full
development on the site would result in less than one inch of rise on-site (0.72 inches)
and off-site (0.12 inches). The study also found that full build-out of Springfield's entire
UGB would result in a rise of less than 4.8 inches on-site and less than one inch
(0.84 inches) off-site, which is well within the parameters established in SDC Article 27
and Section 1.12 of the PeaceHealth anvexation agreement with the City of Springfield.
Therefore the proposal is consistent with this policy,
Willamette Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterway Element
Policy 2
Land use regulations' and acquisition programs along river corridors
and waterways shall take into account all the concerns and needs of the
community; including recreation, resource and wildlife protection;
enhancement of river corridor and waterway environments; potential for
supporting nonautomobile transportation; opportunities for residential
development; and other compatible uses.
.
The zone change does not change any of the regulations that implement this policy of the
Metro Plan or GRP. In fact recent amendments to the GRP (i.e., Residential Element
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 14
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
Actions 12.4 and 13.4) will ensure suitable public access to the McKenzie River corridor
will be provided in conjunction with future development, Other provisions in the Metro
Plan and GRP pertaining to riparian protection remain unchanged.
Policy 5
New development that locates along river corridors and waterways shall
be limited to uses that area compatible with natural, scenic and
environmental qualities of those water features." (Pg. III-D-4)
Any subsequent development as a result of this application will proceed through a
thorough review process to determine issues such as compatibility and protection of
environmental qualities. There is nothing inherent in the City's approval of a zone
change from MDR to MS and MU that implicates this Policy because the underlying
property has been planned and zoned for urban uses for a considerable period of time.
More importantly, in approving the Master Plan the City has conclusively determined
that the development proposed by the Master Plan is consistent with this policy. Those
findings are specifically incorporated in these findings as well to demonstrate compliance
with this policy,
Environmental Design Element
Policy 1
In order to promote the greatest possible degree of diversity, a broad
variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be
encouraged when consistent with other planning policies. (Pg. III-E-3)
The zone change will allow for a greater variety of commercial uses to be reviewed
concurrently with an acute hospital facility for the subject site. This mixed-use approach
to development is consistent with the Metro Plan, GRP and the SDC. Any future
proposed development would require review as part of a master plan for the site, which
would provide greater assurance that development of the site will comply with all
applicable planning policies. Policies 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are applicable to specific
development applications and require the review'of specific design schemes or layouts to
ensure that any proposal complies with said policies. Nothing in this approval precludes
the City from ensuring that any proposed development for the subject area complies with
the policies outlined in the Environmental Design Element.
Transportation Element
Land Use Policies
Policy F.l
Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each
jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of
transportation-efficient land use pattern. (pg. III-F-4)
This zone change approval furthers this policy by providing an opportunity for mixed use
commercial development adjacent to a concentration of population and employment. The
synergistic effect of the combined three land use areas developed through an overall
Master Plan provides the means to meet nodal development objectives, PeaceHea1th
identifies a core area suitable for a vertical mix of uses, which can be realized without
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 15
3/21/05
,I '
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
.
either the Nodal Development Metro Plan designation or the nodal development overlay
zoning district. This application is not in conflict with any of the remaining land use
policies under the Transportation Element. The future commercial development on this
property will coincide with the City's efforts to promote a transit oriented urban core and
result in pedestrian friendly transportation practices,
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Policies
The TDM policies outline on page III-F-6 of the Metro Plan are in place to create a
man~gement and implementation system for the Metro area that reduces the reliance on
the automobile and the need for capital expenditure on transportation systems and to
reduce the strain on road capacity. Developing nodal development areas throughout the
Metro area is one of the approaches of supporting TDM policies and implementation
goals. The subject site is located within potential nodal development area 7B in
TransP1an. GRP 'Implementation Action 13.6 requires identification of nodal
development areas as part of the Master Plan process, if adopted prior to the City's own
process for assessing and implementing nodal development, to ensure requirements of
nodal development as outlined in the Metro Plan are satisfied, PeaceHea1th has identified
in the RiverBend Master Plan the ability to comply with nodal development objectives,
which will enable the development of the core commercial node area near the proposed
hospital with a mix of residential and other uses. The Master Plan also includes a
comprehensive TDM Plan intended to extend PeaceHea1th's aggressive TDM program to
the RiverBend campus.
.
Public Facilities and Service Element
Policy G.l
Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and
services in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth
management policies in Chapter II-B, relevant policies in this chapter,
and other Metro Plan policies
The subject area is located in Springfield's urban growth boundary. PeaceHealth through
its annexation agreement is obligated to contribute a significant amount of money for off-
site and on-site improvements consistent with the Metro Plan. All the required urban
services shall be provided prior to or at the time development.
The remaining policies outlined under the Public Facilities and Service Element pertain
to locating utilities (e,g., storm water lines, wastewater lines), modification to projects
listed in the Public Facilities Services Plan, administrative guidelines to plan for large
facilities (e.g., hospitals), and services development within the urban growth boundary,
These policies do not apply to this zone change request.
B. SDC 12.030(2): Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, special area
studies and functional plans.
.
The City Council approved amendments to the GRP diagram and text, and to the text of
the Springfield Commercial Lands Study on January 10, 2005. These amendments are
now acknowledged. The Plan diagram amendment allows for rezoning of up to
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 16
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
49,5 acres on the Mixed Use designated portion of the site to MUC, and rezoning of
43,9 acres on the CC designated part of the site to Medical Services, This approval of the
zone change request implements applicable GRP policies and implementation actions by
rezoning 43.1 acres to MUC and 43,9 acres to MS, consistent with the GRP diagram and
text.
.
1. Gateway Refinement Plan
Residential Element
Policy 12.0. Allow rezoning of land within the "McKenzie-Gateway MDR site" to
Medical Services ("MS'~ on land designated Community Commercial or
Mixed Use on the Metro Plan diagram, and rezoning to Mixed Use
Commercial (MUC) on land designated Mixed Use on the Metro Plan
diagram as implemented during Master Plan and/or during City's nodal
implementation project.
This policy specifically allows mixed use commercial uses and zoning on land designated
MU, and medical services uses on land designated CC. The applicant's Master Plan
submittal, submitted concurrently with this zone change application, implements the
above policy by applying the MUC and MS zones consistent with this policy. The City's
approval of the zone change request directly implements this policy by rezoning the
subject property consistent with the requirements of this policy.
Implementation Action 12.1
Redesignation of a total of 99 acres of land within
the McKenzie/Gateway MDR site to Community
Commercial and/or Mixed Use through the Metro
Plan amendment process shall be allowed and
shall be implemented by application of Mixed Use
Commercial ("MUC'~ or Medical Services
("MS'~ zoning district through the Master Plan
approval and/or during the City's nodal
implementation process.
.
The zone change from MDR to MUC and MS and the concurrent Master Plan application
is consistent with Implementation Action 12.1 by applying 43,1 acres of MUC zoning
and 43.9 acres of MS zoning on the RiverBend Site. Market analyses are in the record
for the zone change and Master Plan applications as evidence demonstrating that uses in
the zoning will be commercially viable and feasible to support the retail component ofthe
nodal development concept.
Implementation Action 12.5
MU districts within the McKenzie -Gateway MDR
Site shall meet the provisions of SDC Article 40.
The approval of PeaceHealth's concurrent Master Plan, as well as its subsequent
development applications through site plan review consistent with the approved Master
Plan, demonstrate, or will be required to demonstrate, conformance with SDC Article 40
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 17
3/21/05
,. ' t.
EXHIBIT A
.
and any allowed exceptions from standards in Article 40 allowed pursuant to GRP
Residential Element Implementation Action 13,6,
Implementation Action 12.6
Within the city limits at the McKenzie-Gateway
MDR Site, the Medical Services t'MS'~ zoning
district shall implement the Community
Commercial designation if part of an approved
Master Plan for development of a major medical
facility. The adopted Master Plan shall
demonstrate that the subject property will be able
to accommodate the number of housing units
within the range for the MDR land use
designation in the Metro Plan and Gateway
Refinement Plan. In addition to meeting the
standards of the SDC, at the time of Master Plan
approval, the City Council may attach specific
conditions on all development within the MS or
MUC zones including but not limited to building
height and setbacks.
This Implementation Action has two requirements, The first relates to the appropriate
zoning of the subject property which is approved through this application. The second
element relates to the requirement that the Master Plan demonstrate that the subject
property be able to accommodate a number of housing units within the range allowed
under the existing MDR designation. That element of this Implementation Measure is
addressed in the Master Plan and the City's findings addressing this Implementation
Measure, As approved through this request, the MS district will implement the CC plan
designation,
.
The concurrently approved RiverBend Master Plan includes application of the MS zoning
district for future hospital development on the CC designated portion of the site. The
Master Plan demonstrates also that more than the minimum number of housing units
within the MDR density range can be accommodated on the subject site with approval of
the requested zone changes.
Commercial Element
Policy 5
Provide for future appropriately planned Mixed Use, Community
Commercial and nodal development designated areas east of Game
Farm Road, within the City Limits at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site
as identified in TransPlan as potential nodal development sites. "
The MUC zoning designation is proposed for the location identified as potential Nodal
Development Area 7B in the TransP1an, As explained elsewhere in these findings, the
requested zone changes comply with nodal development objectives and are not
inconsistent with the direction provided by the City's nodal development consultant in
terri:1s of locating the cor,e mixed use commercial node area proximate to the MLK
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 18
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
Parkway, In connection with this zone change request, this policy requires the City to
provide appropriate areas for potential MU, CC, and nodal development, The MUC
designation, which allows a range of uses, is consistent with this policy and does not
preclude future nodal designation.
Implementation Action 5.1 Rezoning of land within the city limits at the McKenzie-
Gateway MDR site to Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC'')
and Medical Services ("MS'') shall be allowed to'
implement the Mixed use and/or Community Commercial
plan designations. Zone changes shall demonstrate the
ability to meet the demand for commercial lands identified
in the Springfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS)
policy l-B. Commercial uses allowed in zoning districts
pursuant to GRP Policy 5.0 above shall be subject to
Master Plan approval and shall be planned in a manner
to minimize traffic, noise, and lighting conflicts with
adjacent residential uses.
This zone change request implements and is consistent with this Implementation Action.
The concurrent Master Plan review process has allowed City Staff to incorporate all
applicable development standards into any proposed development scenario further
demonstrating compliance with this Implementation Action. SCLS Policy I-B requires
that and adequate amount of commercial land is designated within certain identified
nodes in the City, including the McKenzie/Gateway area. Policy 1-B is implemented
through SCLS Implementation Strategy 1-B(2), which requires the designation of up to
99 acres of CC ,and MU within the McKenzie/Gateway subarea. This was accomplished
through the recent Metro Plan and GRP amendments and is further implemented through
this rezoning request through the application of the MUC and MS districts.
Industrial Element
Nothing in this application is in conflict with any aspect or policy of the Industrial
Element of the GRP,
Natural Assets, Open Space/Scenic Areas and Recreation Element
PeaceHea1th's Master Plan for the site and any future development that this zone change
will enable is predicated on the establishing a healing and wellness community, and not
just the development of a hospital building or a commercial core. This site was
specifically chosen because it provides PeaceHealth an opportunity to incorporate the
site's natural scenic and environmental qualities, PeaceHealth has completed numerous
site design alternatives during its development analysis as part of its Master Plan and has
worked with surveyors, landscape architects, architects and arborists to ensure the
existing trees have been inventoried and assessed with the intent of using these trees as a
framework for development, To ensure that all natural assets of the site are fully realized
prior to any future development, PeaceHea1th has completed' a Habitat Characterization
and Rare Plant Survey, a wetland delineation report for the subject area and a historic
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 19
3/21/05
., , ..
.
.
.
,. . r,
EXHIBIT A
.
inventory of the subject area. All of which are included with the Master Plan and
demonstrate that any proposed development has been fully analysis and provides the best
alternative to ensure the natural assets of the site are safeguarded to the maximum extent
practicable.
Nothing in this application to rezone the property from MDR to MUC and MS conflicts
with any policy of the Natural Assets, Open Space/Scenic Areas and Recreation Element.
