HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6051 04/21/2003
.
...
.~.. .
.\
.
.
.I. .
~r/
ORDINANCE NO.
6051
(EMERGENCY)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GATEWAY REFINENEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND
TEXT BY ALLOWING COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AT THE
. GA TEW A Y MDR SITE TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MIXED USE COMMERCIAL ON THE
SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP; BY AMENDING THE GA TEW AY REFINEMENT PLAN
TEXT TO ALLOW FOR THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL METRO PLAN
DESIGNATION TO BE AFFIXED UPON MASTER PLAN APPROVAL; TO ALLOW FOR
THE MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT TO BE APPLIED TO UP TO 66 ACRES OF
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLAN DESIGNATION; TO ALLOW FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A HOSPITAL, ASSOCIATED MEDICAL, OFFICE, RETAIL AND
RESIDENTIAL USES; TO PRESERVE THE POTENTIAL FOR NODAL DEVELOPMENT;
TO REQUIRE A MASTER PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
A. Article 8 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth criteria for refinement plan
amendments.
B. On July 29,2002, the City of Springfield initiated Gateway Refinement Plan amendments.
Subsequent to initiation, PeaceHealth acted as the applicant (Io. No 2002-08-244). The
specific amendments are as follows:
Amend GRP Residential Element Goal 2 (GRP at 12) to read as follows:
Ensure availability of adequate supplies of land appropriate for low-,
medium-, and high-density residential development. Maintain
approximately the existing balance among LDR-, MDR- and
HDR-designated lands, consistent with Metro Plan allocations. while
allowin2: for an appropriate mix of uses consistent with the Transportation
and Residential elements of the Metro Plan
Amend Residential Element Policy 12.0 (GRP at 15):
Allow limited rezoning of land within the "McKenzie-Gateway MDR
site" to Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC") on land designated
Commercial as implemented during Master Plan and/or during the
City's nodal implementation proiect. ncighborhood eommcrcial, in
order to promote retcntion and rehabilitation of hi~torie properties
that may othery/isc become non eonforming uses, to promote limitcd
publie or semi public aeeess to and view ofthcMeKenzie Riycr, and
to alloON f-or prwlisioiI of serl'iees specifieally intended to meet needs
of future residents in this arca.
Amend Residential Implementation Action 12.1 (GRP at 15):
Rezoning to NC will be alloy/cd for up to 3 aues (Total) of yaeant land
within the McKenzie Catn"lay MDR Site under the f-olloy/ing provisions:
Page 1 ofl 0
.
.
.
~1')
a) The p,"aputy requested for rczoning shall front on a eolleetor or
arterial that is cithcr existing or planned in an adopted CDP for the
MeKcnzie Gateway MDR Site, 0'" that cUlTently borders thc site.
b) Proposcd zone ehangcs shall be revic",led undu a Typc III procedure
in aecordanee with "~.Ttiele 3 of the SDC and shall be eonsistcnt vl'ith
all provisions of SDC Article 12 Zoning District and Overlay District
Changes.
e) This type of rezoning shall not be approved until at'least 25 pucent
of the anticipated dv,'elling units are eonstrneted (based on an
average of 15 dVlelling units per aue).
Redesig:nation of not more than 33 acres of land within the
McKenzie/Gateway MDR site to Commercial throu2h the Metro
Plan amendment process shall be allowed-and shall be implemented
bv application of mixed use commercial zonin2 district through the
Master Plan approval and/ or bv the City's nodal implementation
process. If Master Plan approval is reQuested prior to the City's
completion of nodal implementation. evidence must be provided that
verifies that an adequate amount of the up to 33 acres of
commercial desi2nated land will be available for the retail
component of nodal development.
Amend GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 12.4 (GRP at 16):
NC uscs loeated vlithin the MeKenzie Gatey,'ay MDR Site shall meet the
following provisions in addition to the pro'lisions of SDC Artiele 31:
a) The maximum floor area of any single NC use shall not cxeccd 4,000
square feet;
b) Parldng arcas shall not be visible from the McKcnzie Rivcr eon-idor
and shall be sereened from public streets in a mannu vlhieh docs not
obscure visibility of thc usc; and,
e) Publie acccss to the MeKcnzic Rivcr shall be pro-lided by NC uscs
abutting the riparian setbaek
In addition to all applicable standards and provisions re2ulating
development in Sprin2field. anv development adiacent to the McKenzie
River or McKenzie River riparian setback shall provide public access to the
. McKenzie River or McKenzie River riparian setback. Surface parldng
areas shall not be visible from the McKenzie River corridor and shall be
screened from public streets.
Add new GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 12.5:
MU districts within the McKenzie-Gatewav MDR Site shall meet the
provisions of SDC Article 40.
Add new GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 12.6:
Page 2 ofl 0
Within the McKenzie-Gatewav MDR Site. the Medical Services
("MS") zoning district may implement the MDR Plan designation if
part of an approved Master Plan. The adopted Master Plan shall
.
.
.
demonstrate that the site will be able to accommodate the number of
housing units within the ran2e for the MDR land use desi2nation in
the Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan. In addition to
meeting the standards of the SDC. at the time of master plan
approval. the City Council may attach specific conditions on all
development within the MS zone including but not limited to
building height and setbacks.
AmendGRP Residential Element Policy 13.0 (GRP at 16):
A CDP or Master Plan shall be approved,_under a Type_H-lV review
process, for the areas larger than 5 acres within msppcd as the
"McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site" on the Refinement Plan diagram, .
subseQuent to annexation and prior to anncxation and urban
development of any portion of the site Master Plan area.
Delete GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.1 (GRP at 16).
Thc City shall begin p."cparation of a CDP by January 1, 1992, and shall
appravc a CDP no later than July 1, 1993. In thc interim, a CDP may bc
submitted by the initial developcr ora portion of the site. A City initiatcd
CDP shall invoh'e input from thc affcctcd property aVlners, ant appropriate
public agcncies.
Amend GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.2 (GRP at 16):
TheCDP shall be prcpared by an cnginccr, and one of the follo'Ning:
an architect, landseape arehitcct or planning profcssional.
A Master Plan for the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site shall be
p."epared by a design team that shall include. as determined by the
Director, the following consultants: . architect, landscape architect,
civil engineer. geotechnical engineer, acoustic engineer. certified
arborist, transpoliation engineer and a consultant to address
riparian issues.
Amend GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.3 (GRP at 16):
All development within the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site shall be
consistent with an approved tDP-Master Plan. An approved (:DP
may bc modificd by the initial deYeloper, a subsequcnt deyclopu, or
thc City, undcr a Type II rcvicw process.
Amend GRP Residential Implementation Action 13.4 (GRP at 17):
,
The CDP In addition to the reQuirements of SDC Article 37. the
Master Plan shall address, at a minimum, the following development
issues:
a)
b)
Preservation and enhancement of natural assets identified in this
Refinement Plan;
Access and circulation needs;
Page 3 of 10
.
.
.
c)
d)
e)
f)
Access to arterial and collector streets;
Provision of public facilities and services;
Development needs of future users;
Location of al'cas larger than onc aCl"C proposed for auxiliary uscs,
ineluding ncighborhood eommereial;
Provision of open space areas; and'
Access to the McKenzie River.
f~
gh)
Amend GRPResidential Element Implementation Action 13.5 (GRP at 17):
Applications for the initial CDP or for substantial modifications to an
approycd CDP In addition to the reQuirements of SDC Article 37. the initial
Master Plan application in the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site shall include a
conceptual street map and bicycle and pedestrian circulation system plan for
all annexed property in the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site and shall be
exempt from the requirements of Section 3.050(2)(b) of the SDC.
Delete GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.6 (GRP at 17).
Thc CDP shall be consistcnt Ylith the goals and policies of thc Mctro Plan
and of this Refinement Plan.
Add new GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.6:
Page 4 of 10
Master Plan applications for property within the McKenzie-Gateway MDR
site submitted prior to the City's completion of nodal development
assessment and implementation shall identify all areas within one-quarter
mile of proposed transit stations as being subiect to the provisions of the
Nodal Development Overlay District (INDO). Any proposed uses. density
and design in the identified nodal development area shall comply with the
standards of Springfield Development Code articles 40 and/or 41 within the
applicable base zone with the following exception: Uses in the MS District
. may be exempted from specific development standards of Articles 40 and 41.
residential and group care facilities in the MDR District may ~e exempted
from specific development standards of Article 41 and uses in the MUC
District may be exempt from specific development standards of 40.100(2)
and 40.100(5) (a) and (b) if the respective exemptions in each ofthe Districts
can be mitigated such that they are consistent with the Purpose of the Nodal
Development Overlay District (SDC 41.010(1)). the Metro Plan policies
regarding nodal development and the exemptions are approved by the City
Council as part of a master plan. In the event that the City Council
determines that nodal development is appropriate for the identified nodal
area, the property shall be re-designated to /NDO and all subseQuent land
use applications shall comply with /NDO standards contained within articles
40 and/or 41. except as exempted above. SDC section 37.070(1) shall not
apply to such INDO re-designation. In the event that the City Council
determines that nodal development is inappropriate for areas identified as
such on the master plan. those areas shall be changed through a Type II
process to reflect the underlying MDR or MUC zoning and any use, density
or design on the master plan that does not comply to underlying zoning
designation shall be changed accordingly. All subsequent land use .
.
applications shall comply with the standards reQuired in the underlying
zoning distdct.
Add GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.7:
Master Plans for property at the J\'IcKenzie-Gate\\'ay MDR site that propose
to implement the MUC designation and/or apply the MS zonin2 district
pursuant to Residential Implementation Actions 12.1 and 12.6 shall be
subiect to the following requirements:
1. An approved trip allocation plan shall be a reQuirement of Master Plan.
approval.
2. The trip allocation plan shall demonstrate compliance with all .
conditions contained within applicable plan amendment adoption
ordinance(s), and trip-generation estimates shall be performed using
assumptions and methods which are consistent with those employed in
the plan amendment traffic impact analysis.
.
3. Except as s{>ecified in Section 5, land uses within Master Plan
boundaries where the MS and MUC zoning districts are proposed to be
applied in conformance with Residential Implementation Actions 12.0,
12.1 12.6 shall be limited to a maximum of 1,840 vehicle trips (total of
enterin2 plus exitin2 trips) as estimated or measured for the PM Peak
Hour of Adiacent Street Traffic and based on an assumption of 33 acres
ofMUC and 66 acres of MS. Master Plans proposing less than this
amount of such acreage shall adjust the maximum vehicle trips
proportionately.
4. SubseQuent Site Plan Review applications for sites within the Master
Plan boundaries shall be in com{>liance with the approved trip
allocation plan.
5. Any proposalthat would increase the number of allowable PM Peak-
Hour vehicle trips for the MS and MUC area beyond 1.840 shall be
processed as a refinement plan amendment, or a zoning ma{>
amendment or Master Plan approval pursuant to SDC 37.040 or
modification pursuant to SDC 37.040 and 37.060(3) and '"e2ardless of
which type of process is sought, each shall demonstrate compliance with
applicable provisions of the Transportation Plannin2 Rule for such
proposal.
