The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 6108 01/10/2005 r/ . ORDINANCE NO. 6108 j (EMERGENCY) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 99 ACRES OF LAND FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AT THE GA TEW A Y MDR SITE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that: A. Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth criteria for Metro Plan Diagram amendments. B. On April 21, 2003 The Springfield City Council approved a Metro Plan Diagram amendment by adopting ordinance 6050. C. The April 21, 2003 Metro Plan amendment was 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 Metro Plan amendment 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. E. Subsequent to the LUBA remand, the Springfield City Council reopened the record on the 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 remand applications was convened and concluded. The record of the 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 of those persons testifying at the hearing or in writing, have been considered and are part of the record of the proceeding. . H. On December 9, 2004 the Springfield Planning Commission voted five in favor, one opposed and one abstaining to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions to the City Council. Page 1 of5 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 ordinance and declaring an emergency. . J. Evidence exists within the record and the fmdings attached hereto that the proposal meets the requirements of Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Metropolitan Area General Plan is hereby amended to redesignate approximately 99 acres of annexed Medium Density Residential designated property at the Gateway MDR to Community Commercial (43.9 acres) and Mixed Use (49.5 acres) as depicted in Exhibit B. Section 2: The above findings (A through J), and the fmdings set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted in support of the Metro Plan amendment. Section 3: This Metropolitan Area General Area Plan Diagram amendment is subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto in Exhibit A. Section 4: This Ordinance replaces Ordinance 6050, adopted by the City Council on April 21, 2003. . Section 5: It is hereby found and determined that this Metropolitan Area General Area Plan Diagram amendment is a matter affecting the public health, safety and welfare . and that an emergency therefore exists and that this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. ADOPTED by the Common Council of the Ci For and :] against on this 10th day of Attest: City = 'd).~ . Page 2 of5 ORDINANCE NO. 6108 EXHIBIT A . Conditions of Metro Plan Approval (Jo.No.'s 2002-08-243) 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 phis 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 ofthe Transportation Planning Rule for such proposal. CONDITION 2: Prior to occupancy of the first phase of any hospital located at the Gateway MDR site as approved by a future Master Plan, a portion of TransPlan project 727 (chapter 3, page 31, Dee 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 of5 ORDINANCE NO. 6108 . 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 PeaceHeaIth'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 byPeaceHeaIth, 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/BeltIine 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 of5 ORDINANCE NO. 6108 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 BeItlineRoad/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 MSand/or MUC zoning district are applied shall be subject to the following condition: . Any Subdivision or Site Plan Review application approval that relies upon transportation 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 of5 ORDINANCE NO. 6108 ~ _. cr" _. .-+- to o ~ H Z ~ CJ t:<:l Z o 0\ I-' o 00 . . :J , , , , , , , , , , , , , L __ __/ LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ MUtMUC: 49.5 ACRES CC/MS: 43.9 ACRES MDR: 63.5 ACRES LOR: 1.1 ACRES TOTAL SITE: 158 ACRES KEY iii! MIXED USE (MU) iii! MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) _ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) CJ WW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LOR) PROPERlY BOUNDARY URBAN GROwrn BOUNDARY L-..- o 200 ---'~ .00 eoo "'I.lY' . WIMBHRU!Y AI.l..lSI:m lUNG 4000 ANSHEN' ALU!N WAIJCER.MACY KPfP OONSULlINO HN<BNFERS JR" TRANSPORTAl1ONBNGINI!EftING DAVID BVANSAND ASSOCIA11!S RiverBend Master Plan nomcr_ DAm a.-a>aa.Z0D4 DRAWN: Al'hDVED: NZ I'LOTDATB: RlIVU""", METRO PLAN DIAGRAM . . . 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 siteI. Ordinance 6051 amended the Gateway Refmement 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 I 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 ofthe 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 defmition 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 undertake 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 designated 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 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-land 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 CC on 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 MUand 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. . 1/10/05 Page3 of 123 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: fmdings 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 ~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 Ci.ty had to change the underlying plan designation of the property to a commercial designation from the existingMDR designation. This proposal on remand responds directly to that portion of the Court's decision. 1. Revised 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 refmement 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 compFed with . Page 4 of 123 1/10/05 .' . the SCLS. SpeCifically, LUBA held that the (:ity'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 fmdings 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. . . Page 5 of 123 1/10/05 - ~~y support and direction for the re-desi~ation of property from MDR to CCand .. B. Type of Metro Plan Amendment Amendments to the 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 defmes 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 ofI23 1/10/05 . 1. Metro Plan Diagram and GRP Diagram Amendme~ts As with the original propos~l, the Metro Plan Diagram amendments on remand are site specific and relate only to property wholly within the City. Althoughthe amount of commercially-designated land has increased from 33 acres to approximately 44 acres and now includes 50 acres ofMU-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 of the 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 ori~inal 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 1110/05 .. Ill. 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: (1) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and . Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. . 2. Refinement Plan Amendments (2) Refmement 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: (I) 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 of123 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 fmal City Council hearing, interested parties were provided a final opportunity to provide argument to the City Council. Generally, Goal I requires every city and county to develop and implement a citizen involvement program. As LUBA has recognized, Goal I does not provide due process protections, nor does it dictate the conduct of local government hearings. Dobson v. Polk County, 22 Or LUBA 701(1992). Rather, the manner in which local government hearings are conducted and the procedural requirements for such hearings are governed by statute. (See ORS Chapter 227). Where notice of a hearing has been provided and public testimony considered, LUBA has found no Goal I violation. Chambers v. Josephine Cqunty, 13 Or LUBA180 (1985). . The Metro Plan contains a citizen involvement program satisfying Goall. 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 I. 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 fmdings regarding Goall 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, and that implementing ordinances be consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans. Goal 2 also requires that land use decisions be coordinated with affected jurisdictions and that they be supported by an adequate factual base. . The 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 Go~1l2. ORS 197.61Orequires.theCity to forward a notice of proposed Metro Plan and refmement 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 op. November 16, 2004. Revised notices were sent to DLCD on September 2,2004. Under Goal 2, the City is not required to acconimodate all of the concerns of interested governmental agencies, but the City must respond in its fmdings 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 boundary. 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 1110/05 . . . 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 ~e 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 all acknowledged GoalS 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 5. 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 Goal 5 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 11 of 123 1/10/05 , I, The Environmental Resources Element of the Metro Plan implements.Goals 5,. . 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 reduc~ street-related water quality and quantity problems. . ( t~ 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 GoalS 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 GoalS; Because no party challenged the amendments'consistency with GoalS 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 S. Section IV of these Findings include additional GoalS-related fmdings 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 PAPA, 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 development at this time, there can be no direct impact to air, water or land resources. In fact~ pursuant tQ 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 bern.:een the amendments on remand and those approved through the Decisions, for purposes of a Goal 6 analysis; there~e 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? 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, noris any specific development is proposed. Consequently, forpurposes'ofGoaI7, there is no substantive change between the amendments on remand and the PAPA I approved amendments, the current proposal remains consistent with Go~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 GoalS 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 1/10/05 " (b) meet-recreational needs of persons of limited mobility and ffiances, . . "(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, Natura/Assets, shows two areas of "Other Prominent Vegetation", the maple and frr groves, and a wetland area listed as MRSS Site 816. During the PAPA I 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 jloodway in ways that are sensitive to the natural resource values and private property uses in the area. " . Page 14 of 123 .1/10/05 e. 2.2 "The City of Springfield and Willa.malane shall cooperatively evaluate 1) the potential of the McKenzie River jloodway area to help meet long-terin apen spate and recreation needs; and 2) the feasibility and deSirability of acquirfng 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 reasonable retention of existing trees, paying particular attention to those inventoried in this Element asprominent and plentiful vegetation. " 9.6 (GRP page 38) "The City and Willamalane shall seek easementsfor 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 re'creational 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 . 