Rather, the concurrent Master Plan process addresses the preservation and enhancement
of natural assets identified in the refinement plan, provision of open space areas and
access to McKenzie River, as outline in GRP Implementation Action 13.4. This level of
review will be for the entire property and occur at one time, which will ensure all
applicable aspects of this element are incorporated as appropriate. Without this zone
change and subsequent Master Plan, an alternative scenario of a piecemeal approach to
planning the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site is possible, which potentially could lead to
greater impact on the natural asset of this area than would occur without the Master Plan
review process. The annexation agreement obligates PeaceHealth to provide a
development setback along the McKenzie River to protect and enhance the riparian
corridor. In addition, as part of the Master Plan process, PeaceHea1th has submitted a
Tree Protection Plan and Vegetation/Revegetation Report that shows any trees identified
for removal will be offset with generous provisions for adding new trees and vegetation
to enhance the site's riparian corridor and overall landscape.
Transportation Element
.
The Traffic Impact Analysis for the site and layout of the proposed transportation system
as part of PeaceHea1th's Master Plan demonstrates that the proposed future use of this site
(mixed use commercial uses included) is not in conflict with any of the Transportation
Element goals or policies outlined in the GRP. In particular, the recent amendment to the
Metro Plan and the GRP addressed these elements. Because this decision and the Master
Plan approval implement the recent amendments, this application is also consistent with
these recent amendments. In addition, the annexation agreement with the City obligates
PeaceHealth to make significant contributions to on-site and off-site infrastructure,
including transportation facilities, to ensure any proposed development for this site
complies with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element. The Transportation
Element policies and implementation actions relate more to design considerations for
development, This application does not include a development scenario, In its approval
of the Master Plan, the City reviewed plans for transportation improvements and the
applicable Transportation Element policies to ensure consistency with the proposed the
development scenario,
Public Facilities Element
.
PeaceHea1th's annexation agreement and SDC provisions require the development of all
necessary public infrastructure to support future development, which will be assessed as
part of the required Master Plan process. Approval of this application does not conflict
with any aspect, policy or implementation action of the Public Facilities Element in the
GRP,
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 20
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
2. TransPlan
The property subject to the zone change is in an area identified in the Trans Plan as Nodal
Development Area 78. The zone changes from MDR to MUC and MS will enable
PeaceHea1th to proceed with the required Master Plan process, at which time all aspects
of any proposed development scenario including, but not limited to mass transit service,
multi-modal transportation, safety and efficiency of existing and proposed infrastructure,
accessibility, levels of service, and environmental impact will be reviewed to ensure that
the Master Plan is consistent with all the applicable goals and objective of the TransP1an.
The zone change to MUC and MS is consistent with the nodal strategy set forth in the
TransP1an.
In addition to the MLK Parkway extension (Project #768) the following table identifies
TransP1an roadway projects identified in proximity to the subject area.
Project
Project Name Number Description
Baldy View Lane 715 Upgrade to urban standards
Cardinal Way 721 Upgrade 2 to 3 lane urban facility
Deadmond Ferry Road 724 Upgrade to urban standards
McKenzie-Gateway MDR Loop 756 New 2 to 3 lane collector into MDR
Collector site
The RiverBend Master Plan identifies how the proposal conforms with the above
TransP1an projects. The subsequent development that will result from this zone change
allows the benefits of the above outlined TransP1an projects to be realized much sooner
than otherwise would occur without the future development of the subject area, The
significant contribution from PeaceHealth to improvements of the on-site and off-site
transportation systems would provide a systems upgrade similar to the ones sought
through the above referenced projects.
3. Springfield Commercial Lands Study
LCDC acknowledged the Springfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS) as the City's
adopted plan demonstrating compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 9 (Economic
Development), Table 3-8 shown on page 32 of the SCLS identifies a deficit between
supply and demand for commercia11and of 158 acres through the 2015 planning horizon,
The City's recent amendment of the SCLS anticipates the City's approval of this
application and thus the City's approval is consistent with the SCLS, The zone change
from MDR to MUC for 43.1 acres and to MS for 43,9 acres will increase the supply, and
reduce the deficit of needed commercial land in the City of Springfield and is in
compliance with the SCLS.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 21
3/21/05
,I ' .,
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
Policy I-A
Maintain a mixed supply of large and small commercial sites through
strategies such as rezoning or annexation to serve Springfield's future
population. (CLS, pg. 34)
.
This approval rezones land from MDR to MUC and MS to allow for a greater variety of
mix commercial uses than are otherwise allowed in the MDR zoning district. These mix
of uses will serve current and future populations in Springfield and will occur near a large
employment base (i.e., hospitaVmedica1 uses) and residential uses.
Policy I-B
Ensure that an adequate amount of commercial land is designated in
undeveloped identified nodes such as Jasper/Natron and McKenzie!
Gateway to accommodate a portion of the demand for commercial
acreage, and to implement the policies and objectives of the TransPlan.
(CLS, pg. 34)
.
The subject area is within a larger area identified in the TransP1an as potentially suitable
for nodal development. The Springfield City Council identified the site as one of six
priority sites eligible for refine analysis through a state-funded project. DLCD also
provided the City with technical expertise for arrangement of land uses to support nodal
development. This zone change allows 87 acres of land to be used for a variety of mixed
use commercial and medical services uses including the core commercial area supporting
nodal development objectives. Therefore, approval of the zone change furthers the City's
ability to implement the nodal development concept and helps reduce the City's existing
deficit of commercial acreage, as required in the above policy.
Policy 3-A Redesignate and rezone portions of industrial land or residential land
within identified Employment Centers, Neighborhood Center,
Commercial Center nodes to Mixed Use Commercial to Achieve the
objectives of TransPlan, Transportation Planning Rule 12, and to
incorporate higher intensity development in conjunction with residential
and employment opportunities." (CLS, pg, 34)
The City's approval of this application results in the rezoning of land from MDR to MUC
and MS to provide a mix of employment, residential and supporting commercial uses is
entirely consistent with the above policy.
Implementation Strategy I-B(2) Consistent with the Gateway Refinement Plan and
Metro Plan, designate up to 99 acres of
Community Commercial and Mixed Use within
the city limits at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR
subarea to accommodate a transit supported mix
of uses including residential, commercial,
employment and major health services uses.
.
The GRP has been amended to have applicable neighborhood commercial references to
this site changed to MUC, consistent with direction in the SCLS, This approval is
consistent with the intent of Implementation Action I-B, by allowing for a hospital,
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 22
3/21/05
., . .,
EXHIBIT A
medical and general office uses, small-scale commercial retail and support services, and
residential uses in a manner that efficiently utilizes nodal development strategies and is
compatible to surrounding land uses.
.
The zone change from MDR to MS is not in conflict with any aspect of the SCLS, and is
consistent with provisions in the acknowledged Code (Article 22) allowing theMS zone
to be applied to areas designated Community Commercial. The use of MS zoning on the
CC designation is also consistent with the Court of Appeal's ruling in Jaqua v.
Springfield, which determined the proposed hospital use to be essentially commercial in
nature, Also, the Master Plan demonstrates that the uses proposed for the MUC areas are
compatible with and support the proposed hospital facility.
Implementation Strategy 3A(I) Evaluate inventories based on demonstrated need
for planning period. Initiate rezoning or
resignation of surplus land uses where appropriate
for commercial, consistent, with the Metro Plan.
(CLS, pg. 36)
The RLS and the Metro Plan identified a surplus of 3,646 MDR designated units through
the planning horizon. Through the recent Metro Plan and GRP amendments, the City
implemented this strategy by redesignating residentia11and to commercial. This approval
further implements this strategy by rezoning the property consistent with the Metro Plan
and GRP designations, The approved zone change of 43.1 acres of MDR to MUC and
43.9 acres ofMDR to MS will leave a surplus of residential dwelling units and acreage of
available MDR land. Moreover, GRP policies (i.e., Residential Element Implementation
Action 12.6) require that the Master Plan demonstrate that an adequate number of
dwelling units will be provided to support MDR densities projected for the site in the
metropolitan Residential Lands Study. The City's approval of the Master Plan
demonstrates that the Master Plan includes the requisite number of housing units.
.
Recent amendments to the Metro Plan diagram and GRP diagram from MDR designation
to CC and MU designations demonstrates that the City finds this area is appropriate for
commercial and medical uses. The change in zoning districts as outlined herein will not
adversely impact the surplus of land for residential uses, Therefore, the zone change for
87 acres of MUC and MS does not come at the expense of the residential housing
inventory, Rather, approval of the requested zone change will reduce the existing
commercia11ands deficit identified in the SCLS,
There are no other applicable special area studies, functional plans or other regulations
that apply to this zone change request.
c. SDC 12.030(3): The property can be served by the orderly and efficient
extension of key urban facilities and services as prescribed in the Metro Plan
prior to or in conjunction with development.
PeaceHealth is obligated by its annexation agreement with the City to provide a
significant amount of on-site and off-site improvements that supports any future
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 23
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
.
development plans for the area, and to prepare a master plan for the entire RiverBend
site. This annexation agreement will ensure, and the Master Plan demonstrates, that this
approval and any future proposal for development comply with SDC 12,030(3),
III. RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TESTIMONY
A. Introduction to Responsive Findings
The City Council adopts the following findings in connection with both the Master Plan
and the Zone Change request. In many instances submitted testimony did not adequately
indicate whether it was submitted in connection with either or both of the requests,
Consequently, the City Council adopts the following findings with respect to both
requests. To the extent that the findings set forth above under the applicable approval
standards does not adequately respond to issues raised during the review of the proposals,
the City Council adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
B. Flooding and Channel Migration
.
A. David Rodriguez, in oral testimony presented on January 25,2005, raised the issue of
lateral channel migration. Mr. Rodriguez provided his PowerPoint presentation as
written testimony at that time. Subsequently, Mr. Rodriguez submitted additional written
testimony on the same topic. Additional, testimony on this topic was provided by
Michael Hughes. All testimony submitted by Mr. Hughes and Mr, Rodriguez is
contained in the record, Neither individual has stated to which approval criteria their
testimony and comments relate. A considerable portion of Mr. Hughes' testimony
appears directed at challenging the conclusions reached in the various studies' and
testimony submitted by the applicant, which is discussed below. None of the opposition
evidence or testimony submitted by either Mr, Hughes or Mr. Rodriguez identify any
Master Plan approval criteria, nor do they reference any of the approval criteria for the
zone change application, Mr, Rodriguez does state in his February 22 letter to the City
Council that the Master Plans violates Goa17. Although, as explained below, Goal 7
does not apply as an approval standard to either proposal, the City Council adopts the
following findings in response to Mr. Rodriguez's testimony, The City Council finds that
neither Mr. Hughes nor Mr. Rodriguez have adequately identified any approval criteria or
explained with any particularity how or why the proposal before the City Council fail to
meet the applicable approval criteria, Their testimony, therefore, is non-responsive to the
approval criteria before the City. The City Council, however, adopts the following
findings of fact in response to the testimony submitted by Mr. Hughes and
Mr, Rodriguez.
.
Both parties oppose the proposed PeaceHealth Master Plan because they believe the
location of the hospital site is likely to be captured by the McKenzie River by its lateral
migration. The parties have testified to their belief that the site is unsafe and that the
proposed setback of over 400 feet from the river is not sufficient. Both recommend that a
channel migration zone ("CMZ") study be conducted to determine whether the site is safe
in the long term. Mr, Rodriguez's PowerPoint materials also contend that the Federal
Endangered Species Act ("ESA") requires that a CMZ analysis be conducted to ensure
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 24
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
that the project complies with the ESA. In his January 27, 2005 written submittal,
however, he notes that "channel migration zone ("CAMS") delineations aren't law in
Oregon, "
Although the specific criteria being addressed by either opponent are not identified, the
applicant has responded to their testimony. Frank Flynn of Perkins Coie, LLP provided
written testimony responding to Mr. Rodriguez's statements regarding the ESA. Richard
Attanasio, Senior Water Resource Engineer for David Evans & Associates, Inc, ("DEA")
responded to Mr. Rodriguez's testimony regarding the need for a CMZ study, As part of
more general response to comments, Phillip Farrington of PeaceHea1th responded briefly
to Mr, Rodriguez's comments and transmitted Mr. Flynn's and Mr, Attanasio's testimony
to the City on February 1, 2005. Additional rebuttal testimony was provided by
PeaceHealth and its representative during the open record and rebuttal period before the
City Council. This testimony is in the record.
