HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6109 01/10/2005
.
.
.
.<
ORDINANCE NO. 610Q
(EMERGENCY)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GATEWAY REFINENEMENT PLAN BY
CHANGING APPROXIMATELY 99 ACRES OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PLAN DESIGNATION TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE PLAN
DESIGNATION AT THE GA TEW A Y MDR SITE AND AMENDING THE GA TEW A Y
REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT TO ALLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS WITH MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL SERVICES ZONING DISTRICTS; TO ALLOW FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A l;IOSPITAL, ASSOCIATED MEDICAL, OFFICE, RETAIL
AND RESIDENTIAL USES; TO PRESERVE THE POTENTIAL FOR NODAL
DEVELOPMENT; TO REQUIRE A MASTER PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
A. Article 8 ofthe Springfield Development Code sets forth criteria for refinement plan
diagram and text amendments.
B. On April 21, 2003 The Springfield City Council approved Gateway Refinement Plan
amendments by adopting ordinance 6051.
C. The April 21, 2003 Gateway Refinement Plan amendments were appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals and to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
D. On August 19,2004 the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded the Gateway
Refinement Plan amendments to the city for additional findings in respect to Statewide
Planning Goal 9 (Economic Development), Goal 12 (Transportation) and, as instructed
by the Court of Appeals, consistency with Metro Plan policies regarding auxiliary uses
in the residential designations.
Eo Subsequent to the LUBA remand, the Springfield City Council reopened the record on
Metro Plan diagram amendment, Journal Number 2002-08-243 and Gateway
Refinement Plan amendment, Journal Number 2002-08-244 and initiated amendments
to the Springfield Development Code, Journal Number LRP2004-0020 and Springfield
Commercial Lands Study, Journal Number LRP2004-0021.
F. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 14.030 of the
Springfield Development Code was provided.
G. On November 16,2004 a public hearing on the Gateway Refinement Plan amendment
was convened and concluded. The record ofthe proceedings was left open for seven
days followed by a seven day period of all participants to submit rebuttal. The
applicant was given two additional days for rebuttal. The Development Services staff
notes, including criteria of approval, findings, and recommendations, together with the
testimony and submittals ofthose persons testifying at the hearing or in writing, have
been considered and are part of the record of the proceeding.
Page 1 of 13
1/10/05
, .
.
H. On December 9,2004 the Springfield Planning Commission voted five in favor, one
opposed and one abstaining to forward a recommendation that the City Council
approve the Gateway Refinement Plan amendments with conditions.
I. On January 10, 2005, the Springfield City Council reopened the pubic hearing to accept
oral argument and deliberate. The City Council voted 5 in favor, 1
opposed and 0 abstaining to approve the Gateway Refinement Plan
ordinance and declaring an emergency.
J. Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto as Exhibit B that the
'proposal meets the requirements of Article 8 of the Springfield Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Gateway Refinement Plan is hereby amended to reflect the text
changes depicted in Exhibit B; the Gateway Refinement Plan diagram is hereby amended to
reflect the changes approved by the Council in the concurrent Metro Plan Diagram
amendment. .
Section 2: The above findings (A through 1), and the findings set forth in Exhibit C
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted in support of the
Gateway Refinement Plan amendments.
.
Section 3: This Ordinance replaces Ordinance 6051, adopted by the City Council
on April 21, 2003.
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 ofthis Ordinance.
Section 5: This Gateway Refinement Plan amendment is subject to the conditions of
approval attached hereto in Exhibit A.
Section 6: It is hereby found and determined that this Gateway Refinement Plan
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.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of 5
for and ---L against and 0 abstaining on this 10th day of January, <;., 5.
REVIEWED & APPROVED
A FO '
Attest:
.
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
Page 2 of 13
1/10/05
.
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Gateway Refinement Plan Approval
(Jo.No.'s 2002-08-244)
CONDITION 1:
Master Plans for property at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site that propose to
employ the Mixed Use Commercial District (MUC) and/or the Medical Services
District (MS) shall include a vehicle trip monitoring plan as a component of a
complete application submittal. The approval of the plan shall be a requirement of
Master Plan approval.
Trip generation estimates used to create the trip monitoring plan shall be performed
using assumptions and methods which are consistent with those employed in the
traffic impact analysis submitted to the City of Springfield on October 29, 2004 in
support of Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan amendment applications (City
Journal Numbers 2002-08-243 & 2002-08-244)
.
Traffic generated by land uses within Master Plan boundaries where the MS and
MUC zoning districts are proposed in Phase 1 of the development shall, prior to,
2010, be limited to a maximum of 1,457 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips. Beginning in
2010 for Phase 2 of the development, such traffic shall be limited to 1,840 PM Peak
Hour vehicle trips. PM Peak Hour vehicle trips are defined as the total of entering
plus exiting trips measured for the PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic.
Subsequent Site Plan Review applications for sites within the Master Plan
boundaries shall be in compliance with the approved trip monitoring plan.
Any proposal that would increase the number of allowable PM Peak-Hour vehicle
trips for the MS and MUC area beyond the above specified limits shall be processed
as a refinement plan amendment or a zoning map amendment or Master Plan
approval pursuant to SDC 37.040 or Master Plan modification pursuant to SDC
37.040 and 37.060(3) and regardless of which type of process is sought, each shall
demonstrate compliance with applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning
Rule for such proposal.
CONDITION 2:
.
Prior to occupancy of the first phase of any hospit~llocated at the Gateway MDR
site as approved by a future Master Plan, a portion of TransPlan project 727
(chapter 3, page 31, Dec 2001 adopted version and as adopted by City of Springfield
Ordinance No. 5990, dated September 17, 2001) shall be constructed by the
applicant. The portion of the project to be constructed by the applicant is
conceptually described as roadway and traffic signal improvements at the Pioneer
Parkway/OR-126 Eastbound Ramps to:
Page 3 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
1. Maintain two southbound through lanes on Pioneer Parkway at the OR 126
eastbound ramp terminal intersection;
2. Provide two southbound left turn lanes on Pioneer Parkway at the OR 126
eastbound ramp terminal intersection;
3. Widen the eastbound on ramp to provide two lanes to accept the two
eastbound turn lanes described above in Number 2. These two on ramp
lanes will merge to one lane prior to merging with OR 126 traffic eastbound.
4. Widen the eastbound OR 126 off ramp to three lanes for a minimum distance
of 300 feet west of Pioneer Parkway; and
5. Any necessary signal modifications to accommodate Numbers 1-4 above.
The funding for these improvements shall come from.PeaceHealth's financial
responsibility for off-site transportation improvements as described in the
annexation agreement dated June 4, 2002, Lane County Recorder's number 2002-
043161, between the applicant and the CIty of Springfield. To the extent that these
funds are determined to be insufficient to perform the above described
improvements, the applicant shall be responsible for the additional funding needed.
..
Any subsequent Master Plan application for property at the Gateway MDR site that
proposes to apply the MS and/or MUC zoning district shall include specific design
drawings for the above described improvements, which shall be submitted to ODOT
for approval. ODOT approval of the proposed design shall be a condition of Master
Plan approval.
CONDITION 3
The master plan required by Residential Element Policy 13.0, by the Annexation
Agreement dated May 29th, 2002, Recorder's Reception No. 2002-043161, Lane
County Deeds and Records and by the Annexation Agreement dated June 7, 2001,
Recorder's Reception No. 2001-034714, Lane County Deeds and Records for
property owned byPeaceHealth, a Washington non.:.profit corporation, on the date
of Council approval of plan amendments 2002-08":243 and 2002-08.:.244 shall include
a hospital as a component of the master plan.
Further, the hospital and other master plan development on the property referenced
in this condition shall be phased as follows:
.
No uses will occur before 2008. Phase 1 will occur between 2008 and 2010 and is
limited to uses generating no more than 1,457 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips. Phase 2
will open no earlier than 2010 and/or following construction of the Gateway
. Street/Beltline Road intersection improvements and will be limited to uses
generating no more than 1,840 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips for all development on
properties redesignated by this ordinance. These phases may occur earlier if needed
transportation facilities are in place or if required mobility standards are lowered,
provided mobility standards are maintained.
Page 4 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
CONDITION 4
In the event that a master plan with a hospital fails to gain approval by the City
Council by May 29, 2007 the City Council will initiate amendments to the Metro
Plan and the Gateway Refinement Plan to revise the documents to adequately plan
for development of the Gateway MDR site without a hospital. . .
CONDITION 5
Prior to occupancy of the first phase of any hospital located at the Gateway MDR .
site as approved by a future Master Plan, the applicant shall construct a portion of
the Beltline Road/Gateway Street Intersection project, which is a component of
TransPlan Project 606 (chapter 3, page 16, July 2002 adopted version). The portion
of the project to be constructed by the applicant is a traffic signal at the Beltline
Road /Hutton Road intersection.
CONDITION 6
Development on property at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site where the MS and/or
MUC zoning district are applied shall be subject to the following condition:
.
Any Subdivision or Site Plan Review application approval that relies upon
transp~rtation facility improvements to support the subject development shall be in
compliance with an approved Master Plan. If the subject transportation
improvements are not open to travel by the motoring public at the time they are
needed to support the Subdivision or Site Plan Review development, the approval
shall be subject to the enforcement and revocation proceedings of Springfield
Development Code 1.050(1) and (2).
.
Page 5 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
EXHffiIT B
Gateway Refinement Plan Text Amendments
(Jo.No.'s 2002-08-244)
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 2:
Ensure availability of adequate supplies of land appropriate
for low-, medium-, and high-density residential development,
MaiDtaiD approximately the existiBg balaDee amoDg LDR ,
l\IDR aDd HDR desigDated laDds, eODsisteDt with l\fetro PlaD
alloeatioDs while allowine: for an appropriate mix of
commercial. employment and residential uses.
Amend Residential Element Policy and\Implementation Action 12.0:
.
Allow limited rezoning of land within the "McKenzie-Gateway
MDR site" to Medical Services ("MS") on land desie:nated
Community Commercial or Mixed Use on the Metro Plan
diae:ram. and rezonine: to Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC") on
land desie:nated Mixed Use on the Metro Plan diae:ram as
implemented durine: a Master Plan and or durine: the City's
nodal implementation proiect. Deighborhood eommereial, iD
order to promote reteDtioD aDd rehabilitatioD of historie
properties that may otherwise beeome DOB eODformiDg uses, to
promote limited publie or semi publie aeeess to aDd view of the
l\feKeB:Zie River, aDd to allow far provisioD of seFViees
speeifieally iDteDded to meet Deeds of future resideDts iD this
Mea.
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 12.1:
RezoDiDg to NC will be allowed f-ar up to 3 aeres (Total) ofvaeaDt
laDd withiD the MeKeB:Zie Cateway l\IDR Site UDder the followiDg
provisioDs:
a) The property requested for rezoDiDg shall froDt OD a eolleetor
or arterial that is either existiDg or plaDDed iB aD adopted CDP
for the NleKeDzie Cateway MDR Site, or that eurreBtly
borders the site.
b) Proposed ZODe ehaDges shall be reviewed UDder a Type III
proeedure iB aeeordaDee with },.rtiele 3 of the SDC aDd shall be
eODsisteDt with all provisioDs of SDC },.rtiele 12 ZODiDg Distriet
aDd Overlay District ChaDges.
.
Page 6 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
e) This type of re-zoDing shall Dot be approved uDtil at least 25
pereeDt of the aDtieipated dwelliDg uDits are eODstrueted
(based OD aD average of 15 dwelliBg UDitS per aere).
Redesie:nation of a total of 99 acres land within the city limits
at the McKenzie/Gateway MDR site to Community
Commercial and/or Mixed Use throue:h the Metro Plan
amendment process shall be allowed and shall be implemented
by application of Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC") or Medical
Services ("MS") zonine: district throue:h Master Plan approval
and/or durine: the City's nodal implementation proiect.
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 12.4:
.
NC uses loeated withiD the MeKeDZie Cateway l\IDR Site shall meet
the following provisioDs iD additioD to the provisioDs of SDC f,.rtiele
Mf
a) The maximum floor area of aDY siBgle NC use shall Dot exeeed
4,000 square feet;
b) ParkiDg areas shall Dot be visible from the l\feKeDZie River
eorridor aDd shall be sereeDed from puhlie streets iD a maDDer whieh
does Dot obseure visibility of the use; aDd,
e) Puhlie aeeess to the l\feKeDZie River shall be provided by NC
uses abuttiDg the ripariaD setbaek.
In addition to all applicable standards and provisions ree:ulatine:
development in Sprine:field. any development adiacent to the
McKenzie River or McKenzie River riparian setback shall provide
public access to the McKenzie River or McKenzie River riparian
setback. Surface parkine: areas shall not be visible from the
McKenzie River corridor and shall be screened from public streets.
Add new Residential Element Policy and Implementation ActionI2.5:
MU districts within the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site shall
meet the provisions of SDC Article 40.
Add new Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 12.6:
.
Within the city limits at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR
Subarea. the Medical Services ("MS") zonine: district shall
implement the Community Commercial desie:nation if part of
an approved Master Plan for development of a maior medical
facility. The adopted Master Plan shall demonstrate that the
subiect property will be able to accommodate the number of
housine: units within the rane:e for the MDR land use
desie:nation in the Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan.
Page 7 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
e
.
e.
In addition to meetine: 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
includine: but not limited to buildine: heie:ht and setbacks.
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.0:
A CDP or Master Plan shall be approved,_under a Type_II-IV
review process, for the areas lare:er than 5 acres within the city
limits at mapped as the "McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site" on
the Refinement Plan diagram, subsequent to annexation and
prior to aDDexatioD aDd urban development of any portion of
the-site Master Plan area.
Delete 13.1 Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.1:
The CitJT shall begiD preparatioD of a CDP by JaDuary 1, 1992, and
shall appro\'e a CDP DO later thaD JUl)T 1, 1993. ID the iDterim, a CDP
m&)' be submitted by the initial developer of a POrtiOD of the site. A
CitJT iDitiated CDP shall iDvolve iBput from the affeeted property
owners, aDt appropriate publie ageDeies.
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.2:
The CDP shall be prepared by aD engiDeer, aDd ODe of the
fallowiDg: aD arehiteet, laDdseape arehiteet or plaDDiDg
professioDal.
A Master Plan for the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site shall be
prepared by a desie:n team that shall include. as determined by
the Director. the followine: consultants: architect. landscape
architect. civil ene:ineer. e:eotechnical ene:ineer. acoustic
ene:ineer. certified arborist. transportation ene:ineer and a
consultant to address riparian issues.
Amend GRP Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.3:
Page 8 of 13
1/10/05
All development within the McKenzie Gateway MDR Site,
shall be consistent with ail approved bDP-Master Plan. AD
approved CDP may be modified by the iDitial developer, a
subsequeDt developer, or the City, UDder a Type II review
proeess.
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.4:
The CDP In addition to the requirements of SDC Article 37.
the Master Plan shall address, at a minimum, the following
development issues:
a) Preservation and enhancement of natural assets identified in
this Refinement Plan;
b) Access and circulation needs;
c) Access to arterial and collector streets;
d) Provision of public facilities and services;
e) Development needs of future users;
1) LoeatioD of areas larger thaD ODe aere proposed for auxiliary
uses, iBeludiDg Deighborhood eommereial;
fg) Provision of open space areas; and
gll) Public access to the McKenzie River.
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.5:
.
;4,.pplieatioDs for the iDitial CDP or for substaDtial modifieatioDs to aD
approved CDP In addition to the requirements of SDC Article 37. the
initial Master Plan application in the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site
shall include a conceptual street map and bicycle and pedestrian
circulation system plan for all annexed property in the McKenzie-
Gateway MDR site and shall be exempt from the requirements of
Section 3.050(2)(b) of the SDC.
Delete Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.6:
The CDP shall be eODsisteDt with the goals aDd polieies of the l\fetro
PlaD aDd of this RefiDemeDt PlaD.
Add new Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.6:
.
Master Plan applications for property within the McKenzie-Gateway
MDR site submitted prior to the City's completion of nodal
development assessment and implementation shall identify all areas
within one-Quarter mile of proposed transit stations as beine: subiect
to the provisions of the Nodal Development Overlay District (INDO).
Any proposed uses. density and desie:n in the identified nodal
development area shall comply with the standards of Sprine:field
Development Code articles 40 and/or 41 with the followine: exception:
Uses in the MS and MUC Districts may be exempted from specific
provisions of Articles 40 and Articles 41 and residential and e:roup
care facilities in the MDR district may be exempted from specific
provisions of Article 41 if the respective exemptions are consistent
Page 9 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
..
with the Purpose of the Nodal Development Overlay District and the
exemptions are approved by the City Council as part of a master plan.
In the event that the City Council determines that nodal development
is appropriate for the identified nodal area. the property shall be re-
desie:nated to INDO and all subsequent land use applications shall
comply with INDO standards contained within articles 40 and/or 41.
except as exempted above. In the event that the City Council
determines that nodal development is inappropriate for areas
identified as such on the master plan. those areas shall be chane:ed
throue:h a Type II process to reflect the underlyine: MS or MUC
zonine: and any use. density or desie:n on the master plan that does not
comply to underlyine: zonine: desie:nation shall be chane:ed
accordine:ly. All subsequent land use applications shall comply with
the standards required in the underlyine: zonine: district.
Add new Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.7:
..
.
Page 10 of 13
1/10/05
Master Plans for property at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site that
propose to apply the MUC and/or MS zonine: district pursuant to
Residential Policies and Implementation Actions 12.1 and 12.6 shall
be subiect to the followine: requirements:
1. An approved trip mooitorine: plan shall be a requirement of
Master Plan approval. .
2. The trip monitorine: plan shall demonstrate compliance with all
conditions contained within applicable plan amendment adoption
ordinance(s). and trip-e:eneration estimates shall be performed
usine: assumptions and methods which are consistent with those
employed in the plan amendment traffic impact analysis.
3. Traffic e:enerated by land uses within the Master Plan boundaries
where the MS and MUC zonine: districts that are proposed in
Phase 1 of the Development shall. prior to 2010. be limited to a
maximum of 1.457 vehicle trips. Bee:innine:in 2010 for Phase 2 of
the Development. traffic e:enerated from site development within
the subiect districts shall be limited to 1.840 PM Peak-Hour
vehicle trips. Vehicle trips are defined as the total of enterine: plus
exitine: trip) as estimated or measured for the PM Peak Hour of
Adiacent Street Traffic. This trip monitorine: plan limits allowed
land uses to be consistent with the planned function. capacity and
performance standards of affected transportation facilities.
4. Subsequent Site Plan Review applications for sites within the
Master Plan boundaries shall be in compliance with the approved
trip monitorine: plan.
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
5. Any proposal that would increase the number of allowable PM
Peak-Hour vehicle trips for the MS and MUC area beyond the
limits specified in section 3 above shall be processed as a
refinement plan amendment. a zonine: map amendment or Master
Plan approval pursuant to SDC 37.040 or modification pursuant
to SDC 37.040 and 37.060(3) and ree:ardless of which type of
process is soue:ht. each shall demonstrate compliance with
applicable provisions of the Transportation Plannine: Rule for
such proposal.
Delete Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 14.0 through 14.8 (no
change since April 21, 2003 Council approval):
.
.-,
14.0 },. DeyelopmeDt ,A,.rea PlaD (DAP) shall be appro".'ed, UDder a
T:)'pe II reyiew proeess, prior to development approval for aDY
portioD of the area mapped as the "MeKeDZie Cateway l\IDR Site" on
the RefiDemeDt PlaD Diagram, and shall Dot be approved uDless it is
eODsisteDt with aD approyed CDP. The iDteDt of the DAP is to provide
resolutioD of sigaifieaDt developmeDt iss'ues at a seale aDd level of
speeifieity that are iDtermediate to the CDP aDd Site PlaD levels. All
DAP's shall eODf-arm to the followiDg requiremeDts:
14.1 DAP's shaD address the followiDg developmeDt issues, at a
miDimum:
a) Pro".'isioD of adequate eireulation f-ar the DevelopmeDt Area ,and
its adjoiDing properties, iDeludiDg dedieatioD of right of way for
future streets and pathways showD OD the approyed CDP;
b) Pro"lisioD of eoordiDated exteDsioD of publie faeilities to sen'e the
site aDd surrouDdiBg properties; aDd
e) IDeorporatioD, to the maximum exteDt praetieable, of Datural
assets identified iB this RefiDemeDt PlaD, aDd OD the approved CDP.
14.2 D}..P's shall in elude the followingiDformatioD, at a miDimum:
},.ll sigaifieaDt site features, iDeludiDg draiDageways, existiDg
vegetation, and other natural assets as identified iD this Refinement
:I!Iam
,
Proposed buildiDg footpriDts;
Proposed opeD spaees aDd laDdseaped areas;
EDgiDeering studies of aD:)' ideDtified Datural hazards, e.g., for
developmeDt withiD the 100 year floodplaiB; Proposed aeeess and
eireulatioD, iDeluding roads, drives, parkiDg areas, aDd bieyele aDd
pedestriaD pathways; aDd all other proposed laDd uses.
.
14.3 If the DAP eomplies with all Site PlaD Review staDdards of the
SDC, subsequeDt permitted uses that eODform to the D},.P shall Dot
require additioDal site plaD review. (This implemeDtatioD aetioD is
iDteDded to simplify the developmeDt approval proeess for large,
Page 11 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
phased developmeBts b)' allowiBg a suffieieBtly detailed DAP to meet
both DAP aBd Site PlaB requiremeBts.)
14.4 D}..P's shall be eOBsisteBt with the approved CDP, aBd
with the polieies of the ~fetro PlaB aBd of this RefiBemeBt
J!Iim.
14.5 Site PlaBs for portioBs of a development area shall
eOBf-arm with aB appr&".'ed DAP, provided, however, that
the DAP may be modified as permitted iB implemeBtatioB
aetioB 14.6.
14.6 SubstaBtial modifieatioBs ofDAP's shaD be reviewed
uBder Type II proeedure, iB aeeordaBee with }..rtiele 3 of the
SD{;.
14.7 The miBimum DevelopmeBt },.rea for MDR designated area shall
be 5 aeres.
14.8 The miBimum size for DevelopmeBt f,.reas may be
redueed, if approved by the Development SeFViees Direetor,
iB iBdividual iBstaBees where iBsuffieient vaeaBt laBd,
oWBership patterns, lot eOBfiguration, or abuttiBg existiBg
uses prohibit eOBsolidatioB of pareels to aehieve a 5 aere
DevelopmeBt Area.
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 15.1:
.
Development density may be transferred from natural assets
and recreational pathways identified in the Natural Assets,
Open Space/Scenic Areas, and Recreation Element, or from
proposed shared open spaces, to buildable portions of the
development area, provided that the gross density of the
development area does not exceed 20 dula, aBd the Bet deBsity
OB the buildable portioB does Bot eueed 25 dula the maximum
density permitted in the underlyine: zone.
Add new Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 19.0:
Density bonuses allowed under Residential Element
Implementation Actions 15.1 and 16.3 may be allowed
consistent with an approved Master Plan pursuant to SDC
Article 37 within the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site.
Amend Commercial Element Policy and Impleme~tation Action 5.0 (revised since April
21, 2003 Council approval):
.
Provide for future appropriately planned Mixed Use. Community
Commercial and nodal development desie:nated areas Beighborhood
eommereial developmeBt iB the M.edium DeBsity ResideBtial
development area east of Game Farm Road, within the City Limits at
Page 12 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site as identified in TransPlan as
potential nodal development sites.
Amend Commercial Element Policy and Implementation Action 5.1 :
No more thaB 3 aeres ofNC uses eaB be zOBed as part of the l\fedium
Density ResideBtial area. This rezoniBg shall Bot be approved uBtil at ,
least 25 pereeBt of the aBtieipated total dwelliBg uBits iB the area are
eOBstrueted. The Beighborhood eommereial area shall be sited iB a
loeatioB that presented the least traffie, Boise, aBd lighting eOBfliets
with adjaeeBt resideBtial uses. (properties iBveBtoried iB the Historie
Resourees ElemeBt as sigBifieaBtresourees may be rezoBed to NC aBd
are exempt from this provisioB.) Rezonine: 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 desie:nations.
Zone chane:es shall demonstrate the ability to meet the demand for
commercial lands identified in the Sprine:field Commercial Lands
Study (SCLS) policy I-B. Commercial uses allowed in zonine: districts
pursuant to GRP Policy 5.0 above shall be subiect to Master Plan
approval and shall be planned in a manner to minimize traffic. noise.
and lie:htine: conflicts with adiacent residential uses.
.
Amend Transportation Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.0:
Future transportation system development in the McKenzie-Gateway
Campus Industrial and the 180 acre MDR sites should occur as
needed in conjunction with CI and MDR, MUC and MS development.
Amend Public Facilities Element Policy and Implementation Action 2.2:
Require the consideration of the use of storm drainage facilities that
store and retain runoff in the McKenzie-Gateway Campus Industrial
site, and within the city limits in the proposed l\IDR area east of Came
Farm Road South McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site. Require the
consideration of the use and enhancement of natural storm water
drainage features as part of the overall storm water systems in those
areas.
.
Page 13 of 13
1/10/05
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
.
.
.
Exhibit C
City of Springfield City Council
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Metro Plan Map and Gateway Refinement Plan Map and Text
Amendments
City Journal Numbers 2002-08-243 and 2002-08-244
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A. Procedural Background
On April 21, 2003, the City of Springfield City Council adopted Ordinance
6050 and Ordinance 6051 (the "Decisions" or "PAPA I"). Ordinance 6050 amended
the Metropolitan Area General Plan ("Metro Plan ") Diagram by re-designating up to
33 acres of land from Medium Density Residential ("MDR") to Community
Commercial ("CC") within the Springfield city limits at the Gateway MDR site1.
Ordinance 6051 amended the Gateway Refinement Plan ("GRP") Diagram and text to
allow, among other things, the Medical Services ("MS") zone to be applied to up to
66 acres ofMDR-designated land within the Gateway MDR site.
The Decisions were appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA
Nos. 2003-072, 2003-073, 2003-077 and 2003-078). LUBA remanded the Decisions
back to the City to allow the City to adopt additional findings with respect to
Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals") 9 and 12. LUBA's decision, in turn, was
appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. In its decision, the Court reversed in part
and affirmed in part, LUBA's decision. In particular, the Court affirmed LUBA's
decision with respect to the Goal 9 and Goal 12 issues. The Court, however, agreed
with the petitioners, Robin and John Jaqua, that the Metro Plan residential land
"auxiliary use" provisions would not allow the City to apply the MS zone to
MDR-designated property at the Gateway MDR site because, according to the Court,
the size and scope of the proposed hospital development would change the primary
. 1 Reference to the Gateway MDR site includes only the annexed property owned by
PeaceHealth and as depicted on Exhibit D. The entire Gateway MDR site is approximately 200 acres
in size. The City's decision in this matter only applies to approximately 157.4 acres of the Gateway
MDR site within the city limits as depicted in Exhibit D.
Page 1 of 123
1/10/05
use of the land from residential to commercial. Based on the Court's definition of
"auxiliary use" the Court concluded that the
.
kinds of uses contemplated by the challenged ordinances are not
permitted uses in an area designated for residential use. If the
city wishes to use the area in question for the commercially-
related uses authorized by the ordinances, it will have to
un~ertake a zone change or other change authorized by the
[Metro Plan]." Jaqua v. City of Springfield, 194 Or App 573
(2004).
The Court's and LUBA's decisions are in the record. Based on the Court's
decision, on August 19,2004, LUBA remanded the Decisions to the City. As
discussed in greater detail below, PeaceHealth has elected to revise the original
proposal to make certain additional GRP text amendments and to increase the amount
of commercially designated land from 33 acres to 44 acres. In particular, the revised
proposal will designate approximately 50 acres as Mixed Use ("MU"), and 44 acres as
CC on the Metro Plan and GRP diagrams. Consequently, instead of eventually
placing the MS zone on MDR-designated land, the amendments on remand will allow
the MS zoning to be placed on land designated CC and possibly MU on the Metro
Plan and GRP diagrams. Although the Metro Plan designations in this revised
proposal are larger than in the original proposal, the eventual zoning of the subject
property will be nearly identical as the original proposal. In the original proposal the
MS zoning was to be located on MDR-designated property. Through this revised
proposal, the eventual MS zoning will be located on a mixture ofMU- and CC-
designated property. This change responds to the Court's direction.
.
B. Summary of Request on Remand
1. Diagram Amendments
a) Description of Amendments
The Gateway MDR site is presently designated on the Metro Plan and GRP for
residential development. Of the 157 acres of the Gateway MDR site subject to this
approval, approximately 1.1 acres are designated for Low Density Residential
("LDR"), while the remaining 156 acres are desigriated MDR on both the Metro Plan
and GRP diagrams. The revised diagram amendments will result in the following
designations and allocations:
Metro Plan Desi nation
Acrea e
.
Page 2 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
Mixed Use
MU
Mixed Use Commercial
MUC/MS
49.5
Community Commercial
CC
Medical Services
MS
43.9
Medium Density
Residential
65.5
Low Density Residential
1.1
The location of the amended Metro Plan Diagram and potential future zoning
are attached as Exhibits C-l and C-2.
b) Explanation of Amendments
The Court of Appeals held that in order to utilize the Gateway MDR site for a
, hospital, which the Court characterized as a commercial use, the City would have to
re-designate the area from MDR to a commercial designation. The Court found that
even though the MS zoning regulations specifically allow the MS district to be
applied to MDR-designated lands, the Metro Plan's residential auxiliary use
, provisions would prevent the size and scope of the MS zoning on MDR-designated
land. In short, the Court held that if the City wants to use the Gateway MDR site for a
hospital and commercial uses, the Gateway MDR site must be re-designated as
commercial on the Metro Plan and GRP Diagrams. In accordance with the Court's
direction, PeaceHealth has modified the proposal such that the area slated for eventual
MS zoning will be applied to land designated CCon the Metro Plan diagram. In the
original proposal PeaceHealth sought to amend the Metro Plan Diagram to allow for
up to 33 acres ofCC designated land, with an eventual zoning designation ofMUC
and 66 acres ofMDR-designated land to be rezoned to MS. In the revised proposal
PeaceHealth seeks to amend the Metro Plan and GRP Diagrams to designate
approximately 50 acres as MU and approximately 44 acres as CC on both the Metro
Plan and GRP diagrams, with subsequent rezoning of approximately 50 acres as MUC
and 44 acres for MS.
2. Text Amendments
The revised proposal amends the text of the GRP. The proposed text
amendments are attached hereto.