Delete GRP Residential Policy 14.0 and Implementation Actions 14.1-14.8 (GRP at 17 and 18):
.
14.0l.. Dcvelopment Area Plan (DAP) shall bc approved, undcr a Typc II
rcyiew proeess, prior to deyelopment approval for any portion of thc area
mapped as thc "MeKenzic Gatcfi'ay MDR Sitc" on the Rcfinemcnt Plan
Diagram, and shall not be approved unless it is eonsistcnt with an appro'led
CDP. Thc iutent of the DAP is to provide rcsolution of signifieant
de'lclopment issues at a sealc and level of specificity that arc intermcdiatc to
Page 5 of 10
.
.
thc CDP and Site Plan levels. All DAPts shall eonform to thc folloo,ying
requircmcnts:
14.1 Dl...P's shall addrcss thc follo'wing development issues, at a minimum:
a) Provision of adcquate circulation for thc De'lelopment Arca and its
adjoining propcrtics, ineluding dedication of right of 'Nay for futurc streets
and path'Nays shoyt'll on the approvcd CDP;
b) Pro-vision of eoordinated extcnsion of public faeilitics to scrvc the sitc
aud surrounding properties; and
e) Ineorporation, to the maximum extcnt praeticable, of natural asscts
idcntificd in this Rcfinemcnt Plan, and on thc appro'.'cd CDP.
14.2 DAP's shall includc thc following information, at a minimum:
All signifieant site fcaturcs, ineluding drainage'ways, cxisting vegctation, and
othcr natural assets as identificd in this Rcfincmcnt Plan;
Proposed building footprints;
Proposed open spaces and landscapcd areas;
Enginccring studics of any identificd natural hazards, c.g., for dcvelopment
within the 100 year flaodplain;
, Pl-oposed acecss and eirculation, including roads, dri-.'es, parking areas, and
bicycle and pcdestrian patlrllays; and
All otbcr proposed land uscs.
14.3 If thc DAP eomplies '1I'ith all Site Plan RC'.'icYl standards ofthe SDC;
subsequent pcrmittcd uses that conform to the DAP shall not require
additional sitc plan rniC'l'l. (This implementation aetion is intendcd to
simplify the devclopment approval proeess for large, phascd de'.'elopments .
by allo.,...ing a sufficicntly detailcd DAP to mcet both DAP and Site Pial}
'requircmcnts. )
14.4 DAP's shall bc eonsistcnt y{ith thc approved CDP, and with
. thc policies ofthc Metro Plan and ofthis Refinemcnt Plan.
14.5 Sitc Plans for portions of a de'.'clopmcnt arca sbaUeonform
with an approvcd DAP, provided, howevcr, that the DAP may be
modified as permitted in implcmcntation aetion 14.6.
14.6 Substantial modifications of DAP's shall be revicwcd under
Typc II procedure, in aeeordancc with Articlc 3 of the SDC.
14.7 The minimum Development Arca for ~{DR designatcd area shall be 5
aePeSo
14.8 Thc minimum sizc for Devclopmcnt Arcas may be reduccd,
if approved by thc DcYelopmcnt Scnices Dircetor, in individual
instanecs where insuffieicnt vaeant land, {rtvnership patterns, lot
configuration, or abutting cxisting uscs prohibit eonsolidation of
parcels to achicye a 5 acrc Dcvelopment Area.
Amend GRP Residential Implementation Action 15.1 (GRP at 18):
.
Page 6 of 10
Development density may be transferred from natural assets and
recreational pathways identified in the Natural Assets, Open
Space/Scenic Areas, and Recreation Element, or from proposed
shared open spaces, to buildable portions of the development area,
.
provided that the gross density of the development area does not
exceed 20 du/a, and the nct density on thc buildable portion docs not'
cxeced 25 du/a the maximum density pel-mitted in the underlying
zone.
Add a new GRP Residential Element Policy 19.0 to read as follows:
Density bonuses allowed under Residential Element Implementation
Actions 15.1 and 16.3 may be allowed consistent with an approved
Master Plan pursuant to SDC Article 37 within the McKenzie-
Gateway MDR Site.
Amend GRP Commercial Element Policy 5.0 (GRP at 23):
Provide for future appropriately planned Mixed Use Commercial and Nodal
Development areas neighborhood eommercial dcvelopmcnt in thc Medium
Deusity Residcntial dcvelopmcnt area east of Game Farm Road, identified in
TransPlan as potential nodal development sites.
Amend GRP Commercial Element Implementation Action 5.1 (GRP at 23):
.
No mOlT than 3 aercs ofNC uses can bc zoned as part ofthe Mcdium
Dcnsity Residcntial area. This rczoning shallnat bc approved until at least '
25 pcrccnt of thc antieipated total dwelling units in the area are eonstrueted.
The neighborhood commercial arcs shall bc sited in a loeation that
prcsented the least traffie, noise, and lighting eonfliets '1I'ith adjaeent
, residcntial uscs. (Properties inycntoried in the IIistarie Resources Elemcnt
as significant rcsources may bc rczoncd to NC and arc cxempt from this
pro'.'ision.) Commercial uses allowed in zoning districts pursuant to the
above policy shall be subiect to Master Plan approval and shall be planned
in a manner to minimize traffic, noise, and lighting conflicts with adjacent
residential uses.
Amend GRP Transportation Element Implementation Action 13.0 (GRP at 51):
Future transportation system development in the McKenzie-Gateway
Campus Industrial and the 180 acre MDR sites should occur as needed in
conjunction with CI and MDR, MUC and MS development.
Amend GRP Public Facilities Element Implementation Action 2.2 (GRP at 51):
.
Require the consideration of the use of storm drainage facilities that store.
and retain runoff in the McKenzie-Gateway Campus Industrial site, and in
the proposed MDR arca east of Game Farm Road South McKenzie-
Gateway MDR Site. Require the consideration of the use and enhancement
of natural storm water drainage features as part oftheoverall storm water
systems in these areas.
C. On December 3,2002 December 17, 2002 and on January 22, 2003, the Springfield
Planning Commission held public hearings to accept testimony and hear comments on this
Page 7 of 10
.
land use proposal. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
considered the testimony provided, including the staff report and all material submitted in
the application. The Planning Commission voted four in favor, two opposed and one
abstaining to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Springfield
Council. '
D.
On Februmy 18, 19 and March 31, 2003, the Springfield City Council held public hearings
on this proposal. Fifty-two people provided oral testimony on February 18th and 19th;
ninety-three people provided written testimony between the PlarUling Commission's
January 22, 2003 decision on recQnUl1endation and the close of the City Council public
hearing written record February 26,2003 seven days after the close of the oral testimony.
E.
On March 31, 2003, the Springfield City Council voted four in favor and one opposed to
approve the ordinance and declaring an emergency and instructed staff to prepare specific
findings consistent with the Council's decision for adoption on April 7, 2003.
F.
Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto as Exhibit B that the
proposal meets the requirements of Article 8 of the Springfield DevelopmentCode.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Gateway Refinement Plan is hereby amended to reflect the changes
depicted in Finding B, above.
.
Section 2: The above findings (A through E), and the findings set forth in Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted in support of the
Gateway Refinement Plan amendments.
- Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of tIllS
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.
Section 4: This Gateway Refinement Plan amendment is subject to the conditions of
approval attached hereto in Exhibit A.
Section 5: It is hereby found and determined that this Gateway Refinement Plan
amendment is a matter affecting the public health, safety and welfare and that an emergency
therefore exists and that tillS ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by the
Council and approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of -L-
for and ~ against and 0 abstaining on this 21 daY"of April 200.3 ('
Attest:
.
\~ 'C:.-...)'I~U-) ~~ j:>'\'-'-.:> 'f\\","),t1.)-.1 ~\..)
"M") ~ ~c,"t ~
_ ....\ \...., \ '2. 0 0 ~
~ 0 1> c:. (ly, :-::s- '- G. t='\........ - (
C> p(-=- ,c:. ~ 0'1,- ('""'l r'\~n\..J~-(
rage 8 of 10 I
.
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Gateway Refinement Plan Approval
(Jo.No.'s 7002-08-243)
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 allocation plan as a component of a complete application submittal.
The approval of the plan shall be a requirement of Master Plan approval.
Tdp generation estimates used to create the trip allocation plan shall be performed using
assumptions and J!lethods which are consistent with those employed in the traffic impact
analysis submitted to the City of Springfield on September 20, 2002 in support of Metro
Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan amendment applications (City Journal Numbers 2002-
08-243 & 2002-08-244)
.
Except as specified in Section 5, land uses within Master Plan boundaries where the MS and
MUC zoniug districts are proposed to be applied shall limit traffic impacts such that a
maximum of 1,840 vehicle trips (total of entering plus exiting trips) are generated by the
proposed uses. The 1840 trips shall be estimated or measured for the PM Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic and shall be based onan assumption of 33 acres of MUC and 66
acres of MS. Master Plans proposals involving less than this amount of such zoned acreage
shall limit the PM Peak Hour Vehicle trip generation proportionately. Subsequent Site
Plan Review applications for sites within the Master Plan boundaries shall be in compliance
with the approved trip allocation plan.
Any proposal that would increase the number of allowable PM Peak-Hour vehicle trips for
the MS and MUC area beyond 1,840 shall be processed as a refinement plan amendment or
a zoning map amendment or Master Plan approval pursuant to SDC 37.040 or Master Plan
modification pursuant to SDC 37.040 and 37.060(3) and regardless of which type of process
is sought, each shall demonstrate compliance with applicable provisions of the
Transportation Planning Rule for such proposal. '
CONDITION 2:
Prior to occupancy of the first phase of any hospital located at the Gateway MDR site as
approved by a future Master Plan, a portion ofTransPI~n 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:
.
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;
Page 9 of 10
.
3. Widen the eastbound on ramp to provide two lanes to accept the two eastbound
turn lanes described above in Number 2. These two on ramp lanes will merge to one
lane prior to merging with OR 126 traffic eastbound.
4. Widen the eastbound OR 126 off ramp to three lanes for a minimum distance of 300
feet west of Pioneer Parkway; and
5. Any necessary signal modifications to accommodate Numbers 1-4 above.
The funding for these improvements shall come from PeaceHealth's financial responsibility
for off-site transportation improvements as described.in the annexation agreement dated
June 4, 2002, Lane County Recorder's number 2002-043161, between the applicant and the
City of Springfield. To the extent that these funds are determined to be insufficient to
perform the above described improvements, the applicant shall be responsible for the
additional funding needed.
Any subsequent Master Plan application for property at the Gateway MDR site that
proposes to apply the MS and/or MUC zoning district shall include specific design drawiugs
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 29'h, 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 by
PeaceHealth, a Washington non-profit corporation, on the date of Council approval Of plan
amendments 2002-08-243 and 2002-08-244 shan include a hospital as a component of the
master plan.
CONDITION 4
In the event that a master plan with a hospital fails to gain approval by the City Council by
May 29, 2005, 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.
.
Page 10 of 10
4/21/03
.
.
.