1. (4) (d) Rule Testimony and Findings
The record demonstrates that Mr, Rodriguez's incorrectly contends that the "4(d) rule,"
which was adopted by NOAA Fisheries (NOAA) on July 1 0, 2000, requires that a CMZ
analysis be conducted to demonstrate compliance with the ESA. The record shows that
Mr, Rodriguez misconstrued the text of the "4(d) rule," The "4(d) rule" does require a
CMZ, however, it is intended to be one of ~evera1 factors used by NOAA to evaluate a
local or regional government's request that NOAA approve an ordinance submitted under
the"(4(d) rule." Such an ordinance would deem that any work approved under its
provisions complies with the ESA. The "4( d) rule" does not establish an evaluation
criterion for specific actions or projects. Since the City is not requesting NOAA's
approval of an ordinance under the rule.
With respect to testimony regarding the compliance with the ESA, the City finds that:
The information provided by Perkins Coie, LLP is substantive credible evidence that a
CMZ study is not required to demonstrate compliance with the ESA;
The "(4) (d) rule" adopted by NOAA does not require a CMZ study under the situation
before the City at this time;
The reference to the CMZ studies in the (4) (d) rule relate to NOAA's approval process
for a local or regional government's request that NOAA approve an ordinance submitted
under the"(4(d) rule";
The referenced portion of the "4( d) rule" does not establish an evaluation criterion for
specific actions or projects;
Because the City is not requesting NOAA's approval of an ordinance under the rule, the
testimony on this matter is not relevant to whether the project will comply with the ESA;
and
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 25
3/21/05
" .
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
.
The record contains no substantial evidence contrary to that provided by the applicant
and its representatives relative to this issue,
2. Flooding and Channel Migration Testimony and Findings
Mr. Attanasio provided written testimony responding directly to the testimony that a
CMZ study is warranted. At the City's request, Mr. Attanasio also provided a pre-
development and a post-project assessment of the McKenzie River floodplain. The
studies are in the record. They evaluate the area three miles up and downstream of the
project site and have been reviewed and accepted by the City of Springfield's Department
of Public Works, Further, a third party consultant reviewed Mr. Attanasio's materials and
determined them to be technically sufficient for the purposes for which they are
submitted and to exceed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
specifications for such work.
Mr, Attanasio testifies and the record agrees that the proposed development at the
Riverbend Site is outside the regulatory floodway, Development proposed for the flood
fringe or 100-year floodplain is consistent with the requirements for such development.
Mr, Attanasio testifies that the hospital is not to be constructed in the floodway but will
be above the 500-year flood elevation and more than 420 feet from the top of the
riverbank,
.
In response to Mr, Rodriguez and relative to the testimony supplied by Mr. Hughes,
Mr, Attanasio testifies that at the predicted meander rate it will take over 300 years for
the river to reach the hospital. That estimate assumes that the meander is directly toward
the hospital which is not correct and ignores existing erosion/flood control measures
already in place. Moreover, it accepts the rate as accurate. However, Mr, Attanasio
testifies that the meander rate in this analysis is considerably conservative since this reach
of the McKenzie has not moved measurably in years, Finally, Mr. Attanasio's
professional judgment is that the concerns raised by Mr. Rodriguez and Mr, Hughes
regarding channel migration present no threat to the project and that the project is
consistent with local floodplain regulations and Statewide Planning Goal 7.
The City Council finds that based on the evidence in the record there many factual error
and misstatements in both Mr. Rodriguez's and Mr, Hughes' oral and written testimony
with impairs the overall credibility of such testimony, For example, both in a
February 21,2005 e-mail and in oral testimony at the February 22,2005 Council hearing,
Mr. Rodriguez inaccurately stated that the former Sony site is in the McKenzie River
jloodway, Both FEMA maps and the corrected effective mapping prepared by David
Evans & Associates indicate that the RiverBend Annex site is not within the floodway.
.
Mr. Rodriguez' e-mail dated February 23, 2005 continues with this mischaracterization,
saying "some of the OML [i.e., RiverBend Annex] site and even part of the hospital is to
be located within this floodway channeL" The DEA study and the FEMA maps
demonstrate that this is not the case. As the record demonstrates, no development other
than passive paths are proposed in or near the floodway, The RiverBend Master Plan
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 26
3/21/05
" . .,
EXHIBIT A
diagram clearly delineates the floodway boundary relative to all proposed development
on-site, and the floodway is nowhere near the hospital or RiverBend Annex,
.
The oral and written testimony submitted in opposition to the proposal also inaccurately
states that the DEA model "manipulated" data from the 1996 flood, As the rec0fd
indicates, Mr. Attanasio, conducted the floodplain analyses that were peer reviewed by
hydro geologists with EGR & Associates, then again peer reviewed by independent third-
party engineers with CH2M Hill engaged by the City of Springfield engineering staff.
Mr. Attanasio is a professional engineer licensed to practice in five states, with more than
20 years of experience, and specific expertise in riverine hydraulics and fluvial
morpoho10gic analysis. As noted in the record, his work met or exceeded the standards
required of floodplain analyses, and his results were validated by both sets of peer
reviewers. As Mr. Attanasio states in his February 28, 2005 rebuttal to Mr. Rodriguez'
assertion, "all available and reliable information was considered in the study, including
available information from the '96 flood." The City Council finds that the record does
not support the assertion that data was manipulated.
Mr. Rodriguez' other testimony does not correctly depict either the proposal or the
development in and planned for the surrounding area, His testimony includes a map of
areas designated in the Metro Plan as Campus Industrial in the north Springfield area.
While some of this area is located within the floodway, it will be unlikely to have any
development given the presence of the floodway and the development restrictions in SDC
Article 27. Nonetheless, Mr, Rodriguez concludes that "high tech buildings" will be
developed "right up to the river" and "all this Floodplain will be filled in." The
Springfield UGB and Campus Industrial designation does not extend along the entire
McKenzie River frontage, nor is there any reason to believe that development will occur
within the floodway, given the restrictions set forth in SDC Article 27. While the river
passes near the base of the Coburg Hills downstream from the site, there is not a
"bottleneck" since there is considerable area of floodway (as illustrated in the DEA study
and even depicted on some of Mr. Rodriguez' graphics) that convey flood flows beyond
the normal river channel.
.
In response to concerns raised that the flood analysis did not include relevant
development scenarios, the City Council finds that the Post-Project Analysis
demonstrates that even if the RiverBend site were entirely filled to the 100-year flood
elevation (using the most conservative of either the FEMA or DEA modeled elevation),
that there would be a nominal increase in base flood elevations off-site, The, DEA Post-
Project study further analyzed the potential impact of filling all undeveloped areas
remaining within the Springfield UGB throughout the 3 river, miles contained in the
analysis, and still concluded that the increase in base flood elevation was considerably
below (i,e" less than 5") the one-foot rise allowed. These analyses of potential impacts
from full build-out of the site and the UGB are truly "worst case" scenarios, and are not
reflective of actual, less intensive development that is more likely to occur.
Mr. Rodriguez and Michael Hughes testify that review of historic air photos indicate
demonstrates considerable lateral movement of the river, The City Council finds that the
photos submitted by Mr, Hughes, and consistent with Mr. Rodriguez' own graphics, that
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 27
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
.
any movement of the river is trending to move away from the hospital site, Neither
Mr, Hughes nor Mr. Rodriguez offer any empirical evidence to contradict the findings of
the peer reviewed DEA studies. In short, the City Council finds that there is no credible
evidence that controverts any of the substantial, fact-based analysis in the record
demonstrating that PeaceHea1th's proposal complies with the applicable review criteria.
Mr. Rodriguez' powerpoint presentation and other testimony to the City calls for studies
that are neither required nor warranted by any applicable approval standards,
In addition to the above findings, and based on the evidence and testimony in the record,
the City finds that:
Mr, Attanasio's testimony is credible and substantial evidence presented within his area
of expertise which includes issues relating to flooding and channel migration;
The flood studies present in the record are substantial evidence demonstrating that the
applicable floodplain regulations will be met and exceeded.
The evidence provided by the applicant relating to flooding has been subject to a peer
review process which has demonstrated its validity and credibility;
There is no credible substantial evidence in the record countering Mr, Attanasio's
testimony on flood- and CMZ-re1ated matters;
.
The testimony offered by Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Hughes regarding the need for a CMZ
study and the threat imposed by flooding and channel migration lacks sufficient technical
and site specific support to be substantiated and is not sufficient to counter the applicant's
testimony on these matters;
Based on Mr. Attanasio's testimony and the flood studies present in the record, a CMZ
study is neither required by the applicable regulations nor necessary due to the physical
configuration of the site or the affected river reach;
The proposed hospital is not threatened 'or otherwise jeopardized by flooding o~ migration
of the McKenzie River channel because the channel is not laterally unstable;
The proposed development, where it will occur in the floodplain, will be subject to
sufficient protection under the applicable floodplain development standards;
The proposed hospital and full site development will result in an approximate water rise
on the order of 1 inch and the post-development rise upstream will be about one-half
inch;
The rise in water elevation resulting from full site development will be significantly less
then the 1 foot rise allowed under the applicable regulations; and
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 28
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
Full development of the site will not result in an appreciable increase of the off-site base
flood elevation, that the site is safe form flooding and that the proposed setback is
sufficient protection for the development.
Consequently, to the extent that the testimony offered by Mr. Hughes and Mr. Rodriguez
is responsive to any applicable approval criteria, the City Council finds that the evidence
and testimony offered by PeaceHea1th and its consultants is credible, persuasive and
demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with any flood or hazard related approval
criteria. The above fmdings are specifically incorporated into any related standards set
forth in the SDC, the Metro Plan, the GRP, and any other applicable state and federal
statutes or rules, including the Statewide Planning Goals.
3. S~ismic Hazards Testimony and Findings
Mr. Randy Prince raised concerns about seismic risks and multiple hazards associated
with development on the site. In particular, Mr, Prince stated his belief that the City
should require and approve a site specific hazard study, Mr, Prince's testimony does not
identify arIY of the applicable approval criteria or otherwise allege that the Master Plan or
zone change application fail to satisfy the approval criteria. Although Mr. Prince
identifies Statewide Planning Goal 7, he does not argue that it applies to the Master Plan
application or that the application fails to satisfy Goal 7. The City Council fmds that
Mr. Prince's testimony is not responsive to any of the Master Plan approval criteria.
Nonetheless, the City adopts the following findings in response to Mr, Prince's
generalized seismic and hazard testimony.
The record contains substantial technical evidence meeting statutory and code
requirements. . This evidence was prepared by licensed professional geotechnical
engineers and geologists assessing that the site and surrounding area, and concludes that
the site is of relatively low seismic risk. Moreover, unlike existing hospitals in the
region, the proposed hospital will be designed to meet current seismic building standards,
and also is being designed to be occupied immediately following a major earthquake
event. The record includes metropolitan-area mapping demonstrating that the proposed
hospital site is one of relatively low seismic hazard. The Relative Earthquake Hazard
Map for the Eugene-Springfield area (IMS-14) prepared by the Oregon Department of
Geology arid Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) illustrates that the site has a relatively low
risk of hazard from amplification, liquefaction, and the proposed hospital site has no risk
of slope instability.
DOGAMI fault maps, including the on-line map referenced by Mr, Prince in his
February 22 correspondence demonstrate that the area has no active faults on the
RiverBend site or anywhere near the area. Further, as included in the Eugene/Springfield
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, which the City of Springfield participated in developing,
(referenced as Attachment #8, pg. 18 of Mr. Prince's 2/22/05 testimony): "In the three
county area [which includes Lane County], the mapped faults are generally considered to
be inactive, with no evidence for activity within the past 11,000 years." The Plan further
concluded, "in the absence of known, mapped faults, the probability of such events [i.e.,
larger crustal earthquakes] is likely to be very low.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 29
3/21/05
, .
. '
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
.
Mr. Prince raised concerns about potential dam breakage, yet the Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan he cited states "there is a low probability that a major earthquake could
result in substantial damage or failure of the major dams upstream of the
Eugene/Springfield Metro Area." While Mr, Prince has identified potential risks
associated with volcanic activity at the top of the Cascades, the Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan identifies that "The Eugene/Springfield Metro Area is approximately 50 miles from
the nearest volcanoes (Three Sisters). This distance is large enough that the
Eugene/Springfield Metro Area is unlikely to have major impacts from eruptions of any
of these volcanoes."