Page3 of 123
1/10/05
II. PROCEDURE AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON REMAND
A. Scope of Proposal on Remand
.
As discussed above, LUBA remanded the Decisions to the City. Two bases for
the remand addressed only deficiencies in the City's findings: findings regarding
Goals 9 and 12. Revised findings addressing these Goals are included herein. The
third basis for remand was that portion of the Decisions that authorized rezoning of
the MDR designated property to the MS zone. This basis for remand directs the City
to modify the underlying plan designation to commercial before imposing the MS
zone. Nothing in either appellate decision prohibits the land uses proposed in the
, original proposal or otherwise determined that the MS zone was inappropriate for the
proposed hospital. On remand PeaceHealth seeks to revise the proposal to address the
issues identified in the Court and LUBA decisions. In practical effect, however, the
revised proposal is nearly identical to the original proposal. Upon ultimate
development of Peace Health's project, the development will still include a hospital,
mixed commercial uses and residential development. The proposed development will
be in the same general location as was originally envisioned. Indeed, the location of
the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses out shown on
PeaceHealth's Master Plan have not been modified. The D?ajor difference, however, is
how the underlying property is designated on the Metro Plan and GRP diagrams.
Both appellate bodies stated that in order to permit the proposed development on the
subject property, the City had to change the underlying plan designation of the
. property to a commercial designation from the existing MDR designation. This
proposal on remand responds directly to that portion of the Court's decision.
.
1. Reyised Map Amendments
The primary difference between the original proposal and the proposal on
remand is that instead of placing MS zoning on MDR-designated land, the MS zoning
will be applied to property designated CC and MU on the Metro Plan Diagram. This
action is consistent with the Court's direction to the City that if the City desires to use
the Gateway MDR site for hospital and mixed use commercial uses, the City will
have to re-designate such areas for commercial uses, rather than residential uses. The
MU Metro Plan designation is one that allows a variety of uses, including mixed
commercial and residential uses. The appropriate mix of uses is normally determined
through local refinement plans.
2. Remand Text Amendments
The remand proposal amends the text and map of the GRP. Neither the Court
nor LUBA concluded that the Decisions violated Goal 9. ,Rather, the Court and
LUBA held that the City did not adequately explain how the proposal complied with
.
Page 4 of 123
1/10/05
.
the SCLS. Specifically, LUBA held that the City's findings did not adequately
explain the differences between SCLS Implementation Strategies and SCLS Policies.
In particular, LUBA found that the City did not adequately explain and apparent
inconsistency between Implementation Strategy I-B(2) and SCLS Policy I (B).. The
map amendments on remand and the City's findings set forth herein further explain
the City's policy decision to allocate approximately 94 acres ofMDR-designated land
to CC and MU. A legislative action undertaken by the City as a corollary to the
changes set forth in this decision amends SCLS Implementation Strategy I-B(2) to
clarify that this proposal is an effective method of implementing SCLS Policy I-B.
3. Authority to Approye Reyised Proposal on Remand
.
Neither the SDC nor the Metro Plan provide any specific procedures or
guidelines as to how the City should process an application on remand. There is,
however, no prohibition on amending an application on remand. LUBA, in fact, has
upheld decisions that have involved substantial modifications on remand. The cases
addressing an applicant's ability to modify its application on remand from LUBA
generally hold that the local government has "substantial latitude" in determining
whether revisions to an application require treatment as a new application. See, e.g.,
Sullivan v. City of Woodburn, 33 Or LUBA 356 (1997). In that opinion, LUBA
concluded that "the city may, in the absence of a code prohibition or some other
obstacle identified by petitioner, find the modified proposal to be a continuation of the
original application." In this case the revisions proposed by PeaceHealth are directly
responsive to the issues raised by LUBA and the Court. In particular, both LUBA and
the Court were concerned with the underlying plan designation for the property
planned to become MS-zoned property. In response, the proposal has been modified
to re-designate portions of the property from MDR to CC and MU. Additionally,
interested parties have had the opportunity to provide written and oral testimony, the
right to rebuttal, and the right to make final arguments to the City Council, thus
assuring that their substantive rights have not been prejudiced. Section IV includes
the City's Findings regarding the specific issues raised by the parties participating in
this proceeding on remand. Finally, there is no express prohibition in the SDC
limiting the ability to revise a proposal application on remand. It is appropriate,
therefore, to process the revised proposal through the remand procedure.
.
The text amendments on remand and the City's findings are similarly designed
to respond directly to the concerns raised by the Court and LUBA with respect to
Goal 9 and Goal 12. As discussed above, neither the Court nor LUBA held that the
proposal constituted a de facto violation of Goal 9. Rather, both held that the City's
findings failed to adequately explain how the original proposal was consistent with
SCLS Implementation Strategy I-B(2) as a means to further SCLS Policy I-B.. The
revised amendments directly respond to this issue by providing additional findings,
Page 5 of 123
1/10/05
. ,
J
policy support and direction for the re-designation of property from MDR to CC and
MU. tt
B. Type of Metro Plan Amendment
, Amendments to th~ Metro Plan are classified as Type I or Type II
amendments, depending upon the specific changes sought through the amendment.
(at MetroPlan IV-2). The Court of Appeals determined that the PAPA I amendments
to the Metro Plan and GRP approved through the Decisions were' "site specific"
amendments appropriately decided under the single jurisdiction Metro Plan's Type II
amendment process. Consequently, the Court held that the Metro Plan did not require
that either the City of Eugene or Lane County approve the Decisions. As explained
below, the Metro Plan and GRP amendments on remand remain "site specific" and
relate to property solely within the City of Springfield. Accordingly, the current
proposal is properly characterized as Type II amendments that need only be approved
by the City of Springfield.
The Metro Plan defines Type II amendments as:
[A]ny change to the Plan diagram or Plan text that is site specific
and not,otherwise a Type I category'amendment.
With respect to each amendment, the amendments on remand remain Type II, site
specific amendments. In particular, individually and collectively; the amendments are
Type II site-specific amendments because they:
.
. Involve a specific geographically identifiable property;
. Do not change the Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary;
. Do not change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary;
. Do not require a goal exception;
. Do not include a non-site-specific amendment of the Metro
Plan text; and
. Apply only to property located within the Springfield City
limits.
Under the text of the Metro Plan, as well as the Court of Appeals and LUBA's
,decisions, the amendments on remand remain Type II site specific amendments.
, )
.
Page 6 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
1. Metro Plan Diagram and GRP Diagram Amendments
As with the original proposal, the Metro Plan Diagram amendments on remand
are site specific and relate only to property wholly within the City. Although the
amount of commercially-designated land has increased from 33 acres to
approximately 44 acres and now includes 50 acres of MU-designated land, the Metro
Plan amendment is solely a plan diagram amendment and applies only to property in
the Gateway MDR sub-area. As both LUBA and the Court found, by limiting the
diagram amendments to a specified geographic area, the diagram amendments are
"site specific" within the meaning ofthe Metro Plan. Because the location of the
current diagram amendments has not changed,' the diagram amendments remain
Type II "site specific" amendments.
2. GRP Text Amendments
Both LUBA and the Court found that original GRP text amendments were
Type II "site specific" text amendments. The primary reason for this conclusion was
that the text amendments applied solely to a specified geographic area entirely within
the City, that is, the Gateway MDR area described on Exhibit A. Although the GRP'
text amendments have been modified slightly to reflect the modified proposal and the
issues identified by LUBA and the Court, the modifications do not alter the fact that
the GRP text amendments apply solely to an identifiable geographic area entirely
within the City of Springfield city limits. For the reasons that both LUBA and the
Court found the original GRP text amendments to be Type II site specific
amendments, the current proposal remains a Type II, site specific amendment.
3. Regional Impact
Type II amendments entirely within the boundary of the City of Springfield
must only be approved by the City. (Metro Plan IV, Policy 5(d)). If the amendments
have a "Regional Impact," the non-home city, in this case, the City of Eugene, "may
participate in the decision." The City of Eugene has been notified of the proposed
amendments and it has not made affirmative findings that the amendments will cause
a Regional Impact. In fact, the City of Eugene has provided no testimony or evidence
on remand, nor did it provide any testimony or evidence during the course of the
original proceeding. Consequently, the City of Eugene is not required to participate
in the decision. '
Page 7 of 123
1/10/05
"
III. RESPONSE TO APPROVAL CRITERIA
.
A. Applicable Standards and Criteria
1. Metro Plan Amendments
Type II Metro Plan amendments are evaluated according to the criteria of
approval contained within SDC 7.070(3), which provides:
The following criteria shall be applied by the City Council in
approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application:
(I) The amendment must be consistent with the
relevant Statewide planning goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission;
. and .
(2) Adoption of the amendment must not make, the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
2. Refinement Plan Amendments
Refinement plan amendments are subject to the,criteria contained in SDC
8.030 which provides, in part:
.
In reaching a decision. .. the Planning Commission and the City
Council shall adopt findings which demonstrate conformance to
the following:
(1) The Metro Plan;
(2) Applicable State statutes;
(3) Applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules.
B. Statewide Planning Goals '
Because the criteria of approval for both the Metro Plan amendments and the
GRPamendments require compliance with Statewide Planning Goals, the following
findings address compliance of all the Metro Plan Diagram and GRP amendments
with the Statewide Planning Goals. In some instances, certain Metro and GRP
amendments are discussed individually with respect to a certain goal. In other
.
Page 8 of 123
1/10/05
.
instances the findings relate to all of the amendments. Where individual amendments
are not referenced, the findings relate to all the proposed amendments.
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.
During the initial proceedings, the City provided a greater opportunity for citizens to
participate in the decision than is required under the SDC by holding a de novo
hearing before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. On remand, the
City held a joint public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City
Council. The joint hearing was held on November 16, 2004. During the initial
hearing interested parties were allowed to testify in person and proVide written
testimony and evidence. The record was then left open for a seven-day period to
November 23,2004, to allow all participants to provide additional written testimony
and evidence. The record remained open for an additional seven-day period to
November 30,2004, to allow all parties the opportunity to submit rebuttal testimony.
PeaceHealth was then provided an additional two-day period in which to provide final
rebuttal testimony. After the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposal on remand, the City Council held a public hearing on January 9,2005. At
the final City Council hearing, interested parties were provided a final opportunity to
. provide argument to the City Council.
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. PolkCounty, 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 Cqunty, 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. The City continued to comply with these provisions throughout the
remand proceeding. The amendments on remand do not affect the Citizen
Involvement element of the Metro Plan. Accordingly, the amendments do not violate
Goal 1. Similarly, because the City adhered to the Citizen Involvement Element of
the Metro Plan throughout the remand process, the City's procedure in reviewing the
amendments on remand is consistent with Goal I. Section IV of these Findings
includes additional findings regarding Goal I compliance in response to testimony
provided by interested parties.
.
Page 9 of 123
1/10/05
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING
.
Goal 2 requires that local comprehensive plans be consistent with the Goals,
that local comprehensive plans be internally consistent, ahd that implementing
ordinance~ 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 Metro Plan and the SDC, as well as the Statewide Planning Goals and
applicable statutes, provide policies and criteria for the evaluation of comprehensive
plan amendments. Compliance with these measures assures an adequate factual base
for approval of the amendments. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the
amendments are consistent with the Metro Plan and the Goals. Consequently, by
demonstrating such compliance, the amendments satisfy the consistency element of
Goal 2.
ORS 197.610 requires-theCity to forward a notice of proposed Metro Plan and
refinement plan amendments to Department of Land Conservation and Development
at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. Notice was 'provided
to DLCD on June 30, 2004. The first evidentiary .hearing was held on Noverpber 16,
2004. Revised notices were sent to DLCD on September 2,2004. Under Goal2, the
City is not required to accorrimodate all of the concerns of interested governmental
agencies, but the City must respond in its findings to the legitimate concerns of .
affected agencies. In the PAPA I proceeding LUBA concluded that the City's
responses to affected governmental agencies satisfied Goal 2. Neither the City of
Eugene nor Lane County have provided any testimony or other evidence regarding the
proposal on remand, although they were both provided with notice of proposal on
remand.
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 bo~ndary.
OAR 660-15-000(3).
GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS
Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries. OAR 660-06-0020.
The areas affected by these plan amendments are inside an acknowledged urban
growth boundary. Goal 4 is therefore inapplicable.
.
Page 10 of 123
1/10/05
'-
.
.
.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS,
NATURAL RESOURCES
Goal S requires local governments to protect a variety of open space, scenic,
historic, and natural resource values. Goal S 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:
(2) to determine their quality, quantity, and location:
(3) to identify,conflicting uses:
(4) to examine the economic, social, environmental, and
energy (ESEE) consequences that could result from allowing,
limiting, or prohibiting ~he conflicting uses, and
(S) to develop programs to resolve the conflicts.
Other than the fir grove located on the subject property, no part of the Gateway
MDR site is on an acknowledged Metro Plan GoalS inventory. No threatened or
endangered species have been inventoried on the site. No archeological or significant
historical inventoried resources are located on the site. There are areas of prominent
vegetation and a wetland area on the properties subject to these amendments. While
these natural assets have not been adopted into an acknowledgedGoalS inventory,
they are inventoried in the GRP. The criteria of approval for master plans that will
apply to development on the site upon approval of these applications requires that
"Inventoried natural resources, wetlands, open space areas, archaeology and historic
features are evaluated and considered consistent with the Oregon Administrative Rule
procedure for Statewide Planning Goal 5." This policy ensures development
permitted by these plan amendments will be consistent with Goal S. The master plan
review will ensure implementation.
The subject property has been planned and zoned for intensive urban
development and use since the Metro Plan and implementing ordinances were
acknowledged in,1982. Under the Metro Plan, inventoried GoalS resources on sites
designated for urban residential, industrial, and commercial are protected by a
program to achieve the goal that limits such development by the application of
, protective standards at the time of review of specific development applications where
Goal S resources have been identified. The current amendments do not alter this
acknowledged program to achieve 'the goal.
Page J 1 ofI23
1/10/05
--'
The Environmental Resources Element of the Metro Plan implements Goals S,
6, and 7 and ,is implemented in turn by the City's land use regulations. Objective 2 .
requires the integration of open space and natural features into the design of urban
development. Policies 1, 2, and 4 require consideration of downstream impacts of
development, prohibit development in the floodway if it increases flood levels, and
require site specific soils and geological studies where potential problems exist.
Policies 18 and 19 restrict development in wetlands areas. Policy 20 encourages local
governments to regulate development in such a manner as to better control drainage,
erosion, storm runoff and to reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems.
These policies are fully implemented by the City's adopted and acknowledged
standards and procedures for the subdivision and development of land within the City. ,
While there are slight differences between the revised amendments and those
approved through the Decisions, for purposes of a Goal S analysis, there is no
substantive difference between the two versions of the amendments. In particular,
there are no differences between the versions that would implicate Goal S. Because
no party challenged the amendments' consistency with Goal S in the earlier ,
proceeding before LUBA or the Court of Appeals, the participants in this remand,
proceeding cannot now challenge the amendments' consistency with GoalS.
Section IV of these Findings include additional Goal S-related findings in response to
the specific issues raised during the remand process.
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 and water quality standards. In the context of a
PAP A, 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 and federal requirements regarding air, water and 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.
Because the proposal does not authorize any specific de,:elopment at this time, there
can be no direct impact to air, water or land resources. In fact, pursuant to the GRP
text amendments, no hospital or commercial development may occur until after,
master plan approval. During that phase of the project the potential impacts of the
development will be known. When development occurs on the subject Property, all
such development must necessarily comply with local, state and federal regulations
protecting air, water and land resources. 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.
.
Page 12 of 123
1/10/05
"_
.
.
.
While there are slight differences between the amendments on remand and
those approved through the Decisions, for purposes of a Goal 6 analysis, there are no
substantive differences between the PAPAl and the amendments on remand that
implicate Goal 6. Because no party challenged the amendments' consistency with
Goal 6 in the earlier proceeding before LUBA or the Court of Appeals, the
participants in this remand proceeding cannot now challenge the amendments' ,
consistency with Goal 6. Section IV of these Findings include additional Goal 6-
related findings adopted in response to testimony presented to the City.
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 contains steep slopes. Before LUBA, opponents argued that the amendments
did not comply with Goal 7, raising a number of objections. LUBArejected the
opponents' arguments with respect to Goal 7 and held that the Decisions were
consistent with Goal 7. As discussed elsewhere, although there are variations ,
between the amendments on remand and the PAP A I amendments, for purposes of
. Goal 7, there are no substantive or practical differences. The amendments do not
affect any additional geographic area, nor is any specific develop~ent is proposed.
Consequently, for purposes 'of Goa1'7, there is no substantive change between the
amendments on remand and the PAPAl approved amendments, the current proposal
remains consistent with Goal 7. Notwithstanding LUBA's earlier rejection of Goal 7-
, related challenges, opponents have again raised Goal 7-related challenges. The '
findings in Section IV address these issues.
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,
Page 13 of 123
1110/05
..>
"(b) meet recreational needs of persons oflimited mobility and
fin~ces, ,
.-
"(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 '
"(f) meet needs of visitors to the state."
The GRP indicates no proposed public park located within the Gateway MDR
site. The Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, the Springfield
Bicycle Plan and TransPlan depict an alignment for a future multi-use pathway
throughout the site and along the McKenzie River. TransPlan, the Willamalane Park
and Recreation Comprehensive Planand the Springfield Bicycle Plan show the
pathway traversing the site from Game Farm Rd. South to Deadmond Ferry Road on
the north. Gateway Refinement Plan Map 1, Natural Assets, shows two areas of
"Other Prominent Vegetation", the maple and fir groves, and a wetland area listed as
MRSS SiteS16.
During the PAPAl proceeding, in response to public testimony regarding - .
access to the McKenzie River, GRP Residential Implementation Action 12.4 was
amended to require that any development adjacent to the McKenzie River must
provide public access to the river. The amendments on remand have not revised this
implementation action.
The future multi-use path will provide a connection within this area and to
adjacent areas, as well as recreational use within the site. The alignment and ultimate
function of the pathway will be fully analyzed by the City and Willamalane during the
master plan and site plan review stages of site development. During the analysis of
these future land use decisions the following 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:
Natural Assets, Open Space/Scenic Areas and Recreation Element
1.5 (GRP at 34) "The City and Willamalane shall work together to promote
and enable recreational and educational use of the McKenzie river-side and floodway
in ways that are sensitive to the natural resource values and private property uses in
the area. " ~
.
Page 14 of 123
1/10/05
. .
.
.
.
2.2 "The City of Springfield and Willamalane shall cooperatively evaluate 1)
the potential of the McKenzie River floodway area to help meet long-term open spate
and recreation needs; and 2) the feasibility and desirability of acquiring and/or
preserving the floodway area for those purposes... "
7.1 (GRP page 37) "through the site plan review process, require wetland
delineation of the possible wetland at Game Farm & Beltline (NRSS Site 16) prior to
development approval. "
8.4 (GRP page 37) "Through the site plan review process, the City shall
encourage reasC}nable retention of existing trees, paying particular attention to those
inventoried in this Element as prominent and plentiful vegetation. "
9.6 (GRP page 38) "The City and Willamalane shall seek easements for
bikewaylpathways along the McKenzie River riparian corridor, as identified in
Willamalane's 1980 Comprehensive Plan and its 1990 draft PROS plan."
None of these refinement plan policies will be altered by the proposed
amendments.
The existing planned extensions of multi-use paths, the existing policies of the'
Gateway Refinement Plan relating to preservation of natural resources and provision
of open space, and proposed GRP Residential Implementation Action 12.4 will ensure
the City's and Willamalane's ability to adequately meet the recreational requirements
of Goal 8 during the review of any development that these plan amendments will
, permit.
Although there are variations between the current revised proposal and the
earlier amendments, for purposes of Goal 8, there are no substantive or practical
differences between the current amendments and those approved by the City through
the Decisions. The current amendments do not affect any additional geographic area
and have no impact on the City's earlier Goal 8 findings. Consequently, because there
is no substantive difference between the proposed amendments and the earlier
approved amendments for purposes of Goal 8, the current proposal remains consistent
with Goal 8. Finally, no party challenged the earlier decisions' compliance with
Goal 8. Because there are no substantive differences between the present proposal
and the earlier proposal with respect to Goal 8, no party may now challenge the
proposal's consistency with Goal 8.
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.
Page 15 of 123
1/10/05
..
The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendments, when implemented through
the approved master plan, will increase the City's capacity for economic development .
by adding approximately 50 acres ofMU and 44 acres ofCC in place of the existing
MDR designations. The underlying plan designations will be implemented through
MUC and MS zoning on the MU plan designation and MS zoning on the CC plan
designation. Both zones will facilitate a nodal overlay. The redesignation and
eventual rezoning to MUC and MS will permit ri1Ultiple economic activities that
,cannot now take place on the subject property's MDR designation, including a robust
mix of commercial uses and health services.
Under the Decisions, the City approved a 33-acre redesignation from MDR to
CC, with an eventual zoning of MUC. On appeal, LUBA held that the City's findings
did not demonstrate that the Decisions were consistent with SCLS Implementation
Strategy I-B(2) pecause that strategy calls for the rezoning of 10-15 acres within the
Gateway MDR site. Consequently, LUBA found that the Decisions were not
consistent with Goal 9's administrative rules that, among other things, require local
jurisdictions to demonstrate compliance with local Goal 9-related elements of local ,
comprehensive plans.
1. Background on SCLS
Goal 9 requires that during periodic review, local jurisdictions adopt provisions
in their comprehensive plan to comply with the requirements of Goal '9. .
OAR 660-009-0010(2). During the City's most recent periodic review the City
undertook a city-wide commercial lands study as required by Metro Plan Economic
Element Policy 32 and LDCD. The City did so and adopted the SCLS, which has
been acknowledged as being in compliance with Goal 9. Although the SCLS did not
amend the Metro Plan, the SCLS is intended to guide the City with respectto
commercial development. In adopting the SCLS, the City expressly reserved the right
to utilize additional strategies in meeting the commercial needs of the City. One of
the primary conclusions set forth in the SCLS is that there is a deficit of commercially
zoned land within the City. The SCLS explains that 255 acres of commercial land
will be needed to the year 2015, and, most importantly, the SCLS identifies a deficit"
of 158.acres of commercially zoned land within the City. The SCLS contains
findings, policies and implementation measures which are designed "to help provide a
,greater supply of developable commercial land" in the City. Thus, the primary ,
conclusion in the SCLS is that there is an identified deficit of 158 acres of commercial
land within the City. The current proposal, which redesignates a total of
approximately 94 acres to MU and CC is consistent with the need to address the
defiCit identified in the SCLS. OAR 660-009-0010(4) generally requires that when a
local jurisdiction changes comprehensive plan designations in excess of two acres to
or from commercial, it must demonstrate that such change is consistent with the parts
.
Page 16 of 123.
1/10/05
.
of its comprehensive plan which address the requirements of Goal 9. The Metro Plan
MU designation is not technically a "commercial" designation. Rather, the MU plan
designation is an independent designation much like the Airport Reserve, Forest
Lands and Agricultural Metro Plan designation. However, because the MU-
designated land will ultimately have the MUC zone applied it, the City has included
the 50-acre MU area for purposes of the City's Goal 9 analysis.
a) Releyant Findings in SCLS
.
The primary conclusion of the SCLS is that "there is a shortage of suitable
commercial siteswithinthe Springfield UGH to meet the long-term demand for
commercial land, as'indicated by the vacant commercial land inventory and the
demand analysis [set forth in the SCLS]". Similarly, the demand analysis conclusion
in the SCLS states that the "City is faced with a difficult situation: There are not
enough commercial sites to facilitate quality commercial development, or the future
demand for commercial land, and expanding the UGB is not a feasible option to
achieve more commercial acreage." SCLS at 31. In order to address this "difficult .
situation" the SCLS recognizes that "to implement some of the policies to achieve
better commercial development, certain policies from specific refinement plails may
have to be amended or deleted. The SCLS recommends several amendments to the
various Refinement Plans." The implementation strategies identified in the SCLS are
tools that the City can utilize to implement the policies of the SCLS. Moreover, as
discussed above, the resolution adopting the SCLS provides that the City may utilize
additional mechanisms to meet the commercial needs of the City.
The.SCLS describes the findings, policies, and implementation strategies, as
follows:
Afinding is a factual statement resulting from investigation,
analysis, or observation.
A policy is a statement adopted to provide a consistent course of
action, moving the community towards attainment of its goals.
.
An implementation strategy is a specific course of action the City
can take to accomplish the objective of the policy.
Together, the findings, policies and implementation strategies establish a factual base
of existing supply and demand for commercial land and offer recommendations of
specific strategies the City can take to accomplish the objectives of the policies. Tht<
SCLS does not mandate a specific course of action. Instead it identifies certain
actions that the City may take in order to address the identified deficit of 158 acres of
commercial land.' Through the Decisions, the City elected to designate up to 33 acres
Page 17 of 123
]/10/05
..
of conunercialland in the Gateway MDR site. LUBA found that the City did not
adequately explain how this was consistent with Implementation Strategy I-B(2),
which called for the rezoning of 10-15 acres of land to 'conunercial within the
Gateway MDR site.
.
In explaining LUBA's difficulty with the City's decision to redesignate 33
acres, when the SCLS called for 1 O~ 15 acres, LUBA stated:
In part because no party offers any argument concerning the
comparative legal significance of SCLS policies and
" implementation strategies, we do not mean to foreclose the
possibility that the city mightbe able to adopt additional findings
that explain why an action that seems so inconsistent with SCLS
Implementation Strategy 1--B(2), which is directed specifically
at the GRP MDR area, is nevertheless consistent with the SCLS.
We decide here only that the explanation in the challenged
decision is inadequate.
Jaqua, (slip op. 32). "Can" is not a mandatory term. "Can" is a permissive term and
in the context of Implementation Action Strategy 1-B(2) allows the City to rezone 10
to 15 acres to NC, but does not mandate that it do so. If the City had intended the
Implementation Strategies to be mandatory, inflexible and the final word on the City's
options for implementing the policies of the SCLS, the SCLS would have used
mandatory words such as "must" and "prohibited." Similarly, if the City had intended
that alternative strategies were to be prohibited, there would have been an express
prohibition. Thus in adopting the SCLS, the City exp~essly reserved the right to adopt
and implement a variety of strategies to assure that the City can meet the identified
deficit of conunerciallands in the City. One implementation strategy forthe City to
meet the identified conunercial lands cteficit is to redesignate 94 acres from MDR to
CC andMU.
.
SCLS Policy 1-B requires the City to ensure that there is an adequate amount
of conunercialland in the McKenzie/Gateway area. Similarly, SCLS Policy 3-A
requires the City to "redesignate and rezone" property within Neighborhood Centers
an9.Conunercial Center nodes to Mixed Use Conunercial. Neither ofthese policies
establishes any minimum or maximum amounts to be redesignated. Instead, that
decision is left to future City action, provided that such actions are consistent with the
underlying policies. The current proposal meets both of these policies by a) partially
addressing the 158-acre deficit, b ) providing an adequate amount of land within the
Gateway MDR area; and c) establishing the foundation for rezoning the area
identified for nodal development toMU.
)
.
Page 18 of 123
1/10/05
,
.
Additionally, the NC zoning referenced in the Implementation Strategy I-B(2)
predates the adoption of the new MUC zoning district, which enables appropriately
scaled commercial uses to be integrated with other uses ina vertical mixed-use
design, including both residential and commercial uses. Because the NC zoning does
not allow vertical stacking of uses, the use ofNC zoning would result in less efficient
use of the land base than would the MUC zoning.
As a practical matter, the use ofMUC zoning wilf allow the City the ability to
meet nodal development objectives as called for in the Metro Plan, the GRP and
identified in the SCLS. It also will provide for a mix of employment, residential, and
supporting commercial uses. With respect to TransPlan, the use of the MUC zoning
will facilitate implementation of nodal development strategies within the Gateway
MDR site.
.
, Additional SCLS findings, policies and implementation measures support the
use ofMUC zoning rather than NC zoning. For example, SCLS Finding 3 provides
that that certain TransPlan nodes encompass residential land and that "to achieve
higher average density to make these nodes function, residential land within t~e nodes
needs to be redesignated and rezoned to Mixed Use Commercial." (SCLS at 36.) The
Amendments support and implement this finding, Similarly, Implementation
Strategy 3-A(l) provides: "Evaluate inventories based on demonstrated need for the
planning period. Initiate rezoning or redesignation of surplus land uses where more
, appropriate for commercial, consistent with the Metro Plan." (SCLS at 36.) The City
has an acknowledged surplus ofMDR-designated land. Accordingly, it is ,entirely
consistent with this Implementation Strategy to redesignate additional MDR land to
MU and CC given the surplus ofMDR-designated property in the City. Through this
proposal the City is reducing a surplus to meet a deficit.
. In the present situation the proposal is to designate a total of approximately
\ 94 acres ofMDR to MU and CC. Given the overall 1 58-acre deficit of commercial
land in the City, the current proposal goes a long way towards reducing this deficit.
While the 94 acre designation is larger than the 10-15 acres called for in
Implementation Strategy I-B(2), as discussed above,-use of the word "can" in
describing the purpose of the implementation strategies, demonstrates that 10-15 acres
is not a maximum, but a recommendation given the facts knOWIl to the City at that
time. This notion is supported by SCLS Policy I-A, which calls for the creation of
additional commercial land through both zoning and annexation. Policy I-A merely
recognizes that the SCLS has not included every possible mechanism to meet the
deficit. Indeed, even if all the implementation strategies were implemented based on
the recommended acreage set forth in the SCLS, there would still be a deficit of
commercial land.
.
Page 19 of 123
1/10/05
-4
Because "Implementation Strategies" are defined by the SCLS as actions that
the City "can" take to accomplish the objectives of the City's overarching policy to .
provide sufficientland for commercial development, the City is not prevented from
'taking actions in addition to those identified as "Implementation Strategies," provided,
of course, that such actions are consistent with the "Policies" and "Goals" of the '
SCLS. Although th~ 94 acre proposal is larger than the 10-15 acre suggestion in the
SCLS, the proposal still directly addresses the overall policy objective to provide
adequate commercial land and partially addresses the City's acknowledged deficit of
commercial land.
Finally, the City adopted the SCLS pursuant to Resolution No. 00-13. That
resolution provides, in part:
The Common Council of the City of Springfield does hereby
adopt the Springfield Commercial Lands Study as more
particularly described and set forth in Attachment A and as
modified by Attachment B as the policy document guiding the
provision of commercial lands within the Springfield Urban
Growth Boundary. Nothing herein limits the City Council from
using a variety of strategies to implement the policies in the
document.