1110/05 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 of MU and.44 acres of CC 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 multiple 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 ofMUC. On appeal, LUBA held that the City's findings did not demonstrate that the Decisions were consistent with SCLS Implementation Strategy l-B(2) because 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,-localjurisdictions 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 isa deficit of corrimercially 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 fmdings, 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, tbeMU 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) Relevant Findings in SCLS . The primary conclusion of the SCLS is that "there is a shortage of suitable commercial sites within the Springfield UGB 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 commerci~l acreage." SCLS at 31. In order to address this "difficult situation" the SCLS recb~zes that "to implement some of the policies to achieve better commercial development, certain policies from specific refmement plans 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'ofthe 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 fmdings, 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. The 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 1/10/05 of commercial land 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 ()fland to .commercial within the Gateway MDR site. In explaining LUBA's difficulty with the City's decision to redesignate 33 acres, when the SCLS called for 10~15 acres,.LUBA stated: In part because no party offers any aigument 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 fmdings that explain why aD. action that seems so inconsistent with SCLS Implementation Strategy l--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 l-B(2) allows the City to rezone 10 to 15 acres to NC, but does not mandate that it doso. If the City had intended the . Implementation Strategies to be mandatory, inflexible and the fmal 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 prohi9ition. Thus in adopting the SCLS, the City exp~essly reserved the righ! to adopt and implement a variety of strategies to assure that the City can meet the identified. deficit of commercial lands in the City. One impl~mentation strategy for the City to meet the identified commercial lands deficit is to redesignate 94 acres from MDR to CC and MU. SCLS Policy l-B requires the City to, ensure that there is an adequate amount of commercial land in the McKenzie/Gateway area. Similarly, SCLS Policy 3-A requires the City to "redesignate and rezone" property within Neighborhood Centers and Commercial Center nodes to Mixed Use Commercial. Neither of these 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 to MU.. Pagel8ofl23 1/10/05 . . j . . .. . . . Addit~onally, the NC zoning reference~ in the Implementation Strategy l-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 atld 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 will 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 MDRsite. . 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 TransPlart nodes encompass residential land and that "to achieve higher average density to make these nodes function, residential land within the 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(1) 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 MUand 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 known 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 Because "Implementation Strategies" are defmed by the SCLS as actions that . the City "can" take to accomplish the objectives of the City's overarchirig 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 "Goi31s" of the SCLS. Although the 94 acre proposa1 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 Cornmon Council of the City of Springfield does hereby adopt the Springfield Commercial Lands Study as more particularly described and setforth in Attachment A and as modified by Attachment B as the policy d<;>cument 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 provide no absolute limit on the amount of land within the Gateway MDR area to be redesignated to commercial to meet the overriding policy ofSCLS Policy I-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 fmdings above demonstrate, the City finds that the proposal on remand is consistent with SCLS ! 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 9fthe SCLS. A considerable amount of testimony was submitted with respect to Goal 9. The fmdings 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 lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of housing units at price . ranges and rent levels. which are commenSurate with thejinancial 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 and 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 ResidentialImplementation Action 12.6 requires a similar type of analysis to take place at the master plan level. The policy reads: "the , adopted masterplan shall demonstrate that the site will be able to accommodate the number of housing units within the rangefor 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 10. 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 within. 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 primary 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. Densityis limited only by the maximum height restriction. Proposed Implementation Action 12.6 requires that any futtire 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 1 0 is satisfied. The RLS concludes that the area has 828 acres ofMDR designated land with a demand of589 acres, leaving a surplus of239 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 ce, 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 Decisi()nss complied with Goal 10. The . primary basis for LUBA's affirmationwas.thefact 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 PAP A I), 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 ackriowledged 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 Goal2'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 I (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 ofJ23 1/10/05 >.! . City is obligated to utilize the acknowledged ,inventory when considering whether the current proposal is consistent with Goal 1 0 and the Goall 0-re1ated provIsions of the Metro Plan. In the PAPAl proceeding, LUBA also recognized that, notwithstanding the surplus ofMDR-designatedland 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 change4 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 th~ Gateway MDR sitedemonstrate 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 10. 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 requirement mirrors the policy requirement contained within the proposed GRP Residential Implementation Action 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 plan amendments coupled with the master plan criteria of approval ensure compliance with Goal 11. Finally, although there are variations between the current revised proposal ~d the earlier amendments, for purposes of Goal 11, there are no practical ~fferences 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 [mdings. 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 proposaI 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). In the initial plan amendments ("PAPA I"), the City adoptedfindirigs explaining how the decisionssatisfiedGoal12. (PAPA I Record pages 222 and 223, .. Findings pages 41 and 42.) The petitioners' appeal to LU:!3A 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 [mdings 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 PAPA I decisions regarding TPR. In PAP A I, the City adopted [mdings on the TPR at Findings pages 42-55 (PAPA I Record pages 223-236). On appeal, the petitioners argued that the [mdings failed,to demonstrate that the Cjty had considered whether the proposed post-acknowledgment plan amendments would . Page 24 of 123 1/10/05 . cause or accelerate the failure of a transporta~ion facility within the planning period between 2004 and 2018.2 ' . tUBA remanded the City's decision and the Court of Appeals affirmed tUBA'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 tUBA's final order and opinion, the court held: . First, we do not understand tUBA's opinion to do more than ~onclude 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 tUBA's) does not mean that the rule ..necessarily requires that, before an approved change in land use .'occtirs, that road improvements must occur. The rule offers . alternatives to the local land use planniI}.g body. However, importantly, the rule does not 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 afSpringfield, 193 Or App 573, (2004). . - b. The 2004 TIA. The applicant has updated the TIA in response to the decisions by tUBA 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 ("TransPlan") or will be remedied through mitigation measures pursuant to OAR 660-0 12-0060 (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 IF.2 from 2004-2018 to a beginning year in 2005 and an ending year in 2020. This reflects a new year of adoption of2005. . 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 of 123 1/10/05 The 2004 TIA relies on the same methodology as the 2002 TIA, but accounts . for changes to the assumed designs for elements. of the traffic and citcurati0~ 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-acknowledgment plan amendments. The phasing is as follows: . Between 2005 and 2008, no traffic will be generated by the uses. allowed by this application because their construction will be incomplete. The 2004 TIA assumes background traffic growth for each year during this time.period. . Phase 1,2008-2010. 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 II, 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 TPR is to determine whether there is a significant effect. If there is no significant effect, the City need not consider the mitigation measures under OAR 660-012- 0060(1 )(a)-{ d). 