More detailed site-specific assessment was conducted by licensed professional engineers
and geologists with Foundation Engineering, Inc, (FEI) as part of their Phase III
Geotechnical Investigation and Seismic Hazard Study (October 2, 2003), FEI's study
included a literature review of geologic publications and reports; assessed regional
geology and the history of earthquake activity and faulting; analyzed site-specific soil,
hydrologic, geologic and geotechnical data collected from a significant number of
subsurface test pits and bore holes throughout the site and proposed hospital location.
FEI's analysis evaluated the site relative to seismic hazards such as liquefaction, potential
slope instability, and ground amplification from various types of seismic activity
(including major earthquake from a subduction zone event). FEI concluded that the risk
of seismically induced liquefaction is "very low," the risk of ground amplification is
relatively low, that the hospital site is in an area of no risk of slope instability, and that
the overall relative earthquake hazard at the RiverBend site is "low,"
.
The Phase III geotech study by FEI comports with the requirements under the 2004
Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 455.447 for a Seismic, Site Hazard
Investigation Report evaluating on a site-specific basis the seismic hazards for essential
facilities. Specific foundation and structural building designs prepared as part of the
building permit review process will be peer reviewed by the City's third-party
engineering review consultant, Allan Clair, to verify their adequacy to meet the most
stringent building and seismic standards required.
No area within western Oregon free from risk of one or multiple natural hazards,
including existing hospital sites. But the City Council finds that the results of
considerable investigation, prepared by qualified expert professionals in accordance with
code and statutory requirements, demonstrate that the RiverBend site has low relative risk
of seismic and other natural hazards.
Consequently, to the extent that the testimony offered by Mr. Prince is responsive to any
applicable approval criteria, the City Council finds that the evidence and testimony
offered by PeaceHealth and its consultants is credible, persuasive and demonstrates that
the proposal is consistent with any seismic or hazard related approval criteria. The above
findings are specifically incorporated into any related standards set forth in the SDC, the
Metro Plan, the GRP, and any other applicable state and federal statutes or rules,
including the Statewide Planning Goals,
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 30
3/21/05
.' .
EXHIBIT A
C. Neighborhood Concerns Testimony and Findings
.
In addition concerns expressed in the testimony provided at the February 22, 2005
hearing by Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr, Tom Lindley, other neighbors have raised these
issues in other correspondence in the record, The bulk of the neighborhood testimony
related to noise and traffic concerns in connection with the use of new and existing
streets, None of the testimony identified any applicable approval criteria. Consequently,
the City Council finds that the testimony of the Game Farm area and Colonial Drive
residents in not responsive to the approval criteria for the Master Plan or zone change
request. To the extent that the generalized comments and testimony relate to the Master
Plan or zone change request, the City Council adopts the following findings.
The MLK Parkway extension project is one that, by virtue of PeaceHealth's annexation
agreement with the City, will occur with or without the development proposed in the
RiverBend Master Plan. Since the great volume of traffic passing north of the Colonial
Drive neighbors is non-local, any request for a sound wall or buffer is more appropriately
considered as a part of the Parkway project and not in association with the Master Plan or
the zone change,
Some individuals have expressed concerns about potential out-of-direction traffic using
Colonial and/or Nicholas Drive from vehicles originating at the "Building F" site
identified on the Master Plan. Although not required as a condition of approval, nor
required as part of the Master Plan, it may be possible to alleviate some of these concerns
through the installation of proper signage, especially "No Outlet" signs on appropriate
streets, That is a matter for City staff to resolve outside the context of these proposals.
.
Some neighbors have suggested that the Building F site not be allowed to have access to
Game Farm Road. Access to the Building F site will be determined as part of a Site Plan
Review application for that site, which will require County approval of a road approach
permit. However, Master Plan Condition #37 prohibits driveway access from this or any
other future development site directly onto the MLK Parkway, thus leaving no other
roadway available for required access. When Site Plans are submitted for future
development on this site, appropriate location and nature of driveway access points will
be established, with neighbors being duly notified and given opportunities to participate
in that review process.
PeaceHea1th has taken numerous steps to minimize impacts to neighbors in this area and
elsewhere in the Game Farm Neighborhood. The preliminary excavation work
performed last summer eliminated hundreds of truck trips through the neighborhood in
and out of the site, since soils were allowed to be stockpiled on-site rather than exported
off-site, then replaced later with imported fill. Similarly, the applicant has collaborated
with the City of Springfield and other agencies and utilities on the MLK Parkway project
and allowing materials to be stockpiled on the RiverBend site further reduces the need for
truck trips past the neighborhood to export and import fill material,
The RiverBend Master Plan establishes a 30-foot wide landscaped buffer along the site's
length of its Game Farm Road South frontage, This is three times the setback required by
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 31
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
.
the SDC, PeaceHealth has also proposed future buildings to be located as far to the east
of Game Farm Road South as possible to improve compatibility with the neighborhood,
and to provide physical and sound buffers between the Parkway and the neighborhood.
The neighborhood concerns do not related directly to any applicable approval criteria.
However, as the findings above indicate, the applicant has taken appropriate steps to
address these concerns.
D. Statewide Planning Goal 12 and "Transportation Planning Rule"
One opponent argued that the Statewide Planning Goa112, "Transportation", applies to
this application. The City finds that if this application is subject to the acknowledged
post-acknowledgement plan amendment (the "PAPA II decision") recently adopted by
the City, then Statewide Planning Goa112 does not apply to either a master plan (a
permit) or a zoning map amendment. ORS 197.175(2)( d) provides that amendments to
acknowledged land use regulations, such as zoning map amendments, are subject to
comp1iarIce with acknowledged comprehensive plans, Assuming that the PAPA II
decision has been acknowledged, then the Goals do not directly apply to this application,
A master plan is a permit and is subject to compliance with applicable provisions of the
Springfield Development Code, the City's acknowledged land use regulations, and the
Metro Plan, the City's acknowledged comprehensive plan. For these reasons, Goal 12
does not directly apply to this application,
1. Compliance with OAR 660-012-0060 (1) (2) as revised
.
Following adoption of the PAPA II amendment which is now acknowledged, the
applicant updated the 2004 Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") in a January 11, 2005
document entitled "Master Plan/Zone Change." Page 1 of that document notes "the zone
changes under this development are consistent with plan designations approved by the
Springfield City Council in early 2005." The TIA also notes on the same page that it
"uses the same traffic growth assumptions described in the October 29, 2004 PAPA TIA,
supplement with new analysis of the primary proposed modified road improvement, in
the conversion of the Harlow Road/Hayden Bridge Road/Martin Luther King, Jr,
Parkway intersection to a roundabout.
The updated TIA covers the same planning period (between 2005 and 2020) as required
by Oregon Highway P1arI Action IF.2. The TIA adopts the same conclusions and
recommended mitigations as did the City in the PAPA II decision,
The TIA demonstrates that for all of the affected intersections between 2005 and 2020,
Goal 12 is satisfied because development under the proposed plan and zoning
designations will either (1) be served by a safe and adequate transportation system
currently in place or planned to, be in place in time to handle expected impacts or (2) will
not create substantially greater or different trarIsportation demands arid impacts than
development under the existing acknowledged designations, The explanation for these
[mdings are contained in Part B, below, and are incorporated herein by reference,i
.
, Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 32
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
2. OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2)
.
The applicant has updated the TIA in response to the decisions by LUBA and the court.
The TIA takes into account each affected transportation facility beginning in year 2005
and ending in year 2020, considering background traffic growth and additional traffic
generated by the post-acknowledgement plan amendments. The TIA concludes that any
transportation facilities significantly affected by the post-acknowledgment plan
amendments will either be remedied by improvements in the acknowledged
Transportation System Plan for the City of Springfield ("TransP1an") or will be remedied
through mitigation measures pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a)-(d),
The TIA relies on the same methodology as the 2002 TIA, but accounts for changes to
the assumed designs for elements of the traffic and circulation system in the area of this
application. The changes are as follows:
. a refinement ofthe Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway design, and
. construction of the Harlow Road/Hayden Bridge Road/Martin Luther King, Jr.
Parkway intersection as a roundabout instead of a signalized intersection.
a. Relevant time periods.
The TIA is divided into the time periods shown below. It takes into account background
traffic growth and additional traffic that will be generated by the post-acknowledgment
plan amendments. The phasing is as follows:
.
. Between 2005 and 2008, no traffic will be generated by the uses allowed by
this application because their construction will be incomplete. The TIA
assumes background traffic growth for each year during this time period.
. Phase I, 2008-2010. Construction of a hospital and medical office buildings
containing 1.185 million square feet. These uses will begin to open in 2008.
The TIA assumes that the 1,185 million square feet of development limited to
1,457 pm peak-hour vehicle trips will be occupied in 2008,' The TIA assumes
background traffic growth for the years 2008 through 2010,
. Phase II, 2010-2020. The remainder of the PeaceHea1th square footage,
subject to the trip cap limit of 1,840 p,m, peak-hour trips, will open in 2010.,
The TIA assumes no additional transportation facility construction from 2010
through 2020, The TIA assumes background traffic growth for the years 2010
through 2020.
b. OAR 660-012-0060(2). The fIrst step in determining compliance with the
TPR is to determine whether there is a significant effect. If there is no significant effect,
the City need not consider the mitigation measures under OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a)-(d).
i. Adequacy of existing transportation facilities. The City must first determine
whether existing transportation facilities are adequate to handle the amendments
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 33
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
.
throughout the relevant planning period of 2020, If the City finds the answer to be "yes,"
then the City can find that there is no significant effect under OAR 660-012-0060(2),
The TIA shows that all but four existing transportation facilities are adequate to handle
the expected trips up to the trip cap maximum of 1,840p.m. peak-hour trips created as a
result of these amendments. Throughout the planning period, all of the affected
intersections will have a volume to capacity ("v/c") or a level of service ("LOS") equal to
or less than that which would otherwise occur without the approval of these amendments,
assuming a limitation on vehicle trips. Therefore, regarding these four facilities, the City
must address the second step.
If there is a significant effect, then the City must consider whether any new and improved
facilities anticipated by the TSP will generate sufficient additional capacity and will be
built or improved on as scheduled that will accommodate the additional traffic generated
by the proposed amendment. If the answer to the question is "yes," then the proposal
does not significantly affect the transportation facilities. If there is no significant effect,
the City need not consider the mitigation measures under OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a)-(d).
.
The TIA shows that not all of the existing facilities will accommodate the expected trips
up to the trip cap maximum of 1,840 p,m. peak-hour trips created as a result of these
amendments. The TIA shows that with four (4) exceptions, through the planning period
of 2020, all of the affected intersections will have a volume to capacity ("v/c") or a level
of service ("LOS ") equal to or less than that which will otherwise occur without the
approval of these amendments assuming a limitation on vehicle trips, Therefore, the
applicant must address the second step.
ii. Adequacy of facilities with TSP improvements. The second step of the analysis
requires the City to determine whether planned improvements in the TSP to the City's
existing transportation facilities will be adequate to handle the additional traffic
throughout the planning period or when needed. The TIA concludes that the following
projects are required:
a. TransPlan Project No. 768 - Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway
Extension:
Lane County is designing and constructing this project pursuant to an intergovernmental
agreement ("IGA") between the City and Lane County. PeaceHealth, pursuant to its
Annexation Agreement has committed to pay for a portion of the construction; Lane
County will pay for the remainder. Based on substantial evidence in the whole record,
the City finds that this project will be complete at the latest by 2008 in time for use in
Phase 1,
b. TransPlan Project No. 606 - 1-5 at Beltline Road:
.
,
This project is contained in the Oregon Transportation Commission State Transportation
Improvement Project ("STIP") for the 2004-2007 period. This shows that this project
will be constructed no later than 2007,
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 34
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
c.
TransPlan Project No. 721- Cardinal Way from Game Farm Road to
the MDR North/South Connector:
.