(Emphasis added). Thus the adopting resolution expressly provides that the strategies .
and implementation policies of the SCLS are not the only options available to the City
to implement the policies of the SCLS. As discussed above, one overridiI!g policy set
forth in the SCLS is to provide an adequate amount of commercial land. The current
proposal, which reduces the deficit of commercial land is a strategy to implement the
policies of the SCLS. Furthermore; although the City has expressly interpreted SCLS
Implementation Policy I-B(2) to pf0vide no absolute limit on the amount of land
within the Gateway MDR area to be redesignated to commercial to meet the
overriding policy of SCLS Policy 1- B, the City has also approved a legislative
amendment to the SCLS which further explains the City's interpretation of this
Implementation Policy. Thus, although the City has elected to amend the SCLS
through a separate legislative action, the City expressly finds that such amendment is
not necessary to approve this proposal. Rather, the legislative amendment is simply a
further support for the City's interpretation that the actions taken through the remand
proposal are consistent with the present and amended version of the SCLS. Some
opponents have argued that rather than demonstrating compliance with the SCLS, the
City has elected to amend the SCLS. ' That is not the case. As the findings above
demonstrate, the City finds that the proposal on remand is consistent with SCLS I
Implementation Strategy I-B(2). The legislative amendment to the SCLS is not
.
Page 20 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
.
~.
necessary to approve this proposal on remand because the proposal is consistent with
the current version of the SCLS, as well as the amended provisions of the SCLS.
A considerable amount of testimony was submitted with respect to Goal 9. The
findings set forth in Section IV respond to the additional Goal 9-related issues.
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 land,sfor 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 Cities 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 demand aIld supply figures, have been adopted as
part of the Metro Plan (III-A-3). If this area 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 ~e
properties in the RLS. Proposed Residential Implementation Action 12.6 requires a
similar type of analysis to take place at the master plan level. The policy reads: "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 ensures that the same number of dwelling
units that could be constructed under the existing MDR designation and zoning will
be realized and therefore ensures compliance with Goal 1 O.
During the crafting of the master plan PeaceHealth will be able to rely on the
permitted uses in more than one zoning district to meet the required density. The
proposed plan amendments will allow for two zoning districts MUC and MS to
, replace existing MDR zoning on approximately 99 acres of the site. The amendments
will also facilitate the siting of the nodal overlay on the subject property as well as on
adjacent property through the City's nodal implementation project. Each of these
districts allows residential uses. In the MUC district up to 100 percent of any building
may be developed for residential uses so long as 60 percent of the total ground floor
area wi~n" the development area is devoted to commercial uses. In the MS district,
Page 21 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
housing for the elderly and handicapped, and residential care facilities are prjmary
uses (SDC 22.020).
.
In the area designated nodal, which as the proposed GRP policy 13.6 describes,
the overall density for all districts will be 12 units per acre. Additionally, in the MDR
district there is a 20 unit per acre maximum; with a nodal overlay, there is no
. maximum density. Density is limited only by the maximum height restriction.
Proposed Implementation Action 12.6 requires that any future master plan for
development of the site iriclude housing density that has been assigned by recognized
plans to the areas subject to these plan amendments; for this reason alone, Goal 10 is
. satisfied.
The RLS concludes that the area has 828 acres ofMDR 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 Metro Plan and GRP
. diagram Amendments on remand propose to redesignate approximately 50 acres from
MDR to MU, and 44 acres from MDRto CC, leaving a surplus of 148.2 acres of
MDR-designated property.
At LUBA, opponents argued that the Decisions violated Goal 10. LUBA
. rejected this challenge and found that the Decisionss complied with Goal 10. The ....
primary basis for LUBA's affirmation was the fact that the RLS demonstrates that
there is a surplus of239 acresofMDR-designated land and that even upon removal of
99 acres from the inventory (accounting for the MS and MUC zones in the PAPAl),
there would still be a surplus ofMDR-designated land. While the proposal on remand
removes close to 99 acres from the MDR designation to a commercial designation, as
recognized by LUBA, even upon such removal, under the acknowledged RLS, a
surplus of 148.2 acres ofMDR-designated land will remain.
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
.
Page 22 of 123
1/10/05
,~
"
.
City is obligated to utilize the acknowledged inventory when considering whether the
current proposal is consistent with Goal 10 and the Goal J a-related provisions of the
Metro Plan.
In the PAPA I proceeding, LUBA also recognized that, notwithstanding the
surplus of MD R -designated land identified in the RLS after the removal of up to
99 acres from the inventory, the amended GRP implementation measures (12.6)
require PeaceHealth's master plan to demonstrate that it can accommodate the number
of housing units within the range for the previously designated MDR land. That
requirement'is not chang~.4 in the proposal on remand.
.
The GRP text amendments require that future development on the site provide
a sufficient number of residential units at required MDR densities to ensure continued
conformance to Goal 10 requirements, and to maintain the existing surplus.
Additionally, 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. There is evidence in the record that it is feasible to
provide the required number of housing units on the subject property. There is ample
buildable residential land remaining at the Gateway MDR site to meet these
objectives. Considerable testimony was presented regarding Goal I O. Section IV
includes additional GoallO-related findings.
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 property subject to these amendments, 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
which have been made part of the record of these proceedings 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 requir~ment mirrors the policy requirement contained within the
proposed GRP Residential ImplementationAction 13.0. Master plan approval criteria
require a demonstration the proposed on-site and off-site public and private,
Page 23 of 123
1/10/05
improvements are sufficient to accommodate the proposed phased development and
capacity requirements of the Public Facilities Plan.
.
The restrictions on development contained within the annexation agreements
for property subject to these plC!.n amendments coupled with the master plan criteria of
approval ensure compliance with Goal 11. Finally, although there are variations
between the current revised proposal and the earlier amendments, for purposes of '
Goal 11, there, are no practical differences between the current amendments and those
approved by the City through the Decisions. The current amendments do not affect
any additional geographic areas and have no impact on the City's earlier Goal 11
, findings. Consequently, because there is no substantive difference between the
proposed amendments and the earlier approved amendments for purposes of Goal 11,
the current proposal remains consistent with Goal 11. Finally, no party challenged the
earlier decisions' compliance with Goal 11. Because there are no substantive
differences between the present proposal and the earlier proposal with respect to
Goal 11 , no party may now challenge the proposal's consistency with Goal 11 during'
this remand proceeding.
GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION AND OAR 660-012-0060(1) AND (2).
lnthe initial plan amendments ("PAPA I"), the City adopted findings
explaining how the decisions satisfied Goal 12. (PAPA I Record pages 222 and 223,
Findings pages 41 and42.) The petitioners' appeal to LU~A did not challenge the .
Goal 12 findings. Therefore, the City readopts the same findings in this proceeding.
The 2004 Transportation Impact Analysis (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 transportation demands and impacts than development under the
existing acknowledged designations. The explanation for these findings are contained
in Part B, below; and are incorporated herein by reference.
1.
("TPR").
OAR 660-'012-0060(1) and (2), the Transportation Planning Rule
a. ' The PAPAl decisions regarding TPR. In PAPAl, the City adopted
findings on the TPR at Findings pages 42.-55 (PAPAl Record pages 223-236). On
appeal, the petitioners argued that the findings failed,to demonstrate. that the City had
considered whether the proposed post-acknowledgment plan amendments would
.
.
Page 24 of 123
1/10/05
.
, .
cause or accelerate the failure of a transportation facility within the planning period
between 2004 and 2018.2
LUBA remanded the City's decision and the Court of Appeals affirmed
LUBA's decision regarding the TPR because it concluded that the TPR required the
City to address whether a temporary failure of a transportation facility would occur
and, if so, whether the City could implement mitigation measures to correct the
failure. In affirming LUBA's final order and opinion, the court held:
.
First, we do not understand LUBA's opinion to do more than
conclude that an interim failure of an affected facility is a
significant 'effect' on a transportation facility under OAR 660'-
012-0060(2) and that, consequently, the mitigation measures set
out in the rule at subsection (1) must be considered: Our
understanding (and LUBA's) does not mean that the rule
necessarily requires that, before an approved change in land use
occurs, that road improvements must occur. The rule offers
alternatives to the locallarid use planning body. However,
importantly, the rule does nQt authorize any delay in
implementing the mitigating factors in subsection (1) until the
end of the planning period once it is determined that a land use
regulation significantly effects a transportation facility.
Jaquav. City of Springfield, 193 Or App 573, _ (2004).
b. The 2004 TIA. The applicant has updated the TIA in response to the
decisions by LUBA and the court. The 2004 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 ("TrarisPlan") or will be remedied through mitigation
measures pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a)-(d).3
2 For purposes of these findings and the 2004 TIA, the applicant has changed the planning
period required by Oregon Highway Plan Action 1F.2 from 2004-2018 to a beginning year in 2005
and an ending year in 2020. This reflects a new year of adoption of 2005.
.
3 The Transportation Planning Rule is the only transportation-related approval criteria at issue
in the remand from LuBA. As noted above, the petitioners.did not raise compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 12.
Page 25 ofl23
1/10/05
The 2004' TIA relies ori 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 of the 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.
c. Relevant time periods.
The 2004 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-acknowledgI?ent 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 2004 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 2004 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 2004 TIA assumes background traffic growth
for the years 2008 through 2010.
.
. Phase 11,2010-2020. The remainder of the PeaceHealth square footage,
subject to the trip -cap limit of 1,840 p.m. peak-hour trips, will open in
2010. The 2004 TIA assumes no additional transportation facility
construction from 2010 through 2020. The 2004 TIA assumes
background traffic growth for the years 2010 through 2020.4
d. ,OAR 660-012-0060(2). The first step in determining compliance with
the TPRis todetern1ine 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).
4 Petitioners at LUBA did not challenge the underlying assumptions of the original TIA, its
methodology or the use of a trip cap as a mitigation measure pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(l)(a).
.
Page 26 of 123
1110/05
. .
.
.
, /
i. Adequacy of existing transportation facilities. The City must first
determine whether existing transportation facilities are adequate to handle the
amendments 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 2004 TIA shows that all but four existing transportation facilities are
. adequate to handle the expected trips up to the trip cap maximum of 1,840 p.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.
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
Page 27 of 123
1110/05
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~
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.
PeaceHeaIth will fully construct the Martin Luther King, Jr. ParkwayProject prior to
the opening of Phase 1 in 2008.
d. TransPlanProject No. 762 - North/South Collector within the MDR
Site:
_ This collector is part of the p'eaceHeaIth 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. PeaceHeaIth will construct this
project prior to the opening of Phase 1. -
111. Significantly affected transportation facilities.
Notwithstanding the above TSP improvements, the application significantly
affects the following in!ersections:
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 (TransPlan Project No. 774)., The facility will operate
below acceptable mobility standards without these proposed amendments. To prevent
further degradation (Oregon Highway Plan Action IF.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. 1-5/BeIt Line Road Interchange.
The 1-5/Belt Line Road Interchange does not meet ODOT mobility standards.
Therefore, these amendments may not cause further degradation of the facility.
.
Page 28 of 123
1/10/05
.
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 Peace Health. 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 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 b~ 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 I 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 signific(;lntly affected because the City has determined,
pursuant to its authority under TransPlan, to allow a reduced level of service.
Reduction in level of service is also a mitigation measure authorized by OAR 660-
o 12-0060( 1 )(d)).
.TransPlan 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 find 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 .
Page 29 of 123
1/10/05
.
"The Springfield Common Council implements TransPlan
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
Street/Beltline Road intersection and I-5/Beltline 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
flccept 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 Beltline 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 1.
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 a~fected, and
those that are significantly affected, but for which projects in TransPlan 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
.
Page 30 of 123
1/10105
.
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 2004 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 20 I 0 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/Beltline interchange. Phase II wjll 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 and operational capacity will be coterminus with the completion of .
improvements to the Beltline Road/Gateway Road intersection.
This mitigation measure is allowed pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(l)(a)
which provides: "Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned
function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility." The City
, finds 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 addition, a condition of approval is added to reflect the Phase I
development limit of 1,457 pm peak hou~ trips.
3. ' Roadway Improveme~ts. The applicant requests that the following
-(..1 .
conditions be imposed to ensure that roadway,improvements in TransPlan are
provided when necessary.
a. Condition of Approval No.2 for the remanded decision (Decision
pages 3 and 4; PAPA I Record pages 37 and 38) Pioneer Parkway/Q Street
improvements, -
b. PeaceHealth shall be required to install a traffic signal ~t the intersection
ofBeltline Road and Hutton Road prior to the opening of Phase 1. The City adopted
findings for the Pioneer Parkway/Q Street interchange improvement explaining ,
Condition of Approval No.2 (Finding page 53; PAPA I Record page 234). No party
challenged that condition of approval. The City readopts the PAPA I findings for this
condition. .
.
Page31 of 123
111 0/05
The City finds based on the TIA that the proposed conditions of approval will .
limit land uses until programmed and unprogrammed TransPlan projects are
constructed and none of the intersections will be further degraded or significantly
affected because ofthe trip cap.
f. Coordination with affected agencies. OAR ~60-012-060(3).
This section of the TPR requires that the determinations made under the prior
sections be coordinated with affected transportation facilities providers and other
affected local governments. The applicant has met with ODOT region and district
officials and City of Springfield transportation officials. Additionally, pursuant to the
statutory notice requirements, the City has provided an opportunity to comment on the
applicant to each of the above agencies, to the Lane Transit District ("L TD") and to
Lane County (the "County"). The City finds that this section of the TPR is satisfied.
, g. OAR 660-012-0045(3)-(5).
, The City adopted findings on these TPR sections at Findings pages 54 and 55,
PAPA I Record pages 127 and 128. No party challenged these findings, so they may
not be challenged in this phase of the proceeding.
The remaining section of transportation related findings concern issues raised
prior to the close of the record. The city council hereby adopts the findings as set ..
forth below. -
A. Noyember 16, 2004 Joint Hearing Response to Issues Raised in the
by Rob Zako
Mr. Rob Zako, representing 1000 Friends of Oregon, raised issues regarding
compliance with the TPR. His issues and the responses to his issues are shown
below. '
i. Use of the Correct Version of TransPlan.
Mr. Zako asked the Council and Commission to confirm that PeaceHealth has
used the correct TransPlan document and not the pending Regional Transportation
Plan ("RTP"). Jim Hanks of JRH Engineering confirmed that he used the July, 2002
version of TransPlan. TransPlan is the acknowledged Transportation System Plan
("TSP") for the Eugene-Springfield area.
.
Page 32 of 123
1/10/05
.
ii.
Conditions of Approyal.
Mr. Zakoargued that conditions of approval and agreements proposed by
PeaceHealth to satisfy the TPR might be ignored or changed by the City Council in a
later proceeding. Mr. Zako's concerns are unfounded.for two reasons.
First, OAR 660-012-0060 authorizes conditions to address transportation
facilities that are significantly affected by a post-acknowledgement amendment.
OAR 660 012-0060(1)(a) expressly allows "limiting allowed land uses to be
consistent with the plan function, capacity, and performance standards of the
transportation facility." The phasing and the trip cap (the trip cap was previously
approved in the first phase of this proceeding by the Springfield City Council)
conditions of approval are limitations on land uses so that the proposal remains
consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the
affected transportation facilities.
.
The transportation facility improvements proposed by PeaceHealth (the
Pioneer Parkway/Oregon Highway 126 eastbound ramps and the traffic signal at
Hutton and Belt Line) are TransPlan improvements that PeaceHealth has elected to
fund and install prior to Phase 1 of its project. PeaceHealth previously asked that the
same condition be imposed on the Pioneer Parkway/Oregon Highway 126 eastbound
ramps in the first decision and no party obJected to that condition. These conditions
of approval will become conditions of an ordinance amendment and the City Coul?cil
may not amend them without amending the ordinance.
Second, OAR 660-012-0060(1)(b) authorizes amendments to a TSP to provide
transportation facilities that are adequate to support the proposed land uses. However,
this subsection is only one of the four kinds of conditions allowed. An amendment to
the TSP is not required to provide appropriate conditions as allowed by
OAR 660-0 12-0060( 1). These conditions of approval will become' conditions of an
ordinance amendment and the City Council may not amend them without amending
the ordinance, which requires notice and a public hearing.
iii. 1-5/ Belt Line Road Interchange Funding.
PeaceHealth is committed to assisting the City and ODOT with appropriate
funding for the 1-'5/ Belt Line Road interchange project. The proposed phasing plan
requires that those improvements be in place before Phase 1 may open. Therefore,
while PeaceHealth's assistance with the funding may result in the 1-5/ Belt Line Road
interchange project being completed earlier, a funding agreement is unnecessary to
satisfy the TPRbecause Phase 1 may not occur until the appropriate 1-5/ Belt Line
Road interchange facilities have been constructed.
.
Page 33 of 123
1/10/05
iv. Discussion of Nodal Deyelopment Issues.
.
No permit for development is before the Council and the Commission in this
proceeding. PeaceHealthmust obtain subsequent approvals from the City prior to
developing the property. These approvals include Master Plan and Site Development
Review applications. The appropriate opportunity to discuss nodal development
techniques is in those proceedings. To the extent these issues involve Statewide
Planning Goal 12, "Transportation, "no party raised Goal 12 in the first decision.
B. , Response to Issues Raised by Kirstin Green.
Kirstin Greene asserted that bicycles, transit and pedestrians were not included
in the project. Although her testimony might be more appropriate at a Master Plan
hearing, 'an extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be integrated
into site planning. PeaceHealth has also adopted a strong transportation demand
management program for the campus to continue its success as the highest rate of
transit usage of any employer in Lane County. Bus Rapid Transit ("BRT") has been
fully integrated into the site, to include an exclusive bus lane in the median of
RiverBend Drive and two BRT stations. As Ken Hamm stated in his testimony, ,
PeaceHealthhas worked closely with L TD to develop transit facilities, routing, etc. to
serve the RiverBend campus.
C.
Questions Asked by City Council and Planning 'Commission
Members.
.
i. Highway 126 Improvements
Councilor Ralston asked the applicant.todescribe the Pioneer Parkway and
Oregon Highway 126 eastbound improvements. PeaceHealth has proposed a
condition of approval (See Staff Report page 1-4, Cond!tion of Approval 2) that it
make these improvements prior to the opening of Phase I. PeaceHealth previously
requested and the CitY Council previously imposed an identical condition of approval
in the first decision.
ii. Construction Traffic.
Commissioner Carpenter asked whether construction traffic for the
PeaceHealth project had been counted in the TPR.
OAR 660-012-0060(1) provides as follows:
"Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans,
and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility
.
Page 34 of 123
1/10/05
.
shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,
capacity and performance standards ... of the facility." (Emphasis added)
This part of the TPR applies to proposed, allowed land uses. It does not apply
to the construction traffic necessary to develop the land uses. Were this the case, as
explained below, it would be impermissible for construction traffic to reach the site.
Moreover, the site to be developed currently allows a variety of uses and construction
traffic is perfectly permissible for those uses' construction. Therefore, construction
traffic, as explained below, is part of the background traffic assuined in the 2004 TIA. '
.
One can see the quandary if construction traffic were separately counted in
addition to trips from a future development. Consider an example where a given
intersection were failing and the TPR prohibited additional trips until the failing
intersection were improved. If construction traffic were counted, then a literal .
interpretation of the TPR would require .that the very construction workers needed to
fix the failing intersection would notbe able to arrive to do the requisite work, except
on foot, bike or bus. No case decided to date on the TPR requires this result.
Second, construction traffic was addressed in the 2004 TIA submitted to
demonstrate compliance with the TPR. Construction traffic is implicit in the
background trip generation in the regional traffic model in that trips from construction
works is generated either from the homes or places of business for construction
workers~ suppliers, etc. going to or from the site. In addition, based on the traffic
patterns at the critical locations in the area, the PM peak hour is the time of analysis.
, Construction traffic tends to have negligible impacts during the PM and AM peak
hour, as shifts for construction workers typically-work petween 7:00 a.m. and
3:30 p.m., which are considered off-peak periods. Moreover~ PeaceHealth is
coordinating with the City of Springfield to ensure that construction traffic will enter
and exit the site from Beltline Road, and avoid impacts to the greatest degree possible
with residents in the Game Farm neighborhood.
Finally, as noted above, no party raised the issue of construction traffic
previously and under the "Law of the Case" doctrine, it may not be raised in this
phase of the proceeding.
iii. What Years Did PeaceHealth Use to Analyze Transportation
Impacts?
PeaceHealth analyzed all years between 2005 and 2020. As the 2004 TIA
explains, PeaceHealth has analyzed the impact of this proposal on affected
transportation facilities between the years of 2005 and 2020. However, as a practical
matter, there is no need to address the years 2005 - 2007 since the proposed phasing
.
Page 35 of 123
1/10/05
plan would not allow development prior to 2008 unless necessary transportation
facilities are in place.
.'
***************
'-
3. Response to Issues Raised After the Noyember 16, 2004 Joint Hearing
A. Noyember 23, 2004 letter from Kathleen Moulton.
Ms. Moulton's letter raises two issues: Whether the 2004 Transportation Impact
Analysis (the "2004 TIA") addressed the ability of emergen<;y vehicles to navigate
heavy traffic on Belt Line Road and whether PeaceHealth considered the "regional
ramifications" of the post-acknowledgement plan amendment.
These issues were not raised in Petitioners' brief to the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals ("LUBA") in the appeal of the first decision of this app~ication. Therefore,
pursuant to the "law of the case" doctrine, they may not be raised now.
Ms. Moulton fails to identify relevant approval criteria regarding these issues. There
is no criterion requiring an applicant to conduct a separate analysis of the ability of
emergency vehicles to navigate heavy traffic. Further, there is no criterion relevant to
transportation issues requiring an analysis of regional rartlifications of the application.
Notwithstanding that this issue is very vague, even if there were a regional .
, ramification requirement, PeaceHealth has addressed it in the 2004 TIA which
analyzed all affected transportation facilities.
B. November 23, 2004 Letter-from 1000 Friends of Oregon~
i. Statewide Planning Goal ("Goal") 12.
The Petitioners did not raise Goal 12 in their appeal of the first decision on this
application and pursuant to the "law of the case" doctrine, are precluded from raising
it now. Notwithstanding that the Petitioners' assignment-of error in their brief to
LUBA was styled as Goal 12, the p~titions for review dealt only with the
Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR"). Nothing prevented the Petitioners, including
1000 Friends of Oregon, from making specific arguments about Goal 12 their
petitions for review. Having failed to do so, they present no argument as to why they
are entitled to do so now. The City Council and Planning Commission should reject
these arguments because they are too late.
ii. TransPlan Related Issues.
1000 Friends of Oregon suggests in a number of places that PeaceHealth is not
using the correct version of TransPlan. Mr. McKenney's November 23,2004
.
Page 36 of ] 23
1/] 0/05
.
memorandum notes at page 2 that the July, 2002 TransPlan version is the cUrrent
TransPlan version. This version is in the LUBA record beginning on page 409.
Prospective amendments to TransPlan are irrelevant to this application because
they are neither adopted nor acknowledged. The Oregon Court of Appeals has said
that cities are required to apply acknowledged provisions of their Plan where relevant,
not unadopted and unacknowledged versions of their Plan.
Moreover, 1000 Friends of Oregon's comments on TransPlan and whether it
complies with provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-
0035(2)(a)-(d), 0035(5)(c)(A)-(E) and 0055(1)(a)) are not relevant to this application.
TransPlan is not the subject of this decision; to the extent 1000 Friends of Oregon has
concerns about TransPlan, it is either too late with those concerns, in the wrong forum
or must wait until TransPlan isin a forum for it to raise these arguments.
Finally, the City adopted findings regarding all relevant provisions of the TPR,
including OAR 660-012-0045, in the first decision on this matter (Record pages
97 -98) and no party appealed those findings. Issues regarding compliance with
various aspects of the TPR could have been but were not raised in the first phase of
this proceeding and are waived. .
.
1000 Friends of Oregon Argued that the 2004 TIA Should
Have Included the Royal Caribbean Proposed Call Center.
As Mr McKenney correctly points out in his memorandum, although
applications for land use approval have been submitted and are being reviewed by the
City, they have not been approved. Because they have not been approved, there is no
obligation under applicable law for PeaceHealth or the City to consider potential trips
, generated by those as of yet unapproved applications which may never be approved.
In any event, the 2004 TIA shows that the PeaceHealth development, when added to
full development of the. Campus Industrial area (which includes the Royal Caribbean
Cruise Line call center site) and background traffic as modeled in the regional
EMME/2 model, will not have a significant effect on any transportation facility
through the year 2020 with proposed conditions of approval.
'iii.
iy. 1000 Friends of Oregon Argued that It Has Had Inadequate
Time to Review the 2004 TIA.
.
PeaceHealth submitted the 2004 TIA to the Springfield Planning Department
on October 29,2004. 1000 Friends of Oregon has an obligation to continue to review
the record in this matter by going to the City and asking to see the contents of the
record. Chauncey v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 599 (1992). Had they done
so, they would have had 18 days prior to the November 16, 2004 public hearing to
Page 37 of 123
1/10/05
review the 2004 TIA. Moreover, they had 14 days after the hearing to comment. In
total, 1000 Friends of Oregon had 32 days, or more than a month, to review the 2004 .
TIA. Their substantial rights have not been prejudiced because they have had more
than adequate time to review the 2004 TIA and could have found the 2004 TIA
simply by reviewing the record.
,
v. Construction of New Transportation Facilities Beyond
TransPlan, Private Funding of Improyements and
Temporary Reduction in Performance Standards by the City.
The City responded to these issues in the first decision as either conditions of
approval(Record pages 177-178) or findings (Record pages 87-88,90,94-96) that
could have been challenged in the first appeal of this decision. Having failed to do so,
it is too late for 1000 Friends of Oregon to raise these issues now.
Regarding temporary reduction in performance standards for the intersection of
Belt Line Road and Gateway Road, the City'ofSpringfield made that decision in a
prior proceeding. City Resolution 02-44 adopted in 2002 may not be challenged in - '-
this proceeding. Moreover, the City of Springfield adopted that resolution pursuant to
TransPlan. '
Finally, the City adopted a condition of approval (Record pages 17.7-178)
permitting PeaceHealth to fund unfunded TransPlan projects. No party challenged
that condition or the concept underlying the condition and the concept may not be
challenged in this matter.,
yi. Amendments to TransPlan.
.
1000 Friends of Oregon argues that amendments to TransPlan are either
required or should be required by the City of Springfield. However, nothing in the '
relevant provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060(l)(a)-
(d)) require an amendment to TransPlan. The phasing plan is a condition limiting
allowed land uses. An amendment to TransPlan is not required to accomplish the ,
phasing plan.
A condition of approval temporarily reducing mobility standards has been
made pursuant to TransPlan and is not a mitigation condition. The condition is a
substantive provision determining the minimum acceptable standard for- that
intersection.
Finally, funding of improvements for TransPlan facilities is allowed pursuant
to LUBA's decision in Craig Realty Group v. City of Woodburn, 39 Or LUBA 384
(2001) under the second part of that decision's three-part TPR test. LUBA has held
.
Page38 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
that the TPR may be satisfied by projects shown in the acknowledged transportation
system plan that are guaranteed to be in place prior to the time they are needed. By
allowing PeaceHealth to fund these unfunded TransPlan projects, the City achieved
, this goal.
yii. Increase in Hospital Use"
. PeaceHealth has committed to a maximum number of vehicle trips during the
p.m. peak hour period, the period during which mobility standards are measured. The
City included the trip cap in the first decision (Record page 177) and no party
challenged that condition. Therefore, the condition may not be challenged now.
The 2004 TIA analysis shows thatthe trip-capped PeaceHealth development,
when added to full development of the Campus Industrial area (which includes the
Royal Caribbean Cruise Line call center site) and background traffic as modeled in
the regional EMME/2 model, will not have a significant effect on any transportation
faciiity through the year 2020.
C. November 19,2004 Letterfrom Carol James.
Ms. James argued that the 1992 Oregon Transportation Plan is not satisfied.
Ms. James fails to explain how this plan is relevant and, even if it is relevant, cites no
specific criteria from the 1992 Oregon Transportation Plan. Moreover, since it could
have been raised in the first phase of this proceeding, it may not be raised now.
Ms. James also cited a 2002 TransPlan goal. This issue could have been raised
in the first phase of this proceeding and may not be raised now.
D.
November 23, 2004. Letter from the Oregon Department of
Transportation.
~
This letter satisfies the Goal 2 and OAR 660-012-0060(3) coordination
requirements. The City is required to coordinate with effective governmental entities
such as the Oregon Department of Transportation by giving them an adequate notice
of an application, providing them with a reasonable opportunity to comment and
incorporating their comments as much as possible into the City's decision. ODOT's
comments do not require incorporation into the City's decision.
The ODOT letter contains two important comments:
. ODOT staff found "no technical flaws" with the 2004 TIA.
Page 39 of 123
1/10/05
. ODOT assumed that mitigation is necessary to satisfy the Transportation
Planning Rule and notes that the trip cap' and the Oregon Highway 126 .
eastbound ramps and Pioneer Parkway improvements are necessary to satisfy
the Transportation Planning Rule.
E. November 30,2004 Letter from Al Johnson.
Mr. Johnson raised several issues regarding PeaceHealth's proposed conditions
of approval pursuant to OAR 660-912-0060(1)(a)-(d). As an initial matter,
Mr. Johnson may not raise Goal 12 or TransPlan with respect to transportation issues
unless he can show that these are issues that could not have been raised in the first
phase of this proceeding. Mr. Johnson's Petition for Review did not raise Goal 12 or
TransPlan issues and his failure to do so prevents him from raising them in this
proceeding unless he is able to demonstrate they are related to issues that could not
. have been raised the first time.
Mr. Johnson argued that PeaceHealth has the burden of proof to show that the
conditions will be enforceable. Mr. Johnson offered no authority forthis proposition
and, in fact, the conditions proposed by PeaceHealth are made pursuant to the
Transportation Planning Rule which has no requirement that the conditions be
demonstrated to be enforceable. Moreover, PeaceHealth previously proposed, and the
City approved, conditions of approval based ort the Transportation Planning Rule. -.
Mr. Johnson did not object to those conditions, and may not now object to virtually ,
the same conditions.
The Court of Appeals decision in Jaqua noted that the Transportation Planning
Rule allows conditions of approval to mitigate significant effects on transportation
facilities. Had the court believed there was an enforceability requirement, it certainly
would have identified that requirement.