4 Petitioners at LUBA did not challenge the underlying assumptions of the original TIA, its methodology or the use ofa trip cap as a mitigation measure pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a). . Page 26 of 123 1/10/05 . i. Adequacy ofexistingtransport(!.tion facilities. The City m~st 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 th~twhich would otherwise occur without the approval of these amendments, assuming a limitation on vehicle trips. Therefore, regarding these four facilities, the City must address the second step. . If there is a signifIcant effect, then the City mu~t consider whether any new and improved facilities anticipated by the TSP will generate suffIcient additional capacity and will be built or improved on as scheduled that will accommodate the additional traffIc generated by the proposed amendment. If the answer to the question is "yes," then the proposal does not signifIcantly affect the transportation facilities. . If there is , no signifIcant effect, the City need not consider the mitigation measures under OAR 660'-012-0060(1)(a)-(d). The TIA shows that not all of the existing facilities will accommodate the expected trips up to the trip cap maximum of 1,840 p.m. peak-hour trips created as a result of these amendments. The TIA shows that with four (4) exceptions, through the planning period of 2020, all of the affected intersections will have a volume to capacity ("v/c") or a level of service ("LOS") equalto or less than that which will otherwise occur without the apPI:oval of these amendments assuming a limitation on vehicle trips. Therefore, the applicant must address the second step. ii. Adequacy of facilities with TSP . improvements. . The second step of the analysis requires the City to determine whether planned improvements in the TSP to the City's existing transportation facilities will be adequate to handle the additional traffIc throughout the planning period or when needed. The TIA concludes that the following projects are required: a. TransPlan Project No. 768 - Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway . Extension: Lane County is designing and constructing this project pursuant to an 'intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") between the City and Lane County. PeaceHealth, pursuant to its Annexation Agreement has committed to pay for a . .' portion of the construction; Lane County will pay for the remainder. Based on Page 27 of 123 1/10/05 substantial evidence in the whole record, the City fmds that this project will be complete at the latest by 2008 in time for use in Phase 1. b. TransPlan Project No. 606 - I-S' 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 MD R North/South Connector: This project will be constructed as part of the PeaceHealth campus. PeaceHealth will fully construct the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway Project 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 Peace Health campus design. It forms ~ver Bend Drive, which is the primary direct access to the hospital and medical office buildings to the east of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. PeaceHealth 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 intersections: a. The eastbound ramp terminal at Pioneer Parkway/Oregon Highway 126. This Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") transportation facility is . part of the Q Street interchange (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 S3; PAPA I Record page 234). Petitioners did not challenge this condition of approval, so on remand, it may not be reconsidered. b. I-S/Belt Line Road Interchange. The I-S/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 1110/05 . Transpoitationimprovements are planp.ed prior to the opening o(Phase 1 (STIP Project Key No. 13281,1-5 at Belt Line Interchange Phase 1, in the curre~tly adopted STIP; and.Project Key No. 12833,1-$ 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 asa 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 offunds, 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 btr aple to combine phases one and two as a single project to begin in 2005 or 2006. . The City finds that substantial evidence in the whole record demonstrates that the facility will be in place prior to the opening of Phase 1 in 2008. This is based on evidence'provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation and by the applicant that the project is programmed to begin construction in time for completion before 2008' and that the project is funded. Alternatively, the City has imposed, as requested by the applicant, a condition of approval requiring the phasing as shown above to prevent further degradation or failure of any affected intersection because the phasing . will allow needed improvements to occur prior to the opening of uses allowed by these amendments. c. Belt Line/Gateway Intersection. . This intersection is not significantly affected because the City has determined, pursuant to its authority under 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 1110/05 limited to environmental. condition, lack of public agency fmancial resources, or land use constraint factors. It is not the intent ofTSI Roadway Policy No.2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service, to require deferral of development in such cases. The intent is to defer motor vehicle capacity increasing transportation system improvements until existing constraints can be overcome or develop an alternative mix of strategies (such as: land use measures, TOM, short-term safety improvement) to address the problem." (TransPl~ Chapter 2, page 11; Ex. -> Nick Amis, Transportation Manager for the City of Springfield, testified that the City Council agreed to adopt a lower level of service below "Level of Service 0" at this intersection. (PAP A I Record page 1364). The Springfield City CoUncil adopted Resolution 02-44 in 2002 as follows: . "The Springfield Common Council implements TransPlan Transportation System Improvement Roadway Policy No.2: Motor Vehicle. ~evel 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 "0". This means that prior to the construction of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway, the City will accept a reduced level of service t6 insure there is no significant effect. d. Beltline Road at Hutton Road. . This intersection will exceed mobility standards (Level of Service "0") 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 I. The applicant asks that the City make this a condition of approval. e. Mitigation measures. OAR 660-0 12-0060(1). . .After considering all of the intersections that are not significantly affected, and those that are significantly affected, but for which projects in TransPlan will be ~completed prior to opening ofPha.se I, the third step is to consider mitigation measures necessary to maintain or prevent further degradation of affected . Page 30 of 123 1110/05 . 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 2010 and will be limited to 1.185 million square feet of hospital and medical buildings and 1,457 pm peak-hour trips. Phase I occupancy and operational capacity will be coterminous with the completion of improvements to the I-5/Beltline interchange. Phase II will open no earlier than 2010, will be limited to additional square footage generating no more than the 1,840 p.m. peak-hour trips and its occupancy 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 660-0 12-0060(1)(a) . which provides: "Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned .. function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility." The City 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). Noparty 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 1 development limit of 1,457 pm peak hour trips. 3. . Roadway Improvements. Jheapplicant requests that the following conditions be imposed to ensure that rmidway 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) PioneerParkway/Q Street improvements, . b. PeaceHealth shall be required to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Beltline 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; PAPAl Record page 234). No party challenged that condition of approval. The City readopts the PAPAl fmdings for this condition. . Page 31 ofl23 1/10/05 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 of the trip cap. . f. Coordination with affected agencies. OAR 660-012-060(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,.pursuantto 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 (ilL TD") and to Lane County (the "County"). The City finds thatthis section oftheTPR 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 [mdings concern issues raised prior to the close of the record. The city council,hereby adopts the findings as,set . forth below. - A. November 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 ("R TP"). 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 Approva~. 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 transportati()n 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 obfected to that condition. These conditions of approval will become conditions of an ordinance amendment and the City Council may not amend them without amending the ordinance. Second, OAR 660-0 1 2-0060(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 l2-0060( 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 I 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 I may not occur until the appropriate 1-5/ Belt Line Road interchange facilities have been constructed. . . Page 33 of \23 \/10/05 iv. Discussion of Nodal Development Issues. No permit for development is before the Council and the Commission in this proceeding. Pe~ceHealth must 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 GoalJ2 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, aD. 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 to describe the Pioneer Parkway and Oregon Highway 126 eastbound improvements. PeaceHealth has proposed a condition of approval (See Staff Report page 1-4, Condition of Approval 2) that it make these improvements prior to the opening of Phase 1.PeaceHealth previously requested arid the City Council previously imposed an identicaIcondition 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 adde4) 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 assumed 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 between 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 Fann 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 November Hi, 2004 Joint Hearing A. November 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 emergen9Y 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 application. Therefore, pursuant to the "law of the case" doctrine, they may not be raised now. Ms. Moulton faikto identify relevant approval criteria regardmg 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 ramifications of the application. Notwithstanding that this issue is very vague, even if there were a regional . ramification requirement, PeaceHealth has addressed itin 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 petitions for review dealt only with the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR"). Nothing prevented the Petitioners, including 1 000 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 andPlanning 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 riotesat page 2 that-the July, 2Q02 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 umidopted 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 notrelevant 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 is in a forum for it to raise these arguments. Finally, the City adopted fmdings 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. . 