This project will be constructed as part of the PeaceHealth campus. PeaceHea1th will
fully construct the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway Project prior to the opening of
Phase 1 in 2008,
d. TransPlan Project No. 762 - North/South Collector within the MDR
Site:
This collector is part of the PeaceHea1th campus design. It forms River Bend Drive,
which is the primary direct access to the hospital and medical office buildings to the east
of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. PeaceHea1th will construct this project prior to the
opening of Phase 1.
lll. Significantly affected transportation 'facilities.
Notwithstanding the' above TSP improvements, the application significantly affects the
following intersections:
a. The eastbound ramp terminal at Pioneer Parkway/Oregon
Highway 126.
This Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") transportation facility is part of the
Q Street interchange (TransP1an Project No, 774). The facility will operate below
acceptable mobility standards without these proposed amendments, To prevent further
degradation (Oregon Highway Plan Action 1F.6), the ramp terminal will be improved as
a condition of approval prior to Phase 1, The City adopted this condition as Condition of
Approval No, 2 in the PAPA I decision (Finding page 53; PAPA I Record page 234),
Petitioners did not challenge this condition of approval, so on remand, it may not be
reconsidered.
.
b. I-S/Belt Line Road Interchange.
The I-5/Belt Line Road Interchange does not meet ODOT mobility standards, Therefore,
these amendments may not cause further degradation of the facility,
Transportation improvements are planned prior to the opening of Phase 1 (STIP Project
Key No, 13281,1-5 at Belt Line Interchange Phase 1, in the currently adopted STIP; and
Project Key No. 12833, 1-5 at Belt Line Interchange Phase 2, in the adopted 2004-2007
STIP; see attached STIP project listings.
These STIP projects' are scheduled for completion concurrent with the Phase 1
development of PeaceHea1th. ODOT can reasonably expect to obtain the funds needed to
construct these improvements as a one-phase project because PeaceHealth has agreed to
act as a guarantor to the funding currently anticipated to be a federal earmark in the
pending federal transportation authorization bill. Based on this guarantee of funds, the
Oregon Transportation Commission (the "OTC") may move OTIA 3 funding identified in
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 35
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
.
the draft 2006-2009 State Transportation Improvement Program ("STIP") to the adopted
2004-2007 STIP, With funds added to the 04-07 STIP, and the pending federal earmark
guaranteed, ODOT will be able to combine phases one and two as a single project to
begin in 2005 or 2006,
The City finds that substantial evidence in the whole record demonstrates that the facility
will be in place prior to the opening of Phase 1 in 2008. This is based on evidence
provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation and by the applicant that the
project is programmed to begin construction in time for completion before 2008 and that
the project is funded. Alternatively, the City has imposed, as requested by the applicant,
a condition of approval requiring the phasing as shown above to prevent further
degradation or failure of any affected intersection because the phasing will allow needed
improvements to occur prior to the opening of uses allowed by these amendments,
c. Belt Line/Gateway Intersection.
This intersection is not significantly affected because the City has determined, pursuant
to its authority under TransP1an, to allow a reduced level of service. Reduction in level
of service is also a mitigation measure authorized by OAR 660-0 12-0060(1)(d)).
TransP1an TSI Roadway Policy No, 2 provides as follows:
.
"In some cases, the level of service on a facility may be substandard. The
local government jurisdiction may fmd the transportation system
improvement to bring performance up to standard within the planning
horizon may not be feasible, and safety will not be compromised, and
broader community goals will be better served by allowing a substandard
level of service. The limitation on the feasibility of a transportation
system improvement may arise from severe constraints including but not
limited to environmental condition, lack of public agency financial
resources, or land use constraint factors, It is not the intent of TSI
Roadway Policy No.2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service, to require
deferral of development in such cases, The intent is to defer motor vehicle
capacity increasing transportation system improvements until existing
constraints can be overcome or develop an alternative mix of strategies
(such as: ,land use measures, TDM, short-term safety improvement) to
address the problem." (TransP1an Chapter 2, page 11)
Nick Amis, Transportation Manager for the City of Springfield, testified that the City
Council agreed to adopt a lower level of service below "Level of Service D" at this
intersection. (PAPA I Record page 1364). The Springfield City Council adopted
Resolution 02-44 in 2002 as follows:
.
"The Springfield Common Council implements TransP1an Transportation
System Improvement Roadway Policy No.2: Motor Vehicle Level of
Service, and accepts a temporary level of service reduction until
improvements are made to the Gateway StreetlBe1t1ine Road intersection
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 36
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
and I-5/Belt1ine interchange, and the Pioneer Parkway extension [now
known as the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway] is constructed,"
.
The City has determined that the reduced level of service is less than "D". This means
that prior to the construction of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway, the City will accept a
reduced level of service to insure there is no significant effect,
d. Beltline Road at Hutton Road.
This intersection will exceed mobility standards (Level of Service "D") prior to the
opening of Phase 1 because of background traffic growth. Installation of a traffic signal
will bring this intersection to acceptable standards throughout the planning period. The
traffic signal is included as the Be1tline Road/Gateway Road intersection project.
PeaceHealth has agreed to install the signal as part of its prior commitment to funding
Beltline Road/Gateway Road improvements before the opening of Phase I. The applicant
asks that the City make this a condition of approval.
e. Mitigation measures. OAR 660-012-0060(1).
After considering all of the intersections that are not significantly affected, and those that
are significantly affected, but for which projects in TransP1an will be completed prior to
opening of Phase I, the third step is to consider mitigation measures necessary to
maintain or prevent further degradation of affected transportation facilities, The total
number of p.m. peak hour trips must also be limited to maintain relevant mobility
standards.
.
Three mitigation measures are proposed,
1. Phasing. As described in the TIA, the applicant proposes as a condition of
approval a phasing plan. No uses will open before 2008. Phase I will occur between
2008 and 2010 and will be limited to 1.185 million square feet of hospital and medical
buildings and 1,457 pm peak-hour trips, Phase I occupancy and operational capacity will
be coterminous with the completion of improvements to the I-5/Be1tline interchange,
Phase II will open no earlier than 2010, will be limited to additional square footage
generating no more than the 1,840 p.m. peak hour trips and its occupancy arid operational
capacity will be coterminus with the completion of improvements to the Be1tline
Road/Gateway Road intersection.
This mitigation measure is allowed pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a) which provides:
"Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity, and
performance standards of the transportation facility." The City fmds that these phasing
limitations limit allowed land uses so they are consistent with the planned function,
capacity and performance standards of the transportation facilities, This ensures that
there will be no interim mobility standard failures.
2. Trip Cap Limitation. The applicant requests that the City readopt Condition of
Approval No.1 (Finding page 3; PAPA I Record page 37). No party challenged this
condition in the first phase of this proceeding, so it may not be challenged now. In
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 37
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
.
addition, a condition of approval is added to reflect the Phase 1 development limit of
1,457 pm peak hour trips.
3. Roadway Improvements. The applicant requests that the following conditions
be imposed to ensure that roadway improvements in TransP1an are provided when
necessary .
a. Condition of Approval No.2 for the remanded decision (Decision pages 3
and 4; PAPAl Record pages 37 and 38) Pioneer Parkway/Q Street improvements,
b. PeaceHea1th shall be required to install a traffic signal at the intersection
of Belt1ine Road and Hutton Road prior to the opening of Phase I. The City adopted
findings for the Pioneer Parkway/Q Street interchange improvement explaining
Condition of Approval No.2 (Finding page 53; PAP A I Record page 234), No party
challenged that condition of approval.
The City fmds based on the TIA that the proposed conditions of approval will limit land
uses until programmed and unprogrammed TransP1an projects are constructed and none
of the intersections will be further degraded or significantly affected because of the trip
cap.
3. Issues Raised by Rob Zako Concerning the TPR
.
Assuming, however, that Goal 12 does apply because the PAP A II decision has ~ot been
acknowledged, the City finds that Goal 12 is satisfied by this application, Goa1l2
requires that development either (1) be served by a safe and adequate transportation
system currently in place or planned to be in place in time to handle expected traffic
demands, or (2) will not create substantially greater or different transportation demands
and impacts the development under the existing acknowledged designations. The PAPA
II decision provided (see page 26 of PAPA II findings) that there will be no construction
until adequate transportation facilities existed. These conditions of approval and findings
control development under this application, Accordingly, the City finds that Goa1l2 is
satisfied. Further, the City re-ad?pts by reference the findings explaining how the PAPA
I decision satisfied Goa112. (PAPA I Record, pages 222 and 223, Findings, pages 41 and
42),
Finally, to the extent a party argues that Goal 12 requires an integrated plan as that term
is used in OAR 660-0 12-0035(5)(c)(A)-(E) and 660-012-0055(1)(a), the City rejects this
contention, These administrative rules are part of the Transportation Planning Rule
which implements but does not supplant Goa112. Nothing in the text ofthese sections of
the Transportation Planning Rule requires that the City make this finding with respect to
Goal 12 and nothing in the plain language of Goal 12 requires that such a finding be
made.
The City also finds that the Transportation Planning Rule concerning an integrated plan
does not apply to this application.
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 38
3/21/05
, ,
, '
EXHIBIT A
First, the plain language in OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c)(A)-(E) and 660-012-0055(1)(a)
does not require that these provisions be applied directly to land use and limited land use
decisions. These sections contrast with OAR 660-012-0055(3) where the rule expressly
requires local governments that have failed to adopt certain provisions into their land use
regulations and land division ordinances to directly apply OAR 660-012-0045 to all land
use and limited land use decisions. Thus, the plain language of the administrative rule
does not require direct application of the integrated plan provision to this land use
decision.
.
Additionally, OAR 660-012-0055(1)(a) has been satisfied. This administrative rule
requires that if, by May, 2000, either the transportation system plan provisions regarding
reducing vehicle miles traveled or an alternative standard have not been acknowledged,
then the integrated plan must have been adopted by May, 2003. LUBA rejected the
argument that the region had not adopted such an alternative standar,d in Friends of
Eugene v, City of Eugene, _ Or. LUBA , LUBA Nos, 2002-105, 2002-112
through 2002-116, March 24, 2003. By 2004, the region (through the region's
metropolitan planning organization, the Lane Council of Governments) had adopted
TransP1an, TransP1an contains the alternative standards in lieu of a provision reducing
vehicle miles traveled. Thus, the region and the City have satisfied OAR 660-012-
0055(1)(a) and OAR 660-012-0035(5).
E. Nodal Development Standards
100 Friends of Oregon argues that the Master Plan must comply with nodal development
standards and criteria and they cite TransP1an for that authority, While the 1000 Friends
letter devotes over two pages to describing various elements of TransPlan and other nodal
studies, 1000 Friends' sole objection is that "there is little if anything about the
masterp1an proposal that actually addresses nodal criteria, or an analysis of how best to
achieve nodal development standards," Without a more specific challenge, the City
Council finds that this testimony is not adequate or responsive to the approved criteria.
The objection does not reference any specific nodal criteria that the proposal allegedly
violate nor does it explain with any particularity how the standards are not satisfied.
.
Opponents have also argued that TransP1an requires that zone change applications be
measured for consistency with the nodal development strategy identified in TransP1an,
Specifically, opponents have identified TransP1an, Chapter 3, Page 81, as imposing such
a requirement,
TransP1an, Chapter 3, Part Four: Planning and Program Actions, specifically provides
that the "Planning and Program Actions represent a range of regionally significant
planning, administrative, and support actions that might be used to implement TransP1an
policies, Local jurisdictions will use their discretion to evaluate and prioritize Planning
and Program Action implementation, The Planning and Program Actions are not
adopted, meaning they are not binding or limiting to any implementing jurisdiction."
TransP1an, Chapter 3, Page 76. Thus, by its express terms, nodal development planning
and program action, and theses provisions are not binding. Equally as important is the
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 39
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
.
fact that the language cited by the opponents omits the phrase "outside nodes", The
entire provision provides:
"Review plan amendments and zone changes outside nodes to assure that they are
consistent with the nodal development strategy." Id
As Appendix A to TransP1an demonstrates, the property subject to this application is
identified as Potential Nodal Development Area 7B. Thus, not only is the provision cited
by the opponents non-binding on the City, the "requirement" to review zone changes for
consistency with nodal development applies to property outside nodes. Because the
subject property is within one of the identified potential nodes, this provision does not
apply. Further, as the Nodal Development Implementation Process portion of TransP1an
explains, "[p]roperty owners and developers are encouraged to consider following nodal
development guidelines when developing or redeveloping parcels in these identified
areas." Consequently, the City Council finds that there is no obligation to review this
application for consistency with the nodal development strategy nor is there any other
obligation on the applicant to follow the nodal development guidelines. As a result, the
City Council expressly rejects the "suggestions" offered by Mr. Zako in his January 27,
2005 letter (page 5). TransP1an, the TPR and Goal 12 include no requirement to review
the proposal for consistency with the nodal development elements of TransP1an as
suggested by Mr. Zako and other opponents.