Mr. Johnson also cited the case of Neste Resins v. City of Eugene, 23 Or LUBA
55 (1992) as relevant to this case. However, the first sentence in the quoted portion of
the decision makes Neste Resins inapplicable to this case. LUBA said in that case:
"The problem is that those conditions were not imposed on the propertY as part of the
challenged Metro Plan amendment."
In this case, PeaceHealth has proposed, and City staff has recommended to the
City Council and Planning Commission, that the Transportation Planning Rule-
allowed conditions of approval be imposed as conditions to the decision. Given this
fact, it is unclear why Mr. Johnson believes that the conditions are unenforceable, and
he has failed to explain his position in any event. This is an issue that could have
been raised in the first phase of this proceeding and is now being raised fo~ the first
L
'-",
.
Page 40 of 123
1/10/05
.
, time with no explanation from Mr. Johnson r~garding why it is relevant to the
approval criteria.
Finally, Mr. Johnson objected to the ability of Peace Health to take advantage
of an amended Transportation Planning Rule in the future. PeaceHealth has not
proposed that a prospective rule amendment be considered as a condition of approval;
PeaceHealth recognizes it is subject to the current Transportation Planning Rule. .
However, should the Transportation Planning Rule be amended in the future,
PeaceHealth sees no reason why it should not be able to take advantage of that rule.
F. November 30, 2004 Letter from Rob Zako.
Mr. Zako argued that the additional condition of approval number 3 is "highly
objectionable." His arguments are without merit since he apparently fails to,
understand how an open record works. The record was open until November 30; both-
_he and other opponents had the opportunity to object to the proposed condition.
Proposed conditions are not new evidence and, even ifit had been new evidence, ORS
197.763(6) gives Mr. Zako the ability to request that the record be reopened which he
failed to do.
.
The fact that both Mr. Zako and Mr. Johnson have responded to the requested
condition demonstrates that his argument alleging an inability to respond to the
condition is without merit. Further, PeaceHealth's suggested additional condition
constituted one paragraph; it does not seem particularly difficult to respond to one
paragraph. '
Mr. Zako also raised an argument that the conditions are unenforceable.
However, if the City adopts the conditions of approval recommended by staff and
PeaceHealth, those conditions become part of an ordinance and may only be' amended
after appropriate notice and public hearings. PeaceHealth simply does not understand
Mr. Zako'sproblems with conditions of approval authorized by the Transportation
Planning Rule, which is the rule he has championed throughout this proceeding.
Mr. Zako argued that the Jaqua decision requires the roads to 'be built when
needed. PeaceHealth agrees and that is why it has requested the conditions of
approval allowed by the Transportation Planning Rule. Moreover, Mr. Zako's plea
that "adequate funding" be required is clearly without merit. The Court of Appeals in
the Jaqua decision said that mitigation is provided in the four conditions of approval
allowed by the Transportation Planning Rule; the court did not require any analysis of
funding. It is PeaceHealth's risk as to whether the necessary facilities are in place
when needed. If not, under the current version of the Transportation Planning Rule,
PeaceHealth would have to wait until those facilities are there. '
.
Page 41 of 123
1/10/05
Mr. Zako also discussed funding of the 1-5/ Belt Line Interchange Project.
Funding of that project is irrelevant to the decision'before the City Council and .
Planning Commission. While PeaceHealth has offered to assist the City and the
Oregon Department of Transportation with the funding, it is irrelevant to the criteria
before the City Council and Planning Commission.
GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION
The Energy goal is a general planninggoal and provides limited guidance for
site-specific map ,and text changes. ,However, the availability of a large employer in
proximity to a commercial and residential node and centered around a transit station
as proposed by Residential Implementation Action 13.6 will provide transportation
options that will serve to reduce energy consumption. Any 'future development will
be subject to applicable energy efficiency,requirements established by building codes
and as may apply through applicable provisions of the SDC.
Goal13'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 cUl-rent amendments; as did the previous
amendments, will enable the development of a hospital within the Gateway MDR site,
as well as Jhe 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. The record demonstrates that PeaceHealth is .
actively working withLane Transit District to provide for standard transit and Bus
Rapid Transit service with convienient access to the hospital. Placing this mix of uses
within convenient walking distance on a high capacity transit corridor implements the
guidelines in Goal 13 to enable efficient arrangement of uses and conserve energy.
LUBA has upheld a city's finding of compliance with Goal 13 where findings
noted the placement of facility near public services, including mass transit and
commercial areas. Hubenthal v. City of Woodburn, 39 Or LUBA 20 (2000). The
subject property accommodates a planned Bus Rapid Transit. LUBA has also stated
that Goal 13 "is directed at the development of local energy policies and
implementing provisions, and does not state requirements with respect to other land
use provisions, even if those provisions have incidental impacts on energy use and
conservation." Barnard Perkins Corp. v. City of River grove, 34 Or LUBA 660
(1998).
Finally, although there are variations between the current revised proposal and
the earlier amendments, for purposes of Goal 13, there are rio substantive or practical
differences between the current amendments and those approved by the City through
the Decisions that would affect the City's earlier determination of compliance with
.
Page 42 of 123
1/10/05
.
Goal 13. The current amendments do not affect any additional geographic areas and
have no impact on the City's earlier Goal 13 findings. Consequently, because there is
no substantive difference between the proposeq amendments on remand and the
PAP A I amendments for purposes of Goal 13, the current proposal remains consistent
with Goal 13. Finally, no party challenged the PAPA I compliance with GoalIJ.
Because there are no substantive differences between the present proposal and the
PAPA I proposal with respect to Goal 13, no party may now challenge the proposal's
consistency with Goal 13 during this remand proceeding.
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, arid within the fully-developed and
served urbanized area of the community. The amendments are intended to facilitate
efficient use of the site for urban uses, thereby facilitating the compact urban growth,
form which is the subject of the LCDC's Urbanization goal.
In the PAPAl proceeding opponents argued the amendments violate Goal 14
because portions of the subject property abut the UGB. Goal 14, the Metro Plan and
the GRP do not refer to "edge" areas or otherwise demand special treatment to
property based on the fact that the property abuts a UGB. Goal 14 in general, and
Factor 4 in particular, apply to the amendment of urban growth boundaries. LUBA
has held that Goal 14 applies to the conversion of rural to urban land use consistent
with the standards set forth in Goal 14. LUBA has rejected arguments that Goal 14
applies to an argument concerning efficient use of urban land where rural land has
already been converted to urban land. Consequently, Goal 14 is not directly
applicable since the Amendments relate to prQperty wholly within the Springfield city
limits and the UGB. Goal 14 establishes the seven factors as the basis for
"establishment and change of the boundaries" in the UGB, and does not apply to
development permitted within established UGBs.
Finally, although there are variations between the current proposal on remand
and the PAPAl amendments, for purposes of Goal 14, there are no substantive or
practical differences between the current amendments"and those approved by the City
through the Decisions that would affect the City's earlier determination of compliance
with or the applicability of Goal 14. The current amendments do not affect any
additional geographic areas and have no impact on the City's earlier Goal 14 findings.
Consequently, because there is no substantive difference between the proposed
amendments on remand and the PAPA I amendments for purposes of Goal 14, the
current proposal remains consistent with Goal 14. Fin-ally, no party challenged the
earlier decisions' compliance with Goal J 4 before LUBA. Because there are no
.
Page 43 of 123
1/10/05
substantive differences between the present proposal and the earlier proposal with
respectto Goal 14, no party may now challenge the proposal's consistency with
Goal 14 during this remand proceeding. Notwithstanding that opponents failed to
raise any Goal 14 challenge to LUBA in the earlier proceeding, opponents have
restated their Goal 14 arguments again to the City. Section IV below includes
additional Goal14-related findings.
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.
, Page 44 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
.
C. Metro Plan Consistency
1. - Map Amendment
The original proposal sought to amend the Metro Plan Diagram by converting -
up to 33 acres ofMDR-designated land to CC. Based on the Court's direction that the
hospital and associated commercial uses must be located on commercially designated
land, the current proposal seeks to re-designate approximately 50 acres as' MU and
44 acres as CC on the Metro Plan Diagram. - Concurrent GRP policies allow the MS
zoning district to be applied to the CC and MU plan designations and the MUC
zoning district to be applied to the CC plan designation.
a) Community Commercial Centers
The Metro Plan chapter II section E 2 includes the following description of the ,
Commanity Commercial category:
.
This category includes more commercial activities than
neighborhood commercial but less than major retail centers.
Such areas usually dev_elop around a small department store and
supermarket. The development occupies at least five 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 recreation 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.
As discussed above, approximately 44 acres of the MDR-designated property will be
re-designated CC, with an eventual zoning of MS. There are a number of reasons that
the CC designation is an appropriate designation. First and foremost, the Court of
Appeals clearly determined that the proposed medical and commercial services were
commercial in nature. The Court stated:
.
By comparison, the city's actions in this case change the universe
of primary use of the area from residential to nonresidential. The
proposed regional hospital project and adjoining ,medical and
commercial services authorized by the ordinances are not mere
adjuncts or supplements to residential use. They will become, in
fact and in effect, the primary uses of the land; and they will, by
their intrinsic nature, change the overall use of the land in the
area from residential to commercial. We therefore conclude,
Page 45 of 123
1/10/05
based on our understanding of the meaning of the word
"auxiliary" as used in the context of the Metro Plan, that the
kinds of uses contemplated by the challenged ordinances are not
permitted uses in an area designated for residential use. If the
city wishes to use the area in question for the commercially-
related uses authorized by the ordinances, it will have to
undertake a zone change or other change authorized by the plan.
.
Jaqua v. City of Springfield, 193 Or App 573,589 (emphasis added). The Court, as
well as the PAPAl opponents, clearly consider the_ hospital and related commercial
activities to fall within the commercial element of the Metro Plan. Consequently,
following the Court's direction, in order to eventually apply the MS zone, the
u,nderlying Metro Plan Diagram designation must be one of the Metro Plan's
commercial designations. The following text explains first why the CC designation is
the appropriate designation and then explains why the remaining commercial
designations described in the Metro Plan other than CC are inappropriate for the
portion of the property to be zoned MS for the purpose of locating a hospital.
Given the Court's direction in Jaqua, the City reviewed the commercial Metro
Plan designations and determined that, for the portion of the property where a hospital
will be sited, the CC Metro Plan designation is most appropriate. As a starting point;
the City reviewed the current Metrq Plan designations for the existing Sacred Heart ' .
Hilyard Campus as well as the McKenzie- Willamette Hospital site. Sacred Heart
Hilyard Campus is designated CC on the Metro Plan Diagram. McKenzie Willamette
Hospital is designated Major Retail Commercia:! (MRC)~ The fact that both of the
region's hospitals are designated commercial on the Metro Plan diagram
demonstrates the local jurisdictions'policy decision that the commercial designation
is appropriate. .
Moreover, the CC designation is one of the most comprehensive commercial
designations, designed to capture a wide variety of commercial uses, including retail,
office and service uses. As explained in the Metro Plan, Community Commercial
Centers are at least 5 acres and normally not more than 40 acres. PeaceHealth
proposes to re-designate 44 acres to Cc. It should be stressed that the 40-acre
reference is not a limitation, nor is it a maximum. Unlike the NC district, which
expressly states that NC sites "shall not" exceed 5 acres, the Metro Plan description of
the CC designation contains no such prohibition. Although the 44 acre designation is
approximately 4 acres larger than the 40 acre guidance set forth in the Metro Plan, as
discussed above, there is no prohibition on redesignating more than 40 acres to Cc.
The use of the word "normally" when referring to 40 acres, indicates that, typically,
CC areas are not greater than 40 acres, but does not mandate that they not exceed
-40'acres. This, combined with the fact that no other commercial designation is
.
Page 46 of 123
1/10/05
.
appropriate, demonstrates that the CC designation is the correct commercial
designation under the Metro Plan.
The CC designation will be adjacent to the MU and MDR Metro Plan
designations. As required by the amended GRP Implementation Measures discussed
above, a Master Plan will be required for the Gateway MDR site that will include a
comprehensive development plan that will incorporate the MS hospital and
commercial uses, the MUC retail and commercial uses~ as well as the MDR
designated land. The Metro Plan text description of the CC provides, in part:
When this category [CC] is shown next to medium- or high-
density residential, the two can be integrated into a single overall
, complex, local regulations permitting.
Thus, because the Gateway MDR site will include CC, MU and MDR and will be
comprehensively developed pursuant to a master plan, it is appropriate to designate
this'portion of the property CC to allow for such an integrated approach, as described
by the Metro Plan text describing the CC designation.
2. Inappropriateness of other Commercial Designations
.
The Major Retail Center designation is not appropriate because, according to
its description, it is designed for at least 25 r~tail stores, one or more of which is a
major anchor department store having a total floor space of at least 100,000 square
feet. Metro Plan II-E-3. As explained by the Metro Plan, the types of developments
with the Major Retail Center designation include the Valley River Center, the
Mohawk commercial area and the Eugene central business district. PeaceHealth's
development proposal is not on the siie or scale of the description of the Major Retail
Center. No retail center on the scale described in the Metro Plan is proposed, nor is
any major anchor department store proposed.
It is anticipated that the Nodal Development Overlay will be applied through
the City's nodal development implementation project to overlay the CC and MU plan
designations. "
.
The Existing Strip Commercial designation is inappropriate because, as the
name implies, it refers to existing commercial lands. No such existing development
exists on the subject property.
The Neighborhood Commercial designation is inappropriate because it may
only be applied to sites not larger than five acres. Metro Plan II-E-5. Because the
proposed development will exceed five acres, the NC plan designation is '
inappropriate.
Page 47 of 123
1/10/05
The Strip or Street-Oriented Commercial designation is similarly
inappropriate because, according the the Metro Plan, this designation is limited to .
pre-existing commercial developments. The Metro Plan generally discourages the use
of this desingation and provides that "they should be limited to existing locations and
transformed into more desireable commercial patterns, if possible. Metro Plan II-E-6.
Consequently, this designation is inappropriate.
,
3.' Mixed Use Diagram Designation
In the PAPA I PeaceHealthsought to redesignate up to 33 acres of
MDR-designated land to CC, with an eventual zoning overlay of MUC. In the
proposal on remand PeaceHealth seeks to redesignate approximately 50 acres from
MDR to the MU Metro Plan designation, with the eventual MUC zoning applied to
the 50 acres. Although the underlying Metro Plan designation has changed in the
proposal on remand fromCC to MU, the utimate development will remain the same
as the PAPAl proposed, because the proposed zoning is still MUC. There is no
practical difference.between the proposal on remand and the PAPA I proposal. '
Additionally, as required by the GRP text amendments, the subject area will still be
required to be developed pursuant to a master plan.
The Metro Plan describes the MU designation as follows:
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 Whitaker 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.
.
The proposed GRP text and map amendments allow for a robust mix of uses on
the subject property. Consistent with its master planning effort, PeaceHealth seeks to
apply theMUC zoning district to allow for a complementary mix of medical, general
office, and supporting commercial retail functions, with the potential to also include
residential uses - all in a vertical mixed use development pattern allowed and
encouraged by the MUC zoning district (see SDC 40.010). Approval of the Metro-
- Plan and GRP diagram amendment to MU in this instance will more appropriately
reflect the recent establishment of the MUC zoning district as a means to implement
this designation.
~.
Page 48 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
D. Response to Text of Metro Plan
This section addresses the consistency of the proposal with applicable policies
of the)Metro Plan. While there are a number of Metro Plan policies, the findings
below discuss only those policies that apply to the proposal on remand. In general,
the findings-below do not discuss those portions of the Metro Plan that (1) apply only
to rural or other lands outside of the urban growth boundary, (2) apply to land uses
other than the current or proposed designations for the site and will not be affected by
the proposed Plan diagram and text amendments, or(3) clearly apply only to specific
development applications (e.g:, Site Plan Review submittals, subdivisions, etc.). In
many instances the goals, policies and implementation measures apply to specific
development proposals that will be addressed through compliance with applicable
City regulations during ma_ster plan and site development review. During the public
comment period, no party argued that additional policies are applicable to this
proposal.
After approval of the Decisions, the City of Eugene, Lane County and the City
of Springfleldadopted a number of amendments to the Metro Plan. For the most part,
the amendments are "housekeeping" amendments and do not affect either the earlier
Decisions or the, City's review on remand. The newly adopted 2004 amendments to
the Metro Plan are in the record. The findings below address both the Metro Plan
policies in the form prior to the adoption of the 2004 amendments and the recently
adopted Metro Plan amendments. Where applicable Metro Plan policies have been
amended by the 2004 amendments, the City has elected to make findings on both
versions of the Metro Plan to ensure that no party may later argue that the City should
- have addressed an earlier or later version~of the Metro Plan. As demonstrated below,
very few of the Metro Plan policies applicable to this proposal were affected by the
2004 amendments. More importantly, those that were amended did not include any
substantive changes. Where a policy has been amended through the 2004
amendments, the changes are shown to the following policies, together with a
discussion of whether the change has any impact on the City's findings of compliance
with the applicable Metro Plan provisions. Where the policy has not been changed,
that is noted as well.
The Metro Plan Introduction, Section D provides the following'definitions:
A goal as a broad statement of philosophy that describes the
hopes of the people of the community for the future of the
community. A goal may never be completely attainable, but is
used as a point to strive for.
Page 49 of 123
1/10/05
An objective is an attainable target that the community attempts
to reach in striving to meet a goal. An objective may also be '
considered as an intermediate point that will help fulfill the
overall goal.
.
A policy is a statement adopted as part of the Plan to provide a
consistent course of action moving the community towards
attainment of its goals.
1. F or the Metro Plan Map amendment, the amendment must not make the Metro
Plan internally inconsistent(SDC 7.070(3)(b)).
,
. 2. For the Gateway Refinement Plan, the proposed amendments must
demonstrate consistency with the Metro Plan (SDC 8.030(1)).
Except for the Growth Management Goals, which are addressed below, each of
the Metro PI~n policies are addressed in the order in which they appear in the Plan
Element section of the Metro Plan.
E. Metro Plan Elements
1._ Growth Management
Policies
.
1. "The urban growth boundary and sequential development shall continue to be
implemented as'an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. Provision of
all urban' services shall be 'concentrated inside the urban growth boundary. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The revised proposal continues to satisfy this policy for two reasons. First, the
Gateway MDR site is inside the metropolitan UGB and as such, encourages compact
urban growth. Secondly, urban- services are available at sufficient levels to
accommodate the development resulting from this application. Upon approval of the
revised proposal, PeaceHealth will remain bound by annexation agreements that
restrict development on the Gateway MDR site until such time that a full level of
urban services are extended to serve that future development. The City's master plg.n
and site plan review processes will ensure that the appropriate level of these services
is efficiently extended to each phase of future development.
"2. The UGB shall lie along the outside edge of existing and planned rights-of-way
that form a portion of the UGB so that the full right-of-way is within the UGB. "
.
Page 50 of 123
1/10/05
.
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The revised proposal continues to satisfy this policy because the UGB includes the
full rights-of-way relevant at the Gateway'MDR site including Pioneer Parkway, a
project shown on TransPlan. The UGB at the Gateway MDR site follows the
McKenzie River along the eastern portion of the subject site and continues along the
McKenzie as the river flows northwest. All rights-of-way that currently serve the site
and that are anticipated to serve future development are within the UGB. As such, all
of the streets that will eventually serve the site will be upgraded to full urban
standards.
"3. Controi oj location, timing, and financing of the major public investments that
directly influence the growth form of the m~tropolitan area shall be planned and
coordinated on a metropolitan-wide basis."
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
Th~ major public investments relevant to PeaceHealth's proposal are those affecting
public services, particularly transportation. The proposal on remand continues to
provide for the coordination of these improvements as they relate to the Gateway
MDR site. The major transportation facilities tha~ will serve the eventual
development of the Gateway MDR site are identified in TransPlan. The
transportation analysis in the record demonstrates that these facilities are sufficient to
accommodate the development the amendments will allow. As a component of the
development of the site, PeaceHealth will be required to construct portions of several
new on-site collector streets that have been identified in TransPlan as financially
constrained. PeaceHealth is also bound by several annexation agreements to
contribute financially to facilitate the construction of off-site transportation
impr()vements at Pioneer Parkway and 1-105 and at the Beltline Gateway intersection.
The findings responding to the TPR and Goal 12 further explain the public and private
investments related to the proposal.
"8. Land within the Urban Growth Boundary may be convertedfrom urbanizable
to urban only through annexation to a city when it is found that:
a. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the
area in an orderly and efficient manner.
b. There will be logical area and time within which to deliver urban services
and facilities. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban shall also be
consistent with the Metropolitan Plan."
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
Page 5] of ]23
1110/05
The Gateway MDR site subject to the revised proposal is within the Urban Growth
Boundary. When the Gateway MDR site and portions thereof were brought into the .
UGB and the city limits, the Lane County Local Boundary Commission and the City ,
determined that a minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided
to the site in a logical progression, both in terms of geography and time. Further, the
Boundary Commission decision determined that conversion of urbanizable land to
urban was consistent with the Metro Plan. All of the property within the Gateway
MDR site affected by the revised proposal is located within the Springfield city limits.
While urban services do not currently serve the entire site, annexation agreements
between the PeaceHealth and the City specify the urban services that must be
extended to the site prior to any development on the site. The City Council and the
Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission have adopted findings of fact
that key urban services will be extended to the site in an orderly and efficient manner
and that they will be sufficient to serve future development.
*
*
*
*
Several other policies under this Metro Plan Element were modified through the 2004
Metro Plan amendments. The amended policies, however, did not apply to the
original proposal, and nothing in the modified proposal would require the modified
proposal to be measured against the amended policies of this element. Moreover, the
amendments are not material and do not modify the City's earlier position that these .
policies are inapplicable to the present review.
2. Residential Land Use and Housing Element
, Policies
"A./ Encourage the consolidation of residentially zoned parcels to
facilitate more options for development and redevelopment of such parcels"
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The Gateway MDR site subject to the revised proposal consists of a few large
parcels, all of which are currently owned by PeaceHealth. PeaceHealth plans to -
develop an integrated project on the site that will include medical, residential and
commercial uses. Additional consolidation of the parcels is not necessary for
development of the site. The revised proposal and the text amendments to the GRP
require that the consolidated property be comprehensively planned pursuant to a
master plan. This wit-I facilitate options for development and will implement this
Metro Plan policy. '
.
Page 52 of 123
1110/05
.'
.
.
"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. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
Prior to development and in conjunction with the master plan, the Gateway
MDR site will be zoned consistent with the Metro Plan and GRP diagrams as
am~nded by this revised proposal. The revised proposal continuities to establish the
policy necessary to both redesignate the subject property (Residential Implementation
Action 12.1) and rezone the property (Residential Implementation Action 12.0). This
policy arrangement eliminates the potential for a plan-zone conflict in conformance,
with this Metro Plan policy. The property is within the UGB sotheprovisions of this
policy relating to lands outside the UGB do not apply.
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. "
The 2004 Met~o Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
This policy calls for ensuring an adequate supply of residentially designated
land within the region, consistent with the requirements of Goal 10 requirement.
"A.5 Develop a monitoring system that measures land consumption, land
values, housing type, size and density. Reports should be made to the community
on an annual basis. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
This policy is not directly applicable to this proposal because the obligation
to prepare the monitoring reports is an obligation of the three adopting jurisdictions.
"A.6 Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall encourage a community
dialogue, when the annual monitoring report on land supply and housing
development is made public, to address future Periodic Review requirements that
relate to meeting the residential land supply needs of the metropolitan area. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The opponents argue that the 2003 Springfield Residential Land Monitoring
Report must be relied upon by the City in determining whether there is sufficient
buildable land within the City of Springfield. In particular, the opponents argue that
the monitoring report is, more current, and, therefore, the City must base its decision
Page 53 of 123
1/ I 0/05
on the monitoring report rather than the Buildable Lands Inventory set forth at pages
III-A-3 to 4 in the Metro Plan. The City finds that reliance on the monitoring report .
rather than the acknowledged and adopted inventory in the Metro Plan would conflict
with Policy A.6. Amendments to the Metro Plan may not leave the Metro Plan
inconsistent. Reliance on the monitoring report, which has not been adopted by the
City, the City of Eugene, or Lane County, would be inconsistent with the Metro.Plan.
By the express terms of this policy, the monitoring report is to be used to encourage a
"community dialogue" regarding the buildable lands inventory during the next
periodic review. None of the Residential Element policies, including A.6, require or
even suggest that the monitoring report should be used instead of the ,adopted
inventory. Indeed, the express terms of policy A.6 state that the monitoring reports
should be used to address future needs, not current inventories.
"A.8 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local
jurisdiction, of extending public services and infrastructure. The cities shall
examine ways to provide subsidies or incentives for providing infrastructure that
support affordable housing and/or higher density housing. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments ,do not modify this policy.
Although no development is proposed or specifically authorized in the revised
proposal on remand, when development commences, PeaceHealth will be required to
pay appropriate costs to extend public services and infrastructure to the site validly .
imposed on it by the City. In addition, the Annexation Agreements acknowledge that
additional infrastructure may be required as a condition of specific development
approval. These requirements will come in the form of required construction or in the
assessment of Systems Development Charges that have been calculated to capture the
cost of providing regional service capacity. Through its annexation agreement with
the City, PeaceHealth is obligated to assist in on-site and off-site infrastructure'
improvements without public subsidy.
i-
"A. 11 Generallf locate higher density residential development near
employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or
within transportation-efficient nodes. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The proposal on remand, like the PAPAl proposal, will facilitate the location
of nodal overlay on MDR, MS andMUC zoning districts. Each will allow for a
higher residential density that the current Gateway MDR zoning. Higher density
residential development on the Gateway MDR site will be located within
approximately one-quarter mile of existing and future employment and commercial
services, as well as future high capacity transit (i.e., Phase 2 of the Bus Rapid Transit
.
Page 54 of 123
1/10/05
.
system). PeaceHealth's contribution of right-of-way and construction funding for
extension of the Pioneer Parkway, as well as the development of an internal collector
street system within the RiverBend site, will provide convenient transit access to
serve future employment and residential development at densities conducive to
supporting transit service.
"A. 12 Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision
of adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities. "
The Gateway MDRsite is within the city limits of Springfield. Pursuant to the
annexation agreements with the City, PeaceHealth is required to extend all urban
services necessary for future development into the site, including extension ,of sanitary
sewer and water trunk lines, and the extension of the Pioneer Parkway. The revised
proposal will continue to facilitate the City's nodal implementation project which
when complete will allow for a higher density of dwelling units at the Gateway MDR
site. Density in the INDO district is not specified, but is limited by height. TheINDO
district coordinates this higher density with the provision of infrastructure such as
BR T, and has specific design requirements for the provision of open space and other
urban amenities. Moreover, through the master planning process, the City will ensure
that residential development will be consistent with all applicable City standards,
including infrastructure, services, open space and other urban amenities.
.
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
"A. 13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by
creating more opportunities for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and
mixed use while considering impacts of increased residenii~l density on historic,
existing and future neighborhoods. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
The revised proposal will continue to create opportunities for effectively
designed in-fill by enabling a mixed use development at higher than average
residential densities, thereby providing an effective mix of uses (i.e., medical, office,
residential, and appropriately-scaled commercial retail uses) to serve existing and
future neighborhoods in the Gateway area. Specifically, the Metro Plan diagram
amendments are necessary antecedents to applying the City's new Mixed Use
Commercial zoning district on a portion of the site. The Metro Plan Diagram
amendments will ultimately allow for nearly 50 acres ofMUC zoning, and nearly
44 acres of MS zoning at the Gateway MDR site. Both zoning designations will
facilitate the City's nodal implementation project. The City's INDO district requires a
minimum of 12 dwelling units per acre whereas the existing MDR zoning of the site
requires 10 units per acre. The INDO District applied to the MUC, MS and MDR -'
Page 55 of 123
1/10/05
zones will also allow for a mixture of uses not curren!ly available to developers. The
Gateway MDR site subject to the revised proposal is undeveloped, so implementation .
of the proposal will have no direct affect on -existing neighborhoods.
"A. 17 Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type,
density, size, cost, and location "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
,Adoption of the revised proposal will not limit the City's ability to provide a
full range in housing types. In fact, the residential housing on the Gateway MDR site
is planned to be part of a unique development that will allow people to live in
proximity to their work, will offer easy access to transportation facilities, and will be
located in a pleasant area with views of the McKenzie River and access to a trail
system along the river. The proposal will also widen the range of housing types
available at the Gateway MDR site by adding the MUC to an area dominated by
MDR designation. The MUC designation allows for the mix of residential and
commercial uses in a vertical arrangement. Additionally, Residential Implementation
Actions 12.0, 12.1 and 13.6 and Commercial Element Policy 5.0 will facilitate the
City's nodal implementation project. Once implemented, the INDO district will allow
for a mixture of uses and a mixture of housing types. Implementation Action 19.0
will allow for a housing density bonus if developers offer low-moderate income
housing opportunities. .
"A.22 Expand opportunitiesfor a mix of uses in newly developing areas
and existing neighborhoods through local zoning anddevelopment
regulations. " ,
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The application of the MUC District and Residential Implementation
Actions 12.0, 12.1 and 13.6 and Commercial Element Policy 5.0 will facilitate the
implementation of the nodal overlay which allows for a mix of uses and ensure
compliance with this Metro Plan policy.
3. Economic Element
Policies
"B.1 Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially
those providing above-above wage and salary levels, and increased variety of job
opportunities, a rise in the standard of living, and utilization of our existing
.
Page 56 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
comparative advantage in the level of education and skill of the resident labor
force. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
Approval of the revised proposal will assist in achieving this goal by providing
for increased opportunity for new health care related employment in the City. In
general, the hospital is expected to provide above-average wage and salary levels, an
increased variety of job opportunities, a rise in the standard of living, and utilization
of the region's existing comparative advantage in the level of education and skills of
the resident labor force by providing a new and expanded job opportunity for medical
professionals and other individuals at this location.
"B.2 Encourage economic development which utilizes local and imported capital,
entrepreneurial skills, and the resident labor force. "
- '
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The eventual development enabled by the proposal will utilize both local and
imported capital and will employ the resident labor force in a variety of skilled,
semi-skilled, and unskilled positions. The construction of and the use of a hospital,
associated medical uses and the retail and residential node that these proposal will
permit and facilitate will utilize local and imported capital, encourage entrepreneurial
skills and will employ members of the local labor force. The MUC zoning which
will allow for retail and commerciaL uses will allow entrepreneurs to establish
businesses at the Gateway MDR site.