Exhibit B
City of Springfield City Council
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Metro Plan Map and Refinement Plan Map and Text
Amendments
Jo. Nos. 2002-08-243 & 2002-08-244
PeaceHealth
4/21/03
;J:'- .
CONTENTS
1. Backgraund ...,..................................... .'.....,...........................................................1
A. SU1111nary .of Request.................................................. .'..............................1
B. Pracedural Histary ............ ........................................................................1 '
C. Natificatian ................ ............. ...................................................... ..............2
D. Nodal Implementatian .................................................................,............2
E. Lacal Pracedure ....................................... ~................................................2
II: Nature .of the Request................... .,....... ................... ................;..................................3
A. . Backgraund Facts................................................................... ...................3
B. Metro Plan Diagram (Map) Change .........................................................3
C. Gateway Refinement Plan Diagram (Map) Change .................................3
D. Gateway Refinement Plan Text Changes .................................................4
III: Prapased Changes ta the Gateway Refinement Plan Text....................................5
IV: Findings .of Fact andCancIusions .of Law ..........................................................17
A. Adaptian and Incarparatian .of Additianal Findings ..............................17
B. Type .of Plan Amendments................... .......... ........ ....... ...................... ....17
C. Applicable Standards and Criteria.................. ............ ......... .............. .....20
1. Metra Plan Amendments ......................................................20
2. Refinement Plan Amendments .............................................21
D Findings .of Fact Regarding Campliance with Approval Criteria...........21
GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT .................................................21
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING ......................................................22
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS..................................................25
GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS ..................................... .............................25
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS,
NATURAL RESOURCES.... .......... .......... ..... ................ ......25
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY......27
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NA TURALHAZARDS ..................28
GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS~..................................................30
GOAL 9 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT...........................................33
GOAL 10 - HOUSING ..................... ................. ................ ................ ....3 7
GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ...........................40
GOAL 12 - TRANSPORT A nON .........................................................41
GOAL 13 -ENERGY CONSERVATION ............................,.................55
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION...... ................... ...................................... 56
GOAL 15.; WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY ..............................57
GOALS 16-19 - COASTAL GOALS ....................................................57
E. City Cauncil Findings Regarding Cansistency with Statewide
Planning Gaals........ .................................... ............................................57
F. Campliance with State Statutes.... .... ............ ................. .........................57
G. Metra Plan Cansistency ......... ......................... ...............................:..... ....58
PLAN ELEMENTS..................... ............. ...................... ... ................... ..59
Grawth Managelnent ...:............... ............................... ............ ........ ....... .59
Residential Land Use and Hausing Element ..........................................60
Ecanalnic Elelnent ......... ............. .............. ............ ...... ....................... .... .64
Page i
.
.
.
4/21/03
.
.
.
H.
I.
Environmental Resources Element............................................ ............ .68
Willamette River Greenway, River Conidors, and Waterway
El elnent ...................................................................,............. 7 2
Enviroill11ental Design Element ...................:........:................. ................ 73
TranspOliation Element............... ................................................ ,.........,.75
Public Facilities and Service Element.....................................................81
Parks and Recreation Facilities Element...................... ........................... 85
Historic Preservation Element....................................... ......................... 85
Energy Elelnent........................................... ..,.'. ........................................ .86
City Council Findings Regarding Consistency with the Metro Plan ......87
Consistent With Gateway. Refinement Plan For The Metro Plan
and GRP Diagram Amendments.............................................................8 7
City Council Findings Regarding Consistency with GRP ....................1 04
Response to Public Testimony Received During the City Council
Public Hearing...... ...... ....... ............. ..,..............,.....................................104
Response to Public Testimony Received During the Planning
Commission Public Hearing .................................................................117
1.
K.
L.
Page ii
4/21/03
I.
Backuround
. b
.
A. Summary of Request
PeaceHealth has requested that the City of Springfield ("City") amend the Metro Plan
Diagram and the Gateway Refinement Plan (GRP) Diagy:am and Text (collectively, the
"Amendments") in order to allow PeaceHealth to ultimately develop a regional hospital,
associated medical office buildings, residential dwelling units and a retail component
consistent with nodal development at the Gateway MDR site. For purposes of these
findings, the Gateway MDR site refers to that propeliy identified on Exhibit C.
Additional property is identified in the GRP diagram as within the McKenzie-Gateway
MDR site, however such properties are not subject to this application. As this additional
property is annexed into the City, the Amendments will apply to the annexed propeliy.
PeaceHealth refers to its proposed development of the Gateway MDR site as RiverBend,
consequently their portion of the subject property is sometimes referred to in these
Findings as RiverBend. No specific development isapproved pursuant to the City
Council's approval of the Amendments. Th~ Amendments approved by the City Council
amend the Metro Plan Diagram and the GRP Diagram to allow for up to 33 acres of
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) zoning t.o be applied at the Gateway MDR site. The
specific Metro Plan and GRP Diagram Amendments will place up to 33 acres of the
City's Community COlmnercial (CC) Metro Plan designation on the Gateway MDR site.
The AmeJ).dments also amend GRP text to establish the policy directive that a regional
hospital is an appropriate use at the Gateway MDR site. The specific text of the
Amendments is set fOlih in Section III below. Although not proposed at this time, the
approved amendments require that prior to development of the Gateway MDRsite, that
the property owner receive master plan approval consistent with Springfield
Development Code (SDC) Article 37. The master plan will replace the current GRP's
Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) requirement. These approvals do not affix the
specific location of the MUC on the property identified in Exhibit C..
.
B. Procedural History
The Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on December 3, 2002, and
accepted public testimony. That hearing was recessed and reconvened on December
1 ih, 2002. At the conclusion of the December 1 ih hearing, the Planning Commission
held the publicrecord open for two weeks, until December 31 st. The applicant was then
given until January 7,2003 for rebuttal. On January 22,2003, the Planning
Commission reopened the public hearing to allow for summation and a recommendation
from staff and summation from the applicant. After deliberation, the Planning
Commission voted 4 in favor, two opposed and one abstaining to forward an affinnative
recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission included three
additional conditions of approval. The City Council held a de novo public hearing on
February 18,2003, and held the record open until February 26,2003, to allow for
submission of written testimony. The City Council allowed the applicant an additional
week to submit rebuttal and final argument.
.
Exhibit B
Pagel of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
In addition to the testimony presented to the Council, the City Council acknowledges that
the entire planning record in this case, including the application, staff repOlis, public
testimony, and Planning Division correspondence and other materials were placed before
the City Council and are therefore part of the record.
C. Notification
The City fOlwarded notification of the proposed plan amendments to the Department of
Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") on September 20,2002, more than the
minimum of 45 days prior to the December 3, 2002, first evidentiary hearing before the
Planning Commission. In accordance with SDC 14.030, notification of the Planning
ConU11ission and City Council public hearings was mailed to sUlTounding propeliy
owners on November 12,2002 and was published in the Splingfield News on November
20,2002. In accordance with SDC 7.080, notice ofthe February 18,2003 public
heating before the City Council was mailed to surrounding property owners on January -
29,2003 and was published in the Springfield News on January 29, 2003.
D. , Nodal Implementation
, -
The Alternative Perfonnance Measures for TransPlan approved by the Land
Conservation and Development COlmnission ("LCDC") require the City to achieve a
, distribution of employment and housing within nodes at 44% and 23% respectively for
all new jobs and housing created during the planning period (2015). The City adopted
Articles 40 Mixed Use Zoning Districts and Article 41 Nodal Development Overlay
District into the SDC in June, 2002. Also in June, 2002, the City Council directed
planning staff to investigate the potential for implementation of nodal development at six
sites throughout the City. The Gateway MDR site is one of these six sites. The City has
,received grant funding to perfonn these analyses and they are currently underway. In
order to allow consideration of the PeaceHealth development plans at the Gateway MDR
site, various GRP policies were written in a manner that allows PeaceHealth to submit a
master plan application prior to the City's completion of the Gateway nodal
implementation work, but preserves the City's ability to apply the standards of nodal
development onto the PeaceHealth master plan area. It is anticipated that the processing
of the nodal implementation work, which will include property owner participation
beyond the PeaceHealth ownership and subsequent plan amendments, will be proces,sed
conculTently with the PeaceHealth master plan. This will provide the Planning
Commission, City Council and the public the opportunity to view the master plan and the
nodal implmenetation projects side-by-side to ascertain the most beneficial way to
integrate the components of the two.
E. Local Procedure
The City employed a hybrid review process in approving the Amendments, employing
the quasi-judicial procedure set forth in ORS 197.763 and the Type IV procedure set
forth in SDC 93.100, adopting those elements from each procedure that provide the most
opportunity for public input and due process. Although the City employed the entire
procedure required for Type IV applications, to allow for greater public involvement, the
City also included additional quasi-judicial procedures set forth in ORS 197.763.
ExhibitB
Page2 of 128
4/21/03
EJ\
Decisions made under both the quasi-judicial process set forth in ORS 197.763 and the
Type IV process are based on evidence in the record and include findings to support the
decision that address the approval criteria.
.
II: Nature ofthe Request
A. Background Facts
The Amendments apply to property within the Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") and the
City limits of Springfield, refelTed to in these findings as the Gateway MDR site as
graphically ~epicted on Exhibit C. PeaceHealth owns approximately 165 acres within
the Gateway MDR; site and Arlie and Company owns 12.4 acres of property within the
Gateway MDR site. There are approxiniately 10 acres ofMDR property, 8.5 acres of ,
LDR prope11y and 2.4- acres of Campus Industrial prope11y in the McKenzie-Gateway
MDR site as shown in the GRP that are not presently within the City. When these
properties are eventually annexed into the City, the Amendments will' apply to those
properties. The Amendments do not apply to these properties and reference in these
findings to the "Gateway MDR site" does not include those properties.
R Metro Plan Diagram (Map) Change
, The Amendments change the designation of up to a maximum of 33 acres of Medium .
Density Residential(MDR) to COlmnunity Commercial (CC) on the Metro Plan Diagram.
The precise location of the CC designated property is not established through this
approval, but the Metro Plan Diagram will be amended to show that CC designation will
be applied at a future date. The site specific delineation of the 33 acres will be decided
upon by the qty Council, as recOlmnended by the Planning Conunission, during the
required master plan application and/or the City's nodal implementation project,
whichever comes first.
C. Gateway Refmement Plan Diagram (Map) Change
Springfield Development Code (SDC) 7.100(4)(a)(4) provides that when a Metro Plan
amendment is enacted that requires an amendment to a refinement plan, the Metro Plan
amendment automatically amends the refinement plan. Therefore, approval of the
Amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram automatically amends the GRP Diagrani. in the
same manner as the Plan Diagram. The delineation of the CC plan designation will be
affixed upon master plan approval by the City Council, but the Metro Plan Diagram and,
the GRP diagram will be presently amended to indicate that up to 33 acres of CC
property will be applied upon master plan approval or implementation of the nodal
implementation project. The amended GRP Residential Element Policy 12.0 and
Residential Implementation Action 12.1 limit the zoning of the CC designation at the
Gateway MDR site to Mixed Use COlmnercial (MUC).