'iii. 1000 Friends of Oregon Argued that the 2004 TIA Should Have Included the Royal Caribbean Proposed Call Center. As M.r. 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 nothave a signifIcant effect on any transportation facility through the year 2020 with proposed conditions of approval. iv. 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 Improvements and Temporary Reduction in 'Performance Standards by the City. The City re~ponded to these issues in the first decision as either conditions of approval (Record pages 177-178) or fmdings (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 of Springfield made that decision in a prior proceeding. City Resolution 02-44 adopted in 2002 may not be challenged in this proceedi~g. . Moreover, the City of Springfield adopted that resolution pursuant to , TransPlan. Finally, the City adopted a condition of approval (Record pages 177-178) 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. . vi. 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 660-0 12-0060(1)(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 CraigRealtJ; 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 sho~ in the. acknowledged tr~portation 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. vii. 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 that the 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. c:~ This letter satisfies the Goa12 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: . ODOr 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~OI2-0060(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 Goa112 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 for this 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 on 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 ~e challenged Metro Plan amendment." . In this case, PeaceHealth has proposed, and City staffhas 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 rai~ed for the fIrst . Page 40 of 123 1/10/05 . time with no. explanatiQn frQm Mr. JQhnsQn r~garding why it is relevant ~o the approval criteria. . Finally, Mr. JQhnsQn objected to. the ability QfPeaceHealth to. take advantage Qf an amended TransPQrtatiQn Planning Rille in the future. PeaceHealth has nQt prQPQsed that a prospective rule amendment be cQnsidered as a cQnditiQn Qf approval; PeaceHealth recQgnizes it is subject to the current TransPQrtatiQn Planning Rule. HQwever, shQuld the TransPQrtatiQn Planning Rule be amended in the future, PeaceHealth sees no. reasQn why it shQuld nQt be able to. take advantage Qf that rule. F. November 30, 2004 Letter from Rob Zako. Mr. ZakQ argued that th~ additiQnal cQnditiQn Qf approval number 3 is "higWy QbjectiQnable." His arguments are without merit since he apparently fails to. understanq hQW an Qpen record wQrks. The recQrd was Qpen until NQvember 30; bQth he and Qther QPPQnents had the OPPQrtunity to. Qbject to. the proPQsed cQnditiQn. ProPQsedcQnditiQns are nQt new evidence and, even if it had been new evidence, ORS 197.763(6) gives Mr. ZakQ the ability to. request that the recQrd be reQpened which he failed to. do.. . The fact that bQth Mr. ZakQ and Mr. JQhnsQn have resPQnded to. the requested cQnditiQn demQnstrates that his argument alleging an inability to. resPQnd to. the cQnditiQn is withQut merit. Further, PeaceHealth's suggested additiQnal conditiQn cQnstituted Qne paragraph; it dQes nQt seem particularly difficult to. resPQnd to. Qne paragraph. Mr. ZakQ alSo. raised an argument that the cQnditiQns are unenfQrceable. However, if the City adQpts the cQnditiQns Qf approval recQmmended by staff and PeaceHealth, thQse conditiQns becQme part Qf an Qrdinance and may Qnly be amended after apprQpriate nQtice and public hearings. PeaceHealth simply dQes nQt understand Mr. Zako'sproblems with conditionsQf approval authQrized by the TransPQrtatiQn Planning Rille, which is the rule he has champiQned thrQughout this prQceeding. Mr. Zako argued that the Jaqua decisiQn requires the rQads to' be built when needed. PeaceHealth agrees and that is why it has requested the cQnditiQns Qf approval allQwed by the TransPQrtatiQnPlanning Rule. MQreQver, Mr. ZakQ'S plea that "adequate funding" be required is clearly withQut merit. The CQurt Qf Appeals in the Jaqua decisiQn said that mitigatiQn is provided in the fQur cQnditiQns Qf apprQval allQwed by the TransPQrtatiQn Planning Rule; the CQurt did nQt require any analysis Qf funding. It is PeaceHealth's risk as to. whether the necessary facilities are in place when needed. If nQt, under the current versiQn Qf the TransPQrtatiQn Planning Rule, PeaceHealth WQuld have to. wait until thQse facilities are there. . Page 41 of123 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 CowiciL 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 planning goal 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 A.4 call for land use planning to "combine. increasing density gradients along high capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater energy efficiency." The current amendments; as did the previous amendments, will enable the development of a hospital within the Gateway MDR site, as wellasJhe potential for implementation of nodal development objectives with a mix of residential, medical office, general office, and appropriately scaled supporting services p~oximate to the hospital. The record demonstrates that PeaceHealth is actively working with Lane 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 rmding of compliance with Goal 13 where findings noted the placement of facility near public services, induding mass transit and commercial areas. Hubenthal v. City of Woodburn, 39 Or LUBA 20 (2000). The subject property ac~ommodates 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 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 . Page 42 of 123 1/10/05 . Goal 13. The cUrrent amendments do not affect any additional geograp~c areas and have no impact on the City's earlier Goal 13 findings. Consequently, because t4ere is no substantive difference between the proposed amendments on remand and the . PAPAl amendments for purposes of Goal 13, the current proposal remains consistent. with Goal 13. Finally, no party challenged the PAPA I compliance with Goal 13. Because there are no substantive differences. between the present proposal and the PAPA I proposal with respect to Goall3, 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, and 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 PAPA I proceeding opponents argued the amendments violate Goal 14 because portions of the subject property abut the DGB. Goal 14, the Metro Plan and the GRP do not refer to "edge" areas or othetwise demand special treatment to property based on the fact that the property abuts aUGB. Goal 14 in general, and Factor 4 in particular, apply to the amendment of urban growth boundaries. LDBA 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 DGB, 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 PAPAl amendments for purposes of Goat 14, the current proposal remains consistent with Goal 14. Finally, no party challenged the earlier decisions' compliance with Goal 14 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 Goal 14-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 asMU 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 Community Commercial category: . This categc>ryincludes more commercial activities th~ neighborhood commercial but less than major retail centers. Such areas usually de~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 commerciaIly- 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 PAPA I 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 underlying 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 Metro Plan designations for the existing Sacred Heart Hilyard Campus as well as the McKenzie- Willamette Hospital site. Sacred Heart I Hilyard Campus is designated CC on the Metro Plan Diagram. McKenzie Willamette Hospital is designated Major Retail Commercial (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 NCdistrict, which expressly states thatNC 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 1110/05 . appropriate, demonstrates that the CC design~tion is the correct commer~ial 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 MShospital 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. r- 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 retail 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 size 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 subj ect property. The Neighborhood Commercial designation is inappropriate because it may only be applied t_o 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 PAP A I PeaceHealth sought to. redesignate up to 33 acres of MDR-designated land toCC, with an eventual zoning overlay ofMUC. In the proposal onremand 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 from CC 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 PAPAl 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 refmement 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"the MUC 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$ter 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 Springfield adopted 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 Btrive for. . Page 49 of123 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. For the Metro Plan Map amendment, the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent(SDC 7.070(3)(b)). . 2. For the Gateway Refmement Plan, the proposed amendments must demonstrate ~onsistency with the Metro Plan (SDC 8~030(1)). Except for the Growth Management Goals, which are addressed below, each of the Metro Plan policies are addressed in the order in which th~y 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 ~xtended to serve that future development. The City's master plan and site plan review processes ~ill 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 m04ify this policy. The revised proposal continues to satisfy this policy because the UGB includes the full rights-of2way relevant at the Gateway MDR site including Pioneer Parkway, a project shown on TransPlan. The UGB at the Gateway MDR sit~ 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 of location, timing, andfinancing of the major public investments that directly influence the growth form of the metropolitan 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 that 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 b~en identified in TransPlan as fmancially constrained. PeaceHealth is also bound by several annexation agreements to contribute financially to facilitate the construction of off-site transportation improvements 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 ali 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 51 of 123 1/10/05 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 mto 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 logica) 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.ofthis 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.I Encourage the consolidation of residentially zoned parcels to facilitate more options for development and redevelopment of such parcels" The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do riot 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 wiH facilitate options for development and will implement this Metro Plan policy. . Page 52 of 123 1110/05 . "A.2 Residentially designated land within theUGB should be Zf,med consistent with the Metro Plan and applicable plans and policies; however, existing agricultural zoning may be c.ontinued 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 amended 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 aplan-zone conflict in conformance with this Metro Plan policy. The property is within the UGB so the provisions oftliis 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 planningperiodat the time of Periodic Review. " The 2004 Metro 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 Per.iodic 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 of123 1/10/05 on the monitoring report rather than the Buildable Lands Inventory set forth at pages . III-A-3 to 4 in the MetroPlan. The City fmds that reliance on the monitoring report rather than the acknowledged and adopted inventory in the Metro Plan would c.onflict 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 arloptedbythe 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. "A. 11 .Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in proxinJity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient nodes. " The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy. The proposal on reman~ like the PAPA I 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 c01llJ:l1ercial 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 ofright-pf-way and construction ~ding for extension of the Pioneer Parkway, as well as the development of an internal col~ector. street system within the RiverBend site, will provide convenient transit access to serve future employment and residential development at densities con<lucive 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. The INDO 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, service's, 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 residential 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 ofMS 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 1110/05 zones will also.allow for a mixture of uses not currently available to developers. The. Gateway MDR site subject to the revised proposal is undeveloped, so irilplementation 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 fora 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 opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development 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 . PageS6 of 123 1/10/05 . comparative advantage in the level of education and skill of the reside",t labor ft~" . 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 capita~ 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 existingjob opportunities. 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 develQp their job skills and other educational attributes. , "B.6 Increase the amount of undeveloped land zonedfor light industry and commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and availabUity with the projections of demand. " The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy. . Page 57 of 123 llIO/05 The revised proposal will add nearly 50 acres of undeveloped Mixed Use c. 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 revised proposal supports this policy by increasing the amount of undeveloped land zoned for comm:ercial 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 Euge1J,eandSpringfield 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 that the development of mixed use commercial uses at the Gateway MDR site would cause existing businesses in the City 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 site 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 propose~ 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 1/10/05 . "B.i5 Encourage compatibility between industrially zoned lands and (ldjacent 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 0" reuse in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion. ~' . The 2004 MetroPlan 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 MDRsite. 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 because. it encourages the retention ofa.large parcel of land proposed to be zoned, in part, commerCial to facilitate its use in a comprehensive fashion. The land will be reusedin a comprehensive fashion through the master plan and site plan review process. "B.i8Encourage 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 Page59 of 123 1/]0/05 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 local ordinances and revise them to promote greater flexibility for promoting appropriate commercial development in residential neighborhoods. " The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy: The City adopted SDC Articles 40 Mixed Use Zoning Districts and Article 41 Nodal Development Overlay District in July of 2002. Tl~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 ofthi affected areasfor their primary uses; (b) assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potentialfor 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 defme 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 commercialfacilities in providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood. " The.2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy. . . Page 60 of 123 1110/05 . Through the City's nodal implementa~on project, it is anticipated.that portions of the MDRzoned property that at the Gateway MDR site will have the nodaloyerlay 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.29 Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood commercialfacilities 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 . fmdings below first address th.e policies that were addressed in the previous decision, in the order that they appeared in that decision, but with thenew corresponding policy number shown. The findings then address the new applicable policies of this element of the Metro Plan. Policies "C25 Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts when planning for organization, flood control, urban storm runoff, recreation, and water quality along the Willametteand McKenzie Rivers." The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy. . Development on the Gateway MDR site will be required to confonn with natural resource and open space policies and standards contained in the GRP and the SDC. Any development on the Gateway MDR site must confonn 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 runofffrom 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 shall be prohibited in jloodways if it could result in 'an increased jlood leveL The jIoodway 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 I DO-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 flqodway unless a registered yngineer certifies that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels'. "C32 Local government shall require site- specific soi/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 landuse and environmental safeguards to protect this area. During the review of any master plan, as requiI:ed:by.tl1e 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 air 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/ I 0/05 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. "C.21 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 ord~nances, open space tax deferrals, donations to the public, and performance zoning. ". . The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify 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 sub~tted as part of a master plan will be required to mee.tqr e~ceed the riparian setback standard, and othelWise 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 substantial 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, nothinin 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. "C.ll 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 thre;:ttened plant and wildlife species have been identified on the site. Further, the applicant will / provide appropriate environmental 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. "e22 Design of new street, highway, and transitfacility shall consider noise mitigation measures where appropriqie. " The 2004 Metro Plan amendments do not modify this policy. . L TD ~aS in4icated that the transit service would remain on MLK Parkway south of the s,ubjeCtsite... Appropriate noiseinitigation measures will be considered, if deemed apP.fopriate;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, River Corridors, and Waterway Element " Policies "D.1 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 of empirical research that demonstrates the positive effects of access and views of natural environments and natural light in speeding patient recovery times. PeaceHealth's proposed location of hospital and medical service uses along the . McKenzie River corridor is inherently compatible with and seeks to conserve and enhance the natural, scenic andenviroiunental 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, ResidYlltial 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.l In order to promote the greatest possible degree of diversity, a broad variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be encourage.d 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 integrated 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 ofus~s that currently are not permitted at the Gateway MDRsite 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. "E.l 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 Riyer, to the extent it is considered a natural water feature will be proteCted through compliance with buffer requirements set forth inthe applicable annexation agreement and through the application of the stormwater quality requirements of the 'SDC. As~:partofthe master plan, landscaping will be used to enhance the natural vegetation inth~McKenzie River area as required by SDCArticle 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 plan to ensure compliance with the standards of the Code and ensure compliance with this policy. . "E.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 32.050 requires 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 d.esigned 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 snC 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 opportunjties 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.ndghborhood 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 aspart 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 portiops 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 localjurisdictions 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. .SDCArticle 11 Variances and Modifications of Provisions provides developers with a vehicle to achieve flexibility in the standards of the SDC that may not be cOI1grwimt to the design objectives of future development at the Gateway MDR site. Additionally, Residential Implementation Action 13.6 exempts hospitals and associated medical uses in the MS and INDO Districts from specific development standards if.thedeveloper can demonstrate, and that the City Council concurs, that the Purpose'ofth~Nodal Overlay District (40.010(1)) is met. This flexibility allows for thecompliance\.vith this Metro Plan policy. PeaceHealth has indicated the development will incorporate the flexibility inherent in the SDC to achieve optimum creative. soiutions for the development of this site. . 