-
"B.3 Encourage local residents to develop job skills and other educational
attributes that will enable them to fill existing job opport,!nities.
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The revised proposal furthers this policy by providing job opportunities both
through the construction and operation of the hospital as well as through the eventual
mixed use development opportunities that will encourage local residents to develop
their job skills and other educational attributes. '
"B.6 Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industry and
commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and
availability with the projections of demand. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
Page 57 of 123
1/10/05
The revised proposal will add nearly 50 acres of undeveloped Mixed Use
Commercial and nearly 44 acres to Community Commercial, with the MS zoning .
applied; consistent with recommendations to increase the commercial lands Inventory
. made in the Springfield Commercial Lands Study." The revise4 proposal supports this
policy by increasing the amount of undeveloped land zoned for commercial uses
because it provides for additional commercial land consistent with the region's desire
to have a surplus.
"B.ll Encourage economic activities which strengthen the metropolitan area's
position as a regional distribution, trade, health, and service center. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The proposal will, enable the development of a regionally important medical
center that will strengthen the metropolitan area's position as a premier locale for
healthcare services.
"B.14 Continue efforts to keep the Eugene and Springfield central business
districts as vital centers of the metropolitan area. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The revised proposal will not detract from the City's central business district's .
position as a vital center of the metropolitan area because the large tracts of land at .
RiverBend needed to accommodate the proposed medical center are not available
within the central business district of the City. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest
thatthe development of mixed use commercial uses at the Gateway MDR site would
cause existing businesses in the Gity to relocate to the ,new development.
Additionally, while not located in the Eugene central business district, PeaceHealth is
dedicating approximately $60 million toward renewal of the existing Sacred Heart
Medical Center in Eugene. The dual campus strategy will result in the retention and
consolidation of approximately 1,800 jobs at the Hilyard campus. Further, relocating
outpatient services from the existing Eugene Clinic s~te in downtown Eugene to the
Hilyard campus provides an outstanding opportunity for in-fill and redevelopment at
, the Eugene Clinic site more proximate to the Eugene central business district. While
it is in the interest of both Cities' downtowns to locate large employers proximate to
the services and transportation options the downtowns provide, the siting of
physically large MS districts .such as is proposed, in the Springfield downtown would
result in multiple non-conforming uses and potential business and residential
relocations. This large scale, single use, would possibly detract from the pedestrian
scale of the existing downtown and the vision for the downtown as a commercial
node.
.
Page 58 of 123
1110/05
.
"B.I5 Encourage compatibility between industrially zoned lands and adjacent
areas and local planning programs.
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The development proposed by PeaceHealth within the Gateway MDR site must
'first gain master plan approval by the City. During this review, the staff and the
Springfield Planning Commission will review the application to ensure that any
component of the proposed development will be compatible with the Campus
Industrial area located adjacent to the Gateway MDR site to the north across
Deadmond Ferry Rd. The proposal is compatible with the industrially zoned lands to
the north and will be made so through the local planning program in the City
including, but not limited to, the master plan and site plan review processes.
"B.I6 Utilize processes and local controls which 'encourage retention of large
parcels or consolidation of small parcels in industrial or commercially zoned land
to facilitate their use or reuse in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
The circumstances surrounding the proposal are unique in that PeaceHealth is
the sole property owner that own annexed property at the Gateway MDR site. The
common holdings present the City with approximately 177 acres of property that can
be planned for through the City's comprehensive master plan process in conformance
with this Metro Plan policy. The revised proposal, therefore, satisfies this policy
becausejt encourages the retention of a ,large parcel of land proposed to be zoned, in
part, cOlnmercial to facilitate its use in a comprehensive fashion. The land will be
reusedln acomprehensive fashion through the master plan and site plan review
process.
"B.I8 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would
improves access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement
capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport
Master Plan. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
The proposal supports this policy because it will encourage the development of
transportation facilities that will improve access to a commercial area and improve
freight movement capability by implementing the policies and projects in TransPlan
relevant to this application. The proposal requires that any development on the
Gateway MDR site achieve master plan approval. The criteria of master plan
Page 59 of 123
1/10/05
approval require that proposed on-site and off-site public and private improvements
are sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. Adequate'transportation .
access to the up to entire MUC and MS area and to the Campus Industrial area to the
north will be accounted for in the master plan.
"B.22 Review loca~ ordinances and revise them to promote greater flexibility for
promoting appropriate commercial development in residential neighborhoods. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify th!s policy.
The City adopted SDC Articles 40 Mixed Use Zoning Districts and Article 41
Nodal Development Overlay District in July of 2002. T~ese new zoning districts are
intended to implement TransPlans policy objectives of integrating pedestrian scaled
commercial establishments adjacent to, and within, residential areas. The GRP
Residential Implementation Actions 12.0, 12.1 and 13.6 proposed through this revised
proposal require that the required master plan include comply with the development
and siting standards of SDC Articles 40 and 41. The current proposal achieves this
policy by reviewing relevant local ordinances (e.g. the GRP) and proposes revisions
to them to promote greater flexibility for promoting appropriate commercial '
development in a limited part of the INDO site area in and around residential
neighborhoods.
"B.23 Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under .
procedures which clearly define the conditions under which such uses shall be
permitted and which: (a) preserve the suitability of the affected areas for their
primary uses; (b) assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potential for increased
traffic congestion. " ,
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The proposal satisfies this policy for several reasons. First, the proposed text
amendments will provide for the limited mixing of commercial and office uses. Such
mixing will be accomplished under procedures in the City's Master Plan and Site Plan
Review processes, which clearly define the conditions under which such uses can be
permitted. Additionally, the proposal preserves the suitability of the MDR site area
for residential uese. Further, the proposal assures compatibility because the Master
Plan and Site Plan Review processes are required to be followed. '
"B.28 Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing
services and goods to a particular neighborhood. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
Page 60 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
Through the City's nodal implementation project, it is anticipated that portions
of the MDR zoned property that at the Gateway MDR site will have the nodal overlay
applied to it. In this case, up to 20 percent of the gross floor area of the residential
developments can be dedicated to commercial uses as regulated by SDC Article 40.
Also, the MUC zoning proposed for approximately 50 acres of the site allows for
supporting commercial retail uses to be blended with other medical and general office
functions to serve the surrounding area with neighborhood commercial services. This
provides assurance that an appropriate level of neighborhood commercial facilities
can be provided to the future residents of the site.
"B.l9 Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood
commercial facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the
characteristics of the support population change. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy. '
Given the significant development - medical, retail, office and residential-
that is expected to occur on the Gateway MDR site based on the proposal and
required master plan"commercial diagram and text designations in this area support
this policy because they provide for a mixed use commercial area that supports the
. proposed office and residential development.
4. Environmental Resources Element
The Environmental Resources Element has been substantially revised~ The,
findings below first address the policies that were addressed in the previous decision,
in the order that they appeared in that decision, but with the new corresponding policy
number shown. The findings then address the new applicable policies of this element
of the Metro Plan.
Policies
"elS Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts.
when planning for organization, flood control, urban storm runoff, recreation, and
water quality along the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers."
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
Development on the GatewayMDR site will be required to conform with
natural resource and open space policies and standards contained in the GRP and the
SDC. Any development on the Gateway MDR site must conform with the SDC and
the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Both
documents contain requirements and standards intended to minimize the amount and
Page 61 of 123
1/10/05
rate of stormwater runoff from developments and promote water quality.
PeaceHealth's storm drainage proposal for future development will be reviewed at .
both the master plan and again at the site plan review level to ensure compliance with
the City's regulations.
The proposed development will use existing natural amenities as focal points
for design, while protecting and enhancing the site's scenic and natural resources, and
will not negatively impact the productivity or use of agricultural uses adjacent to the
1 site or across the river. In fact, on a preliminary basis PeaceHealth continues to
harvest the existing filbert orchard on the site, and is maintaining the nursery tree
stock on-site for future use in site and street tree plantings.
The design of the RiverBend campus, and hospital in particular, will take
advantage of the scenic value associated with the existing,~tand of Douglas fir trees;
proximity to the McKenzie River for visual access to, and physical access along, the
river; and the vistas of the Coburg Hills and other prominent topographic features
off-site. Whereas the river's edge currently is marked by non-native, invasive species,
the site's master plan will include means of enhancing and restoring the site's riparian
environment. Pursuant to the annexation agreement between PeaceHealth and the
City, a riverside buffer will be retained that exceeds the City's setback standards
established in recently adopted SDC language in conformance with the federal
Endangered Species Act. Therefore, future development associated with the proposed .
Plan diagram and text amendments will be required to conform with standards and
policies that ensure conformance with the above objective.
"C.30 Except as otherwise allowed according to FEMA regulations, development
shal~ be prohibited in floodways if it could result in an increased flood leveL The
floodway is the channel of a river or other water course and the adjacent land area
that must be reserved to discharge a one-percent-:-chance flood in any given year. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
Although the proposal does not directly involve a development proposal (the
subsequent submittal of a required master plan will more directly address this policy),
consistent with the above policy, PeaceHealth will not propose any development
within the designated floodway that would increase flood elevations downstream.
Any proposed uses in the floodway will be largely ofa passive nature (e.g.,
recreational facilities, riparian enhancements) that will allow potential flood flows to
pass through the site unabated, as required by SDC Article 27. SDC Article 27
,Floodplain Overlay District will apply to any development at the Gateway MDR site,
that is within the 100-year flood hazard area, including the floodway. SDC27.040(3)
excludes any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial
.
Page 62 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
improvements or other development in the floodway unless a registered engineer
certifies that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels.
"C32 Local government shall require site- specific soil surveys and geologic
studies where potential problems exist When problems are identified, local
governments shall require special design considerations and construction measures
be taken offset the soil and geologic constraints present, to protect life and property,
public investments, and environmentally-sensitive areas."
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The Gateway MDR site contains no problematic soils or areas of geologic
hazard or constraint that would be applicable to this policy. The riparian area along
the McKenzie River is an environmentally-sensitive area. PeaceHealth's preliminary
plans recognize the sensitivity of this area and will incorporate appropriate land use
and environmental safeguards to protect this area. During the review of any master
plan, as required by the proposal, and during any subsequent site plan review
application, the City Engineer will verify that the soil type is adequate to
accommodate any proposed development.
"C19 Agricultural production shall be considered an acceptable interim and
temporary use on urbanizable land and on vacant and underdeveloped urban land
where no conflicts with adjacent urban uses exist "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The Gateway MDR site has a small hazelnut (filbert) orchard, and an area east
of Baldy View Lane that is in grass seed and/or wheat production.. These agricultural
uses are an interim and temporary use on urbanizable land until the PeaceHealth
project is developed. SDC Article 18, which regulates commercial districts, permits
agricultural cultivation of undeveloped land and thus ensures that the approval of the
Amendments will not cause an inconsistency with the Metro Plan. (
"C26 Local governments shall continue to monitor, to plan for, and to enforce
applicable air and water quality standards and shall cooperate immediately in
. applicable federal, state, and local a.ir and water quality standards. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The SDC was amended in August 2002 to achieve compliance with federal
regulations relating to water quality in streams containing threatened and endangered
species such as the McKenzie River. Techniques necessary to ensure water quality
standards will be applied to the future development that is anticipated through the
Page 63 of 123
1/10/05
,
adoption of this proposal and required under the master plan and site plan review
processes. Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority is a member of the City's
Development Review Committee and will review any future development proposals
for this site to ensure compliance with air quality regulations.
.
"C2l When planning for and regulating development, local governments shall
consider the need for protection of open spaces, including those characterized by
significant vegetation and wildlife. Means of protecting open space include but are
not limited to outright acquisition, conservation easements, planned unit
, development ordinances, streamside protection ordinances, open space tax
deferrals, donations to the public, and performance zoning. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not ~odify this policy.
The City has at its disposal several methods of conserving open space on the
Gateway MDR site. These include the imposition of a 75-foot building setback from
the McKenzie River as part of its new Code language responding to Endangered
Species Act protections, and density transfers established in the Gateway Refinement
Plan (Residential Element, Implementation Action 15.1) for protecting identified
natural assets. PeaceHealth's development proposals that will be submitted as part of
a master plan will be required to meet or exceed the riparian setback standard, and
otherwise seek to conserve significant vegetation, such as the Douglas fir grove
identified in the GRP as "other prominent vegetation." Through these and other .
design elements offered in PeaceHealth's master plan, a s~bstantial amount of open
space will remain conserved on-site and incorporated into the overall design of the
site. 'These issues will more appropriately be addressed through the review process of
the master plan. However, nothin in this proposal alters the City's ability to
encourage open space protection, or the GRP policies that help conserve open space
on the subject property. The Springfield Bicycle Plan and TransPlan show an
off-street multi-use path along the river frontage of the applicant's property. Plan
Amendment Residential Element Policy 13.0 and the recorded annexation agreements
require that a master plan be approved prior to development of the applicant's site.
Willamalane will have a representative on the City's Development Review Committee
and will participate in the review and recommendation to the City Council on the
master plan and subsequent site plan review applications and will ensure that this
metro plan policy is complied with.
"Cll Local government shall protect endangered and threatened plant-and
wildlife species, as recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notice and
opportunity for public input.
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
Page 64 of 123
IIi 0/05
.
-
The proposal satisfies this policy because no endangered and threatened plant
and wildlife species have been identified on the site. Further, the applicant will
provide appropriate environrilental safeguards pursuant to applicable SDC standards
so that any such species located downstream in the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers
will be unaffected by this proposal. Threatened aquatic species are found in the
McKenzie River adjacent to the site. The SDC was amended in August of 2002 to
incorporate standards designed to protect water quality and to apply these standards to
new development and redevelopment. Any development approved pursuant to this or
any later development proposal will be subject to these standards and will be in
conformance with this Metro Plan policy.
"C.22 Design of new street, highway, and transitfacility shall consider noise
mitigation measures where appropriate. "
.
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
L TD has indicated that the transit service would remain on MLK Parkway
south of the subject site. Appropriate noise mitigation measures will be considered, if
deemed appropriate, and during development of the site and through master plan
approval. The master plan required by Residential Implementation Action 13.0 prior
to any development is required by Residential Implementation Action 13.2 to include
the consultation ofan acoustic engineer. The Planning Director and the City Engineer
will review the master plan and subsequent site plan review applications with the
evidence supplied by this professional and will require mitigation measures where
appropriate and will ensure compliance with this Metro Plan policy.
5. Willamette River Greenway, Riyer Corridors, and
Waterway Element
Policies
"D.l Periodically, local government shall review Greenway boundaries, uses, and
potential acquisition areas to ensure continued compliance with state and local
,Greenway goals. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
The proposal satisfies appropriate Greenway-driven policies and concerns.
Consistent with the statement in this portion of the Metro Plan, PeaceHealth intends to
utilize the riparian area along the McKenzie River for open space and recreational
purposes. The development anticipated upon adoption of the proposal will be
reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the SDC. The SDC contains
requirements for a minimum of a 75- foot setback from the top of bank along the
Page 65 of 123
1/10/05
McKenzie River and limits the uses within this setback; therefore ensuring a
greenway buffer along the river. During master plan review, the potential for
acquisition of areas to ensure continued compliance will be evaluated.
.
"D.5 New development that locates along river corridors and waterways shall be
limited to uses that are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental
qualities of those water features. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy;
Although no development is proposed as part of this proposal, it establishes the
basis for subsequent submittal of a master plan required for future development on the
Gateway MDR site. The record includes evidence reflecting a substantial and
credible body ofempincal'research that demonstrates the positive effects of access
and views of natural environments and natural light in speeding patient recovery
times. PeaceHeaIth'sproposed iocation of hospital and medical service uses along the
McKenzie River corridor is inherently compatible with and seeks to conserve and
enhance the natural, scenic and environmental qualities of the McKenzie River. The
proposal enables the future development of a compatible mix of supporting uses away
from the river corridor to complement the planned hospital and medical services
development. Additionally, Residential Implementation Action 12.6 reserves the
ability of the City Council to regulate the height and setbacks of during master plan
review. City officials and the public will have an opportunity during the master plan .
review to review uses and arrangement of development to ensure that the
development is compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of
those water features.
6. Environmental Design Element
Policies
"E.] 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. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The Gateway MDR is currently designated MDR. The proposal will establish
Metro Plan, and eventual zoning designations, that allow a diverse mosaic of hospital,
residential and commercial uses to be arranged in way that will allow for nodal
development principles to be realized in the area. The proposal enables the
development of a master plan for an integrat~d live/work environment that embraces
the site's natural amenities, enhances recreational opportunities and helps meet other
.
Page 66 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
objectives outlined in the GRP. The proposal will allow for a mix of uses that
currently are not permitted at the Gateway MDR site and will therefore increase the
diversity of commercial and residential development. Additionally, the required
master plan review will include a review of recreational land at the site to ensure that
it is adequate to serve the future residents and other uses of the site and ensures
compliance with this policy.
"B.2 Natural vegetation, natural water features and drainageways shall be
protected and retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be
.
utilized to enhance those natural features. This policy does not preclude increasing
their conveyance capacity in an environmentally responsible manner. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
To the extent natural vegetation (large trees) is protected by the City's GoalS
designations, PeaceHealth will be required to comply with any applicable City
requirements protecting these resources during the master plan review process. The
McKenzie River, to the extent it is considered a natural water feature will be proteCted
through compliance with buffer requirements set forth in the applicable annexation
agreement and through the application of the stormwater quality requirements of the
SDC. As part of the master plan, landscaping will be used to enhance the natural
vegetation in the McKenzie River area ~s required by SDC Article 32 and will be
reviewed at site plan review. All eventual development must comply with SDC
Article 31. SDC 31.240 contains standards for protecting open drainage ways as
described in this Metro Plan policy. Additionally, PeaceHealth will be required to
submit a comprehensive drainage plan with the master plan. The City Engineer will
review this pl~ to ensure compliance with the standards of the Code and ensure
compliance with this policy.
"B.3 The planting of street trees shall be strongly encouraged, especially for all
new developments and redeveloping areas (where feasible) and new streets and
reconstruction of major arterials within the urban growth boundary. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
SDC Section 32.0S0requires street trees to be planted as a component of
development. Planting of street trees will be a condition of development approval and
implements this policy.
Page 67 of 123
1/10/05
"E.4 Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that
preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and
promotes their sense of identity. "
.
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
Residential Implementation Action 13.6 requires that development within ~
mile of the future BRT transit station at the Gateway MDR site be designed in
conformance with SDC Articles 40 and 41. Articles 40 and 41 contain required
design features that promote pedestrian scaled development including connections to '
the surrounding existing neighborhoods. This, coupled with ability of the City
Council to regulate height in master plan, as indicated in Residential Implementation
Action 12.6, will ensure the City's ability to require design features that enhance the
local neighborhoods. These will include a retail component in the nodal area to
provide goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood and a multi-use, path
along the McKenzie River and shown in TransPlan and the Springfield Bicycle Plan
to provide recreational opportunities to existing residents. Finally, PeaceHealth has
expressed an intention to work with the neighbors living west of Game Farm Road
South to ensure that the development between Pioneer Parkway and Game Farm Road
South is appropriate for that area and, to the extent practical, preserves and enhances
the desirable feature of the local and neighborhood area while promoting the identity
of the area.
.
"E.5 Carefully develop sites that provide visual diversity to the urban area and
optimize their visual and personal accessibility to residents. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
The Gateway MDR site provides visual diversity in the Springfield urban area.
PeaceHealth has explained that the proposed design will incorporate broad vistas
through open areas and will leave the McKenzie River riparian area in an open state
for visual accessibility. Moreover, the design and configuration of the eventual
development permitted will be reviewed during the required master plan process by
the City to ensure visual and personal accessibility to residents. Pedestrian, bicycle
and vehicle access to the sight from surrounding residential areas will be a
requirement of master plan approval.
"E.7 The development of urban design elements as part of local and refinement
plans shall be encouraged. "
The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy.
.
Page 68 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
(
.
,
The proposal includes policies that require development of portions the
PeaceHealth property to be designed to comply with design elements of SDC Articles
40 and 41. These two Articles contain the City newest urban design elements;
therefore, this Metro Plan policy has been complied with.
"E.8 Site planning standards developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for
flexibility in design that will achieve site planning objectives while allowing for
creative solutions to design problems. "
The 2004 Metro Plan'amendments do not modify this policy.
'SDC Article 11 Variances and Modifications of Provisions provides
developers with a vehicle to achieve flexibility in the standards of the SDC that may
not be congruent to the design objectives of future development at the GatewayMDR
site. Additionally, Residential Implementation Action 13.6 exempts hospitals and
associated medical uses in the MS and INDO Districts from specific development
standards if the developer can demonstrate, and that the City Council concurs, that the
Purpose of the Nodal Overlay District (40.010(1)) is met. This flexibility allows for
the compliance with this Metro Plan policy. PeaceHealth has indicated the
development will incorporate the flexibility inherent in the SDC to achieve optimum
creative solutions for the development of this site.
7. Transportation Element
Land Use Policies
"F.I Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction
that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use
pattern. "
The revised proposal continues to implement this policy because it will allow for the
imposition of nodal development in this area pursuant to TransPlan's recommendation
that this area be a node. The revised proposal and the eventual development further
this policy by providing for mixed use commercial adjacent to a large hospital
development with surrounding residential development. The synergistic effect of the
combined three land use areas developed through an overall master plan provides
opportunities for nodal development. Residential Implementation Action 13.6
requires that the master plan for the applicant's site show that all development within
one-quarter mile of transit stops be designed in conformance with the standards of
Article 41 Nodal Development Overlay District. The City is currently undergoing
nodal implementation in six sites throughout the city; the Gateway MDR site is one of
these sites. It is anticipated that the City's action for redesignation of the appropriate
Page 69 of 123
1/10/05
t
property at the Gateway MDR site will be processed concurrently with the master
phm and will ensure that this Metro Plan policy is complied with.
.
"F.3 Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including
higher intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and
near transit stations; medium- and high-density residential development within one-
quarter mile of transit stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and
downtown areas; and development and redevelopment in designated areas that are
or could be well served by existing or planned transit "
Residential Implementation Action 13.6 requires the applicant to comply with SDC
. Article 41 in areas within one-quarter mile of the proposed transit stop ensures that
this policy is implemented. The proposal and the eventual development will provide
for a transit~supportive land use pattern with higher than average densities and a BRT
line extending through the site. The development will incorporate medical services,
office, c~mmercial and residential land use.
"F-4. Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in
new commercial, public, mixed-use and multi-unit residential development.
The SDC has been acknowledged by the DLCD as being consistent with
Transportation Planning Rule 12, including containing adequate provisions for
bicycles and pedestrians facilities. PeaceHealth will be required to comply with these .
standards for any development approved by these plan amendments. Additionally,
the City and Lane Transit District have determined that Bus Rapid Transit phase 2
will extend BRT to the Gateway MDR site. The master plan approval process will
ensure that the transit stop is appropriately placed to encourage transit use.
"F-5. Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply theND, Nodal Development
designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to
, protect designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for
completion of nodal plans and implementing ordinances. "
The City Council has directed City staff to perform the analysis necessary to apply the
Nodal overlay to six sites within the City. The Gateway MDR site is one of these
sites. The assessment of this site is underway. It is anticipated that the redesignation
of appropriate property at the Gateway MDR Site will be processed concurrently with
the applicant's master plan; therefore, this policy is fulfilled. The proposal furthers
this policy by incorporating an amendment to the GRP text encouraging application of
Nodal Development to the site. Moreover, PeaceHealth expressed its intention to
actively consider nodal development participation for a portion of this area.
.
Page 70 of 123
1110/05
.
Transportation Demand Management Policies
"F.6 Expand existing TDM programs and develop new TDM programs. Establish
TDM benchmarks and if the benchmarks are not achieved, mandatory programs
may be established. " "
Residential Implementation Action 13.7 requires a Trip Allocation Plan to be
submitted with the required master plan and imposes a trip cap to areas subject to
these plan amendments. The trip cap will encourage the applicant to voluntarily
implement Transportation Demand Management techniques at their site and
implements this metro plan policy.
"F.8 Implement TDM strategies to manage demand at congested locations."
The trip cap required by Residential Implementation Action 13.7"in addition to the
extension of BR T, are strategies intended to reduce congestion. PeaceHealth will be
required to submit a Transportation Impact Analysis for both the required master plan
and subsequent site plan review applications. The TIAs will provide information that
will allow the City to analyze the potential use of additional TDM strategies.
Transportation System Improyements: System-Wide
.
"F.IO Protect and manage existing andfuture existing transportation
infrastructure. " ,
Residential Implementation Action 13.7 imposes a vehicle trip cap to areas subject to
these Amendments and ensures that the find~ngs regarding capacity in the applicant's
TIA are realized and ensures compliance with this policy. The proposal and the
conditions of approval protect and manage existing and future transportation
infrastructure because, as explained in sections of this application addressing the
transportation planning rule and the Oregon Highway Plan, this application maintains
acceptable volume to capacity ("v/c") ratios at relevant intersections. Additional
findings relating to this and other transportation related policies are discussed under
the Goal ,12 findings s,et forth above. The City Council incorporates those findings
here with respect to these transportation policies.
"F.II Develop or promote intermodallinkages for connectivity and ease of
transfer among all transportation modes. "
.
The -Gateway MDR site will have intermodallinkages between BRT and pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. Moreover, PeaceHealth will be required to provide bicycle and
pedestrian connections through the areas subject to these plan amendments to
surrounding residential area as required by SDC Articles 31 an 32. BRT and/or
Page 71 of 123
1/10/05
traditional bus service will provide transit linkage to the site. All intermodallinkages
will be reviewed by the City at the master plan and site plan review process to ensure .
that this Metro Plan policy is implemented.
"F.13 Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability~"
This proposal furthers this policy by encouraging development of areas adjacent to a
transit line with connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle links. The BR T line, the on-
site pedestrian and bicycle facilities and the required linkages to the surrounding
developed residential areas as approved by the required master plan will create
'livability within new neighborhoods at the Gateway MDR site and will enhance
livability in existing surrounding neighborhoods.
Transportation System Improyements: Roadways (Metro Plan page 111-
F-8)
"F.15 motor vehicle level of service policy"
"1. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptable
and reliable performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be
used for:
a) Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
b) Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations,
pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-12-0060).
c) Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction. "
.
This application implements this policy because, as explained elsewhere, the affected
roadways will not experience an unacceptable decline in capacity due to this
application. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis in support of the
proposed plan amendments. The TIA has been reviewed by the City Transportation
Engineer and by ODOT who have determined that the plan amendments, as
conditioned, comply with this Metro Plan policy. The City Council finds that the
Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"2. Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service
under peak hour traffic conditions: LOS E within Eugene's Central Area
Transportation Study (CATS) area, and LOS D elsewhere. "
These amendments do not change the definition of acceptable and reliable
performance. As~ these findings explain and the traffic analysis demonstrates, upon
adoption of these Metro Plan amendments required levels of service will be
maintained.
.
, Page 72 of 123
1/10105
.
.
.
"3. Performance standards from the OHP shall be applied on state facilities in the
Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. "
In some cases, the level of service on a facility may be substandard. The local
government jurisdiction mayfind that transportation system improvements to bring
performance up to standard within the planning horizon may not be feasible, and
safety will not be compromised, and broader community goals would 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 conditions, lack of public agency financial
resources, or land use constraint factors. It is not the intent of TSI Roadway Policy
#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
improvements) to address the problem. "
The amendments do not affect the use of performance standards from the OHP on
state transportation facilities. As the findings elsewhere in this decision demonstrate,
the Amendments and eventual development will maintain required volume to capacity
("V IC") ratios on state facilities.
"F.17 Manage the roadway system to preserve safety and operational efficiency by
adopting regulations to manage access to roadways and applying these regulations
to decisions related to approving new or modified access to the roadway system. "
The amendments do not affect the adoption or application of access management
regulations. Existing and proposed access to the Gateway MDR site is through
roadways subject to the SDC. SDC Article 32 contains standard that regulate access
to these roadways. These standards will be applied to any development authorized by
these plan amendments during the development review process and will ensure
compliance with this Metro Plan policy.
Transportation System Improvements: Transit (Metro Plan page III-F-9)
"F.18 Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility,
attractiveness, and convenience for all users, including the transportation
disadvantaged population. "
. The Gateway MDR site has been identified by LTD and the City as a BRT phase 2
service area. L TD is on the City's Development Review Committee and will provide
recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council during the master
Page 73 of 123
1/10/05
plan review on the most efficient way to provide traditional and rapid transit service
to any development permitted by these plan amendments.
.
"F.19 Establish a BRT system composed offrequent, fast transit service on major
corridors and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service
and with activity centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along
BRT corridors, if local governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the
system is feasible. "
The City is working with L TD to facilitate the extension of the BR T line to serve the
area subject to these plan amendments in conformance with this Metro Plan policy.
Transportation System Improyements: Bicycle
"F.22 Construct and improve the region's bikeway system and provide bicycle
system support facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion. "
The amendment further this policy by providing for an opportunity for extensive bike
-system improvements adjacent to and connecting with the local roadway network on
the site. While these amendments do not directly affect the provision of bicycle
service to the subject area, the Springfield Bicycle Plan shows bicycle connections
and a multi-use path through the areas subject to these plan amendme~ts. The
construction of these bicycle facilities as well as bicycle support facilities such as .
covered bicycle parking in conformance with SDC 31.220, will be a requirement of
development approval and will implement this Metro Plan policy.
"F.23 Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector
streets. "
TransPlan implements this policy by requiring b~keways along all new and
reconstructed arterial and major collector streets. The areas subject to these
amendments will contain arterial and collector streets that will be improved with
bikeways as provided for in TransPlan. Pioneer Parkway will contain a bikeway.
"F.24 Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood
activity centers and major destinations.
SDC 32.090 requires bikeways to be connected to nearby neighborhood activity
, centers and major destinatio"ns. This SDC provision will be applied to any
development permitted by the proposal at the time of master plan and subsequent site
plan review and implements this policy. This proposal and the Metro Plan
amendments further this policy by providing bikeways to connect this development
.
Page 74 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
with nearby neighborhood activity centers and major destinations including retail and \
employer destinations to the northwest and north and retail destinations to the south.
Transportation System Improvements: Pedestrian
"F.26 Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent
land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort and convenience of
walking. " ,
Residential Implementation Action 13.6 requires all development within one-quarter
mile of proposed transit stops at the Gateway MDR site to be developed in accordance
with the standards of SDC Article 41. These standards are designed to create a
pedestrian environment that is integrated with adjacent land uses and to encourage
walking. Implementation Action 13.6 will require the master plan application be
designed in a friendly pedestrian environment integrated with adjacent land uses and
not only designed to enhance the safety, .comfort and convenience of walking but will
encourage pedestrian activity.