PeaceHealth originally submitted proposed plan diagram maps showing where the CC
designation and subsequent MUC zoning should be located. Upon review of these maps
and of GRP policy, the City detennined that it is not practical at this time to detennine
.
Exhibit B
Page3 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
the exact location of the MUC distIict because the street layout, building location, nodal
overlay placement, transit station and other physical factors that will be detelmined by
the master plan have yet to be reviewed and approved. Therefore, while the Metro Plan
Diagram amendment has been approved by the City Council and the diagram will be
amended to reflect the fact that the CC designation will be applied, GRP Residential
Implementation Policy 12.1 defers the specific delineation of the conunercial area until
the City approves the required master plan or the City completes the nodal'
, '
implementation project.
D. Gateway Refinement Plan Text Changes
The text ofthe GRP is changed to allow the Community COlllinercial Plan Designation to
be implemented by Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) on the Springfield Zoning Map; to
allow for the CC plan designation to be affixed upon master plan approval; to allow for
the medical Services (MS) zoning district to be applied to up to 66 acres ofMDR; to
allow for the development of a hospital, associated medical, office, retail and residential
uses; to preserve the potential for nodal development and to require a master plan be
approved by the City Council prior to any site development. The text amendments
, appear in the next section.
Exhibit B
Page4 of 128
4/21/03
':'i'....,
.
III: Proposed Changes to the Gateway Refinement Plan Text
The City Council has adopted th~ following amendments to the GRP Text:
-
GRP Residential Element Goal 2:
Ensure availability of adequate supplies of land appropriate
for low-, medium-, and high-density residential development.
Maintain approximately the existing balance among LDR-,
MDR- and HDR-designated lands, consistent with Metro Plan
allocations, while allowing for an appropriate mix of uses
consistent with the Transportation and Residential elements of
the Metro Plan.
Purpose and Intent: This amendment allows for the application of the nodal
designation and Mixed Use zoning in residential districts in addition to allowing
for appropriate balance of Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density
Residential (MDR) and High Density Residential (HDR) development. This is
intended to allow for the eventual up to 33 acre MUC zoning and to facilitate the
City's nodal implementation project.
GRP Residenti~l Element Policy 12.0:
'.
, Allow limited rezoning of land within the "McKenzie-Gateway
MDR site" to Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC") on land
designated Commercial as implemented during Master Plan
and/or during the City's nodal implementation project.
neighborhood commercial, in ol'de.- to promote retention and
rehabilitation of historic properties that may othenvise become
non conforming uses, to promote limited publie or semi publie
access to and 'liey,' of the McKcnzie River, and to allo...... for
provision of services specifieally intended to meet needs of
future residents in: this arca.
Purpose and Intent: This policy recognizes MUC as the appropriate commercial zoning
within the Gateway MDR site. Application ofMUC zoning will occur after, or in
conjunction with the implementation of themaster plan or nodal development as
described in Implementation Action 12.1.
GRP Residential Implementation Action 12.1:
Rezoning to NC will be all(n'l'ed for lip to 3 acres (Total) of vaeant
land .....ithin the McKenzie Cateway l\:lDR Site under the following .'
provisions:
a) )'he property requested for rezoning shall front OR a eollector
or arterial that is either existing or planned in an adopted CDP
Exhibit B
PageS of 128
4/21/03
.
for the MeKenzie Cate'II'a)' 1\lDR Site, or that eurrently
borders the site.
>b) Praposed zone changes shall be reyie,ved under a Type III
procedure in aeeordanee v,-ith Ar'tide 3 at the SDC and shall be
consistent ':Iith all pro'iisians af SDC Artiele 12 Zaning Distriet
and Oyerlay Distriet Changes.
c) This type afrezoning shall not be approved until at least 25
pereent of the antieipated dVielling units are eonstrueted
(based on an a'l~rage at 15 dwelling units per ~iere).
.
Redesignation of not more than 33 acres of land within the
McKenzie/Gateway MDR site to Commercial through the
Metro Plan amendment process shall be allowed and shall be
'implemented bv application of mixed use commercial zoning
district through Master Plan approval and! or by the City's
nodal implementation process, If Master Plan approval is
requested prior to the City's completion of nodal
implementation, evidence must be provided that verifies that
an adeQuate amount of the up to 33 acres of' commercial
designated land will be available for the retail component of
nodal development.
.
Purpose and Intent: The existing GRP policy allows for three acres of
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) within the Gateway MDR site and sets the
standards for how the district is established. This amendment eliminates the NC
provision as recommended in the Springfield CommercialLands Study and
allows for MUC/NDO to be applied at the Gateway MDR site.MUC is the only
commercial zoning that can be applied to the Gateway MDR site. Sincethe
implementation of the commercial designation will be achieved through master
plan approval and subsequent rezoning, there will be flexibility during the master '
plan review which will eliminate the need to adopt further map amendments if the
ultimate location of the MUC zone should change based upon the approved
master plan or implementation of nodal development zoning. This language
allows the Planning Commission and City Council the ability to decide the most
appropriate location to establish the commercial designations when all the facts of
the master plan are before them. The language "If Master Plan approval is
requested prior to the City's completion of nodal implementation, evidence must
be provided that verifies that an adequate amount of the up to 33 acres of
commercial designated land will be available for the retail component of nodal
development" is intended to ensure that there will be enough MUC -zoned land
available to allow for implementation of the retail portion of the node through
either the master plan approval or through the City's nodal implementation project
if the master plan is approved first. Of equal importance is to ensure that there are
an adequate number of vehicle trips reserved from the trip cap to allow for an
appropriate number of retail establishments to locate at the retail portion of the
r
Exhibit B
Page6 of 128
4/21/03
fl)' I ~
, MUC. The vehicle trip allocation will be determined at the master plan review
level
.
GRP Residential Element Action 12.4:
NC uSes located within the McKenzie Cateway MDR Site shall meet
the folloYl'ing proyisions in addition to the pro';isions of SDC Article,
~
a) The maximum floor arca- OfaB)' single NC use shall not,exeeed
4,000 square feet; ,
b) Parking areas shall Bot be yisible from the 1\fcKenzic River
corridor and shall be screened from public streets in a manner which
docs not obseure Yisibility of the use; and,
c) Pub lie access to the }\fcKenzie Riyer shall be provided by NC
uses abutting the riparian setback.
In addition to all applicable standards and provisions re2:ulatin2:
development in Springfield, any development adiacent to the
McKenzie River or McKenzie River riparian setback shall provide
public access to the McKenzie River or McKenzie River riparian
setback. Surface parking areas shall not be visible from the
McKenzie River corridor and shall be screened from public streets.
Purpose and Intent: This amendment is required because the 3 -acre NC provision is .
being entirely replaced. However, the language protecting McKenzie River access and
views and screening from public rights-of-way for the NC district is preserved. Based
upon public testimony and Planning Commission direction this Implementation Action is
intended to assure McKenzie River access is available through any development adjacent
to the riparian area. '
New GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 12.5:
MU districts within the McKenzie-Gatewav MDR Site shall
meet the provisions of SDC Article 40.
Purpose and Intent: SDC Article 40 sets forth the applicable Mixed Use
District regulations. This new Implementation Action illustrates this relatipnship.,
New GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 12.6:
Within the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site, the Medical
Services ("MS") zoning district may implement the MDR Plan
desi2:natioB if part of an approved Master Plan. The adopted
Master Plan shall demonstrate that the site will be able to
accommodate the number of housim! units within the range for
the MDR land use designation in the Metro Plan and Gateway
Refinement Plan. In addition to meeting the standards of the
SDC, at the time of master plan approval, the City Council
may attach specific conditions on all development within the
.
Exhibit B
Page? of 128
.
.
.
4/2 I/03
MS zone including but not limited to building height and
setbacks.
Purpose and Intent: This new Implementation Action will allow a hospital to
locate at the Gateway MDR site by establishing the policy necessary to allow the
MS zoning disti-ict to be applied at the site. Hospitals are a pennitted use in the
MS zone. It is expected that PeaceHealth will submit an application to be
processed concun-ently with the master plan application to rezone up to 66 acres
to MS. The adopted amendment also requires the master plan to demonstrate that
potential residential densities are preserved after rezoning, thus preserving the
minimum density that would be required if the site were to develop as MDR.
This policy ensures that that the proposed changes comply with the requirements
of Statewide Planning Goal 10. '
There is no height limit on Plimary structures such as hospitals in the MS zoning
district. Based upon Planning Commission inquiries and public testimony
regarding limitations on height, staff suggested at the January 22nd Planning
Commission public hearing that the language enabling the City Council to limit'
the height of the hospital in the master plan after reviewing evidence that could
include various digital renditions of the hospital at various heights, with various
massing scenarios and frOll1 multiple vantage points. The Planning COllliTiission!.s
voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the height of the
hospital be limited to 60 feet. The City Council voted to remove the Planning
Commission's condition and return the policy as recommended by staff to the
Planning Commission. The adopted policy provides the Council the ability to
regulate height during the master plan review.
GRP Residential Element Policy 13.0:
A CDP or Master Plan shall be approved,_under a Type_H-IV
review process, for the areas larger than 5 acres within
mappcd as the "McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site" on the
Refmement Plan diagram, subsequent to annexation and prior
to annexation and urban development of any pOl.tion of the site
Master Plan area.
Purpose and Intent: This policy replaces the CDP requirement for the 'Gateway
MDR site with a requirement for the development and approval of a master plan.
SDC Article 37, Master Plans, did not exist whenthe GRP was adopted by the
City. Master plan approval is far more detailed than the CDP and all master plan
developments will be required to conforn1 to SDC Article 37.
Delete GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.1.
The City shall begin preparation of a CDP by January 1, 1992, and
shall approve a CDP no later than July 1, 1993. In the interim, a CDP
may be submitted by the initial de~..cloper of a portion of the site. A
Exhibit B
Page8 of 128
4121/03
':1 .
City initiatcd CDP shall involve input from thc affccted property
O','l'ners, ant appropriatc public agencics.
.
Purpose and Intent: Implementation Action 13.0 deletes the COP requirement,
therefore it is appropriate to delete this Implementation Action. The CDP requirement is
being replaced by a master plan requirement.
Delete GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.2 (GRP at 16) and add new
language to read as follows:
Thc CDP shall be prcparcd by an engineer, and one ofthe
follo'ldng: an architcct, landscape arehitect or planning
professional.
A Master Plan for the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site shall be
'prepan~d by a design team that shall include, as-determined by
the Director, the following consultants: architect, landscape
architect, civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, acoustic
engineer, certified arborist, transportation engineer and a
consultant to address ripadan issues.
, Purpose and Inte'nt: This Implementation Action, in recognition of the
magnitude of the Gateway MOR master plan, adds additional parties and design
professionals that will be required to develop the master plan forthe Gateway
MOR site.
.
GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.3:
All development within the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site shall
be consistent with an approved GDF-Master Plan. Aft
approved CDP ~ay bc modified b)' the initial deyeloper, a
subsequent developer, or the City, under a Type II revicw
process.