7. Transportation Element Land Use Policies "F.l Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each Jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-effident 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 ofJ23 1/10/05 " property at the Gateway MDR site will be processed concurrently with the master plan 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 usepattem with higher than average densities and a BRT line extending through thesit~. The development will incorporate medical services, office, commercial and tesidentialland use. - "F-4. Require improvements th{ltencourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed~use and multi-unit residential development The SDC has been acknowledged by theDLCD 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 detenninedthat 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 the.ND, 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 p'roposal 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 Manageme~t Policies "F.6 Expand existing TDM programs and develop new TDM programs. Establish TDM benchmarks and.ifthe 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 extenslonofBRT, 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 Improvements: System-Wide . "F.10 Protect and manage existing and future existing transportation infrastructure. " . Residential Implementation Action 13.7 imposes a vehicle trip cap to areas subject to these Amendments and ensures that the findings 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 ("vie") ratios at relevant intersections. Additional fmdings relating to this and other transportation related policies are discussed under the Goal 12 fmdings set forth above. The City Council incorporates those findings here with respect to these transportation policies. "F.ll Develop or promote intermodallinkagesfor 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. BRIand/or Page 71 of 123 1/10/05 traditional bus service will provide transit linkage to the site. All intermodallinkages . e. 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 resiclential 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. Transportati9n System Improvements: Roadways (Metro Plan page 111- F-8) "F.15 motor vehicle level of service policy" "1. Use motor vehicle}evel of service standards to maintain acceptable and reliable performance~n.thf! roadway system. These standards shall be used for: . a) Identifying capacitydeficiencies 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. 6.60-12-0060). 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 fmdings explain and the traffic analysis demonstrates,. upon adoption of these Metro Plan amendments required levels of service will be maintained. . Page 72 of 123 1/10/05 . . . "3. . Performance standardsfrom 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 may find 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 m~ of strategies (such as: land use measures, TDM, short-term safety improvements) to address the problem. " TheaIllehdments do not affect the use of performance standards from the OHP on state transportation facilities. As the fmdings elsewhere in this decision demonstrate, the Am~ndments and eventual development will maintain required volume to capacity ("V /C") 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 andfacilities 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 E~tablish 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 isfeasible~ " ~ . 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 Improvements: 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 ~e 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 p~th through the areas subject to these plan amendments. 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 bikewaysalong new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets. " TransPlan implements this policy by requiringCbikeways 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 destinations. 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 includjng retail and . employer destinations to the northwest and north and retail destinations to the sQuth. 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 ol11y 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 route~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 siteto 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/ I 0/05 Transportation System Finance . "F.36 Require that new development pay for 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 t9 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 of alternative 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 and4l and ensures consistency with this Metro Plan policy. 8. Public Facilities and Service Element . Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and Coordination Policies "G.1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth- management policies in Chapter II-B, relevant policies in this chapter and other Metro Plan policies. " 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 DGB. "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 implementatiOli." - 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 deletionsfrom the project list in the Public Facilities and Services Planfor 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, land 3, requires amending the Public Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, except for the following: (omitted) The amendments propose no additions to or deletions from the referenced project list. Theainendments 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 th~ 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 ,!nd county shall coordinat~ with cities surrounding t~e . metropolit,!n 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. Services to Development-Within 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 tlieseamendments 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 coordinated among the City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County. " Areas subj ect 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 main 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 Ferry 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 subject to the amendments . Page 78 of 123 1/10/05 . that adequate fITe flow would be available to serve development. There(ore, this Metro Plan policy 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 regulatio,!s or instituting programs/or 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.141mplement changes to storm water facilities and management practices to . reduce the presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to addre~sthe requirements of the Endangered Species Act. " The development of the site must comply with applicable local regulations intt?nded to . imph~rp.ent 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 . Page 79 of \23 \/10/05 quality impacts from runoff and will improve stormwater conveyance once the site is . . urbanized. . , "G.17 Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount of impervious surface in new development in a manner tha/reduces stormwatir pollution, reduces the negative affects from increases in runoff, and is compatible with Metro Plan policies. " The City's development application fee schedule contains a graduated fee related to the amount of impervious surface in a development. This provides a fmancial 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 Maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain, to the maximum extent practical, through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in the floodplain 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. PeaceHea]th 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 ofSDC 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 41 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 . 1/10/05 . Services.to Development Within the .urban Growth Boundary: Financing. Policies - . "G.36 Require development to pay the 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 pennitted 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 fonn 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 ~ontribute SDCs at the time of development. . 9. Parks and Recreation Facilities Element Policies "H.4 Encourage/he development ofpfivate recreationalfacilities." Willamalane is on the City's Development Review Committee and will participate in the review of any development pennitted 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 "L1. 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 applicable governing regulations. SDC Article 30 Historic Overlay District regulates the alteration of inventoried significant Goal 5 historic resources in Springfield. While there are three contributing historic Page 81 of 123 1/10/05 structures, as identified in the GRP, in the area affected by the amendments, none of . these are considered "primary" or significant' Goal 5 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. Commercial 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 subjectto 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 mi/"imize nonrenewable and overall energy consumption. " . ' Although no development is proposed as part of this approval, any development that does occur on theG~teway 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 commercial development adjacent to relatively higher density residential development and the proposed hospital campus, thereby providing opportunities to reduce travel distance between horne, 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 1/10/05 . residential land to commercial land. The amendments will allow for MDR/nodal .. , development adjacent to areas zoned for MS andMUC. MDR with a nodalove!lay has no maximum density; the density is limited bya 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.B. 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 ge"eration. " . 