"F.27 Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel
routes between destination points. "
The Metro Plan amendments and future development will achieve this policy by
providing for a system of interconnected pedestrian pathways. Residential
Implementation Action 13.5 requires that the initial master plan for the Gateway
MDR site include a conceptual pedestrian circulation system plan for all annexed
. portions of the Gateway MDR site. There is enough annexed territory at the site to
allow for a comprehensive review of this plan to ensure consistency with this Metro
Plan policy.
"F.28 Construct sidewalks along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except
freeways. "
SDC 32.040 requires sidewalks to be installed along both sides of all minor arterial,
collector and local roadways within the City. This standard will be applied to any
development permitted by these Amendments and therefore ensure compliance with
this Metro Plan policy.
Page 75 of 123
1/10/05
Transportation System Finance
.
"F.36 Require that new development pay fo.r its capacity impact on the
transportation system. "
The requirements of the annexation agreements for annexed property within the area
subject to these amendments requires future developers to pay over 11 million dollars
to construct off-site transportation improvements to accommodate traffic. If
additional impacts are identified during the development review process, the City has
a policy of exacting additional improvements that are proportional to the impacts of
the proposed development.
"F.37 Consider and include among short-term project priorities, those facilities and
improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development and
increased use ofalternative modes. "
The amendments and the eventual development of the Gateway MDR site will
encourage the development of appropriate transportation improvements through
applicant-funded improvements including transportation infrastructure. Residential
Implementation Action 13.6 requires development permitted by these plan
amendments to be designed in conformance with the nodal standards adopted in
Articles 40 and 41 and ensures consistency with this Metro Plan policy.
8.
Public Facilities and Seryice Element
.'
Seryices to Deyelopment Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning
and Coordination Policies
"G.1 Extend the minimum level andfull range of key urbanfacilities 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. "
Development at the Gateway MDR site is restricted by recorded annexation
agreements until such time as a minimum level of key urban services are extended to
serve the site. The specific sizing and phasing of these services will be reviewed and
approved by the City during the master plan process. Therefore, any development
approved by this proposal is guaranteed to have these services and this application is
in conformance with this policy. Approval of the amendments will result in the
extension of key urban facilities and services in an orderly and efficient manner to a
site within the City's UGB.
"G.2 Use the Planned Facilities Map of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to
guide the general location of water, waste water, storm water, and electrical projects
.
Page 76 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
in the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, and
'ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project implementation. "
The amendments will permit development that will utilize the facilities as planned for
in the PFP. The proposal will allow development that will result in implementation of
the Planned Facilities Map of the PFP. No amendments to this plan are required;
therefore, this application is in conformance with this Metro Plan policy.
"G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project list in the Public
Facilities and Seryices Plan for water, waste water and storm water public facility
projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan maps 1,2 and 3, requires amending the Public
Facilities and Seryices Plan and the Metro Plan, except for the following:
(omitted)
The amendments propose no additions to or deletions from the referenced project list.
The amendments will permit development that will utilize the facilities as planned for
in the PFP. No amendments to this plan are required; therefore, this application is in
conformance with this Metro Plan policy.
"G.5 The cities shall.continue joint planning coordination with major institutions,
such as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local
facilities and services. "
PeaceHealth has been in constant contact with the City regarding its proposal to locate
a major medical facility at the Gateway MDR site and will be required to work with .
the City to ensure that public facilities are not overloaded by development of the Site.
The City's coordination with McKenzie- Willamette Hospital has resulted in the
creation of the Hospital Support Overlay District (SDC Article 27) that was adopted
with the Development Code in 1987 and also in the creation of the Medical Services
District (Article 22), adopted in 1989. The City of Eugene and Lane County have
been notified of this proposal on remand and have been provided an opportunity to
participate. Although Lane County participated in the appeal of the original proposal,
neither the City of Eugene nor Lane County have elected to participate in the proposal
on remand. Because the City of Eugene has elected not to participate, and has not
made findings that the amendments will result in a Regional Impact, the City has
complied with this Metro Plan policy. Staffwill continue to coordinate with both
hospitals in the future in conformance with this Metro Plan policy.
Page 77 of 123
1/10/05
"G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the'
metropolitan area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will
address regional public facility needs. "
.
The amendments further this policy by encouraging the development of a site within
the existing urban growth boundary which implements the regional growth
management strategy. The three jurisdictions have adopted the PFP and the.Metro
Plan both of which contain growth management strategies and address regional pubic
facility needs. The amendments do not permit development that is incongruent with,
or requires the amendment of, either of these documents, therefore it is consistent
with this Metro Plan policy.
Seryices to DeyelopmentcWithin the Urban Growth Boundary: Water
"G.9 Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, EWEB and
Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers
within the urban growth boundary. "
The area subject to these amendments is entirely annexed and will be served by SUB
in conformance with this Metro Plan policy.
"G.10 Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities,
county and other service providers shall manage land use and public facilities for
groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield
Drinking Water Protection Plan and other wellhead protection plans. Management
, practices instituted to protect groundwater shall be coordinatedamong the City of
Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County. "
.
Areas subject to these amendments fall within the 5 and 10 year time of travel as
depicted on the Springfield Wellhead Protection Map. As such all development
permitted by these plan amendments will be subject to the provisions of SDC
Article 17 Drinking Water Protection Overlay District thus ensuring compliance with
this Metro Plan policy.
"G.11 Ensure that water mai1J. extensions within the urban growth boundary
include adequate consideration of fire flows. "
Water mains will be brought to the site in conjunction with the planned extensions of
Pioneer Parkway and Cardinal Way and will also be available from the north from
Deadmond Feny Road through the Baldy View right.:of-way. The appropriate
portions of this planned water extension will be done prior to development permitted
by these amendments. The Springfield Fire Chief, in consultation with SUB,
determined during the annexation proceedings for the area subj~ct to the amendments
.
Page 78 of 123
1/10/05
.
that adequate fire flow would be available to serve development. Therefore, this
Metro Plan pol~cy has been complied with.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary:
Stormwater Policies
"G.13 Improve surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the metropolitan
area by developing regulations or instituting programs for storm water to (omitted). "
Approval of these amendments and the eventual development will result in a
development that relies on the steps implemented by the local governments to ensure
groundwater quality. The provisions of SDC Article 17 regarding groundwater
protection and SDC Articles 31 and 32 relating to stormwater quality will be imposed
upon any development permitted by these amendments.
"G.14 Implement changes to storm water facilities and management practices to
reduce the presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to
address the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. "
.
The development of the site must comply with applicable local regulations intended to
implement this policy. The SDC, as amended in August of2002, requires stormwater
facilities and management practices for pollutants regulated under the Clean Water
Act and address the requirements of the ESA. These standards will be applied to any
new developments permitted by these amendments and ensure compliance with this
Metro Plan policy.
"G.15 Consider wellhead protection areas and surface water supplies when
planning storm water facilities."
The provisions of SDC Article 17 and Articles 31 and 32 consider wellhead
protection and water quality of surface waters. The requirements of these articles will
be applied to any development permitted by these amendments at the time of
development review and ensures compliance with this policy.
"G.16 Manage or enhance waterways and open storm water systems to reduce water
quality impacts from runoff and to improve storm water conveyance. "
SDC Article 32 and 32 and the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual contain standards that manage and enhance waterways and open stormwater
systems and reduce water quality impacts. These requirements will be applied to any
development permitted by the amendments and ensure compliance with this policy.
Approval of the amendments willresult in a development which minimizes water
.
r'
Page 79 of 123
1 II 0/05
The City's development application fee schedule contains a graduated fee related to
the amount of impervious surface in a development. This provides a financial
incentive for developers to install less impervious surfaces. The City's Mixed Use
and Nodal Overlay districts, which will apply to developments permitted by the
Amendments, include a maximum number of parking spaces which limits impervious
surfaces.
"G.19 Maintainjlood storage capacity within thejloodplain, to the maximum
extent practical, through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in
the jloodplain and adjacent areas. "
No development is proposed as part of these application and any issues regarding
flood storage capacity are more appropriately addressed during master plan, site plan
review or other comparable processes. PeaceHealth is bound by annexation
agreement to produce flood studies to accompany the required master plan. TheCity
Engineer will evaluate the drainage plan to ensure conformance with this policy and
with the requirements of SDC Article 27 which regulates floodplain development and
which has been recognized as being in conformance with this Metro Plan policy as
well as Goal 7.
.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools
"G.21 The cities shall initiate a process with school districts within the urban
growth boundary for coordinating land use and school planning activities. The
cities and school districts shall examine the following in their coordination efforts:
(omitted). "
The Gateway MDR site is within the 4J School District. The school district reviewed
the annexation request and determined that the inclusion of this area in the city limits
was consistent with their planning policies and projections. The number of dwelling
units required by proposed Residential Implementation Action 12.6 is consistent with
the density projections for the area as designated entirely MDR. Therefore, the
Amendments will not affect the school district's projections.
.
Page 80 of 123
1/1 0/05
.
Services to Deyelopment Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Financing
Policies -
"G.36 Require development to pay/he cost, as determined by localjurisdiction, of
extending urban facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a development
will fulfill goals and recommendations in the Metro Plan and other applicable plans
determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular importance or concern. "
Any development permitted by these amendments and the resulting master plan will
be required to extend services at the developer's expense that is proportionate to the
impacts of the development. This will come in the form of required construction or in
the assessment of Systems Development Charges (SDCs) that have been calculated to
capture the cost of providing regional service capacity.
"G.37 Continue to implement a system of user charges, SDCs and other public
financing tools, where appropriate, to fund operations, maintenance, and
improvement or replacement of obsolete facilities or system expansion. "
The applicant will be required to pay appropriate SDC charges. The City assesses
SDCs on new developments in the City. Any development at the Gateway MDR site
must contribute SDCs at the time of development.
.
9.
Parks and Recreation Facilities Element Policies
"H. 4 Encourage the development of private recreational facilities."
Willamalane is on the City's Development Review Committee and will participate in
the review of any development permitted by the amendments. The City will
coordinate with Willamalane to ensure both public and private recreational facilities
are adequately planned for at the master plan level. This review will ensure
compliance with this policy.
10. Historic Preservation Element Policies
"Ll. Adopt and implement historic preservation policies, regulations, and incentive
programs that encourage the inventory, preservation, and restoration of structures;
landmarks; sites; areas of cultural, historic, or archeological significance,
consistent with overall policies. "
To the extent an inventoried adopted historic structure is on the site, the applicant will
be required to comply with ap'plicable governing t:egulations. SDC Article 30
Historic Oveday District regulates the alteration of inventoried significant Goal 5
historic resources in Springfield. While there are three contributing historic
.
Page 81 of123
1/10/05
structures, as identified in the GRP, in the area affected by the amendments, none of
these are considered "primary" or significant GoalS historic resources that are subject .
to the provisions of SDC Article 30.
11. Energy Element Policies
"J.3. Land allocation and development patterns shall permit the highest possible
current and future utilization of solar energy for space heating and cooling, in
balance with the requirements of other planning policies. "
, The amendments do not affect the possible utilization of solar energy in future
development. Conunercial uses are as able to take advantage of solar energy as
residential uses. The MS, MUC and MDR zoning districts permitted by the
amendments will be subject to the solar setback standards ofSDC 16.050(5) where
they abut residential areas to the north. The application of these standards at the
development review phase will ensure that this policy is met.
"J.4. Encourage development that takes advantage of natural conditions, such as
microclimate, and utilizes renewable energy supplies, such as solar energy, to
mil,!imize nonrenewable and overall energy consumption. "
Although no development is proposed as part of this approval, any development that
does occur on the Gateway MDR site will take advantage of the natural conditions of .
the area for a variety of purposes, including maximization of solar energy utilization.
During the development review phase of any uses permitted by these amendments,
the City will endeavor to encourage the use of renewable energy and take advantage
of natural conditions that would minimize energy consumption, consistent with
applicable City development regulations.
"J. 7. Encourage medium and high density residential uses when balanced with
. other planning policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of all forms of
energy. The greatest energy savings can be made in the areas of space heating and
cooling and transportation. For example, the highest relative densities of
residential development shall be concentrated to the greatest extent possible in
areas that are or can be well served by mass transit, paratransit, and foot and
bicycle paths. "
These amendments will result in conunercial development adjacent to relatively
higher density residential development and the proposed hospital campus, thereby
providing opportunities to reduce travel distance between home, work, and shopping
and reducing energy consumption. This will not result'in residential development
being located any further from public transportation facilities or paths than is already
planned because the application proposes to change the Plan Map designation of
.
Page 82 of 123
1110/05
.
residential land to commercial land. The amendments will allow for MDR/nodal
development adjacent to areas zoned for MS and MUC. MDR with a nodal overlay
has no maximum density; the density is limited by a maximum height restriction. '
This potential density will encourage developers to utilize creative techniques in the
design of the residential areas of the areas affected by the Amendments.
"J.8. Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the
greatest extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel
distances, optimize reuse of waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy
generation. "
The amendments will allow for MUC and MS and MDR and will facilitate the
designation of a nodal overlay. This will allow for a mixing of commercial and
residential uses that is not currently possible at the site. This mixture of use will
allow future residents and users of the site to live, work and shop within a Goncise
geographic area. This will allow for a reduction of travel distances and will
implement this policy. The amendments will enable the development of a
comprehensive master plan for the applicant's property that will integrate a mix of
commercial, residential, office, and retail uses with hospital and medical uses. The
proximity and arrangement of uses will be illustrated on the applicant's required
master plan.
.
.
Page 83 ofl23
III 0/05
F. Consistency With Gateway Refinement Plan For The Metro
Plan and GRP Diagram Amendments
.
1. Summary
This section of this findings addresses the applicable Policies and Implementation
Actions and Implementation Measures of the GRP as applied to the GRP diagram
amendments. Certain Policies and Implementation Measures have been omitted from
these findings where they either (1) impose a duty on the City to act in a certain way
and that duty is clearly not affected by these amendments, (2) apply to land uses other
than the current or proposed designations for the Gateway MDR site and will not be
affected by the amendments, or (3) clearly apply only to development applications.
Additionally, as discussed above with respect at the Metro Plan Goals and Objectives,
these findings do not address the Goals of the GRP.
Residential Element Policies and Implementation Actions
"1. 0 The City shall, through site plan review, home and neighborhood
improvement programs, and/or other related programs, actively participate in
efforts to maintain and e'nhance existing residential neighborhoods and
attract compatible multi-family developments that would enhance the .
Gateway Refinement Plan area. "
This proposal does not affect Site Plan Review for future development proposals.
However, the amendments will enable the retention of a significant area designated
MDR and available for multi-family residential developments compatible with the
mix of other uses and hospital/medical uses planned at RiverBend.
"15.0 Encourage the incorporation of significant natural features, shared open
spaces/scenic areas, and recreational pathways into development plans. "
No specific development is proposed as part of this application; therefore, it is not
appropriate to consider incorporation of natural features at this time. Nothing
approved through these amendments will preclude the City from protecting the
resources identified in this Implementation Action. This policy will be implemented
through the master planning process.
, "16.0 The City shall encourage and facilitate comprehensive development of a
range (in type. and affordability) of quality housing opportunities within the
area mapped as the "McKenzie-Gateway MDR Sit~" by taking the following
actions. "
.
Page 84 of 123
1110/05
.
The amendments will enable a mix of residential and non-residential uses on the site,
which will be the subject of a subsequent master plan. This master plan will consider
a range of housing types in the context of a comprehensive master plan for the entire
site. Therefore, while approval of the amendments constitutes encouragement and
facilitation of comprehensive development and a range of housing opportunities on
the site, no specific development is proposed or approved as part of this approval and
it is more appropriate to consider development of a range of housing opportunities
through the master plan process rather than through this application. Nonetheless, as
explained elsewhere, PeaceHealth will have to provide a number of housing units
within the range currently allowed under the existing MDR zoning. Nothing in these
amendments precludes the comprehensive development of a range of housing
opportunities.
"
"16.1 At the property owners' request, the City shall work with the property owners
and appropriate state, federal, and non-:profit agencies, to seek financing
assistance for housing developments and associated public facilities and
amenities, where a minimum of 20% of the total units would provide low-
moderate income housing opportunities, consistent with US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines for low-moderate
income. "
.
No specific development is proposed as part of this proposal; therefore, it is not
appropriate to consider such specifics on the development of a range of housing
opportunities at this time.
"17.0 Mitigate adverse impacts of public facilities on residential areas. "
No specific development is proposed as part of this proposal; therefore, it is not
appropriate to consider the impacts of public facilities at this time.
"17.1 Future electrical substations, roads, fire stations, and sanitary and storm
sewer facilities shall be buffered, to the extent reasonably practical, from
existing residential developments and residentially designated areas.
Acceptable buffering shall include a combination of landscaping, set-backs,
berms, wood or masonry fences or walls, and other methods that provide
aesthetic buffering. "
Landscaping, setbacks, and other means of buffering the above-cited facilities will be'
considered appropriately through the master plan and site review processes, and not
through the adoption of these amendments.
.
"18.0 The City of Springfield shall evaluate the potential of redesignating some
portion of the land east of Baldy View Land, which is currently designated
Page 85 of 123
1/10/05
MDR, to LDRin the context of the next Metro Plan Update or Periodic
Review Process (whichever comes first) in order to expand the range of
housing opportunities available in the Gateway Refinement Plan Area. "
'.
This proposal does not affectthe MDR designated land located east of Baldy View'
Lane.
4. Commercial Element
Goals
"1. Improve the appearance and vitality of all commercial activities in the
Gateway Refinement Plan area, especially those that promote regional
economic development and provide everyday neighborhood services. "
The CC and MU Metro Plan designations and MUC and MS zoning will help to
ensure the long-term vitality of the GRP area, and provide the opportunity for a
compatible mix of medical, office, and commercial retail uses that will provide
everyday support services to the site and allow for medical services that promote
regional economic development. Any potential issues regarding the appearance of
future commercial mixed use development will be addressed through the master plan
and site plan review processes.
"2. Minimize potential conflicts between residential and commercial
, development"
.
Although no specific development is proposed as part of this proposal, the required
master plan and ~my specific development proposals, including the placement of the
MUC zoning, for the site will carefully consider the interaction of the commercial and
residential uses of the site and the interaction of site uses with adjacent development.
It is through the master plan and site plan review processes that designs can be
evaluated to determine if there are any potential conflicts between residential and
commercial development, and how such conflicts may be minimized and/or mitigated.
"3. Ensure availability of an adequate supply of land appropriate for commercial
development. "
, As noted previously in these findings, Springfield's acknowledged Commercial Lands
Study (SCLS) found there'to be a deficit of needed commercial lands city-wide and
specifically in the McKenzie/Gateway area. This application will result in an
increased supply of commercial land and is, therefore, consistent with the SCLS and
this goal. The findings under Goal 9 discuss this issue in greater detail.
.
Page 86 of 123
1/10/05
. Policies and Implementation Actions
"1. 0 Provide for appropriate buffering between commercial and adjacent
residential uses. "
The amendments will result in development of commercial uses as allowed in the
Mixed Use Commercia:! Community Commercial zoning districts. Such uses will be
located adjacent to land designated for residential uses on and adjacent to the
Gateway MDR site. Through the required master plan for the Gateway MDR site~
PeaceHealth will be required to provide an appropriate buffer between these different
uses consistent with this policy and the regulations in the master planning process.
The precise method and width of buffering will most appropriately be addressed
during the master plan and site plan review processes.
"4.0 Recognize existing neighborhood commercial-scale uses; utilize NC and GO
Refinement Plan designations to accommodate the uses where appropriate,
providing a buffer for residential areas from more intensive commercial uses
and arterial streets. "
There are no existing neighborhood commercial scale uses on the site.
.
"6.0 Resolve conflicts between plan designations and zoning."
There are no current conflicts between the site's plan designations and zoning. The
CC designation and MUC zoning will be applied through the master plan or nodal
implementation process, thus resolving any temporary conflict.
5. Natural Assets, Open Space/Scenic Areas, and Recreation Element
Goals
S'
"1. Provide for development of the Gateway Refinement Plan area that is
sensitive to and integrates, to the maximum degree practicable, the multiple
functions and values associated with the area's natural assets, open
space/scenic areas, and recreation opportunities. "
Approval of the amendrrients will not affect compliance with this goal because the
amendments do not allow for any specific development.
.
Although the amendments do not propose any specific development, future
development proposed to occur on the site through the master plan will be sensitive to
the natural resources present by integrating these natural amenities into the overall
design for a healing environment at RiverBend. All development must be consistent
with all applicable SDC regulations, which implement this Goal. While relevant to
Page 87 of 123
1/10/05
the master plan rather than these amendments, PeaceHealth's overall design for the
site will be required to include significant open space, conservation of the major tree .
groves, and areas for passive recreation and~enjoyment of the area's ecology, as well
as enhancements to the functions and values of the river's riparian corridor consistent
with SDC regulatiop.s.
"2. Utilize the functions and values of the Refinement Plan area's natural assets
(e.g. swales and drainageways), to assist and accommodate development,
while maintaining their ability to provide long term buffering of the natural
resource values outside the UGB from urban development within the UGB. "
The McKenzie River riparian area located along the eastern edge of the site will
provide an important and effective buffer between site development and the
McKenzie River and the resources on the far bank of the river. Provisions in
PeaceHealth's annexation agreement and new City code standards will ensure
appropriate development buffers along the river's riparian corridor. Adoption of the
amendments will not change th~ functions and values of the site's natural assets
because the areas proposed for redesignation will not result in a greater impact on
those assets mapped in the GRP than the current residential designation. Moreover,
because no development is proposed at this time, there can be no impact on natural
areas through the adoption of these amendments.
"3. Emphasize the Refinement Plan area as a "Gateway to the McKenzie" by .
maintaining and enhancing the attributes that contribute significantly to the
area's visual character, and by improving and encouraging public access to
and use of the river where appropriate. "
Because the length of the site adjacent to the McKenzie River is in a single
institutional ownership, there is an outstanding opportunity to realize the GRP's goals
to provide the public with physical and visual access to and along the river.
PeaceHealth's designs will be required to encorporate vistas and access with in the
master plan and Site Plan Review processes. Again, because no development is
proposed or approved through these amendments, there can be no impact to these
resources as a result of this decision. Through the master plan and site development
review process, these attributes will be considered and all applicable SDC provisions
implementing this policy must be adhered to.
"4. Provide for recreational and educational opportunities that utilize, protect,
and enhance the significant natural and cultural values associated with key
natural resources, scenic areas, and open spaces that~include, where
practical, remnants of the area's agricultural character. "
.
Page 88 of 123
1/10/05
.
Adoption of the amendments will not affect the ability to provide educational and
recreational opportunities. The proposed change from the current residential
designation to commercial and mixed use designations will not reduce those
opportunities because there is nothing inherent in a commercial use that has a greater
effect on those opportunities than a residential use. The ability to integrate proposed
future development with natural resources, scenic areas, etc. will be reviewed through
the master plan process rather than this proposal.
"5. Encourage and plan for recreational opportunities within the Refinement
Plan area that contribute economic benefits to the community. "
The master plan is expected to preserve open space, conserve natural resources, and
provide compatible recreational opportunities in a comprehensively planned
development on the site. Moreover, through the masfer plan process, PeaceHealth
will be required to comply with all applicable SDC regulations implementing this
policy. Nothing in the amendments will affect the ability to provide these beneficial
recreational opportunities because there is nothing inherent in any of the commercial
use mixed uses that would have a greater impact on recreational opportunities than a
residential use.
o
.
"6. Provide sufficient, high quality, accessible recreational services/opportunities
to residents within the Refinement Plan area; and expand the
recreational/educational opportunities associated with the area's nt;ltural and
historic values for enjoyment and education of the entire community. "
The amendments do not affect the ability to provide recreational opportunities or
services, and the ~bove policy is more appropriately assessed in relation to the
required master plan for the site.
"7. Develop a pathway system that encourages bicycle transportation throughout
the Refinement Plan area, provides public access to the McKenzie River and
riparian areas, and enables recreational/educational appreciation of the
area's natural assets and open space/scenic areas."
As part of its master plan, PeaceHealth will be required to propose an integrated
network of on-street bike lanes, sidewalks, and off-street multi-use trails and
pathways that will meet the above goal. Adoption of these amendments will not
affect the ability to provide this pathway system because there is nothing inherent in
the uses allowed pursuant to the amendments will prevent development of this
system. The master plan process will be the more appropriate venue for establishing
conformance with this goal, and all development must comply with applicable
provisions of the SDC implementing this policy.
.
Page 89 of 123
1/10/05
"8. Connect the Refinement Plan area to a broader recreational and natural
resource system through pedestrian and bicycle pathways, and protected
waterside (riparian) areas."
.
As noted above, the master plan for the site will include not only an integrated
pedestrian/bicycle network internally, but also will provide effective connections to
the City and metropolitan system of pathways, ,sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. All-
development must be consistent with applicable provisions of the SDC implementing
this policy. The amendments do not affect the ability to provide such a system, but
conformance with~ the above goal is appropriately considered through the review of
the master plan and not this proposal. The amendments will not affect the ability to
provide a pathway system because there is nothing inherent in commercial uses that
would prevent a pathway from being developed that a residential use wouldn't also
prevent.
"9. Maintain prominent mature vegetation, as shown on the Natural Assets Map
on page 39, for its scenic, air filtration, and noise reduction qualities to the
greatest degree practicable. "
While no development is proposed or approved under this proposal, PeaceHealth's
master plan is expected to conserve the mature tree stands, the riparian zones and
other natural assets illustrated in the GRP as much as practicable, and subject to all
master plan and other SDC requirements. The changes proposed by this proposal will .
not increase the likelihood of more removal of mature vegetation because such
activities are equally likely under the residential designation.
"10. Minimize the potential threats to life and property related to development
within thefloodway of the McKenzie River, consistent.with the Metro Plan
goal to "(p)rotect life and property from the effects of natural hazards. "
(p. III-C-6, Policy 3)"
It is not appropriate to evaluate the potential threats to life and property related to
development on the site because no development is proposed as part of this
application. While the above goal will be more properly gauged through the master
plan process, PeaceHealth's plans do not include any building development within the
McKenzie River floodway. As discussed above with respect to Goal 7, all
development will be required to comply with SDC Article 27, which implements this
I
policy as well as the requirements of Goal 7.
"11. Maintain the quality of water in the McKenzie River and the local aquifer."
The City's identified wellhead protection zones encompass portions of the site and
area subject to proposed redesignation. Future uses within these various Time of
'.
Page 90 of 123
1/10/05
.
Travel zones will have to conform to all provisions in the Springfield Development
Code Article 17 (Drinking Water Protection Overlay District) to maintain
groundwater quality. The master plan and Site Plan Review processes are the
appropriate venues for determining specific conformance with the above policy, as
. ,
there is nothing inherent within any uses allowed in the proposed Plan designations
that would necessarily harm groundwater quality.
Likewise, management of stormwater runoff from future development on the sit~ will
be assessed through the master plan and Site Plan Review processes to ensure
protection of the quality of McKenzie River water. It should be noted, however, that
the topography on the site and direction of surface water flows is generally to the
northwest and away from the river as it abuts the site to the east. Additionally, the
site possesses highly permeable soils that may be suitable for alternative stormwater
management methods, provided that such proposals conform with Article 17
requirements. PeaceHealth's annexation agreement with the City requires that the
RiverBend master plan include a comprehensive stormwater management plan
consistent with best management practices promulgated in the City of Portland's
storm water management manual. . All of the above issues will be addressed through
the master plan process, rather than as part of this application.
Policies and Implementation Actions
"1. 0 Protect the waterside (riparian) corridors and natural vegetative fringes
associated with the McKenzie River and Maple Island Slough. "
Adoption of the amendments will not result in an increased impact on the riparian
corridors because the subject property is currently designated for residential
development. Moreover, nothing inherent in the amendments will have any impact to
these resources because no development is approved through these Amendments.
.
"1.4 Until a comprehensive study and management plan is completed by the City
for this area of the McKenzie River the following interim protection
measures shall be applied to the entire McKenzie River riparian area (as
Page 91 of 123
1/10/05
recommended by the metropolitan Natural Resources Special Study-see
GRP Tech. Supp., Appendix C):"
.
It is not appropriate to address the applicability of a management plan or intet:im
management measures to site development at this time because no development is
proposed as part of this application. All interim measures will necessarily be
complied with during the master plan and Site Development Review process.
"2.0 Recognize the unsuitability (due to flood hazard) of the McKenzie River
floodway for urban development, and explore its suitability for fulfilling
community recreation needs, and for buffering the river-oriented natural
resource system. " .
Although a portion of the floodway is located on the site, no specific development is .
proposed as part of this application; therefore, it is inappropriate to evaluate
development within the floodway at this time. As.discussed above with respect ot
Goal 7, all development must comply with SDC Article 27, which implements this
policy as well as Goal 7.
"3.0 Ensure adequate storm drainage management planning, emphasizing the
minimization of negative impacts on water quality and quantity resulting
from development in the Refinement Plan area. "
.
It is not appropriate to address storm drainage management planning at this time
because no development is proposed as part of this approval. Storm drainage will be
addressed during the master plan and Site Plan Review processes.
"4.0 Protect and enhance the natural resource values associated with the open
drainageways and swales throughout the Refinement Plan area. "
Because no development is proposed as part of this approval, it is inappropriate to
address protection of any open drainageways or swales present on the site at this time.
PeaceHealth's master plan for the site will be required to incorporate existing and new
open drainages, swales, and other stormwater management measures with
opportunities for natural resource protection and enhancement and will be required to
comply with all applicable SDC provisions relating to stormwater.
"7.0 All known and potential wetland areas shall be delineated prior to
development approval Delineated wetlands and wetland mitigation projects
shall be maintained to ensure continued provision of wetland functions and
values. "
.
Page 92 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
Although no development approval is being sought as part of the amendments, the
two small wetlands on the site have been delineated and the Division of State Lands
has concurred with that wetland delineation.
"7.1 Through the site plan review process, require wetland delineation of the
possible wetland at Game Farm & Belt Line (NRSS site S16) prior to
development approval "
NRSS site S 16 appears to extend onto the Site, however the most recent maps
~ associated with the updated Natural Resources Study do not include site S16. The
two jurisdictional wetlands on the Site (each 0.02 acres in size) have been delineated.