Purpose and Intent: This Implementation Action requires all property in the
McKenzie Gateway MOR site to be developed consistent with an approved
master plan. This Iniplementation Action does not require that all development
undergo master plan approval, (such as development of sites under 5 acres), but
this action does require that for developments not approved through master plan
review, that the public service alignment of streets and utilities, etc. in such
developments confonn with an approved master plan.
GRP Residential Implementation Action 13.4:
The CDP In addition to the requirements of SDC Article 37,
the Master Plan shall address, at a minimum, the following
development iss,ues:
.
Exhibit B
Page9 of 128
4/21/03
.
a)
Preservation and enhancement of natural assets identified in
this Refinement Plan;
Access and circulation needs;
Access to arterial and collector streets;
Provision of public facilities and services;
Development needs of future users;
Location of areas larger than one aere proposed for auxiliary
uscs, including ncighborhood commercial;
Provision of open space areas; and
Access to the McKenzie River.
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
fgt
gh)
Purpose and Intent: Similar to Implernentation Action 13.2, above, this
Implementation Action establishes additional submittal requirements for the master plan
application. It is appropriate to remove item (f) because it specifically references the NC
district which will no longer be a component of future development in the Gateway MDR
site.
Delete GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.5.
Applications for the initial CDP or for substantial modifications to an
approved DCP shall be exempt from the requircmcnts of Scction
3.050(2)(b) of thc SDC.
.
Purpose and Intent: This Implementation Action has been deleted because it is a CDP
submittal requirement. A CDP is no longer a requirement for the MDR site due to the
Amendments approved by ~he City. ,The intent of this policy is to ,allow for a ,
comprehensive approach to planning the site. To preserve the spirit of this intent of this
policy,'Implementation Action 13.5 has been amended :-to require a circulation plan for
all portions of the site currently within the City so that the public infi.-astructure serving
the whole site will be a component of the initial master plan.
GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.5:
Applications for the initialCDP or for substantial modifications to an
appro'..ed CDP In addition to the requirements of SDC Article 37, the
initial Master Plan application in the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site
shall include a conceptual street map and bicycle and pedestrian
circulation system plan for all annexed property in the McKenzie-
Gateway MDR site and shall be exempt from the requirements of
Section 3.0S0(2)(b) of the SDC.
Purpose and Intent: PeaceHealth will submit a master plan for approximately 165
acres of the approximate 200 entire acre Gateway MDR site. In order for a
comprehensive roadway and bike/pedestrian circulation system to be developed, the
entirety of the site must be considered. This Implementation Action requires the initial
master plan application to account for such a comprehensive system. When abutting
propeliy owners apply to develop their property in the future, safe and efficient
.
Exhibit B
PagelO of 128
4/21/03
;:t\\ 1 :'
circulation connections will have already been planned for and can be implemented at the .
time of development.
Delete GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.6.
Purpose and Intent: This Implementation Action is required because it applies
specifically to' the CDP, a requirement that no longer applies to the Gateway MDR site.
New GRP Residential Element Implementation Action 13.6:
Master Plan applications for property within the McKenzie-Gateway
MDR site submitted prior to the City's completion of nodal
development assessment and implementation shall identify all areas
within one-quarter mile of proposed transit stations as being subject
to the provisions of the Nodal Development Overlay District (INDO).
Anv proposed uses, density and design in the identified nodal
development area shall comply with the standards of Springfield
Development Code articles 40 and/or 41 within the applicable base
zone with the following exception:' Uses in the MS District may be '
exempted from specific development standards of Articles 40 and 41,
residential and group care facilities in the MDR District may be
exempted from specific development standards of Article 41 and uses
in the MUC District may be exempt from specific development
standards of 40.100(2) and 40.100(5) (a) and (b)ifthe respective
exemptions in each of the Districts can be mitigated such that they are
consistent with the Purpose of the NodafDevelopment Overlay
District (SDC 41.010(1)), the Metro Plan policies regarding nodal
development and the exemptions are approved by the City Council as
part of a master plan. In the evenHhat the City Council determines
that nodal development is appi.opriate for the identified nodal area,
the property shall be re-designated to /NDO and all subsequent land
use applications shall comply with /NDO standards contained within
articles 40 and/or 41, except as exempted above. SDC section
37.070(1) shall not apply to such /NDO re-designation.In the event
that the City Council determines that nodal development is
inappropriate for areas identified as such on the master plan, those'
areas shall be changed through a Type II process to reflect the
underlying MDR or MUC zoning and any use, density or design on
the master plan that does not comply to underlying zoning
designation shall be changed accordingly. All subsequent land use
applications shall comply with the standards required in the
underlying zoning dIstrict.
.
.
Exhibit B
Pagell of 128
4/21/03
.
Purpose and Intent: This Implementation Action accounts for the fact that upon
adoption of the Amendments, PeaceHealth will be not be prevented from submitting a
master plan fot development of the site. While it is the intent of the City to process the
master plan and the Gateway MDR nodal implementation project conculTently, it is
possible that the timing of the PeaceHealth master plan submittal could precede the City's
nodal implementation project. Instead of requiting PeaceHealth to wait until after the
City's work is complete, this language allows PeaceHealth to submit their application
while preserving the City's ability to implement a functional node.
This implementation action includes the Medical Services district in the node for two
reasons: 1) in order to meet the State's Altemative Measure requirements for vehicle trip
reductions, the City must demonstrate that 44% of all new jobs are located within nodes
by 2015. With a regional hospital in a node, this will greatly facilitate the City's ability to
make this demonstration; 2) with the hospital in the node, specific design standards
intended to create a pedestIian friendly environment will apply to the hospital and
associated medical uses. Since the hospital will be adjacent to the transit stop and
presumably close to the retail center of the node, it will be valuable to have such design
standards available in order to ensure an appropriate pedestrian oriented atmosphere.
.
, When the nodal overlay is applied to the MS zoning district, certain development
standards of both Article 40 and 41 will apply to the site. The exemption of the medical
uses and residential care facilities, such as an Alzheimer's treatment home, from one or
more of these standards is intended to allow flexibility in t?e design of the medical uses.
For example, SDC 41.040 prohibits vehicle driving and maneuvering 'between the front
of a building and the street. A hospital or other establishment serving the infinn may
find it necessary to have a vehicle drop off area at the front door. The exemption
language would provide the Planning Commission and the City Council the ability to
approve such a feature through approval of the master plan if the applicant can
demonstrate that the change would not detract from the pedestrian environment of the
node.
GRP Residential Element Implem'entation Action 13.7 to read as follows:
Master Plans for property at the McKenzie-GatewayMDR site that
propose to implement the MUC designation and/or apply theMS
zoning district pursuant to Residential Implementation Actions 12.1
and 12.6 shall be subiect to the following requirements:
1. An approved trip allocation plan shall be a requirement of Master
Plan approval.
.
2. ,The trip allocation plan shall demonstrate compliance with all
conditions contained within applicable plan amendment adoption
ordinance(s), and trip-generation estimates shall be performed using
assumptions and methods which are consistent with those employed in
the plan amendment traffic impact analysis.
Exhibit B ,
Page12 of 128
4/21/03
~C'" ;.~ .
3. Except as specified in Section 5,land uses within Master Plan
boundaries where the MS and MUC zoning districts are proposed to
be applied in conformance with Residential Implementation Actions
12.0, 12.1 12.6 shall be limited to a maximum of 1,840 vehicle trips
(total of entering plus exiting trips) as estimated or measured for the
PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic and based on an
assumption of 33 acres of MUC and 66 acres of MS. Master Plans
PI'oposing less than this amount of such acreage shall adjust the
maximum vehicle trips proportionately.
.
'4. Subsequent Site Plan Review applications for sites within the Master
Plan boundaries shall be in compliance with the approved trip
allocation plan.
5. Anv proposal that would increase the number of allowable PM Peak-
Hour vehicle trips for the MS and MUC area beyond 1,840 shall be
processed as a refinement plan amendment, or a zoning map
amendment or Master Plan approval pursuant to SDC 37.040 or
modification pursuant to SDC 37.040 and 37.060(3) and regardless of
which type of protess is sought, each shall demonstrate compliance
with applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule for
such proposal.
.
Purpose and Intent: Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments ("P AP As") must show
compliance with TranspOliation Planning Goal 12, including a demonstration that
transpOliation facilities will not by operating below an acceptable level of service as a
result of the amendment. The TrafficImpact Analysis in the record demonstrates that
with the adopted Amendments, the number of trips reflected in this Implementation
Action will be the "worst case scenario" for the area that will eventually be rezoned to
MS and MUC. This policy limits the trips generated by the MUC and MS districts to the
assumptions made in the applicant's Transportation Impact Analysis.
This policy was amended prior to the Council's final action on the Amendments to add
three additional methods to increase the trip cap. These methods are zoning map
amendment, Master Plan approval or master plan modification processed as a Type III
application. Each of these processes require public hearings and, as stated in the policy,
each would require compliance with the Transportiaton Plannign Rule. The public
hearings and the TPR compliance requirement ensure pubic notification and
participation and provide a standard regarding transportation issues that must be met to
make such a change to the hip cap.
Delete GRP Residential Policy 14.0 and Implementation Actions 14.1-14.8:- (GRP at 17
and 18).
14.0 A Dcvclopmcnt }...rca Plan (HAP) shall bc approvcd, undcr a .
Typc II rcvk..... proccss, prior to dcvclopment approval for any
portion ofthc area mappcd as the "McKcnzie Cate-Nay lVlDR Sitc" on
Exhibit B
Pagel3 of 128
4/21/03
.
.
.
Exhibit B
the Refinement Plan Diagram, and shall not be appro','ed unless it is
consistent y,'ith an approved CDP. The intent of the DAP is to provide
resolution of significant dcvclopmcnt issucs at a scale and level of
specificity that arc intermediate to the CDP and Site Plan levels. All
DAP's shall conform to the following requiI'ements:
14.1 DAP's shall address the follovi'ing development issues, at a
minimum:
a) Provision of adequate circulation for the Dc-.'elopment }..rea and
its adjoining properties, including dedication of right of ,vay for
future streets and pathways sho'Nn on the approved CDP; c
b) Provision of coordinated extension of public facilities to serve the
s'ite and surrounding propcrties; and
e) Incorporation, to thc maximum cxtcnt practicable, of natural
assets identified in this Refinement Plan, and on theapproyed CDP.
14.2 DAP's shall inelude the following information, at a minimum:
All significant sitc fcatures, including drainagcways,existing
vegetation, and other natural assets as identified in this Refinemcnt
Plan,
Proposed building footprints;
Proposed open spaces and landscaped areas;
Engineering studies of any idcntified natural hazards, e.g., for
development 'Nithin the 100 ycar floodplain; " '
Proposed access and circulation, ineluding roads, drives, parking
areas, and biC)'ele and pedestrian path'll'ays; and
All other proposed land uses.
14.3 If the DAP complies ','lith all Site Plan Review standards of the
SDC, subsequent permitted uses that conform to the DAP shall not
I'equire additional site plan revicvi. (This implementation action is
intended to simplify the development appro'ial process for largc,
phased developments by allowing a sufficiently detailed DAP to meet
'both DAP and Site Plan requirements.)