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 concise 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 of 123 1/10/05 . F. Consistency With Gateway Refinement Plan For The Metro Plan and GRP Diagram Amendments 1. Summary This section of this [mdings 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 ot 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 enhance existing residential neighborhoods and attract compatible multi-famUy 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 Site" by taking the following actions. " . Page 84 of 123 1/10/05 . \ The amendments will enahle a mix of residential and non-residential us~s on the site, which will be the subject of a subsequent master plan. This master plan will cOJ1sider 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) guidelinesfor 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 LDR.in 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 affect the 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 any specifi~ 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 adj acent 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 fmdings, Springfield's acknowledged Commercial Lands Study (SCLS) found thereto 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 cc>mmercialland and is, therefore, consistent with the SCLS and this goal. The fmdings under Goal 9 discuss. this issue in greater detail. . Page 86 of 123 1110/05 . 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 cominercial 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 ~mplementation process, thus resolving any temporary conflict. 5. Natural Assets, Open Space/Scenic Areas, and Recreation Element Goals "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 amendments 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 onthe 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 oftl1e 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 regulations. . "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 ame.ndm~nts will not change the 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 . are(iS 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 oj the area's agricultural character. " . Page 88 of 123 1/10/05 . Adoption of the. amendIDen.ts will not affect the ability to provide educat~onal 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 master plan process, PeaceHeaIth 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. f. . "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 'snatural 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 1110/05 "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 pedestrianlbicycle 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 .. .m~ter 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 policy as well as the requirements of Goal 7. "11. Maintain the quality of water in the McKenzie Riverand 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 prov~sions in the Springfield D~velopment 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 conform~ce 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 higWy 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 RiverBerid master plan include a comprehensive stormwater management plan consistent with best management practices promulgated in the City of Portland's stormwater management manual. All of the above issues will be addressed through the master plan process, rather than as part of this application. . "12. Acknowledge the importance of trees and other landscape features to the overall image and livability of the Refinement Plan area. " There are mature trees present on the site identified as natural assets in the GRP, which PeaceHealth has indicated it would like to preserve through its master plan as elements of the design for a healing environment. However, the proposed plan amendments do not materially affect these trees or the ability to conform with the above goal. All development will be required to conform with applicable provisions of the SDC implementing this policy. 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 interim 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 jlood hazard) of the McKenzie River jloodway 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 preserit 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 s~:)Ught as pari 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 ofl23 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 historiclculturallinkages 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. Establishpolicies, and incentives where possible, to ensure sufficient consideration and documentation of identified significant historic resources, so that future developments and/or demolitions fully 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 theGRP. 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 GoalS and the Metro Plan (as they pertain to historic preservation) spec;ftc 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 1/10/05 . Policies and Implementatio~ Actions "2.0 On-site retention ofsignijicant Goal 5 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. " . As explained elsewhere in these findings, the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the Site and layout of this system as part of Peace Health's required master plan demonstrates that this goal will be satisfied. More specific Findings are set forth with respect to Goal 12 and the TPR. "2. Reduce the reliance on single-occupancy vehicles by providing cost-effective and convenient alternate transportation modes. " 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 TIA 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 1/10/05 other connecting streets. Again, more specific fmdings 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 1, 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 1/10/05 . considered in conjunction with the TIA'and will be more fully illustrateq 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 i~ proposed, but such coordination will occur as part of Peace Health'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 Plan 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 specijied by TransPlan projects #670 & #671. Explore the feasibility of developing an off-street bike path along the section of the formerSouthern 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 1/10/05 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 wider 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 arterialfunction (#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 fmdings 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 ridership 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 1110/05 . within convenient distance for pedestrians and for transit riders. Becaus~ 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 substD;ndard 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 lBO-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 g{!neration. " 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. '" 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 b(Jth within the Gateway boundaries and beyond to the regional pathway system. " Page 99 ofl23 1/10/05 Pathway networks and connections to the regional system will be considered fully through the master plan process. Adoption of the amendments has no iIhpact on pathway networks because no development is. proposed and nothing inherent ill 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 EastlDeadmond 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 thesefection 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 developlIJents 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 100ofl23 1110/05 . City, PeaceHealth has corrimitted to providing $7,000,000 for future improvements to this intersection. "25.2 Provide for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities as part olnew 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 joi11:.#yby the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City 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 P4blic 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 (i.e. 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/he use of storm drainage facilities that store and retain runoffin the McKenzie-Gateway SLI site, and in"the 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 ofl23 1/10/05 . management practices. Conformance with these provisions will be appr9priately 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 he designed to ensure the continued purity of the I?ainbow 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 arguinent 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 1/10/05 matter oflaw." 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 propos.al cannot be sited on CC-designated property; a new plan designation must be created for the PeaceHealth 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 proposed 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 amendinents 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 deve1op~d 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 1/10/05 . a certain size might be allowed on commerci~lland, but not the 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 riot a limitation or an absolute threshold. Moreover, there is nothing in the Metro Plan description which would limit uses onCC-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-conforming 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 "subregionali' 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 hospital) has deemed the CC designation to be a suitable designation for the existing regional hospital site, further demonstrating that the CC designation is no(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 of123 1/10/05 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 Jaquas earlier Goal 10 challenge, LUBA found: F or purposes of resolving petitioners' Goal 10 assignments of error, the critical fmdings include the city's fmding that the RLS identifies a 239-acre surplus ofMDR-designated land and, for the reasons explained in the fmdings, 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 elsewhere in its fmdings, 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 housmg 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 1/10/05 . have identified as being needed. in the RLI. Hubenthal v. c;ity 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 1 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 of 99 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 iUs 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 with the 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 1 0, as well as the following fmdings. 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 1/10/05 analysis in the record demonstrates that housing within the floodplain can meet the development standards of the Floodplain Overlay District ' . 