"8.0 Maintain and enhance the scenic and open space amenity values in the
RefinementPlan area to the maximum extent practicable." .
Any impacts on scenic values will be appropriately addressed during the master plan
and site plan review processes. Because the amendments do not allow for any
development, scenic and open space amenities are not affected by the Amendments.
All future development must be consistent with this policy and the SDC provisions
implementing this policy.
Page 93 of 123
1/10/05
6.
Historic Resources Element
.
Goals
"1.
As development and change in the Gateway Refinement Plan area occurs,
the retention and rehabilitation of significant historic resources should be
achieved in order to maintain the area's historidculturallinkages to past
settlement patterns, and to maintain the educational, cultural, and aesthetic
amenity values associated with them. "
Although some "contributing historic resources" may be located on the site, no
"significant historic resources" are located on the site. Because no development is
proposed as part of this application, it is not appropriate to address conservation of
historic resources at this time. Nonetheless, the contributing resources on-site do not
have significance such that they are governed by SDC Article 30 and the GRP as
primary historic resources.
"2. Establish policies, and incentives where possible, to ensure sufficient
consideration and documentation of identified significant historic resources,
so thatfuture developments and/or demolitionsfully address the identified
resources, either through on-site preservation, off-site preservation, or
through archival documentation of the resource. "
Springfield Development Code Article 30 (Historic Overlay Zone) serves as the
policy basis for treatment of significant Goal 5 historic resources in the GRP. The
existing 'contributing historic resources' identified on the site are not inventoried as
"primary" resources meriting protection under SDC Article 30.
'.
"3. Provide policy guidelines adequate to ensure' compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 5 and the Metro Plan (as they pertain to historic preservation)
specific to the newly identified significant historic resources within the
Gateway Refinement Plan area. "
Springfield Development Code Article 30 (Historic Overlay Zone) serves as the
policy basis for treatment of historic resources in the GRP. The existing" contributing
historic resources" identified on the site are not inventoried as "primary" resources
meriting protection under SDC Article 30.
.
Page 94 of 123
1/10105
.
Policies and Implementation Actions
"2.0 On-site retention ofsignificant GoalS historic resources shall be
encouraged. However, moving the structures shall be allowed. "
Although some "contributing historic resources" may be located on the site, no
"significant historic resources" are located on the site. Because no development is
proposed as part of this application, it is not appropriate to address conservation or
disposition of historic resources at this time. The existing "contributing historic
resources" identified on the site are not inventoried as "primary" resources meriting
protection under SDC Article 30.
7. Transportation Element
Goals
"1. Provide for a safe and efficient transportation system for the Gateway
Refinement Plan area. "
Nothing in this proposal will affect provision of alternative transportation modes or
their inclusion in the master plan for RiverBend. More specific findings are set forth
with respect to Goal 12.
"3. Minimize adverse traffic impacts of high volume arterial streets on adjoining
residential neighborhoods. "
The TIA considers the planned extension of Pioneer Parkway through the site and
signalized intersections connecting with the existing Cardinal Way. This will have
the effect of significantly reducing adverse impacts of traffic volumes on Game Farm
Road South that are incompatible with the road's design and function, and which have
long plagued residents of the Game Farm neighborhood. While not directly a
consequence of the proposed plan amendments, the rIA demonstrates that future
development at RiverBend will not have adverse impacts on adjoining neighborhoods,
but instead will help minimize the existing impacts consistent with the above goal by
virtue of Peace Health's participation in improving the Pioneer Parkway extension and
.
Page 95 of 123
1/10105
other connecting streets. Again, more specific findings are set forth with respect to
Goal 12 and the TPR.
.
"4. Plan and design an efficient and flexible transportation system for
undeveloped lands within the Refinement Plan area to ensure minimum
traffic impacts. "
See response to Goal.l, above.
"6. Provide for the safe and effective movement of pedestrians and bicyclists in
the'Gateway Refinement Plan area."
Because no specific development is proposed as part of this proposal, the movement
of pedestrians and bicyclists will not be affected by these amendments. Moreover, the
planned transportation improvements are consistent with TransPlan, which, in turn,
implements these goals. This goal will more appropriately be addressed as part of
PeaceHealth's master plan for the site.
"7. Establish a network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways that connects the
Refinement Plan area to a broader metropolitan transportation and
recreational system."
Because no specific development is proposed as part of the amendments, it will not .
impact the establishment of pedestrian and bicycle pathways. Moreover, the planned
transportation improvements are consistent with TransPlan, which, in turn,
implements these goals. This goal will more appropriately be addressed as part of
PeaceHealth's master plan for the site.
Policies and Implementation Actions
"1. 0 Discourage use of local residential streets by commercial and industrial
traffic: "
Future mixed use commercial development on the site will be accessed primarily from
the Pioneer Parkway extension and associated collector streets. The details of site
access are more appropriately addressed during the master plan and site plan review
processes. . Moreover, the planned transportation improvements.are consistent with
TransPlan, which, in turn, implements these goals.
"4.0 Limit access to minor arterials as redevelopment occurs."
Future development on the site will have limited access onto minor arterials such as
the Pioneer Parkway extension. Instead, PeaceHealth will be developing an
integrated collector street system for the site as required in the GRP. This system is
.
Page 96 of 123
1/10105
.
considered in conjunction with the TIA and will be more fully illustrated with detailed
access and circulation through PeaceHealth's master plan for the site.
"5.0 Coordinate with LTD to improve the efficiency and convenience of bus
service to the area. "
This application has no effect on the operation of the bus system or coordination of
bus service because no development is proposed, but such coordination will occur as
part of PeaceHealth's master planning process. More specific Findings regarding this
policy are set forth under Goal 12.
"6.0 Promote bicycling by developing a complete bicycle network within the
Refinement Pldn area. "
The amendments have no effect on the bicycle network because no development is
proposed as part of the application, but this will be considered as part of the
RiverBend master plan. All transportation-related provisions in the SDC and
TransPlan related to bicycle transportation must be complied with during master plan
reVIew.
.
"6.1 Construct on-street bike lanes along Game Farm Road North and Game
Farm Road South as specified by TransPlan projects #670 & #671. Explore
the feasibility of developing an off-street bike path along the section of the
former Southern Pacific right-of-way that runs from Harlow Road to Game
Farm Road South. "
This proposal has no effect on the bicycle network because no development is
proposed as part of the approval of the amendments. A comprehensive bicycle
network and appropriate connections will be developed as part of PeaceHealth's
master plan for the site and all transportation-related requirements of the SDC and
TransPlan must be addressed through that process.
"6.3 Design and construct the projects on the attached project list to include
on-street bicycle lanes. "
This application has no effect on the bicycle network because no development is
proposed as part of the proposal. Provision of bike lanes and future streets will be
subject to future master planning for the site, pursuant to the SDC and TransPlan.
"7.0 Encourage walking by providing sidewalks and paths throughout the area. "
.
Page 97 of 123
1/10105
Design of a complete network of sidewalks and pathways will be included as part of
the site's master plan, and not part of this application, subject to the provisions of the
SDC and TransPlan.
.
"7.1 Require full street improvements in conjunction with new residential,
commercial, and industrial development projects during the site plan review
process. "
This proposal has no effect on street improvements because no development is
proposed as part of the application; however, all such improvements required under
the SDC and TransPlan will be provide through the master plan process.
"7.4 Upgrade Game Farm Road South between Harlow and Belt Line Roads to a
2-3 lane, city- standard street, including sidewalks and bike paths, consistent
with TransPlan project #275. If the Pioneer Parkway is extended to serve a
north-south arterial function (#17 on the Transportation Element Project
List), the improved Game Farm Road South shall be a two-lane facility
only. "
Although not directly relevant to the proposed Plan amendments, PeaceHealth is
working with the City and County to develop the extension of Pioneer Parkway,
which will obviate the need to improve Game Farm Road South to urban standards, at
least in the short-term. This policy and the transportation-related improvements are .
more particularly addressed under the findings for Goal 12.
"8.0 Encourage concentrations of pedestrian and transit amenities in high
activity areas and along arterial streets with high pedestrian traffic. "
This proposal will enable the development of higher density development in
conjunction with the'proposed hospital and associated mix of uses at RiverBend. An
extensive system of pedestrian ways and incorporation of transit at the core of the
development will function in conjunction with the high activity uses planned for the
Site. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the SDC and TransPlan, the future
development approved under the master plan will necessarily be required to include
these "amenities.
"9.0 Plan and design new residential and special light industrial developments in
a manner that reduces walking distances for potential transit users, and
makes transit rid.ership more convenient. "
The planned location of commercial mixed use development, and existing and future
employment opportunities proximate to the planned Bus Rapid Transit station and
residential development on the site will offer opportunities to live, work and shop
.
Page 98 of 123
1/10105
.
within convenient distance for pedestrians' and for transit riders. Because no
development is proposed, this provision is not directly applicable, although all future
development must comply with this provision.
"9.1 Encourage the placement of buildings within newly developed sites close to
the street system, providing a convenient pedestrian/transit system. "
Although the arrangement and mix of land uses enabled by the amendments will help
provide destinations convenient for pedestrian and transit access, actual building
placement and orientation will appropriately be considered through the master plan
and site plan review processes rather than as part of this application.
"11. 0 Plan and design new streets in a manner that reduces substandard dead-end
streets, provides adequate access and circulation (particularly for emergency
vehicles), and that minimizes long straight road sections (in order to reduce
speeding problems and detours through residential neighborhoods.) "
Street layout, access, and circulation will appropriately be addressed through the
master planning process.
.
"13.0 Future transportation system development in the McKenzie-Gateway SLI
and the l80-acre MDR sites should occur as needed in conjunction with SLI
and MDR development, and shall include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities to reduce vehicle trip generation. "
Design of transportation systems for all modes of travel will be incorporated in the
site's master plan. Because no development is proposed as part of this proposal, it is
inappropriate to address transportation system development at this time; however, to
the extent applicable, additional findings regarding transportation-related issues are
discussed under Goal 12 findings.
"14.0 Design new transportation facilities to accommodate future traffic increases
with minimum impact on residential neighborhoods. 0"
As noted previously, the Pioneer Parkway extension will have demonstrable
beneficial impacts in reducing traffic on Game Farm Road South and through the
local neighborhood. However, the design of this and other transportation facilities is
appropriately assessed through the master plan process instead of the Plan amendment
process.
"23.0 Connect pathway networks through open space corridors, bike and
pedestrian paths, and on-street bike route connectors both within the
Gateway boundaries and beyond to the regional pathway system. "
.
Page 99 of 123
1/10105
Pathway networks and connections to the regional system will be considered fully
through the master plan process. Adoption of the amendments has no impact on
pathway networks because no development is proposed and nothing inherent in the
amendments would affect such pathways.
.
"23.3 Provide on-street bike routes as part of street construction of projects listed
on the attached project list, where important to the overall bikeway network. "
While not directly relevant to this application, on-street bike lanes will be provided on
all new collector streets within the RiverBend site pursuant to SDC requirements.
"24.0 The City shall design and construct a north-south arterial corridor in the
Gateway Refinement Plan area in order to ensure accommodation of
increased traffic flows associated with future development of the north
Gateway area, in a manner that minimizes impacts on existing Gateway area
residences. "
PeaceHealth is participating as a stakeholder in discussions with neighborhood
residents and City and County officials in seeking to determine the best option for a
"North Link" between Beltline and Game Farm Road East/Deadmond Ferry Road to
provide needed campus industrial access, and to minimize neighborhood impacts.
The City Council pared down a list of several options for location of the North Link to
two, both of which are located outside of the Site. Therefore, the proposed Plan .
amendments have no bearing on the,selection of the preferred North Link option. '
Additionally, the findings under Goal 12 more particularly discuss the
transportation-related elements of the GRP.
"25.0 Facilitate the efficient operation of transportation systems serving the
commercially developed areas. "
The applicantion's TIA demonstrates that development on the RiverBend campus
through the planning horizon will not have a significant effect on transportation
systems in the area that would be contrary to the above policy. While the proposed
Plan amendment allows for future mixed use commercial development, no
development is proposed as part of this Plan amendment application.
"25.1 Provide for the future expansion of the intersection of Gateway Street and
Belt Line Road when reviewing site plans for developments fronting this
intersection. "
Nothing in this application affects the City's ability to review site plans for
developments fronting on Gateway Street and Belt Line Road, and no part of the site
fronts onto this intersection. However, through its annexation agreement with the
.
Page 100 of 123
1/10/05
.
.
.
City, PeaceHealth has committed to providing $7,000,000 for future improvements to
this intersection.
"25.2 Provide for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities as part of new retail and
office commercial development. "
Provision for such facilities will be considered appropriately through the master plan'
and Site Plan Review processes.
"26..0 Ensure that the future road system in the area identified as the
"McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site" meets the transportation needs of the area
in a manner that is sensitive to the interests and concerns of the property
owners and residents of local neighborhoods. "
The PeaceHealth master plan for the Site will illustrate a comprehensive road network
consistent with the above policy.
"26.1 Alignments and other design characteristics for all road improvements
,and/or additions to the road system within the urbanizable area identified on
the Refinement Plan Diagram as the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site, shall be
determined and established joinjly by the Lane County Board of
Commissioners and the Springfield Cjty Council "
With the exception .of the exact North Link option, the alignment and design of the
Pioneer Parkway extension has been approved by both governments, as has the
conceptual collector street layout for the Site. PeaceHealth's master plan will
demonstrate conformance with these approved general layouts, but the proposed Plan
amendments do not directly affect the above implementation action.
8. Public Facilities Element
Goals
"1. Provide an adequate level of public sanitary sewers, storm drainage facilities,
and water and electric service in a timely and efficient manner in order to
support development consistent with adopted land use designations. "
PeaceHealth'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. Nothing in this proposal
, conflicts with the ability to provide adequate public facilities to development because
there is no specific development proposed as part of this application. To the extent
Page 101 of 123
1/10/05
this Goal applies to this proposal, there is evidence in the record that demonstrates
that required public facilities will be available.
.
"2. Phase the construction of new facilities so they are completed in an
economically efficient manner and so they do not unnecessarily disrupt
either developed facilities or undeveloped property prematurely. "
This goal does not apply to this proposal because the phasing of construction of public
facilities should be addressed through the master plan process or when construction of
those facilities is proposed.
"3. Design and construct public facilities to minimize impacts on surrounding
uses and maximize the quality of life within the area. "
No development is proposed as part of this application; therefore, at this time it is
inappropriate to address impacts from construction of public facilities.
"4. Incorporate use and enhancement of natural features (ie. natural drainage
areas) into public facilities planning and construction to the greatest degree
possible. "
PeaceHealth's required master plan will consider the means of complying with the
above goal. No development is proposed as part of this proposal; the,refore, there is
no impact on planning and construction of public facilities from this application. ,
.
Policies and Implementation Actions
"2.0 Provide storm drainage facilities to newly annexed areas. "
Although the site is a newly annexed area, there is ample room on the site for storm
drainage facilities. A change in designation from residential to commercial and
mixed use by itself does not affect the provision of storm drainage facilities and the
siting and design of those facilities is more appropriately addressed during the master
plan and site plan review processes.
"2.2 Require the consideration of the use of storm drainage facilities that store
and retain runoffin the McKenzie-Gateway SLI site, and incthe proposed
MDR area east of Game Farm Road South. Require the consideration of the
use and enhancement of natural storm water drainage features as part of the
overall storm water systems in these areas. "
PeaceHealth's annexation agreement with the City echoes the above implementation
action by requiring that future master plans and site planning use the City of
. Portland's stormwater management design manual to incorporate the use of best
.
Page 102 of 123
1/10/05
.
management practices. Conformance with these provisions will be appropriately
considered through the master plan and Site Plan Review processes. There is nothing
inherent in the change from a residential to a commercial or mixed use designation
that would affect the ability to consider the construction of storm drainage detention
facilities or the use of natural storm water drainage features during the site plan
reVIew process.
"4.0 Continue providing pure and ample supplies of water to the Refinement Plan
area. "
Springfield Utility Board officials have indicated that there is an ample supply of high
quality potable water to serve future development on the site. There is nothing
inherent in the change in designation to commercial and mixed use that will result in
the failure to provi.de ample water supplies.
"4.2 All storm drainage systems serving properties north of Belt Line Road shall
be designed to ensure the continued purity of the Rainbow well field to the
north. "
'.
Although a small portion of the site is located north of Belt Line Road and
within the delineated wellhead protection zones, there is nothing inherent in the
proposed change in designation that will result in an adverse impact on the
Rainbow/SUB well field. Any impacts on the well field are more appropriately
addressed during the Site Plan Review process.
IV. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO CITIZEN INPUT
1. Remand did not leave any part of the previous decisions intact.
Several parties argued that the remand orders issued'by LUBA and the Court of
Appeals did not leave any portion of the Decisions in tact. This argument is directly
contrary to LUBA's remand order, which provides, in part:
.
Indeed" footnote 8 in the court's opinion discusses findings the
city "should be able to provide" with respect to one ofLUBA's
bases for remand, which does not suggest that the court felt that
its disposition of Jaquas' petition for review rendered moot or
unnecessary further proceedings on remand. Further, the
challenged ordinances adopt a number of amendments and other
actions, some or all of which may survive notwithstanding the
court's conclusion that the regional hospital complex facilitated
by the ordinances is inconsistent with the Metro Plan. In short,
we cannot say that the challenged ordinances are "prohibited as a
Page 103 of 123
1/10105
matter of law." Accordingly, remand is the appropriate
disposition.
.
Jaqua v. City of Springfield, _ Or LUBA _(LUBA Nos. 2003-077 and 2003-078,
August 19,2004, slip,op. 2) (emphasis added). Thus, in a remand decision from
LUBA that no party elected to challenge, LUBA specifically held that "some or all" of
the original proposal may survive. The revised proposal on remand responds to the
remand order.
2. The proposal cannot be sited on CC-designated property; a new plan
designation must be created for the PeaceHealtlt proposal
Several opponents, including most specifically, the Jaquas, have argued that the CC-
designation is inappropriate for the ultimate development of a hospital. In very
general terms, the opponents argue that there is no existing Metro Plan designation
that could accommodate the pr~posed hospital development. In other words,
PeaceHealth would not be able to relocate anywhere in either Springfield, Eugene or
unincorporated Lane County unless and until the three jurisdictions initiated Type I
Metro Plan amendments creating a new designation and agreeing on its location.
Throughout the earlier proceedings the opponents characterized the proposed hospital
as a commercial use. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Jaquas and also
characterized the hospital as a commercial use. Jaqua v. City of Springfield, 193 Or .
App 573, 589 (2004). Now that the underlying property is proposed to be designated
as commercial, the opponents argue that no current plan designation is appropriate.
The opponents' contention that the proposed hospital (which is not being approved
through this application) is not a commercial use under the Metro Plan ignores the
fact that the existing Sacred Heart Medical Center is located on CC-designated
property. Indeed, both the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield allow hospitals
outright in commercial zones. There is no indication whatsoever in the Metro Plan
that somehow hospitals have no designation under the Metro Plan and that a new
designation must be created before a hospital can relocate or expand. Indeed, the
Metro Plan identifies "health services" as a "key urban facility and service." Thus the
City finds that it would be entirely inconsistent for the Metro Plan to identify the
services that hospitals provide as "key" and yet fail to provide any place for such
services to be provided. Had the three jurisdictions intended to force the existing
hospitals to remain in their present location until a new Metro Plan designation could
be developed and applied, the City concludes that the Metro Plan would have at least
alluded to such a drastic prohibition.
Opponents have also argued that the Metro Plan limits hospitals in commercial zones
to certain (but unstated) sizes. In other words, the opponents suggest that hospitals of
.
Page 104 of 123
1/10105
.
a certain size might be allowed on . commercial land, but noUhe size of hospital
proposed by PeaceHealth. The City finds that there is no such restriction either
implicit or explicit in the Metro Plan. Regardless of whether the hospital is
characterized as "regional hospital project" or a neighborhood hospital, there is no
such distinction in the Metro Plan. This argument also ignores the fact that
PeaceHealth plans to relocate its hospital to Springfield. Thus, to the extent that the
proposed hospital is a "regional hospital," the same can be said for the existing
hospital. Both cities have determined that hospitals are appropriate uses in
commercial zones and the Metro Plan does not include any size restriction as
suggested by the opponents. Consequently, the City concludes that the CC
designation is appropriate.
3. Community Commercial designation limited to accommodating "subregional
needs" in areas of not more than 40 acres.
.
The Metro Plan description of the Community Commercial designation includes no
absolute acreage restriction. As these findings explain in greater detail above, the
reference to 40 acres is not a limitation or an absolute threshold. Moreover, there is
nothing in the Metro Plan description which would limit uses on CC-designated
property to "subregional needs." The existing Sacred Heart Medical Facility is
currently located on CC-designated property. Under the opponent's reasoning, the
existing hospital should be considered a non-confomiing use because such hospitals
are not allowed on CC-designated property. This argument also ignores the fact that
the existing Sacred Heart Medical Facility was located on the same property prior to
the adoption of the Metro Plan. Had the three adopting jurisdictions determined that
the CC designation was appropriate for only "subregional" needs, presumably the
adopting jurisdictions would not have designated the existing Sacred Heart Medical
Facility as Cc. LDCD's prior acknowledgment of the Metro Plan (which occurred
long after the establishment of the hospitap has deemed the CC designation to be a
suitable designation for the existing regional hospital site, further demonstrating that
the CC designation is not limited to "subregional" hospitals and other uses catering to
"subregional needs."
.
Moreover, the Metro Plan explains that the CC-designation contains "tourist-related
facilities, such as motels." Under the opponents' reasoning, motels in CC-designated
areas could only cater to "subregional" tourists, in other words, local Springfield
tourists staying in local motels. Moreover, the notion that CC-designated lands are
intended only to cater to "subregional needs" conflicts with Metro Plan Economic
Element policies to "encourage economic activities which strengthen the metropolitan
area's position as a regional distribution, trade, health, and service center." It is
, impossible to become a regional center for "health" if the health services allowed
under the commercial designations are limited to "subregional needs." Consequently,
Page 105 of 123
1/10105
the City finds that acceptance of the opponents' argument would directly conflict with .
the express language policy and purpose of the Metro Plan's CC designation.
4. The amendments will leave the Gateway area, Springfield and the Metro
Area without an adequate supply of residential land.
In denying the ]aquas earlier Goal I 0 challenge, LUBA found:
For purposes of resolving petitioners' Goal 10 assignments of
error, the critical findings include the city's finding that the RLS
identifies a 239-acre surplus ofMDR-designated land and, for
the reasons explained in the findings, that surplus likely
understates the city's actual residential development potential
since land such as floodplains and MUC zoned lands that may
not be counted in assessing the adequacy of the city's inventory
ofMDR-designated land nevertheless may be developed
residentially. Therefore, as the city explains elsewh~re in its
findings, even if the 99 acres that are being planned and zoned to
allow commercial and hospital use were to result in those 99
MDR-designated lands no longer being capable of residential
development, the Metro Plan inventory ofMDR-designated land
would still retain a surplus of such land.
*
*
*
*
.
The city does not rest solely on the post-decision surplus of
MDR-designated land. The city takes a number of steps to
ensure that its decisions to plan and zone 99 acres of the 180
GRP MDR-designated acres to allow hospital and other
commercial development in fact do not prevent realization of the
residential development potential of that MDR-designated area.
Those steps include allowing density transfers and imposing a
condition of approval that the applicant demonstrate during the
master plan process that development of the GRP MDR area as
amended will include a number of residential units that falls
within the range that would have been possible under the pre-
amendment GRP. Most of petitioners' challenges are directed at
this aspect of the two decisions, arguing that it will produce
housing in the floodplain that has not been shown to be needed or
housing that exceeds the MDR 20 unit per acre maximum.
However, as PeaceHealth points out, Goal 10 does not prohibit
the city from providing more high-density housing than it may
.
Page 106 of123
1/10105
.
have identified as being needed in the RLI. Hubenthal v. City of
Woodburn, 39 Or LUBA 20, 32 (2000). Similarly, while the
OAR 660-008-0005(2) definition of "[b ]uildable [l]and" states
that "land within the I OO-year floodplain is generally considered
unbuildable for purposes of density calculations," there is
nothing in Goal 10 that prohibits residential development within
floodplains.
Jaqua, slip op. 33. Thus, LUBA expressly found that even with the removal of99
acres ofMDR-designated land, the proposal would not violate Goal 10. In fact, the
current proposal removes less than 99 acres. Moreover, the amendments require
PeaceHealth to demonstrate that it can accommodate the number of housing units
within the range for MDR land. PeaceHealth has submitted evidence into the record
which demonstrates that it is feasible to provide a number of housing units on the site
within the expressed MDR range. Thus, the City finds that even ifPeaceHealth was
subject to a "no net loss" standard, which it is not, given the surplus identified in the
Metro Plan, the proposal would not have the effect of reducing the inventory.
.
Indeed, LUBA expressly found that the proposal was consistent with Goal 10, even
withthe removal of up to 99 acres ofMDR-designated land. Consequently, the City
finds that the opponents are barred from again raising a new Goal 10 challenge in the
round of the proceeding. Nonetheless, the City has adopted the findings above under
Goal I 0, as well as the following findings.
To varying degrees, each of the opponents argues that the City's 2004 monitoring
report is the controlling document and that it does not show a 239 acre surplus. The
2004 monitoring report is not an applicable planning document under D.S. Parklane
Development, Inc. v. Metro, 165 Or App 1,22 (2000) and its progeny. In fact, if the
City were to rely onthe monitoring report, such reliance would result in a violation of
Goal 2. This issue is discussed in greater detail below.
The opponents also argue that there is not substantial evidence to demonstrate that
housing can be constructed on the remaining MDR-designated land. PeaceHealth's
floodplain analysis demonstrates that housing can be constructed on the MDR-
designated land. Moreover, the excerpt from the proposed master plan shows that it is
feasible to construct the required number of units on the property. There is substantial
evidence in the record to demonstrate that housing can be constructed on MDR-
designated land within the floodplain and within the range that would have been
possible under the existing MDR designation. Moreover, the City's Floodplain
Overlay District (Article 27) specifically allows development within the floodplain
and establishes the standards and criteria for such development. The floodplain
.
Page 107 of 123
1/10105
analysis in the record demonstrates that housing within the floodplain can meet the
development standards of the Floodplain Overlay District.
.
5. The currenJ amendments may be, in part, site-specific, but they are also
inconsistent with the non-site specific text and diagram of the Metro Plan.
None of the opponents have provided any substantive argument or evidence to explain
how the revised proposal on remand is somehow not "site-specific." Both LUBA and
the Court of Appeals found that the original amendments were "site specific." While
the revised proposal on remand is different in some respects, the opponents fail to
explain how these differences render the amendments non site-specific. This issue is
simply not raised with sufficient specificity to allow the City to respond.
6. The notices supplied to DLCD improperly described the proposal on remand
and, therefore the notice to the City of Eugene, Lane County and DLCD
were insufficient for the City of Eugene and Lane County to determine
whether the proposal on remand resulted in "regional impact. "
The opponents' testimony did not explain how the notices were deficient.
Consequently, the opponents have failed to raise this issue with sufficient specificity
to allow the City to respond to the issue. The notices to DLCD include the text of the
GRP amendments and specifically provide that the Metro Plan diagram will be
amended to redesignate 99 acres for MDR to a combination ofMU and Cc. While .
there are slight differences in the text amendments as finally adopted and as sent to
DLCD, none of the changes substantively modify the proposal such that the
amendments now create a "regional impact" which could warrant the participation of
the City of Eugene. Without further explanation from the opponents as to why the
notices are deficient, the City cannot respond in any greater detail.
7. The amendments violate Goal 1.
The opponents do not explain how' the amendments violate Goal I other than to say
that their other testimony demonstrates a violation of Goal I. Without a specific
challenge, the opponents have not adequately raised a Goal I challenge. The fact that
all of the opponents have testified and submitted reams of testimony demonstrates that
they have been able to participate in this process.
8. The amendments violate Goal 2's consistency and coordination elements.
With respect to the consistency element of Goal 2, as LUBA found in the earlier
proceeding,
.
Page 108 of 123
1/10/05
.
..
..
The petitioners in this appeal couch many of their arguments as
Goal 2 plan consistency or coordination arguments or evidentiary
and findings failures under Goal 2. We address elsewhere in this
decision their arguments that the disputed Metro Plan and GRP
amendments conflict with other unamended plans-or constitute a
Goal 2 failure because they also constitute failures under other
statewide planning goals. We reject without further discussion
their separate, related Goal 2 arguments.
Jaqua, slip op. 13. As LUBA found in the earlier proceeding, the Jaquas' primary
objection is that the amendments conflict with various elements of the Metro Plan.
As described elsewhere, the current proposal is consistent with the Metro Plan and,
therefore, does not violate Goal 2. ,
With respect to coordination, the City of Eugene and Lane County have received
notice of the proposals on remand. Neither the City of Eugene nor Lane County have
submitted any comments.
9. The amendments violate Goal 5.
The Jaquas express concern about the effect the proposal may have on nearby
inventoried Goal 5 resources. In their testimony, the Jaquas did not challenge the
statement in the draft findings that "no part of the Gateway MDR site is on an
acknowledged Metro Plan Goal 5 inventory." The draft findings also noted that
although vegetation and a wetland area are inventoried on the GRP, there is no
indication that these resources have been placed on an adopted inventory of Goal 5
resources or that the Goal 5 process has been completed for them. Again, the Jaquas
do not challenge that statement.
The Jaquas' comments relative to Goal 5 do not identify any resource for which the
Goal 5 process has been completed. Jaquas' comments merely mention Goal 5
resources that have been inventoried. The resources at issue are not subject to the
amendments, will remain in the same comprehensive plan and zoning designations
and will be subject to any existing buffer requirements.
Under Goal 5, the "program to achieve the goal" referenced by the Jaquas is not
effective until the Goal 5 process, including the economic, social, economic and
environmental (ESEE) consequences analysis and the decision to allow, prohibit or
limit conflicting uses, has been completed. Until that occurs, there is no "program to
achieve the goal", that is, no program has been adopted to implement the decisions
made in the Goal 5 evaluation process.
Page 109 of 123
1/10105
Under applicable land use case law, only GoalS resources on an adopted inventory
and for which the GoalS process has been completed are subject to protection under .
GoalS. Since the referenced resources do not fall into that category, the Jaquas'
comments are not relevant.
Further, the criteria for approving a master plan require that, at the development stage,
the City consider inventoried resources in a manner consistent with the Goal S
administrative rule. The proposal itself includes buffers intended to prevent these
resources from being adversely affected by future development under the Master Plan.