14.4 DAP's shall be consistent '.'lith the approved CDP, and
','lith the policies of the Metro Plan and of this Refinement
FlaIr.
14.5 Site Plans for portions of a devclopment area shall
conform ".vith an approved DAP, provided, hO'/lcier, that
the DAP may bc modified as permitted in implementation
action 14.6.
14.6 Substantial modifications of DAP's shall be reviewed
under Type II procedure, in accordance ',vith .Article 3 of the
Sl:lG.
14.7 The minimum DeycIopment l.....ea for MDR designated area shall
be 5 acres.
14.8 The minimum size for DCfelopment Areas may be
reduccd, if approved by the Dcvelopment Scrvices Director,
in individual instances wherc insufficicnt vacant land,
ownership patterns, lot configuration, or abutting existing
Page140i128
4/21/03
uscs prohibit consolidation of parcels to achicyc a 5 acrc
Dcvelopmcnt Arca.
.
/
Purpose and Intent: Like the CDP, the Development Area Plan (DAP) is an application
requirement that has been replaced with a review process that has codified submittal
requirements and criteria of approval thtough the master plan process. Site plan review is
a part of the application process and is regulated by SDC Article 31. The construction of
any phase, or portion of a phase, of the approved master plan must be reviewed through
site plan review and therefore eliminates the need for the DAP and these Implementation
Actions.
GRP ~esidentialImplementation Action 15.1:
Development density may be transferred from natural assets
and recreational pathways identified in the Natural Assets,
Open Space/Scenic Areas, and Recreation Element, or from
proposed shared open spaces, to buildable portions ofthe
development area, provided that the gross density of the
development area does not exceed 20 du/a, and thc nct dcnsity
on thc buildable portion does not excced 25 du/a the maximum
density permitted in the underlying zone.
Purpose and Intent: This Implement~tion Action retains the capacity for density
bonuses and eliminates the dwelling unit cap to allow the pemlitted density of the
MU and nodal overlay zones.
.
New GRP Residential Element Policy 19.0:
Density bonuses allowed under Residential Element
Implementation Actions 15.1 and 16.3 may be allowed
consistent with an approved Master Plan pursuant to SDC
Artiele 37 within the McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site,
Purpose and Intent: Like Implementation Action 15.1, this policy reiterates the
ability to allow residential density bonuses and further ties the review of awarding
bonuses to master plan approval.
GRP Commercial Element Policy 5.0:
Provide for fut~re appropriately planned Mixed Use Commercial and Nodal
Development areas neighborhood commcrcial de'lelopmcnt in the Medium Dcnsit)'
Rcsidcntial dcvelopmcnt arca east of Game Farm Road, as identified in TransPlan
as potential nodal development sites.
Purpose and Intent: This amendment eliminates a NC component of the GRP and
replaces it with Mixed Use and nodal.
.
Exhibit B
Page15 of 128
4/21/03
.
GRP Commercial Element Implementation Action 5.1:
No more than 3 acres ofNC uses can be zoned as pa,rt of the Medium
Density Residential area. This rezoning shall not be approved until at
least 25 percent of the anticipated total d'.velling units in the area arc
eonstructed. The neighborhood eommereial area shall be sited in a
loeation that presented the least traffic, noise, and lighting eonfliets
with adjaeent residential uses. (Properties inventoried in the Historic
Resources Element as significant resources may be rezoned to NC and
are exempt from this provision.) Commercial uses allowed in zoning
districts pursuant to the above policy shall be subject to Master Plan
approval and shall be planned in a manner to minimize traffic, noise,
and lighting conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
Purpose and Intent: This Implementation Action eliminates requirements tied to the
NC district but retains language regarding minimizing impacts on surrounding residential
properties by uses inthe MUC zone.
GRP Transportation Element Implementation Action 13.0:
.
Future transportation system development in the McKenzie-Gateway
Campus Industrial and the 180 acre MDR sites should occur as
needed in conjunction with CI and MDR, MUC and MS development.
Purpose and Intent: This amendment is required to maintain internal consistency within
the GRP.
GRP Public Facilities Element Implementation Action 2.2:
, ,
Require the consideration of the use of storm draiIlage facilities that
store and retain runoff in the McKenzie-Gateway Campus Industrial
site, and in the proposed ,MDR area cast of Came Farm Road South
McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site. Require the consideration of the use
and enhancement of natural storm water drainage features as part of
the overall storm water systems in these areas,
Purpose and Intent: This amendment is required to maintain internal consistency with
the GRP.
.
Exhibit B
Pagel60f 128
,";>" .
4/21/03
.
IV: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
A. Adoption and Incorporation ,of Additional Findings
The City Council adopts and specifically incorporates the following documents into these
findings in support of the City's decision. In the event of a conflict among the findings
set forth herein and the findings identified and adopted below, the findings set forth in
this decision shall control.
1. City Council Staff Report and Findings
2. Application by PeaceHealth, Revised November 21, 2002
B. Type of Plan Amendments
(
The Amendments to the Metro Plan and the GRP are site:" specific PAPAs. ORS
197.610 through 650 set forth the requirements for PAPAs. Metro Plan "Plan
Amendments and Refinements" Policy 5(b), (d) and SDC Articles 7 and 8 set forth the
local review procedures and criteria necessary to approve PAPAs, both for Metro Plan
amendments and GRP amendments. The Metro Plan and SDC Articles 7 and 8 have
been acknowledged by DLCD as being in confonnance with ORS 197.610 through 650
and were in effect when the applicant and the City initiated the PAPA applications in
July, 2002. SDC 7.030 defmes "amendment" as
.
"an amendment to or change in: (1) the text of the Metro Plim, refinement plan, or
functional plan; or, (2) the diagram of the Metro Plan, refinement plan or functional
plan." '
The Amendments are "amendments" as defined by SDC 7.030 because the Amendments "
change the diagram of the Metro Plan and the GRP and the GRP text. '
SDC Article 7 identifies the various types of Metro Plan Amendments. The designation
of the type of amendment dictates the process required for review of the amendment as
well as the review body or bodies. SDC 7;030 Defines a Type I Metro Plan Amendment
as:
"Any change to the Metro Plan which (1) changes the urban growth boundary or the
jurisdictional boundary of the Plan; (2) requires a goal exception not related to a
UGB expansion to be taken under statewide planning goal 2; or (3) is a non-site
specific amendment of the plan text."
SDC 7.030 defines a Type II Metro Plan Amendment as:
"An amendment to the Metro Plan which is not otherwise a Type I plan amendment
and which (1) changes the Plan diagram; or (2) is a site specific Plan text
amendment. "
.
Exhibit B
Pagel7 of 128
4/21/03
.
Metro Plan "Plan Arnendments and Refinement" Policy 3 contains the same substantive
language as set forth inSDC 7.030. Staff and the Planning Commission processed the
Amendments as Type II amendments. During the review process testimony was
submitted into the record suggesting that the Amendments were not Type II
Aamendments because they are not "site specific" plan text amendments. Additional
testimony was submitted suggesting-that the Amendments must be reviewed and
approved by the City of Eugene and Lane County. The City Council finds that the
amendments are properly characterized as Type II amendments and that only the City of
Springfield is required to approve the amendments.
Neither the SDC nor the Metro Plan define "site specific." Testimony has been submitted
into the record that the amendments are not "site specific" because (1) the Certificate of
Need limitations on hospital facilities requires a different "site specific" analysis than
would other developments such as technology companies, (2) the "floating" aspect of the
CC zoning render the amendments non-site specific, (3) the amendments are so
encompassing that they represent wholesale changes to the GRP rather than "revisions,"
and (4) the covered property is not owned entirely by PeaceHealth.
.
The City Council finds that the amendments are" site specific." Regardl ess of whether
the underlying ainendments would allow a regional hospital, a technology company or a
regio~nal big box retail center, the appropliate focus is not on the ultimate use of the
propeliy, but whether the subject amendment is applicable to a specific area within the
Metro Plan boundary or the GRP boundary. Therefore, the City Council rejects the
argument that the Amendments are not site specific because the proposed use will
ultimately allow a hospital. The Certificate of Needs referenced in the testimony has no
bealing ~n the geographical nature of the amendments.
.
The City Council also finds that the "floating" aspect of the diagram amendments do not
alter the City Council's detennination that the amendments are site specific. As a starting
point, the "site specific" requirement only relates to amendments of the plan text, not to
the Metro Plan or GRP Diagrams. See SDC 7.030; Metro Plan IV-2. Therefore,
whether the diagram amendment is site specific is in-elevant to whether the diagram is a
Type I or a Type II amendment. Notwithstanding this provision, the City Council
nonetheless finds that becau~e both the Metro Plan and GRP diagram amendments relate
solely to the Gateway MDR site, the diagram amendments are "site specific." Site
specificity is not limited to ownership of a certain tract or the size of the subject tract.
, Rather, site specificity refers to whether the amendment ,applies to the entire area subject
to the Metro Plan or whether it is directed towards a discrete location within the City.
The City finds that to be non-site specific, the subject amendment would have to apply to
the entire Metro Plan area or to property that cannot be readily detennined. Such an
amendment would affect the subject plan rather than a subjectproperty. All other
amendments are site specific. The City Council believes that this distinction between
"site specific" and "non-site specific" is appropriate given the procedures set forth in both
the Metro Plan and the SDC for approval of Type I and Type II amendments. SDC
7.070(1 )(b) provides:
Exhibit B
Pagel 8 of 128
4/21/03
,"Ct:
To become effective, a site specific Metro Plan Type I amendment
that involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the '
Willamette River or McKenzie River, or that crosses. over a ridge
into a new basin, or that involves a goal exception not related to a
UGB expansion, must be approved by all three bodies.
.
Although the Aillendments are not Type I amendments and SDC 7.070(1) does not
apply to this application, this language recognizes the fact that a "site specific"
amendment may include property in two jurisdictions or even all three jurisdictions and
still be considered "site specific." Amendments that cross jurisdictional boundaries are
thus requil:ed to be approved by affected jurisdictions, but this does not mean that such
amendments are not site specific. As acknowledged by SDC 7.070(1)(b), "site specific"
is not limited to ownership of the property or even to city or geographical boundaries.
Rather, this language recognizes that to be "non-site specific," (1) the amendment must
apply to an area that either cannot be identified, or (2) the amendment would apply to
the entire area within the Metro Plan boundary. '
In the case of these Amendments, the diagram and text amendments clearly only apply to
property wholly within the City and entirely within the GRP area. Consequently, the area
subject to the Amendments is a discernable area and is entirely within the boundary of
the City. Consequently, the City Council finds that the Amendments are "site spedfic."
The City Council finds that the text Amendments are Type II amendments because the
Amendments:
.