.
In addition to the findings set forth in response to the applicable approval criteria, the
City Council has imposed a number of conditions of approval regarding certain
exemptions from the standards of SDC Articles 40 and 41 (mixed use and nodal), In
imposing those conditions and granting certain exemptions as allowed by GRP
Residential Implementation Action 13,6, the City Council made extensive findings
regarding the applicability of and compliance with the nodal standards of the SDC
Article 41. These conditions are intended to ensure that should the City elect to apply the
nodal overlay to the subject property, that nodal development will not be precluded due
to the City's approval of the Master Plan, The discussion, findings and conditions of
approval therein further demonstrate that the Master Plan does, or with the imposition of
conditions and granted waivers, will meet the applicable provisions of Article 40 and will
not preclude the eventual adoption of the nodal overlay.
F. Housing Density
.
1000 Friends of Oregon and the Goal 1 Coalition both argue that the proposed density for
the MDR area south of the hospital site, on approximately 7.4 acres exceeds the density
of MDR zone. Assisted living facilities, which are planned for this area, are considered
"congregate care facilities" or "group care homes" under the SDC. Congregate care
facilities and assisted living facilities are factored into the housing demand in the Metro
Plan and RLS. As explained in the SDC, however, congregate care facilities are not
multi-family units for purposes of calculating density. In fact, other than the LDR zone,
which allows up to 24 beds in a congregate care facility per developable acre (as opposed
to 10 traditional dwelling units per acre), neither the MDR nor the HDR contains such a
bed/density restriction. Thus, for purposes of calculating density for the assisted living
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 40
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
portions, the City does not equate beds per acre with dwelling units per acre. Although
the SDC does not contain an express limit on beds per acre in an assisted living facility in
the MDR zone, using the 24 beds per acre standard for the LDR zone (which only allows
10 dwelling units per acre) as a guideline, it is not be- unreasonable to allow up to 48 beds
per developable acre in the MDR zone. There is evidence in the record that city staff has
interpreted the SDC in this manner and the City Council adopts that interpretation. The
PeaceHea1th proposal falls well below this density, and is approximately within the
middle of the range of allowable residential densities for assisted living facilities within
the MDR zoning district.
.
, G. Statewide Planning Goals
The City Council finds that the Statewide Planning Goals do not apply to either the
Master Plan or Zone Change applications. Therefore, the City's approval of the Master
Plan and the Zone Change applications is not contingent upon their consistency with the
Statewide Planning Goals, As set forth below, however, the City has adopted findings
demonstrating that both applications are, in fact, consistent with the goals, Although the
City Council expressly finds that the goals do not apply, because certain parties have
alleged that the proposals violate certain goals, or have referenced certain goals in their
testimony, the City has adopted the goal fmdings in the event that an appellate body
determines that the goals do in fact apply to either or both proposals.
1. Master Plan
For the following reasons, the City Council fmds that the goals do not apply to the Master
Plan proposal. The approval criteria for Master Plan are set forth in SDC 37.040, which
provides:
.
A Master Plan may be approved if the Planning Commission finds
that the proposal conforms with all of the following criteria, In the
event of a conflict with criteria in this subsection, the more specific
requirements shall apply_
(1) The zoning of the property is consistent with the Metro Plan
diagram and/or applicable refinement plan diagram;
(2) The request as conditioned conforms to the applicable
Springfield Development Code requirements, Metro Plan policies,
functional or refmement plan policies, applicable state statutes and
administrative rules,
3) Proposed on-site and off-site public and private improvements
are sufficient to accommodate the proposed phased development
and any capacity requirements of public facilities plans; and
provisions are made to assure construction of off-site
improvements in conjunction with a schedule of the phasing,
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 41
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
.
(4) The request provides adequate guidance for the design and
coordination of future phases;
(5) Inventoried natural resources, wetlands, open space areas,
archaeo10gic and historic features are evaluated and considered
consistent with the Oregon Administrative Rule procedure for
Statewide Planning Goa15, and
(6) Local public facilities plans and local street plans will not be
adversely impacted by the proposed development.
.
Because SDC 37,040 does not require that the Master Plan be measured for compliance
with the goals, the City Council finds that the goals are not applicable approval criteria
for the Master Plan. In other provisions of the SDC, where the goals apply directly to an
application, the SDC expressly provides that they apply by explicitly referencing the
goals. For example, in approving an amendment to the Metro Plan, SDC 7,070(3)
requires that the amendment "be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission[.]" Similarly, in
approving amendments to refinement plans, the SDC 8.030 requires that such
amendments demonstrate conformance with "[a]pp1icab1e State-wide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules," Although no party has argued that the reference in the Master
Plan approval criteria to "administrative rules" requires that Master Plans be measured
against the goals, the City Council fmds that this reference is not intended to require a
showing of conformance to the goals, Where there is such an obligation, that
requirement is expressly stated. Because there is no such express statement, the City
Council concludes that there is no local requirement to measure the Master Plan against
the goals.
ORS 197.175(2)(d) provides that where local governments' comprehensive plans and
land use regulations have been acknowledged, local governments must "make land use
decisions and limited land use decisions in compliance with the acknowledged plan and
land use regulations," The Metro Plan and the SDC have both been acknowledged.
Similarly, the Metro Plan and GRP amendments that form the basis for the Master Plan
have likewise been acknowledged pursuant to ORS 197,625(1)(a), Consequently, no
findings regarding goal compliance are necessary. The City Council acknowledges that
the notice to DLCD indicated that certain goals applied to the proposal. At the time that
notice to DLCD was prepared the recent amendments to the Metro Plan and the GRP had
not yet been acknowledged. Consequently, under ORS 197,625(3)(b), the City would
have been required to adopt goal findings had the amendments not been acknowledged,
Because, however, the amendments are now acknowledged, ORS 197.625(3)(b) no
longer applies and goal findings are no longer necessary,
2. Zone Change Request
The criteria for zone change applications are set forth in SDC 12.030, which provides:
.
(1) Consistency with the Metro Plan Text and Diagram;
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 42
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
(2) Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, special area,
studies and functional plans; and
(3) That the property can be served by the orderly and efficient
extension key urban facilities and services as prescribed in the
Metro Plan prior to or in conjunction with development.
By the express terms of SDC 12,030, the City is not required to demonstrate that the zone
change request is consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals, In addition to the City's
findings above regarding ORS 197.625 and ORS 197.175(2)(d), which are expressly
incorporated herein, under ORS 197,835(7)(b), findings demonstrating compliance with
the goals are only necessary if the Metro Plan does not contain specific policies or other
provisions which provide the basis for the amendment to the land use regulation which,
in this case, is an amendment to the zoning map. Thus, because the City Council finds
that there are express policies in the Metro Plan and GRP that address the zone change
from MDR to MS and MUC, there is no need to adopt findings demonstrating
consistency with the goals. In particular, the following policies provide the basis for the
amendment of the zoning map from MDR to MS and MUC: Metro Plan Transportation
Element, Policy F.1, GRP Residential Element, Policy 12.0, Implementation
Actions 12.1, 12.5, 12.6, GRP Commercial Element, Policy 5, Implementation
Action 5.1, Springfield Commercial Lands Study, Policy I-B, 3-A, Implementation
Strategy I-B(2).
For the reasons set forth above, the City Council finds that the goals do not apply to
either the Master Plan or Zone Change request. As stated above, the City adopts the
following findings regarding, the goals in the alternative to the extent that an appellate
body determines that the goals apply to either or both requests,
GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
The City has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and an acknowledged
process for securing citizen input on all proposed plan amendments. Generally, Goal 1
requires every city and county to develop and implement a citizen involvement program.
As LUBA has recognized, Goal 1 does not provide due process protections, nor does it
dictate the conduct of local government hearings. Dobson v, Polk County, 22 Or LUBA '
701 (1992). Rather, the manner in which local government hearings are conducted and
the procedural requirements for such hearings are governed by statute, (See ORS
Chapter 227). Where notice of a hearing has been provided and public testimony
considered, LUBA has found no Goal 1 violation. Chambers v. Josephine County, 13 Or
LUBA 180 (1985), '
The Metro Plan contains a citizen involvement program satisfying Goal 1. Metro Plan at
III-K-l to III-K-4. The City has complied with these provisions of the Metro Plan, and
more specifically, it complied with the notice and hearings provisions set forth in the
SDC, which implements the Metro Plan. Neither proposal before the City affect the
Citizen Involvement element of the Metro Plan, the procedural provisions of the SDC or
Goa11 itself. Accordingly, the proposals are consistent with Goa1l.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 43
3/21/05
. .
. .
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING
.
Goal 2 requires that local comprehensive plans be consistent with the Goals, that local
comprehensive plans be internally consistent, and that implementing ordinances be
consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans. Goal 2 also requires that land use
decisions be coordinated with affected jurisdictions and that they be supported by an
adequate factual base.
The SDC provides the sole criteria for both the Zone Change and Master Plan approval.
Because neither proposal amends either the GRP or the Metro Plan, the approval of both
proposals does not affect the internal consistency of the Metro Plan or the GRP. As
discussed elsewhere, the Zone Change approval is consistent with the recent amendments
to the Metro Plan and the GRP, thus the City's zoning ordinance and map remain
consistent with the Metro Plan and the GRP text and map. Consistency with the GRP
and the Metro plan also demonstrates these proposals have an adequate factual base.
Pursuant to the requirements of the SDC, the City sent the required notices to affected
jurisdictions, agencies and service providers.
.
1000 Friends of Oregon has suggested that the zone change request does not comply with
Goal 2, specifically referencing Goal 2, Guideline E(2), because "no assertion has been
made that changes the basic assumptions of the [Metro] Plan necessitate special review
and amendment of the Metro Plan as proposed." As a starting point, Guideline E(2) is
just that, a guideline, Second, neither request amends the Metro Plan as suggested by
1000 Friends. Even if Guideline E(2) were applicable, the recent amendments to the
Metro Plan and the GRP specifically call for the rezoning of the subject property to MUC
and MS. Consequently, those amendments serve as the factual base for the zone change
request.
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS
This goal is inapplicable because it applies only to "rural" agricultural lands and the
subject property is within an acknowledged urban growth boundary, OAR 660-15-000(3),
GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS
Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries. OAR 660-06-0020. The subject
property is inside an acknowledged urban growth boundary. Goal 4 is therefore
inapplicable.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL
RESOURCES
Goal 5 requires local governments to protect a variety of open space, scenic, historic, and
natural resource values. Goal 5 and its implementing rule, OAR Ch. 660, Division 16,
require planning jurisdictions, at acknowledgment and as a part of periodic review, to:
.
(1)
identify such resources; ,
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 44
3/21/05
/. . .,
EXHIBIT A
(2)
(3)
to determine their quality, quantity, and location;
.
to identify conflicting uses;
(4) to examine the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE)
consequences that could result from allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the conflicting
uses; and
(5) to develop programs to resolve the conflicts,
The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has not completed its Goal 5 process, therefore
no part of the subject property site is on an acknowledged Metro Plan Goal 5 inventory.
Consequently, neither proposal has any impact to Goal 5 resources, Although the City
has identified certain natural resources on the subject property (but which are not on arI
official inventory), the property is currently mapped on the Metro Plan and zoning maps
for residential development, and based upon the recently approved Plan amendments, up
to 99 acres of non-residential development. Therefore, because the existing zoning
already allows development on the property consistent with applicable City development
standards and because the new map designations similarly allow development consistent
with the proposed zone changes, Master Plan, and the City's development standards, there
CarI be no greater impact to Goal 5 resources that may be present on the subject property.