In comments directed to Goal 10, Jaquas attempt to use the City's incomplete Goal S
process to challenge the adequacy of the City's existing buildable lands inventory.
The Jaquas' comments regarding the effect adopting the Springfield Inventory of
Natural Resource Sites on May 3,2004 will have on the existing buildable lands
inventory are incorrect and mischaracterize Oregon's Goal S process.
J aquas , statement that "'The approval of the inventory (of Natural Resource Sites] was
an important step towards completion of Springfield's Natural Resource Planning
responsibilities,' but was only a step" is important to understanding the Goal S
process. In that statement, the Jaquas recognize that the adoption of the inventory
does not protect Springfield's natural resources. The Jaquas are incorrect in asserting
that adoption of the inventory left the "region-wide impact on the buildable lands
inventory up in the air" because adopting the inventory neither protects these sites nor .
modifies the existing buildable lands inventory. The adoption of the inventory
simply establishes a list of resource sites that will be considered for protection
sometime in the future. The decision to protect these sites will take place only after
the City completes the Goal S process including the required ES'EE analysis and
decides which sites will be protected from conflicting uses, which conflicting uses
will be allowed outright or which conflicting uses will be allowed with limitations.
Until these decisions are made, the existing buildable lands inventory remains in
effect.
The Jaquas fail to distinguish an on-going but incomplete process intended to protect
resources some time in the future from a completed process that actually protects the
resources. The Jaquas' reference to Home Builders Assoc. v. City of Eugene, 41 OR
LUBA 370, 447(2002) is irrelevant because the Jaquas fail to make that distinction.
In Home Builders, as quoted by the Jaquas, LUBA's decision'related to "code
amendments changing tree and stream buffer protection on Goal 9 and Goal 10 land
inventories ***." Obviously, in Home Builders, the City of Eugene actually adopted
amendments that either implemented new protections or otherwise changed the ability
of land owners to use land as allowed under Goal 9 or Goal 10.
.
Page 110 of 123
\/10105
.
In this instance, no such change has occurred and no such change is, as yet, being
considered by the City. Any change that is likely to occur under the Springfield Goal
5 process will not take place until some undetermined future date. If and when the
City adopts new protections or modifies existing protections in a way to prevent or
limit the use of land currently listed on Goal 9 and Goal 10 inventories, then the issue
will be ripe for consideration.
Jaquas' reliance on the comments offered by Mr. Metzger regarding the City's
approach to GoalS is misplaced. According to the Jaquas, Mr. Metzger stated that the
City would require applicants proposing development involving inventoried resources
to prepare an ESEE analysis and a program to protect the resources as part of its
GoalS process. Such an approach is impermissible for several reasons. First, it is
completely inconsistent with Goal S's intention to proactively protect natural.
resources and to warn land owners of the limitations the local government places on
their land to protect such resources.
Second, Goal 5 places an obligation on local government to inventory, evaluate and
protect certain significant natural resources. The City cannot simply delegate its
responsibility to balance the public interest of protecting or developing a natural
resource to the land owner. This approach would also have t~e land owner
developing the program to protect the resource which is also the City's responsibility.
.
10.
The record does not contain substantial evidence demonstrating compliance
with the requirements of Goal 6.
The Jaquas make an unsubstantiated and unspecific claim that the findings. do not
- comply with Goal 6. They contend that the proposed Master Plan shows that
"drainage will go to the river, that the floodplain is proposed to be filled, that -
additional federal discharge and fill permits will be required, The [sic] record does not
contain substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with the requirement of
Goal 6."
This statement makes no connection to the requirements of Goal 6 nor does it identify
what, if any, state or federal statutes, laws, regulations or rules are.implicated. The
Jaquas' claims that some unidentified federal permits are necessary and that drainage
going to the river implicates some other unidentified regulatory process lacks
sufficient specificity to allow the City or PeaceHealth to provide a reasoned response.
The Jaquas also seem to imply that the referenced discharge will be directly to the
river which is not accurate based on information in the record.
The record contains a number of reports and studies provided by PeaceHealth relating
to the hydraulic, biological and environmental impacts expected to result from the
.
Page III of 123
1110/05
proposal and the ways in which such impacts will be avoided or compensated for.
Those studies and reports include but are not limited to:
I) Phase III Geotechnical Investigation and Seismic Hazard Study;
October 2,2003, Foundation Engineering, Inc.;
.
2) Phase II Geotechnical Investigation; March 6, 2003, FEI;
3) PeaceHealth Site Development Subsurface Investigation; May 20, 2002,
FEI;
4) McKenzie River Floodplain Assessment; November 3,2003; David
Evans & Assoc.;
5) Stormwater Drainage Master Plan for PeaceHealth RiverBend Campus;
April 2003, KPFF Consulting Engineers; and
6) Habitat Characterization and Rare Plant Surveys; September 2002;
Coyote Creek Environmental Services.
In addition to these materials, the record includes wetland delineations and other
information regarding natural resources and the possible effects the proposed action
might have on such resources. Further, based on its review, the City has concluded
that the application is consistent with Goal 5, 6 and 7.
.
In spite of Jaquas' unsubstantiated contention to tq.e contrary, these reports and
studies, prepared by professional engine,ers and environmental specialists, constitute
substantial credible evidence that is in the record and available for the City to use to
prepare the findings required by Goal 6. Further, the Jaquas provide no credible
evidence refuting the information in the referenced studies.
The City's obligation under Goal 6 is to prepare findings, based on substantial
evidence in the record, that it is feasible for applicable state and federal environmental
laws, statutes and rules to be met. The City is not required to usurp any state or
federal agency's authority by evaluating the proposed amendment against particular
standards or to otherwise conduct any agency's evaluation.
With respect to Jaquas' contention that some drainage will occur into the river,
without more specificity in the opponent's comments, that issue cannot be addressed
with any precision. However, stormwater can be one such discharge and can
implicate a state r~gulatory system, the NPDES permit program implemented by
DEQ. To demonstrate the substantial evidence that is available in the record and the
City's ability to prepare adequate findings, the City notes the following.
.
Page 112 of 123
1/10105
.
.
.
The Stormwater Drainage Master Plan for PeaceHealth RiverBend Campus, KPFF
Consulting Engineers (KPFF), April 2003 (Stormwater Plan), provides the necessary
, substantial evidence to determine that the appropriate authorization for storm water
can be obtained if necessary. That document demonstrates, for example, that there
will not be a direct discharge into the river but that stormwater will be discharged into
the City's existing system which is already authorized. KPFF explains that
storm water going to that system will be treated to maintain water quality by using
bioswales and/or filter systems and that the required best management practices to
protect water quality will be implemented. (See, for example, pages II - 14 of the
Stormwater Plan). Taken as a whole, the Stormwater Plan and other studies relating
to water quality, floodplain function and stormwater detention constitute substantial
evidence necessary for the City to make adequate findings against Goal 6 on this
Issue.
The Storm water Plan and the McKenzie River Floodplain Assessment, David Evans
and Associates, Inc. (DEA), November 2003 (Floodplain Assessment), also constitute
substantial evidence in the record to allow the City to prepare findings that it is
feasible that the floodplain development standards can be met. DEA's material was
prepared by experienced professional engineers registered in Oregon. Their report
constitutes credible evidence that the City can rely upon.
The KPFF Stormwater Plan states that "in accordance with the recommendations of
FEMA and the City of Springfield, no development is being proposed within the
floodway that could significantly alter flow characteristics. Proposed development
within the floodway is comprised of no more than pathways, possible outdoor
recreational facilities and appropriate features." (See page 6 of the Stormwater Plan).
Further, based on the KPFF engineering analysis, the Stormwater Plan notes that "the
planning and design of stormwater management will be founded upon the mass
grading concept of protecting development from flooding by raising it above the
floodplain elevation. For the purposes of this report, all design calculations,
assumptions and recommendations are based on the more conservative FEMA flood
elevations for development and are referenced in the appendix of this report." (See,
pages 5-6 of the Stormwater Plan.) _ Again, the requirement is whether the City has
substantial evidence in the record upon which to prepare the necessary findings under
Goal'6. The information provided by KPFF and DEA and other relevant testimony
constitutes such substantial evidence.
The ]aquas also claim that "additional federal discharge and fill permits will be
required." However, they fail to identify the source of that contention or the federal
permits. Without specific information, it is impossible for the City to respond directly
to this claim with any certainty.
Page 113 of 123
1 110105
The proposal makes no such statement regarding the need for a federal discharge
permit. Nevertheless, the information listed above and other information in the record .
constitutes evidence that, for "example, discharges to wetland can be avoided because
the resource is small compared to the entire site. Hence, no federal or state fill permit
IS necessary.
As demonstrated above, the record contains substantial evidence sufficient to allow
the City to prepare the findings required by Goal 6. Further the Jaquas attempted to
raise particular issues but did so without sufficient specificity to allow a reasoned and
complete response by the City.
With respect to the adequacy of the David Evans & Associates, Inc. (DEA) floodplain
analysis, the City finds that it is acceptable from a technical perspective. The study
was prepared by registered engineers. The City recognizes that experts may differ on
particular issues without either being incorrect. With that in mind, the City accepts
the material provided by DEA related to the McKenzie River floodplain as substantial
evidence.
Public Facilities Plan Policy G.21
The Jaquas also contend'that the application would violate Policy G.21. That policy
relates to placement of fill in the floodplain and the need to maintain flood storage
capacity. .
The Stormwater Plan prepared by KPFF provides substantial evidence that the
proposed development can be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of
FEMA and the City, that no development is proposed within the floodway that could
significantly alter flood flow characteristics and that any development proposed
within the floodway would consist of no more than pathways, outdoor recreational
facilities and appropriate landscaping features (see Stormwater Plan at page 6). In
addition, KPFF indicates that development will be protected from flooding by raising
it above the floodplain elevation. The existing ordinances relating to development in
floodplains (Article 27) will ensure that the capacity of the floodplain is maintained.
The Stormwater Plan at page II includes a list of assumptions that will ensure that
flood capacity is maintained including the fact that all parcels will be required to
detain on site the volume of stormwater runoff created by the 100-year post-
development design storm and to release that water at the maximum allowable 25-
year post-development. According to KPFF, the development strategy proposal will
ensure that capacity of downstream infrastructure will not be exceeded during the
horizon of the proposed master plan (See Stormwater Plan at page 12).
.
Page 1140f123
1/10105
.
Public Facilities Plan Policy G.19
The Jaquas contend that Policy G.19 would be violated. Policy G.19 requires that the
City maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain to the maximum extent
practicable through measures that include reducing impervious surfaces in the
floodplain and adjacent areas. The Stormwater Plan, notes on page 13 that the
volume of storm runoff would be actively reduced by the following three strategies:
I. Discharge clean storm water (roof runoff) directly into ground
infiltration facilities.
2. Maximize infiltration by utilizing landscaped areas.
3. Facilitate evaporation by increasing the number of trees onsite
(approximately 4,SOO additional trees are planned).
These practices are consistent with Policy G .19 and the City finds that based on such
information and other evidence in the record, Policy G.19 will be met.
Public Facilities Plan Policy G.16
.
The Jaquas contend that the proposal would violate Policy G.16, which requires that
waterways be managed or enhanced and open storm water systems used to reduce
water quality impact from runoff and to provide improved storm water conveyance.
The Stormwater Plan (page 13), notes that the primary conveyance of public
stormwater within the campus will be provided by underground pipe storm drain
system for the western section of the development but that an open channel swale will
be used for the eastern half. In addition, onsite open channels and swales will be
incorporated into the project design wherever feasible and practicable. This approach
is consistent with Policy G .16.
1 L The amendments violate Goal 9 because the amendments are "not based
upon inventories establishing that the RiverBend MDR area is 'suitable for
increased activity and growth after taking into consideration the health of
the current economic base. ",
The Jaquas' argument confuses the general Goal 9 requirement that local jurisdictions
adopt comprehensive plans that contribute to a stable and healthy economy, with the
requirements of OAR 660-009-0010(4) applicable to the amendment of
comprehensive plans that change plan designations of lands in excess of two acres to
or from commercial or industrial use. The Metro Plan is acknowledged as being in
compliance with Goal 9 and the proposal on remand does not amend any of the Goal
9 related elements of the Metro Plan. Rather, the proposal is to redesignate MDR-
.
Page 115 of 123
1110105
designated land to a mixture ofCC- and MU-designated land. Because the Metro
Plan Diagram amendment exceeds two acres, the City must demonstrate compliance .
with OAR 660-009-00 I 0(4). As LUBA recognized below,
[w]hen a post acknowledgment plan amendment (PAPA)
affecting more than two acres triggers the requirements of the
Goal 9 rule, as is the case here, the city is required to do one of
three things: (I) demonstrate that the PAPA complies with the
parts of the acknowledged comprehensive plan that were adopted
to comply with the Goal 9 rule; (2) comply with the planning
requirements in OAR 660-009-00 IS through 660-009-0025 in
adopting the PAPA; or (3) pursue a combination of I and 2.
Jaqua, slip op. 29. As LUBA found, in approving the earlier amendments, the City
was not required to undertake an economic opportunities analysis provided that the
City could demonstrate that the diagram amendment was consistent with the SCLS.
Notwithstanding this holding, the Jaquas appear to argue that Goal 9 imposes an
independent obligation to prepare some other type of economic analysis. Their
testimony spans a number of pages and makes numerous allegations regarding the
impact of the proposed hospital. Yet the J aquas do not explain what applicable goal,
statute or ordinance would require such an analysis. In short, the City finds the
J aquas' argument regarding potential economic impacts does not relate to any of the .
approval criteria.
A portion of the Jaquas' argument regarding compliance with the SCLS relates to
Goal 10 rather than the SCLS. Without providing any substantive argument, the
Jaquas allege that the City has not demonstrated that it is "more appropriate" to
designate MDR land as commercial. The Jaquas' argument relies, in part, on their
assertion that because the underlying property is currently designated as MDR, the
City has already determined that the property is "more appropriate" for residential use.
Under this reasoning, the City could never rezone property from any designation to
commercial because, by the mere fact that property is zoned for one use shows that
such use is "more appropriate." This argument would render SCLS Implementation
Strategy 3-A(I) (which specifically authorizes the re-designation of property)
pointless.
12. The amendments violate Goal 10 because the City must rely on the 2004
monitoring report.
The opponents argue that the City is required to base its decision on the 2004
Residential Lands Monitoring Report. Similarly, each ofthe opponents argue that the
RLS requires the City to rely on the 2004 monitoring report instead of the
.
Page 116 of 123
1/10105
.
acknowledged inventory in the RLS. The City finds that reliance on the data in the
2004 Monitoring Report would conflict with Metro Plan's Residential Element.
The jaquas first argue that the RLS, by including a policy that requires the preparation
of annual monitoring reports demonstrates that the" clear purpose" of the monitoring
reports is to "provide a basis for determining on an ongoing basis whether supplies
remain adequate as projected." The jaquas cite nothing in either the 2004 Monitoring
Report or, more importantly, the RLS or the Metro Plan, which would suggest that the
Metro Plan partners are required, or even allowed, to rely on monitoring reports when
considering Metro Plan amendments that affect residentially-designated land. There
is, in fact, nothing in the RLS, the 2004 Monitoring Report or the Metro Plan that
even remotely suggests that the 2004 Monitoring Report controls over the
acknowledged inventory set forth in the Metro Plan. In fact, the Metro Plan clearly
explains that the purpose of the monitoring reports is to provide a dialogue in the
community to address future Periodic Review requirements related to residential land
supply needs.
.
The jaquas then argue that the policy in the RLS requiring the preparation of
'monitoring reports demonstrates that the "uptake assumptions of the 1999 report are
not intended to be relied upon as the basis for plan amendments removing lands from
Goal 10 inventories during the planning period." Again, the jaquas do not cite any
provision in the RLS or the 2004 Monitoring Report for that assertion. The jaquas
then argue that the RLS "acknowledges the shortcomings of its projections by
requiring ongoing monitoring to assure that those projections retain their validity."
Again, the jaquas do not city any provision of the RLS for this proposition. The mere
fact that the RLS requires the preparation of a monitoring report does not either
expressly or impliedly suggest that the Metro Plan partners believed the RLS to be
deficient or that it should not be relied upon. In fact, the City finds that the express
language of the Metro Plan dictates that monitoring reports are to be used to address
future Period Review requirements.
Citing Holcombe v. City of Florence, 45 Or LUBA 59 (2003), affd without opinion,
190 Or App 305 (2003), the jaquas argue that the City must rely on the 2004
Monitoring Report because the RLS "acknowledges its shortcomings[.]" Holcombe is
not on point.
In Holcombe, the applicant sought, among other things, to redesignate land from
industrial to residential. The petitioner argued that to do so violated Goal I 0 because
the acknowledged buildable lands inventory concluded that there was sufficient
buildable land within the urban growth boundary to meet the needs for residential
housing throughout the planning period. The petitioner cited D. S. Parklane for the
proposition that "the need for residential development be based on the buildable lands
.
Page I I7 of) 23
1/10/05
:.'
inventory, and not other evidence that is inconsistent with the buildable lands
inventory[.] "
.
In concluding that the City of Florence could rely on updated housing demand
information, LUBA explained:
We might agree with petitioner that the city erred in adopting a
decision inconsistent with its comprehensive plan buildable lands
inventory and hence contrary to Goal 2, if the city's
comprehensive plan concluded thatthebuildable lands inventory
accurately reflected the anticipated need during the planning
period. However, the 2000/2020 FCP explicitly acknowledges
that the 1997 buildable lands inventory does not account for an
extremely high population increase from between 1999 and 2001
(average annual increase of 6.9 percent) and an accelerated'
consumption of the residential land base to accommodate that
increase. The 2000/2020 FCP states, in relevant part:
The 20-year Land Use Plan Map designates lands as
residential which are appropriate for residential land uses
and development within the UGB. The July 1997
Residential Land Use Analysis concluded that those lands
so designated comprise a sufficient supply of buildable
lands to accommodate all expected types of housing anq
all anticipated income levels for the 2000-2020 planning
period.
.
, '
However, by 2000 it was becoming apparent that the high
growth rate in Florence was utilizing residential lands at
an accelerated rate. The City 'debated whether to prepare
an updated Residential Lands Analysis at that time or to
continue with a much-delayed completion of periodic
review. It was decided to complete periodic review and to
deal with the need for expanded residential lands as a
post-acknowledgement Plan amendment." 2000/2020 FCP
IS-16.
Holcombe, at 69. Based on these provisions of the city's 2000/2020 FCP, LUBA held
that it was appropriate to rely on updated information because i) the comprehensive
plan explicitly indicated that the "buildable lands inventory is outdated and not an
accurate reflection of the city's actual need for residential land, " and ii) provisions in
the City's comprehensive plan expressly stated that the need for additional residential
.
Page 118 of 123
1/10/05
.
land would be dealt with through post-acknowledgement plan amendments rather than
through an update of the buildable lands inventory. Id. In other words, the city's'
comprehensive plan in Holcombe specifically directed the City to ignore the buildable
lands inventory and to deal with residential demand through post-acknowledgement
plan amendments. That is not the case here. Moreover, the applicable comprehensive
plan policy at issue in Holcombe (2000/2020 FCP Land Use Policy 4) allowed plan
amendments if the applicants could demonstrate that the amendment was "based on
new information that was either unavailable' or overlooked at the time of
Comprehensive Plan adoption(.]" Id. fn. 7.
Unlike Holcombe, neither the RLS nor the Metro Plan acknowledge any shortcomings
of the RLS. More importantly, nothing in the RLS or the Metro' Plan i~dicate that
Goal 10 inventories are to be meqsured by the 2004 Monitoring Report or through.
post-acknowledgement plan amendments. Perhaps most importantly, the City has
adopted the monitoring report. Mere presentation to the City Council does not
transform the 2004 Monitoring Report into an acknowledged planning document.
Moreover, the 2004 Monitoring Report did not include Lane County or Eugene.
Finally, Metro Plan Residential policy A.6 expressly provides that the purpose of the
monitoring report is to promote a region-wide dialogue to "address future Periodic
Review requirements that relate to meeting the residential land supply need of the
Metro area." Thus, the City finds that reliance on the unadopted and unacknowledged
monitoring report would violate the Metro Plan, including Residential Policy A.6
.
13. Nodal development compliance through future RiverBend Master Plan
Considerable evidence was submitted by Kirstin Greene on behalf of the ]aquas and
Rob Zako of 1000 Friends critiquing the RiverBend Master Plan as alternately not
meeting nodal development criteria or being located outside of a node yet still. being
inconsistent with the nodal development strategy outlined in TransPlan. Both contend
that the proceedings to review the proposal upon remand are the appropriate venue
and that the issue is "ripe" for review.
The City Council finds that this is not the appropriate venue for review of the
RiverBend Master Plan.
In her November 30; 2004 correspondence to the City, Ms. Greene refers to "zone
changes and amendments requested by PeaceHealth. . ." Because no application for
master plan or zone change approval was submitted with the original proposal, and
has not been submitted for concurrent review with this remand proceeding, there is no
application for master plan and/or zone change before the City. Therefore, her
statement "the issues we raise are directly related to the original application and
remand" is incorrect.
.
Page 119 of 123
1/10105
Approval of plan amendments under the original proposal and remand must be
addressed before the City can consider a master plan and zone changes that would .
implement the policy directives established by Council approval of the proposal. In
this proceeding there is no specific development proposal before the City. Ms.
Green's client, Mr. Johnson, acknowledged this in the first paragraph of his
November 30,2004 letter to the City where he stated: "This is not an application for
a development permit. .. This is an application for a package of plan text and map
amendments. "
Therefore, the City finds that Ms. Greene's critique of the RiverBend Master Plan is
not timely. Similarly so is evidence submitted by Mr. Zako regarding the unadopted
TGM Quick Response grant study and other materials pertaining to specific
development proposals for the subject site.
Although the RiverBend Master Plan is not relevant to the remand proceeding, the
City adopts the following findings in response to certain issues raised by Ms. Greene
and Mr. Zako.
Ms. Greene asks in her November 30, 2004 letter that if the previously approved GRP
Implementation Action 13.6 is sustained - which allows for certain code standards to
be flexed or exempted - then "what standards will apply." The answer lies in Action
'13.6 itself, which requires that a Master Plan that seeks exemption from certain code
standards must demonstrate consistency "with the Purpose of the Nodal Development .
Overlay District. . .."
The objectives established in the Purpose section of SDC Article 41 (Nodal
Development Overlay District) are identical to those nodal development objectives
referenced by Mr. Zako in his correspondence. Since any future Master Plan would
have to conform with the literal application of Code standards for Mixed Use zones
and/or nodal development overlay zones, or otherwise demonstrate consistency with
the nodal development objectives established in Code and TransPlan, Mr. Zako's
concern that the Master Plan is not or cannot be developed in a "nodal fashion" is
unfounded.
Mr. Zako requested that evidence be put into the record from the City's consultant,
ECONorthwest, on a nodal development implementation study presented to the.
Council in May 2003 ("Summary Report: Nodal Implementation Project" dated May
12,2003). Although the City has yet to fully implement its program for nodal
development implementation, it has established Code provisions for MU zones (SDC
Article 40) and nodal overlay zone (SDC Article 41). The consultant advised the City
to "make amendments to ~rticles 40 and 41 of the Springfield Development Code" to
"increase flexibility where acceptable while implementing requirements where
.
Page 120 of 123
1/10105
.
necessary for development that is compatible with nodal development goals."
(Summary Report, pg. 4) This is precisely what Action 13.6 does: further the means
to realize the community's nodal development objectives by providing flexibility not
currently available through the Code.
14. Glenwood Proposal
The opponents argue that the City should consider whether the Glenwood site or other
sites in central Eugene are more appropriate than the subject property. In short, none
of the approval criteria allow the City to consider whether the Glenwood site or any
Eugene are appropriate or more appropriate than the subject property.
The Jaqlias, however, allege that Goal 14 and Goal 9 require consideration of the
Glenwood site. In particular, the jaquas argue that Goal 14 requires that the
conversion ofurbanizable land to urban uses shall be based upon the encouragement
of development within urban areas before conversion of urbanizable areas. The
underlying property is not "urbanizable." Rather it is "urban" because it is located
within an incorporated city. Moreover the property is already designated on the
Metro Plan for urban uses. Therefore, the Goal 14 conversion factors do not apply.
Citizens for Florence v. City of Florence, 35 Or LUBA 255 (1998).
.
With respect to Goal 9, the jaquas cite Opus Development COlp. v. City of Eugene,
141 Or App 249 (1996) and argue that, in redesigating land to commercial uses,
impacts to existing inventories of commercial land must be considered. The jaquas'
reliance on Opus is misplaced because in that case the City of Eugene was removing
commercial land from its inventory and the issue was whether, taking into account
removal of commerciaUands from the inventory, the remaining inventory was
sufficient under Goal 9. The current proposal will add commercial land to the
inventory which, as the Commercial Lands Study indicates, is lacking in commercial
land. Consequently the City finds that it is not appropriate to reexamine the existing
inventories to see if they are sufficient when the Commercial Lands Study
demonstrates that they are insufficient.
15. A regional medical center cannot be sited on CC or MU land. These
designations are intended for uses much more limited in scope.
In the earlier proceeding, the jaquas argued that the hospital is a commercial use. For
example, before LUBA the jaquas argued that GRP Residential Element Policy 12.0:
[i]mplicitly amends the Metro Text by replacing "limited"
rezoning for "neighborhood commercial" with "unlimited"
rezoning for "mixed use" commercial at levels and with uses that
.
Page 121 of123
1/10105
the Metro Plan text classifies as "community commercial" and
"major retail. III .
.
\ In challenging GRP Residential Implementation Action 12.1, the ]aquas asserted:
As amended, it protects commercial development potential of a
substantial portion of the MDR area. In so doing, it effectively
reallocates the affected area. . . from the Metro Plan's Goal 10
residential lands inventory and plan diagram allocation to the
Metro Plan's Goal 9 commercial lands inventory.
In their statement of the case to LUBA, the ]aquas argued that the
[C]ity unilaterally authorized a major commercial use-a
regional general hospital-on 66 acres of the best of the rest of
the Gateway MDR general plan diagram area.
I
Thus, not only have the ]aquas asserted that the hospital is a commercial use, they
have also explicitly stated that the use and the intensity of the use are classified as
community commercial. Although the ]aquas now assert that the proposed CC and
MUC designations are inappropriate and are "intended for uses that are much more
limited in scale, scope and impact," the ]aquas do not explain why this is the case. As
explained elsewhere, the City finds that the CC designation is appropriate.
.
16. The new proposal, which includes CC and MU, could lead to vast amounts of
commercial development on the edge of the city not previously authorized.
The ]aquas argue that the revised proposal will "open the door to a wide range of
related and unrelated commercial uses at RiverBend." The ]aquas provide no
substantive argument and ignore the fact that the City has the final word on the master
plan approval.
17. The proposals are quasi-judicial subject to procedural requirements of ORS
197.763.
The ]aquas and the Goal I Coalition both argue that the "proposals" are quasi-judicial,
, subject to the procedural requirements ofORS 197.763.
On April 21, 2003, the City adopted Ordinances 60S0 and 60S 1. Ordinance 60S0
amended the Metro Plan Diagram by redesignating up to 33 acres ofMDR-designated
land to CC. Ordinance 60S0 was ultimately remanded by LUBA. On remand, the
revised proposal seeks to redesignate approximately 44 acres ofMDR-designated land
. to CCand approximately SO acres ofMDR-designated land to MUC. This revision
.
Page 122 of 123
1/10105
.
responds directly to the Court of Appeals decision, which directed the City to
redesignate the underlying property to a commercial designation if the City wanted to
apply the MS zone to the property. Also on April 21, 2003, the City adopted
Ordinance 6051. Ordinance 6051 included a number of text amendments to the
Gateway Refinement Plan. As with Ordinance 60S0, Ordinance '60S 1 was also
ultimately remanded by LUBA. On remand, the revised proposal largely mirrors the
original proposal, but includes certain revisions to reflect the remand orders from
LUBA and the Court of Appeals.
Assuming thatORS 197.763 applies in the context ofa remand hearing on these two
ordinances, the opponents have provided no substantive argument as to what
requirements ofORS 197.763 the City has failed to follow. Neither the ]aquas nor
the Coalition have explained the nature of the City's "error." The City has provided
adequate notice of the City hearings. All documents have been made available to the
public. The record was left open for seven days to allow parties to submit additional
evidence. The record was also left open an additional seven days for rebuttal,
including the right to submit additional rebuttal evidence. The City Attorney made
the appropriate statement regarding hearing procedure at the hearing. Thus it is
unclear how the City has violated 0 RS 197.763 with respect to the remand of
Ordinances 60S0 and 60S 1.
.
Thus, to the extent that ORS 197.763 applies, the City has followed the requirements
and neither the ]aquas nor the Coalition have explained how the City has violated
ORS 197.763.
.
Page 123 of 123
1/10105
~ \. ,:Jl
......... I""--.. -
~
I
_1
-
L~~
r... ,
.'\ "--
'h
Belt Line Rd
, tT
h\
II I" i:!
I II I I"T I 1[[ ~
I I I I I II
-.:\. I I
~V\. ,~....
, ~~; ~~
~~y~ ::
>~~ "Q), \ 100-
"VA y rr:
'^ ~ ~ .....
)Q~"V'" .A
~~~
O\J ~I'
rrrrr ~ ~
. Im~ tlJ
IITT1 I
111Tl Lx::
II III BI.-
1111 (
TI1111 1
1 I I I I L~....
LJ.IlIl CL;:::
~\ I
tmmrrH III
t!-
~
-----
~
'\\~
TIf
n
\\~
I'-U
~
~
~A ~
t
\
?~
,
\.
\~~> ~~f-\L \
I ,\3 A- r~ '
, ~ ~<J2~ m~t-...I'--
___ ~ "r IT\.. I- :: ~ iJ Ll t,
, '\.. \, \.1 I IT 1-, I- I' .l. L.:I;:;"
'oM IT-II I I __ c:~ ::~l~c..r.Cj~
--'111-- ., J I-
.- - _.-\." I- ....
_ - - t-I~r"7'l.~!- -
I I .... - L-f- Fo..,,' l-.... -
-- II - ~
~ L- T _
r- I - r::-lli
H{ - 11 -....
t-,!- M-r
I TT' -I- ....
~
I~
\{-~
}
b
.s.
~
.~
i
'@
~
Exhibit D
Site
A
500 0 500 Feet
I I