A. Involve a specific property;
B. Do not change the Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary;
C. Do liot change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary;
D. Do not require a goal exception;
E. Do not include a non-site specific amendment of the Metro Plan text; and
F. Apply only to property located within the Springfield City Limits.
Public testimony was accepted that stated that even if the Amendments are site specific
Type II amendments, the Amendments require regional review because, according to the
testimony, the Amendments have "regional impact." In certain instances, amendments
with regional impacts may require the review of additional jurisdictions. The Metro Plan
and SDC 7.030 describe what constitutes a "regional impact." A regional impact is
found only if a Metro Plan amendment requires an amendment to a jointly adopted
functional plan, has a demonstrable impact on water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer or
transportation facilities of the non-home city, or affects the buildable land inventory by
significantly reducing the MDR designation, among other designations. (Metro Plan at
IV -3)
The Amendments do not significantly reduce the provision of needed housing dwelling
units as identified in the adopted and acknowledged Residential Lands Study (the
"RLS"). Section-D, below, discusses the impacts of the amendments upon the RLS. The
proposal does not have a demonstrable impact on a non-home City infrastructure, nor do
.
Exhibit B
Page190f128
4/21/03
.
they require an amendment to an adopted functional plan. There is no evidence in the
record that would suggest that there is any, let alone a demonstrable, impact on the City
of Eugene's infrastructure. Similarly, the Amendments do not require any amendments to
an adopted functional plan. For these reasons, the City Council finds that the
Amendments do not have a regional impact.
Even if the Amendments had a regional impact, the City is still the only jurisdiction
required to review and approve the Amendments. Lane County is only required to
approve Metro Plan amendments if such amendments are between the City limits and the
Metro Plan boundary. The City of Eugene can only pmiicipate in such a process if it, as
the "non-home" City, detennines that such amendments have a regional impact. In this
case, the amendmerits affect only properiy wholly within the City's limits. Consequently,
under SDC 7.070(2)(a), only Hie City of Springfield is required to approve the
Amendments.
In this instance, the City of Springfield is the "home city" because the subject property
and amendments only affect propeliy east ofInterstate5. SDC 7.050 requires that the
City provide the City of Eugene and Lane County notice of the amendments so that both
jurisdictions may participate as parties to the hearing.
.
Both the City of Eugene and Lane County were provided notice ofthe amendments and
were invited to pmiicipate in the hearing process. Neither jurisdiction adopted any
resolution, ordinance or order finding that the proposed mnendment has a regional impact
as defined in the Metro Plan or its 'implementing regulations. Even if they had, the
properiy subject to these Amendments is within the City. Consequently, under SDC
7.070(2)(a) the City of Springfield is the only pariy required to review and approve ~he
Amendments. Although three Eugene City Councilors and two Lane County
Commissioners testified at the City Council Public hearing on the Amendments and the
Lane County Board of Commissioners submitted written testimony inty the record,
neither the City of Eugene nor Lane County are participating in the decision-making
process for these amendments. Because the amendment concerns land within the City,
only the City of Springfield is required to take action on the amendments.
C. 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:
.
a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant State-wide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development COlmnission; and
b) 'Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Exhibit B
Page20 of 128
4/21/03
;.q- ~', :
2.
Refinement Plan Amendments
.
Refinement plan amendments are subject to the criteria contained in SDC 8.030 which
states:
, In reaching a decision... the Planning Commission and the City Council shall ~dopt
findings which demonstrate confonnance to the following:
1) The Metro Plan;
2) Applicable State statutes;
3) Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
D Findings of Fact Regarding Compliance with Approval
Criteria
1. Statewide Planning Goal Consistency
Because the critelia of approval for both the Metro Plan diagram amendment and the
Gateway Refinement Plan text amendments require compliance with Statewide Planning
Goals, the following findings address compliance of all the Amendments with the
Statewide Planning Goals. In some instances, celiain Metro and GRP amendments are'
discussed individually with respect to a certain goal. In other instances the findings relate
tfioad,ll of the I AmtendllmhentAs. Whdere intdividual Amendments are not referenced, the .'
In ings re ate 0 ate men men s.
GOAL 1- CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Springfield has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and an acknowledged
process for securing citizen input on all proposed plan amendments. These procedures
have been followed through the review and approval of this application. The City has
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. OppOliunities for citizen input have been available at all stages of the
process. Relevant concerns raised by participants have been addressed in this decision
and throughout the approval process.
Several pmiicipants have suggested that to provide meaningful public involvement, no
amendments should be approved until the entire project, including the master plan, are
available to review. Other opponents have suggested that the City has not maximized
public involvement. Without raising specific objections, other participants have
generally argued that the proposal violates Goal 1.
In addition to the City's hearings, PeaceHealth has provided more than 20 meetings with
the neighbors and other members of the public, open houses and presentations to
stakeholder and civic groups. PeaceHealth has provided public infonnation and solicited
feedback on the future of RiverBend through a project website, mailings of progress
.
Exhibit B
Page21 of 128
.'
.
.
4/21/03
newsletter. See letter to Development Services from P. Fanington dated December 3,
2002 and attachment thereto.
Generally, Goal 1 requires every City and County to develop and implement a citizen
involvement program. Goal 1 does not provide due process protections, nor does it
govern the conduct of local government hearings. Rather the manner by which local
gavernment hearins are conducted and the procedural requirements for such hearings, are
governed by statute, not Goal 1. Where notice of hearings has been provided and
considerable testimony heard, LUBA has found no Goal 1 violation. Chambers v.
Josephine County, 13 Or LUBA 180 (1985). More impOliantly, LUBA has held on
numerous occasions that Goal 1 can only be violated if the local jurisdiction fails to
follow the requirements of its citizen involvement program. No pmiicipant has stated
with any specificity how the City's review ofthis application has violated the City's
acknowledged citizen involvement program. In this case the City Council finds that the
City has not only followed its citizen involvement program, but has, in fact, allowed
greater participation and review than its acknowledge program requires.
The City Council finds that-DLCD and other participants have argued that the City has
failed to comply with Goal 1 because it has not submitted for public review the "whole of
the action" i.e., a completed master plan pursuant to SDC Article 37. As an initial matter,
the City Council finds tha(even if it were so inclined, the City cannot approve a master
plan pursuant to unadopted and unacknowledged Metro Plan and GRP diagrams and
maps. ORS 197.175(2)(d) and (3); ORS 227.178(3). Neither state law nor the SDC
allow the City to review and approve the "whole of the action." More importantly; the
City's-citizen involvement program does not require such a review.
The Metro Plan is Springfield's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan pursuant to ORS
197.015(5). The Metro Plan contains a citizen involvement program satisfying Goal 1.
City-Council finds that the City has complied with its acknowledged citizen involvement
program and that no amendments to the citizen involvement program are proposed.
Therefore, the City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with Goal 1.
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING
Goal 2 requires thatlocal comprehensive plans be consistent with statewide 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 plan
amendments.
1. Coordination
ORS 197.610 requires the City to forward notice of proposed Metro Plan and GRP
amendments to DLCD at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing on adoption.
Exhibit B ,
Page22 of 128
4/21/03
Notice was provided to DLCD on September 20, 2002; the first evidentiary hearing was
held December 3, 2002. In addition, L TD, Lane County, the City of Eugene, LRAP A,
and ODOT and other affected agencies have been provided with timely oppOliunities to
comment on the proposed amendments.
.
A number of parties, including DLCD, CHOICES, Friends of Eugene and 1000 Friends
of Oregon have argued that the amendments and the City's processing and approval do
not comply with Goal 2. DLCD's comments are the most specific, while other comments
generally indicated that the Amendments have regional significance and should be
approved or denied only after review and approval by the City of Eugene, Lane County
and the City. For the following reasons, the City Council finds that the Amendments, as
well as the City's process leading up to such approval, are consistent with and comply
with the coordination requirements of Goal 2. In addition, the City's findings with
respect to the Type II site specific review set forth in Section IV(B) are incorporated
herein.
DLCD argues that because of "regional impacts," the City of Eugene must co-adopt these
amendments. As discussed above with respect to whether the amendments are properly
characterized as Type II amendments or whether the amendments have "regional
impacts," the City Council finds that there is no "regional impact' and neither the City of
Eugene nor Lane County are required to be involved in the decision approving the
amendments.
Metro Plan "Plan Amendments and Refinements" Policy 5( d) provides:
.
"A jurisdiction may amend a plan designation without
causing Regional Impact when this action is taken to:
compensate for reductions in buildable land caused by
protection of newly discovered natural resources within
its own jurisdiction; or accommodate the contiguous
expansion of an existing business within a site specific
requirement. Decisions on all Type II amendments
within City limits shall be the sole responsibility of the
home city." (emphasis added)
This application is a Type II amendment pursuant to Plan Amendments and Refinements
Policy I.3.b and c. The Amendments are site specific text amendments and site specific
diagram amendments that apply only to lands within the City. Pursuant to the factual
circumstances of this application and such proposed additional policy language, a site
specific Type II amendment wholly within the city limits "shall be the sole responsibility
of the city" under the acknowledged Metro Plan. The cIty, therefore, is the only
jUlisdiction required to approve the Amendments.
Metro Plan Amendments and Refinements Policy 5(b) provides with respect to non-home
cities:
"The non-home city will be sent a refen'al of the
proposed amendment and, based upon a detennination
.
Exhibit B
Page23of 128
4/21/03
.
that the proposal will have Regional Impact, may
pmiicipate in the decision. Unless the non-home city
makes affirmative findings of Regional Impact, the
non-home city will not patiicipate in the decision."
Plan Amendments and Refinements Policy 5( c) describes the three bases on which an
amendment could have a regional impact. There is no evidence in the record that any of
these three regional impacts are present, the cause of, or caused by this application. '
Finally, the language previously cited in Plan Amendments and Refinements Policy 5(d)
applies only to a site specific Type I application and a Type II application between the
city limits and plan boundary. Neither of those factual circumstances is applicable to
these amendments. Moreover, the City of Eugene, as the non-home City, has riot
detennined that the Amendments will have a regional impact.
The City Council finds no merit in the DLCD argument that Statewide Planning Goal
"Guidelines" are mandatory planning requirements. It is recognized that the Guidelines
are suggested approaches that local governments may use, but are not requirements with
which the local governments must comply or must comply, citing ORS 197.015(9).
"Guidelines" are defined in ORS 197.015(9) to include the following language:
"Guidelines shall be advisory and shall not limit state agencies, cities, counties and
special districts to a single approach."
.
The City Council finds no merit in the argument tha~ the amendments should be
, considered a "major revision." The citation comes from the "Guidelines" contained in
Goal 2. However, Part III bfthe Goal ("Use of Guidelines") states that local
govenunents are to "either utilize the guidelines or develop alternative means that will
achieve the goals." In the Eugene/Springfield area, the guidelines do not apply directly.
Instead, through adoption of the Metro Plan and local development codes, each city has ,
established clear "alternative means" of amending the adopted comprehensive plan, and
local refinement plans and implementation measures. Since the development codes for
each city have been acknowledged by LCDC as being in confonnance with the Metro
Plan and statewide planning goals, the amendments must confonn with these local
"alternative means" of implementing and/or processing changes to the acknowledged
Metro Plan.