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
The purpose of Goal 6 is to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land
resources of the state. Generally, Goal 6 requires that development comply with
applicable state and federal air arid water quality standards. In the context of these two
proposals, Goal 6 requires that the applicant demonstrate that it is reasonable to expect
that applicable state and federal environmental quality standards can be met. Applicable
state arid federal requirements regarding air, water arid land resources are either
implemented through the standards adopted by the SDC and applicable development
standards, or imposed and enforced by state or federal agencies. Given that the subject
property is currently zoned for medium density residential development, it is reasonable
to expect that the incremental increase in development allowable through this proposal
will be able to comply with applicable state and federal environmental quality standards.
In addition, the findings above regarding compliance with applicable development
starIdards demonstrate that the Master Plan has, or will through future development
applications, meet
.
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
Goal 7 requires that development subject to damage or that could result in loss of life not
be planned or located in known areas of natural hazards and disasters without appropriate
safeguards. The goal also requires that plans be based on an inventory of known areas of
natural disaster and hazards, No part of the subject property site contains steep slopes,
consequently these [mdings do not discuss issues related to steep slopes or landslides,
With respect to steep slopes and landslides, the proposals are consistent with Goal 7.
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 45
3/21/05
.
.
.
r
. ,",
EXHIBIT A
The underlying property is zoned for medium density residential use and has been
planned for development for many years. Based upon the recently adopted Metro Plan
map amendment and Gateway Refinement Plan map and text amendments, 43,1 acres
will receive MUC zoning and 43.9 will receive MS zoning. The Metro Plan amendments
adopting the currently designated MDR portions of the site complied with Goal 7 and
were acknowledged by DLCD as complying with Goal 7, If fact, LUBA rejected a
Goal 7 challenge raised by opponents in the first PAPA appeal to LUBA. Because the
zone map amendments merely implement previously approved plan designations found to
be consistent with Goal 7, the proposals are consistent with Goal 7. Additionally, the
fmdings adopted above in response to flooding, channel migration and seismic hazards
, above are specifically incorprated herein to further demonstrate compliance with Goal 7.
Goal 7 is implemented by Springfield Development Code Article 27. Approval of
development within the Master Plan area will be subject to SDC Article 27 floodplain
development standards that will ensure that any development is elevated to avoid or
mitigate flood damage. In its review of an earlier version of the Metro Plan and Gateway
Refinement Plan amendments, LUBA found that the requirement that any development
within the floodplain must comply with SDC Article 27 was sufficient to survive a
challenge to the plan amendments based on Goal 7. Approval of the Master Plan does
not approve development. Development means "any human made change to improved or
unimproved real estate." (SDC 2,020), No change may occur to the property within the
Master Plan area without a subsequent site plan approval or grading permit, either of
which w,ou1d require review under the City's Article 27 floodplain standards.
GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS
Goal 8 requires local governments to plan and provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities to "satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors." Responsible governmental agencies must plan to meet these needs (1) in
coordination with private enterprise; (2) in appropriate proportions; and (3) in such
quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of the resources to
meet such requirements." OAR 660-015-000(8)
Advisory guidelines for meeting Goal 8 encourage planners to give priority in meeting
such needs "to areas, facilities and uses that
"(a) meet recreational needs requirements for high density population centers,
"(b) meet recreational needs of persons oflimited mobility and fmances,
"(c) meet recreational needs requirements while providing the maximum
conservation of energy both in the transportation of persons tot he facility or area and in
the recreational use itself,
"(d) minimize environmental degradation,
"(e) are available to the public at nominal cost, and
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 46
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
"(f) meet needs of visitors to the state."
The GRP is acknowledged as being in compliance with Goal 8. The GRP indicates no
proposed park or school is planned to be located on the Gateway MDR site, although the
recently adopted Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan identifies
potential future park land. A park needs assessment was prepared by the applicant
demonstrating that there is ample land on-site available to meet the park and recreational
needs of future residents.
The Willama1ane Comprehensive Plan, the Springfield Bicycle Plan and TransP1an depict
an alignment for a future multi-use pathway throughout the Gateway MDR site and along
the McKenzie River, TransP1an and the Springfield Bicycle Plan show the pathway
traversing the site from Game Farm Road south to Deadmond Ferry Road on the north,
The Willama1ane Comprehensive Plan shows a connection to the east along the
McKenzie River to points upstream.
The future multi-use path will provide a connection within this area and to adjacent areas,
as well as recreational use within the site. During the analysis of all future land use
decisions, GRP policies will be applied to the decision in the analysis of the pathway
alignment and for the potential for other open space recreational needs. Because the
approved proposals do not alter or any way affect the City's Goal 8 resources or
otherwise affect the ability of the City to apply its Goal 8 implementing standards, these
proposals are consistent with Goa18.
GOAL 9 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Goal 9 requires the City to provide adequate opportunities for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of the citizens. The City's Goal 9
analysis for this site was completed through the Metro Plan and GRP amendment
process. In adopting the amendments to the Metro Plan and the GRP, the City found that
the amendments were consistent with both Goal 9 and the City's Metro Plan provisions
implementing Goal 9, As a result, the City amended the Metro Plan diagram and GRP
diagram to include up to 99 acres of CC and MU mapped property within the Gateway
MDR site.
These proposals implement that decision and apply the MUC zoning to a portion of the
MDR site, consistent with the previously approved amendments and, therefore, Goal 9.
Moreover, the City is not required to engage in any economic opportunities analysis
described in Goal 9's implementing rules because 1) the previously approved
amendments were consistent with Goal 9, and 2) such fmdings are only required when a
post acknowledgement plan amendment changes map designations of more than 2 acres
of commercial or industrial property. In this case, the City is amending the zoning map,
not the plan map. Consequently, no further Goal 9 analysis is required and these
proposals are consistent with Goal 9. Additionally, when the City approved the recent
Metro Plan and GRP amendments, the City also amended the Springfield Commercial
Lands Study to expressly provide for the redesignation and rezoning to commercial of up
to 99 acres within the Gateway MDR site. The City's decision to rezone the MS and
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 47
3/21/05
,', .
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
.
MUC is thus entirely consistent with the recent amendments to the SCLS, Because the
SCLS was adopted to respond to the City's Goal 9-related obligations and because the
City's decision to rezone the property is consistent with the SCLS, the City's decision is
necessarily consistent with Goal 9,
GOAL 10 - HOUSING
LCDC's Housing goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for
needed housing as follows:
"Goal: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state, "
"Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges
and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon
households and allow for the flexibility of housing location, type, and density. "
.
The 1999 Eugene-Springfield Residential Land and Housing Study (RLS), adopted by the
Metro jurisdictions and recognized by DLCD, contains a technical analysis which assigns
density to the buildable portions of the area subject to the plan amendments, Portions of
the RLS, including the demarId arid supply figures, have been adopted as part of the
Metro Plan (III-A-3). As the recently adopted PAPA demonstrated, notwithstanding the
Metro Plan map amendment, the amendment designating 99 acres as commercial still left
the City with a surplus of buildable land as required by Goal 10. The zone map
amendment approved simply implements the recent PAPA and is therefore consistent
with the PAPA as well as Goa110.
If the subject property were to develop under the current MDR designation and GRP
policies, staff would review the RLS study to ensure that any residential development
would achieve the minimum density assigned to the properties in the RLS, Residential
Implementation Action 12.6 requires a similar type of analysis to take place at the master
plan level. The policy provides: "the adopted master plan shall demonstrate that the site
will be able to accommodate the number of housing units within the range for the MDR
land use designation in the Metro Plan and the GRP". This language ensured that the
same number of dwelling units that could be constructed under the existing MDR
designation and zoning will be realized arid therefore ensures comp1iarIce with Goal 1 O.
The City's findings herein have demonstrated that the app1icarIt has met the requirements
of Implementation Action 12.6.
.
The RLS concludes that the area has 828 acres of MDR designated land with a demand of
589 acres, leaving a surplus of 239 acres, This surplus is set forth in the acknowledged
Metro Plan, The report also concluded that the area has a surplus of 3,646 MDR
designated units through the planning horizon, The recently approved Metro Plan and
GRP diagram Amendments redesignated approximately 50 acres from MDR to MU, and
44 acres from MDR to CC, leaving a surplus of 148.2 acres ofMDR-designated property.
Because the approved zone change implements the map amendment and retains the same
surplus, the proposal is consistent with the recent PAPA and Goal 10.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 48
3/21/05
. .
.'
EXHIBIT A
There is testimony in the record arguing that the proposals violate Goal 10. In the first
challenge to LUBA, LUBA rejected a Goal 10 challenge and found that the PAPA
complied with Goa110. The primary basis for LUBA's affirmation was the fact that the
RLS demonstrates that there is a surplus of 239 acres of MDR-designated land and that
even upon removal of 99 acres from the inventory, there would still be a surplus of
MDR-designated land.
.
The City is obligated to rely on its acknowledged buildable land inventory set forth in the
RLS and Metro Plan, Although it is possible that the RLS does not reflect the current
MDR inventory due to intervening development, as LUBA recognized, the City is
entitled to rely on the acknowledged inventory in the RLS. Indeed, as the Court of
Appeals has'stated, under Goal 2's consistency requirement, the City is required to rely
on its acknowledged inventory as reflected in the RLS and Metro Plan. In DS Parklane
Development, Inc. v. Metro, 165 Or App 1 (2000), the Court of Appeals held that, when
considering the appropriate amount of land to be brought within the Metro UGB, Metro
was obligated under Goal 2 to base its computation of need on Metro's acknowledged
functional plan and other applicable planning documents. Thus, unless and until the City
amends the RLS or the Metro Plan, the City is obligated to utilize the acknowledged
inventory when considering whether the current proposal is consistent with Goal 10 and
the Goal 10-re1ated provisions of the Metro Plan.
Residential Implementation Action 12.6 requires that any master plan for the Gateway
MDR site demonstrate that the assigned number of dwelling units for this site are
preserved. This ensures that the proposal will not cause a reduction in the estimated
housing inventory for the Metro area ensures that these amendments are in compliance
with this policy. As the Master Plan findings demonstrate, the applicant has met the
requirements of Implementation Action 12.6.
.
GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
This goal requires the provision of a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public
facilities and services. Prior to annexation of the subject property to the City, the
property owner and the City entered into several annexation agreements that prohibit
development on the properties until an adequate level of urban services are extended to
serve the property, These urban services are listed in the annexation agreements, and
include but are not limited to, sanitary sewers, solid waste management, water service,
fire and emergency medical service, police protection, parks and recreation programs,
electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, public schools, paved streets
and storm water controls.
The annexation agreements also require that a master plan be approved prior to
development. This requirement mirrors the policy requirement contained within the
amended GRP Residential Implementation Action 13,0. Master plan criteria of
approval 3 (37,040) requires a demonstration the proposed on-:site and off-site public and
private improvements are sufficient to accommodate the proposed phased development
and capacity requirements of the Public Facilities Plan. As these fmdings demonstrate,
the applicant has met this Master Plan approval standard, The restrictions on
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 49
3/21/05
. .
, .
EXHIBIT A
.
development contained within the annexation agreements for property, coupled with the
approved master plan criteria ensure compliance with Goal 11.
GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION
Goal 12 requires the City to plan and provide for "a safe, convenient, and economic
transportation system," Goal 12 is satisfied by establishing that development under the
proposed plan and zoning designations will either (1) be served by a safe and adequate
transportation system currently in place or planned to be in place in time to handle
expected impacts, or (2) will not create substantially greater or different transportation
demands and impacts than development under the existing acknowledged designations.
The City adopted extensive findings regargding compliance with Goal 12 in connection
with the Metro Plan and GRP amendments, An extensive traffic anlaysis was prepared
with the Plan amendments that demonstrates limitations on uses, project phasing, and
significant infrastructure improvements with unprecedented financial commitment by
PeaceHealth" Several conditions of the Plan amendment approvals require construction
and funding of transportation facilities to ensure that the amendments and future
development would be consistent with Goal 12. Because the zoning map amendments
sought implement the map designations applied through the Metro Plan and GRP
amendments, these amendments are necessarily consistent with Goa112,
GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION
.