5. The current amendments may be, in part, site-specific, but they are also inconsistent with the non-site specijic 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' t~stimony did not explain how the notices were deficient. Consequently, the opponents have failedto 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 amendinents violate Goal 1 other than to say that their other testimony demonstrates a violation of Goal 1. Without a specific challenge, the opponents have not adequately raised a Goal 1 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 1110/05 . The petitioners in this appeal CQuch many of their argumeqts as Goal 2 plan consistency or coordination arguments or evidentiary . and fmdings 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 ofE~gene 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 GoalS resources. In their testimony, the Jaquas did not challenge the statement inthe draft findings that "no part of the Gateway MDR site is on an acknowledged Metro Plan GoalS 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 S resources or that the Goal S process has been completed for them.' Again, the J aquas do not challenge that statement. The Jaquas' comments relative to GoalS do not identify any resource for which the Goal 5 process has been completed. Jaquas' comments merely mention Goal S 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 GoalS, the "program to achieve the goal" referenced by the Jaquas is not effective until the Goal S 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 S evaluation process. .. Page 109 of 123 1/10/05 Under applicable land use case law, only Goal S resources on an adopted inventory and for which the Goal S 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 1 0, 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. Jaquas' 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 thafstatement, 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 ESEE 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 1 0 land' inventories ***." Obviously, in Home Builders, the City of Eugene actually adopted amendments that either implemented new protections or otherwise changed the ability ofland owners to use land as allowed under Goal 9 or Goal 10. . Page 110 of 123 1/10/05 . 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 S 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, GoalS 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 the land owner developing the program to protectthe 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 J aquas 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 lac}(s 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 of123 1110/05 proposal and the ways in which such impacts will be avoided or compensated for. Those studies and reports include but are nofIimited to: ' 1) Phase III Geotechnical Investigation and Seismic Hazard Study; October 2,2003, Foundation Engineering, Inc.; . 2) Phase II Geotechnica~ 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, KPPF Consulting Engineers; and 6) Habitat Characterization and Rare Plant Surveys; September 2002; ~_. Coyote Creek Environmental Services. . In addition t6these 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 the contrary, these reports and studies, prepared by professional engineers 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 regulatory 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 fmdings, the City notes the following. . Page 112 of 123 1/10/05 . 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 stormwater 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 stormwater 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 11 - 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 Stormwater Plan and the McKenzie River Floodplain Assessment, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA), November 2003 (Floodplain Assessmerit), also constitute substantial evidence in the record to allow the City to prepare fmdings 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 KPPF Storm water 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 Jaquas 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 1110/05 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 ~e 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 fm4s that it is acceptable from a tec~cal 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 eviden<;e. Public Facilities Plan Policy G.2! The Jaquas also contend' that the application would violate Policy G.21. Tl?-at policy relates to placement of fill in the floodplain and the need to maintain flood storage capacity. The Storm water 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 11 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 atpage 12). . . Page 114 ofl23 1/10/05 . 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: 1. Discharge clean stoJ;1l1water (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 fmds that based on such information and other evidence in the record, Policy G.19 will be met. Public Facilities Plan Policy G.16 . The J aquas contend that the proposal would violate Policy G .16, which requires that waterways be managed or enhanced and open stormwater systems used to reduce water quality impact from runoff and to provide improved stormwater 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. 11. 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 1/10/05 designated land to a mixture of CC- and MU-designated land. Because the Metro . Plan Diagram amendment exceeds two acres~ the City must demonstrate compliance with OAR 660-009-0010(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: (1) 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 660-009-0015 through 660-009-0025 in adopting the PAPA; or (3) pursue a combination of 1 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 SeLS. 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 Jaquas do not explain what applicable goal, . statute or ordinance would require such an analysis. In short, the City fmds the . Jaquas' argument regarding potential economic impacts does not relate to any of the. approval criteria. A portion of the Jaquas' argument regarding compliance with the SCtS.relates to Goal 1 0 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 MDRland 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(l) (which specifically authorizes the re-designation of property) pointless. 12. The amendments violate Goal 1 0 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 of the opponents argue that the RLS requires the City to rely on the 2004 monitoring report instead of the . Page 116 of 123 1/10/05 . ' . acknowledged ii:lVentory 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 theRLS "acknowledges the shortcomings of its proje~tions 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 OrLUBA 59 (2003), afJ'd 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 10 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. Pcirklane for the proposition that "the need for residential development be based on the buildable lands Page 117 ofl23 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 thatthe buildable 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 accomniodate 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 15-16. . 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 amendme~ts 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 indicate that Goal 10 inventories are to be me'lsured by the 2004 Monitoring Report or through. post-acknowledgement plan amendments. Perhaps most importantly, ~e 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 RlverBend Master Plan Considerable evidence was submitted by Kirstin Greene on behalf of the Jaquas 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 con~end 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 1/10/05 , " Approval of plan amendments under the original proposal and remand must be . addressed before, the City can consider. a mas'ter 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 frrst 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 textand map amendments." Therefore, the City fmds that Ms. Greene's critique of the RiverBend MasterPlan 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 notrelevant to the remand proceeding, the City adopts the following fmdings 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 ofSDC 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 Article41). The consultant advised the City to "make amendments to Articles 40 and 41 of the Springfield Development Code" to "increase f1~xibility where acceptable while implementing requirements where . Page 120 of 123 . 1/10/05 .. I' . . . . necessary for development that is compatible .with nodal development gqals." . (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 ethe Code. 14. Glen wood 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 Jaquas, however, allege that Goal 14 and Goal 9 require consideration of the . Glenwood site. In particular, the J aquas argue that Goal. 14 requires that the conversion ofurbanizable landto 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. Citizensfor Florence v. City of Florence, 35 Or LUBA 255 (1998). With respect to Goal 9, the Jaquas cite Opus Development Corp. 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 commercial Jands from the inventory, theremaining 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 LUBAthe Jaquas argued that GRP Residential Element Policy 12.0: [i]mplicitly amends the Metro Text by replacing "limited" rezoning for "neighborhood comrriercial" with "unlimited" rezoning for "mixed use" commercial at levels and with uses that Page 121 of 123 1/10/05 Ii 't .. the Metro Plan text classifies as "communitycommercial" and "major retail. ,,,. , . \ In challenging GRP Residential Implementati~n Action 12.1, the Jaquas 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 Goall 0 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 Jaquas 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 Jaquas 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 Jaquas 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 Jaquas 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 Jaquas argue that the revised proposal will "open the door to a wide range of related and unrelated commercial uses at RiverBend." The Jaquas 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 Jaquas and the Goal 1 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 CC and approximately SO acres ofMDR-designated land to MUC. This revision .. Page 122 of 123 1/10/05 ~ 1 I . . . . responds directiy 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 60S I. Ordinance 60S 1 included a number of t~xt amendments to the Gateway Refmement 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 that 0 RS 197.763 applies in the context of a 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 Jaquas nor the Coalition have explained the nature of the City's "error." The City has provided adequate notice of the City hearings. All documeijts 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 m'ade the appropriate statement regarding hearing procedure at the hearing. Thus it is , unclear how the City has violated ORS 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 Jaquas nor the Coalition have explained how the City has violated ORS 197.763. Page 123 of 123 1/10/05 w. .-. ... ~ ~ .........~- - ----- ~~~ - ~ ~ ~ -- 1 n ]~\ nonf Kll & \ \ "f\ 4 " .!!? " h U Belt Line Rd ~ ~ I rr ~ ~ .. . , ~ ......IIl..L ~ .1""'" ...'- I I I I -vs~ JJ - ~\('"~,,:YY1_ ~ ~:~: ~ ~~>>= ~ ~~ \ ? fif(i~ 011111:: ~ , 111111 I ~~~~J~L \ I I I II L!x::. Exhibit D ."nO- IIIIIW JIII.fl -.11\IIU........ o )~<Jz- ~~ I Site ~~ ~ ::jf--.Y/~t: m::~ u TIi \ I "\.. j ..; \. I T - ,.... ..... "" L ::r~ II ' ~ --~ - -~::J~ r: " - I I' I- ~- -n~ ..... ....1 ~ ~ -H-~ I -- =:- :l. ~ - - - \-- I ~ - .... "~~ ~.... - N - ..... ""'" - ~ fA. i.- - I""- I I - --~ /1 ~ r - - - .... 1. -~ I- I I - ........ .....1.-. ~ - E 500 0 500 Feet I-- l-' ,- I ~ r H=C~ II rT"'l :~ I I .... 1 I. r"., II "T