Goal 13 is a general planning goal and provides limited guidance for site specific zone
map amendments or master plans, However, the availability of a large employer in
proximity to a retail and residential node and centered around a transit station as
evisioned by newly adopted Residential Implementation Action 13,6, and as approved
through the master plan will provide transportation options that will serve to reduce
energy consumption. Any future development on the subject property allowed under the
MUC and MS zoning will be subject to applicable energy efficiency requirements
established by building codes and as may apply through applicable provisions of the
SDC.
Goal 13's Planning Guidelines in AA call for land use planning to "combine increasing
density gradients along high capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater energy
efficiency." The approve Master Plan will enable the development of a hospital within
the Gateway MDR site, as well as the potential for implementation of nodal development
objectives with a mix of residential, medical office, general office, and appropriately
scaled supporting services proximate to the hospital. Placing this dynamic mix of uses
within convenient walking distance on a high capacity transit corridor implements the
guidelines in Goal13 to enable efficient arrangement of uses and conserve energy.
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION
Goal 14 requires local jurisdictions: "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition
from rural to urban land use." The Gateway MDR site is within the Metro Area UGB,
. within the city limits of Springfield, and within the fully-developed and served urbanized
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 50
3/21/05
EXHIBIT A
area of the community. The approved zoning map amendment and master plan facilitate
efficient use of the site for urban uses, thereby facilitating the compact urban growth
form which is the subject ofthe LCDC's Urbanization goal.
.
GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY
This goal is inapplicable because the Gateway MDR site is not within the boundaries of
the Willamette River Greenway,
GOALS 16-19 - COASTAL GOALS
These goals are inapplicable to this proposal.
.
.
Zone Change Findings
ZON2005-0002
PAGE 51
3/21/05
POINT OF
BEGINING
UUC TRACT
Exhibit B
.
.
"""""""""
"""""""""
""""""""'"
""""""""""
"""""""""'"
"""""""""'"
"""""""""""
""""""""""'"
""""""""""""
""""""""""""
"""""""""""'"
""'~""""""""""
""""""""""""'" """"'"
""""""""""""""""""""
"""""'~"""""""""""""'"
"""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""'~"""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""'"
""""""""""""""""""'" ~~~
"""""""""""""""""'" ~
""""""""""""""""" ~~
"""""""MS""""""""" ~~
""""""" ,""""""'"
""""""""""""""" ~
"""""""""""""'" ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' ~&
""""""""""""" ~s
"""""""""""" ~~
"""""""""""
"""""""""""
"""""""""'"
"""""""""'"
""""""""""
""""""""""
""""""""""
""""""""""
""""""""""
""""""""""
""""""""""
""""""""'"
"""""""""
""""""""'"
""""""""" ~
"""""""'" ~
""""""""" #
"""""""'" ~
""""""""" R~ /
"""""""'" ~
"""""""""
"""""""""
"""""""'"
~""""""""
""""""'"
"""""""
~"""""'"
SCALE: 1'=400'
.
I1I'fI"D Consulting Engineers
~ m s.w. Rtth A~ SIite 2500 PorlIard. OR 972D4-3628
(503) 227-3251 Fax (503) 227-798()
Porlllllld Seattle Los A/llltl1es $11II Fl'IIIICIsco $11II Diego Phoenbt
RIVERBEND SITE
MASTER PLAN
ZONING EXHIBIT
MARCH 1 B, 2005
1140MP-ZONE-EXH
.
.
.
<II. ~ ."~
Exhibit B
Legal Description
For
Mixed Use Commercial Tract (MUC)
RiverBend Master Plan Zoning
Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
March 18,2005
A tract ofland located in the northeast quarter of Section 22, Township 17 South, Range 3 West,
Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon being a portion of that certain tract of land conveyed
to PeaceHea1th, a Washington non-profit corporation, described in the Statutory Warranty Deed
recorded December 31, 2001 under Reception No, 2001-088572, Lane County Deed Records
and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 17-03-22, Lane County Tax
Records; thence coincident with the south line of said Tax Lot 600 South 88013'23" East 347,59
feet to the southeast corner of said Tax Lot 600; thence coincident with the east line of said Tax
Lot 600 North 01056'33" East 65.02 feet to the southeast corner of Tax Lot 500; thence
coincident with the east line of said Tax Lot 500 North 01054'03" East 156,20 feet to the
northwest corner of Tax Lot 300; thence coincident with the north line of said Tax Lot 300 South
88013'23" East 308.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Tax Lot 300; thence coincident with
the east line of said Tax Lot 300 South 24056'24" East 654.70 feet to the southwest corner of
Tax Lot 100; thence coincident with the south line of said Tax Lot 1000 South 88016'40" East
325.77 feet to the beginning of a 886.00-foot radius non-tangent curve concave westerly, from
which point the radius point bears South 89058'33" West; thence southerly 343.23 feet along the
arc of said curve through a central angle of 22011 '45", with a long chord of South 11004'26"
West 341.08 feet; thence South 22010'18" West 354.03 feet to the beginning of a 664.00-foot
radius curve concave easterly, from which point the radius point bears South 67049'42" East;
thence southerly 255.22 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 22001 '22",
with a long chord of South 11009'37" West 253,65 feet; thence South 00008'56" West 23049
feet; thence South 02039'31" East 61.25 feet; thence South 00008'56" West 17,12 feet to the
beginning of a 649,OO-foot radius curve concave westerly, from which point the radius point
bears North 89051 '04" West; thence southerly 99.95 feet along the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 08049'26", with a long chord of South 04033'39" West 99,85 feet; thence South
08058'22" West 138.95 feet; thence South 11046'37" West 61.32 feet; thence South 08058'22"
West 277.38 feet to the beginning of a 456,OO-foot radius curve concave northwesterly, from
which point the radius point bears North 81001 '38" West; thence southwesterly 329,62 feet
along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 41024'58", with a long chord of South
29040'51" West 322049 feet; thence North 33043'23" West 75048 feet to the beginning of a
381.00-foot radius non-tangent curve concave northerly, from which point the radius point bears
North 40046'32" West; thence southwesterly 316.91 feet along the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 47039'27", with a long chord of South 73003' 12" West 307.85 feet; thence
North 83007'05" West 7.93 feet; thence North 37052'28" West 34.63 feet; thence South
06052'00" West 156,58 feet to the beginning of a 1055,50-foot radius non-tangent curve concave
easterly, from which point the radius point bears South 85033'33" East; thence southerly 145,14
feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 07052'44", with a long chord of South
RiverBend Master Plan Zoning
C:IDocurnents and Settingslstep3444lLocal SettingslTernporary Internet FileslOLK51MUC031805,doc
March 18,2005
Page 1012
.
.
.
, .
-
Exhibit B
00030'05" West 145.03 feet to the beginning of a 763.00-foot radius non-tangent curve concave
easterly, from which point the radius point bears North 89027'46" East; thence southerly 144,65
feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 10051 '43", with a long chord of South
05058'05" East 144043 feet; thence South 11055'32" East 28.13 feet to a point on the south line
of said PeaceHealth tract; thence coincident with the southerly and westerly lines of said tract the
following seventeen (17) courses and distances:
1) North 88010'40" West 24046 feet to a point on a 985.04-foot radius non-tangent curve
concave southwesterly, from which point the radius point bears South 69008'11" West;
thence
2) northwesterly 330041 feet along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 19013'08",
with a long chord of North 30028'23" West 328.87 feet; thence
3) North 40004'57" West 229,02 feet to a point on the east right-of-way line of Game Farm
Road (County Road No.3);
4) North 01049'36" West 123.21 feet; thence
5) North 87039'55" West 5.01 feet; thence
6) North 01049'36" West 415,58 feet; thence
7) South 88018'32" East 5,01 feet; thence
8) North 01049'36" West 746.71 feet; thence
9) North 01007'36" West 28.16 feet; thence
10) South 88016'40 East 427.60 feet; thence
11) North 02006' 16" West 411.60 feet; thence
12) North 88016'40" West 425,58 feet; thence
13) North 0 1 007' 36" West 110.62 feet; thence
14) North 02024'36" West 320.77 feet; thence
15) South 87034'37" East 5.02 feet; thence
16) North 02024'36" West 122.68 feet to the Point of Beginning,
EXCEPTING THEREFROM
Those certain tracts of land conveyed to the City of Springfield in Bargain and Sale Deed
recorded June 13,2003 as Document No. 2003-053912 and Bargain and Sale Deed recorded
January 11,2005 as Document No. 2005-002303, Lane County Deed Records.
Containing 1,879,512 square feet (43.15 acres), more or less
The basis of bearings for this description is the bearing between the found monuments marking
the northeast and northwest corners of the William M, Stevens Donation Land Claim No. 46,
being North 880 16' 40" West, Oregon State Plane Coordinate System (South Zone),
End of description.
RiverBend Master Plan Zoning
C:\Documents and Seltingslstep3444\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK5\MUC031805.doc
March 18, 2005
Page 2 of 2
'. .
.
.
.
. !t..
Exhibit B
Legal Description
For
Medical Services Tract (MS)
RiverBend Master Plan Zoning
Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
March 18, 2005
A tract of 1arId located in the northeast quarter of Section 22 and the northwest quarter of Section
23, Township 17 South, Range 3 West, Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon being a
portion of that certain tract of land conveyed to PeaceHealth, a Washington non-profit
corporation, described in the Statutory Warranty Deed recorded December 31, 2001 under
Reception No, 2001-088572, Lane County Deed Records and being more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 17-03-22, Lane County Tax
Records; thence coincident with the east line of said Tax Lot 1000 South 24052'35" East 110049
feet; thence South 22050'51" East 198,19 feet; thence South 22042'29" East 186.71 feet; thence
North 67017'31" East 287,37 feet to the beginning of a 645.00-foot radius curve concave
northwesterly, from which point the radius point bears North 22042'29" West; thence
northeasterly 122.50 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 10052'54", with a
long chord of North 61051 '04" East 122,31 feet; thence South 22042'29" East 335,09 feet to a
point on the northwesterly boundary line of the Riparian Area as shown on Sheet G1.5 of the
PeaceHealth-RiverBend Campus Subdivision Tentative Plans dated March 2005; thence in a
southwesterly direction 2064 feet, more or less along said Riparian Area Boundary to a point
which bears South 39041 '58" West 1936,58 feet; thence North 88010'40" West 466.94 feet;
thence North 33043 '23" West 272045 feet to the beginning of a 456.00-foot radius non-tangent
curve concave northwesterly, from which point the radius point bears North 39036'40" West;
thence northeasterly 329,62 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 41 024'58",
with a long chord of North 29040'51" East 322049 feet; thence North 08058'22" East 277.38 feet;
thence North 11046'37" East 61.32 feet; thence North 08058'22" East 138.95 feet to the
beginning of a 649,OO-foot radius curve concave westerly, from which point the radius point
bears North 81001 '38" West; thence northerly 99.95 feet along the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 08049'26", with a long chord of North 04033'39" East 99,85 feet; thence North
00008'56" East 17,12 feet; thence North 02039'31" West 61.25 feet; thence North 00008'56"
East 23.49 feet to the beginning of a 664.00-foot radius curve concave easterly, from which point
the radius point bears South 89051 '04" East; thence northerly 255,22 feet along the arc of said
curve through a central angle of 22001 '22", with a long chord of North 11009'37" East 253.65
feet; thence North 22010'18" East 354.03 feet to the beginning ofa 886,OO-foot radius curve
concave westerly, from which point the radius point bears North 67049'42" West; thence
northerly 343.23 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of22011 '45", with a
long chord of North 11004 '26" East 341,08 feet to a point on the north line of said Tax Lot 1000;
thence coincident with said north line South 88016'40" East 666.92 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Containing 1,915,206 square feet (43.97 acres), more or less
RiverBend Master Plan Zoning
C:IDocurnents and Setlingslstep3444\Local SetlingslTernporary Internet FileslOLK51MS031805,doc
March 18, 2005
Page 1 of2
.
.
.
. ~ -'.
Exhibit B
The basis of bearings for this description is the bearing between the found monuments marking
the northeast and northwest corners of the William M. Stevens Donation Land Claim No. 46,
being North 880 16' 40" West, Oregon State Plane Coordinate System (South Zone),
End of description.
RiverBend Master Plan Zoning
C:\Docurnents and Settings\step3444\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK5\MS031805,doc
March 18,2005
Page 2 of 2