Therefore, the "Guidelines" in Goal 2 are not directly applicable to this application. The
City's review and approval of the Amendments followed the appropriate review process
for the amendments outlined in SDC Articles 7 and 8 and the Metro Plan.
.
Although neither the City of Eugene nor Lane County are required to participate in the
approval of these amendments, the coordination element of Goal 2 requires "an exchange
of infonnation and an attempt to accommodate the legitimate interests of all affected
governmental agencies." Turner Com/nunity Association v. Marion County,
37 Or LUBA 324 (1999). Neither Goal 2 nor ORS 197.015(5)(defining "coordination")
mandate success in accommodating the needs or legitimate interests of all affected
governmental agencies. They do mandate a reasonable effort to accommodate those
needs and legitimate interests 'as much as possible.
Exhibit B
Page24 of 128
4/21/03
As explained above, the City provided notice to all affected local jmisdictions and
agencies. The City has solicited feedback from affected agencies and local governments
and has attempted to accOlmnodate the legitimate interests of these pmiies. The City's
responses to the issues raised by local jurisdictions and affected agencies are discussed in
conjunction with the specific issues raised by such parities. Accordingly, the City
Council finds that the Amendments and the City's adoption thereof are consistent with the
requirements of Goal 2.
.
2. Consistency with Adopted Plans
The City Council finds that the application "clearly spells out what is to be added and
what isto be deleted" to the Metro Plan and the GRP. Tlu'ough a detailed discussion of
compliance with applicable criteria in these Findings, the application and the staff repOli
dated December 3, 2002 specifically identify exactly what is to be added and what is to
be deleted. In particular, both the application and the staff repOlis prepared for the
Planning Commission and the City Council hearings have included the entire text of the
Metro and GRP provisions proposed to be amended, with strikethrough text indicating
the deletions and underlined text indicating the new text. The City Council finds that
neither DLCD nor other pmiies have provided any indication of alleged ambiguities or of
additional clarity which is required, let alone any authority for this allegation. Other
portions of this decision demonstrate that the Amendments are consistent with other
functional plans, including the Metro Plan and TransPlan~ Therefore, the City Council .
finds that the Amendments and the City's adoption are consistent with the "consistency"
requirements of Goal 2.
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.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL
RESOURCES
Goal 5 requires local governments to protect a variety of open space, scenic, historic, and .
natural resource values. Goal 5 and its implementing rule, OAR Ch. 660, Division 16,
require planning jurisdictions, at acknowledgment and as a part of periodic review, to
Exhibit B
Page25of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
(1) identify such resources:
(2) to determine their quality, quantity, and location:
(3) to identify conflicting uses:
(4) to examine the economic, social,enviromnental, and energy (ESEE) ,
consequences that could result from allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the
conflicting uses, and
(5) to develop programs to resolve the conflicts.
No pali of the Gateway MDR site is on an acknowledged Metro Plan Goal 5 inventory.
No threatened or endangered species have been inventoried on the site. No
archeological resources are located on the site. There are-several histOlicstructures, areas
of prominent vegetation and a wetland area on the Gateway MDR site. While these
resources hav~ not been adopted into an acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, they are
inventOlied in the adopted, and recognized, GRP. The cliteria of approval for master
plans that will apply to development on the site upon approval of these Amendments
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 pennitted by these Amendments will be consistent with Goal 5. The.
master plan review will ensure implementation.
The Gateway MDR site has been planned and zoned for intensive urban development and
use since the Metro Plan and implementing ordina~1ces were acknowledged in 1982.
Under the Metro Plan,inventOlied 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 5 resources have been identified. The
current Amendments do not alter this acknowledged program to achieve t~e goal.
The Enviromnental Resources Element ofthe Metro Plan implements Goals 5, 6, and 7
and is implemented in turn by the SDC and applicable development regulations.
Objective 2 (p. III--C--6) requires the integration of open space and natural features into
the design of urban development. Policies 1, 2, and 4 (p. III--C--7) require consideration
of downstream impacts of development, prohibit development in the floodway, and
require site specific soils and geological studies where poterttial problems exist. Policies
18 and 19 restIict development in wetlands areas. Policy 20 encourages local
governments to regulate development in such a manner as to better control drainage,
erosion, stonn runoff and to reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems.
These policies are fully implemented by the City's adopted and acknowledged standards
and procedures for the subdivision and development ofland within the City. These
Amendments do not affect these provisions of the SDC, Metro Plan or GRP.
Many who testified in the healing process expressed concern about potential impacts
from future development on riparian and associated riverine wildlife habitat. Since no
development is proposed at this point, it is impossible to detennine what impacts such
future development might have on existing resources. The City Council finds that there
Exhibit B
Page26 of 128
4/21/03
:i)' .
are no changes are proposed in the Amendments that modify, hann, or alter existing .
natural resource provisions in the refinement plan. The annexation agreement between
the City and PeaceHealth requires PeaceHealth to protect-the riverfront to observe a
greater setback than required by the SDC. Therefore, there has been no credible evidence
to suggest that approval of the Amendments would in any way hann the City's existing
compliance with Goal 5.
It has been suggested that to preserve celiain unspecified scenic views, there should be
some unspecified limitation on building heights. Others have expressed concerns that
some unidentified number of stories in a given building will conflict with nodal
development principles, might otherwise hann the scenic qualities of the McKenzie
River, or would create undesirable views looking onto the site from or across the liver.
The GRP's Natural Assets, Open Space/Scenic Areas, and Recreation Element does not
identify the need to preserve any specific views or vistas, but does reference in theGRP
Technical Appendix a number of landscape features and types that possess scenic value.
These, however, are not inventOlied Goal 5 resources. PeaceHealth's future plmming
must consider these features in the course of developing its required master Plan to be
consistent with the GRP Natural Assests Implementation Action 8.4 which requires the
encouagement through orientation and location of buildings at the Gateway MDR site in
ways that avoid or minimize obstruction of scenic views of the McKenzie River cooridor
and the Coburg Hills. For these reasons, the City Council finds that the Amendments are
consistent with Goal 5.
.
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
, I
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. The City Council finds that
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
tile approved amendments do not authorize any specific development at this time, there
can be no direct impact to air, water or land resources. Consequently, the Amendments
are consistent with Goal 6. 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. For these reasons, the City Council finds that the
amendments are consistent with Goal 6.
The local sewage, water, stonnwater, solid waste and other pollution control facilities are,
or will be sufficient for ultimate uses on the property. Although the City does not
, provide services to portions of the site, the applicant, as a condition of its future zoning
map and master plan applications, will be conditioned to provide adequate services to the
site necessary to maintain air, water and land resources quality, consistent with all .
applicable local, state and federal regulations affecting air, water and land resources.
Exhibit B
Page27 of 128
4/21/03
.
Laws instituted at the state, federal and levels to protect air, water and land resources are
not affected by this proposal. Local requirements are in place to buffer and otherwise
protect surface and groundwater resources. These regulations are not affected by the
Amendments. The riparian buffer required by the Annexation Agreement will require
future developent to meet or exceed that which the City requires as part of its new code
language for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. This mandat~ry buffer and
setback requires removal of all development and related impacts from the Mackenzie
River as potential fish habitat and ensures that no activity will occur within the
jurisdictional area of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and theOregon Removal-Fill
Law The Oliginal designation considered the carTying capacity of the land and was
acknolwedged as in compliance with Goal 6, and, due to the above referenced setback,
the proposed change in use is similarly within the carrying capacity of the land.
.
DLCD has argued that "the proposal" must demonstrate compliance with the federal
Clean Water Act's Phase II removal to non-point water quality requirements. The City
Council notes that Goal 6 is limited to discharges of pollutants from the proposed
development itself and does not apply to incidental discharges. The City Council finds
that Goal 6 requires the City to explain in its decision why it is reasonable to expect that
state and federal environmental quality standards can be met by the proposed use. Salem
Golf Club v. City of Salem, 28 Or LUBA 561 (1995). The Amendments do not authorize
any development on the Gateway MDR site site which is not otherwise subject to the
sanie or more stringent local implementing regulations currently acknowledged under
Goal 6. Similarly, the Amendments do not affect the City's development regulations
implementing Goal 6. Consequently, the City may rely upon mandatory compliance
with applicable City regulations addressing Goal 6 issues at the time of master plan and
site design review to ensure compliance with Goal 6. For these reasons, the City Council
finds that the approved amendments are consistent with Goal 6.
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
Goal 7 requires that development subject to damage or that could result in loss oflife 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 pari ofthe Gateway MDR'site contains steep slopes,
consequently these findings do not discuss issues related to steep slopes or ~andslides.
With respect to steep slopes and landslides, the City Council finds that the Amendments
are consistent with Goal 7.
.
During the public hearings and public comment peliod, testimony was submitted
concerning the potential for McKenzie River flooding of the site and the City's
development standards for floodplain construction. The City Council finds that the
underlying property is already zoned for medium density residential use. Upon adoption
of these amendments, the MDR zoning will remain in place and up to 33 acres of the
MDR property will receive cOlID11ercial designation with the eventual MUC zoning
applied. Accordingly, the subject area is already planned for development and the Metro
Plan amendments adopting the residential designation complied with Goal 7 and was
Exhibit B
Page28 of 128
4/21/03
,.. :" ~ ,-.
acknowledged by DLCD as complying with Goal 7. The City Council, therefore, finds .
that because no specific development is approved, and the Amendments merely
redesignate propeliy already zoned for development, the Amendments are consistent with
Goal 7. Nonetheless, the City Council also adopts the following findings.
The SDC regulates all development activity within the City and its urbanizable area.
SDC Aliicle 27, Floodplain Overlay District (FP), regulates development activity within
those areas of the City that are designated as an "area of special flood hazard." These
areas are defined as "land in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of
flooding in any given year," and also commonly known as the 100--year, floodplain. For
clarity and consistency, the "1 OO-year floodplain" is used in these findings to identify
areas of special flood hazard.
. In the City, 100--year floodplains are designated in one of two ways. The first, and most
common, are areas that have been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) through its National Flood Insurance Program. In addition, the City
Engineer may designate 100--year floodplains in areas that,are subject to flooding, but
that are not shown on FEMA's maps.
The SDC standards for development in the 100'--year floodplain are intended to minimize
public and private losses due to flooding, consistent with Goal 7. As such, the
development standards address building construction and elevations, access requirements,
and utility protection. The SDC pennits the use of fill to elevate development sites above.'
the 100--year flood elevation as a valid method of mitigating the flood hazard at a
development site.
The annexation agreement between the City and PeaceHealth provides stricter standards
than those provided in SDC Article 27. PeaceHealth is obligated to analyze the impacts
ofits development and to prepare a plan to mitigate the impacts such that the water
surface elevation of the base flood shall not rise more than one foot, which is the SDC
standard for floodplain fill.
As part of preparing the required mitigation plan, PeaceHealth has provided the City with,
a draft copy of a report prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., entitled McKenzie
River Floodplain Assessment, dated November 6, 2002. This report includes an updated
analysis of the FEMA mapping for the 100--year and 500--year floodplains along a 3
mile reach of the McKenzie River, centered on the Gateway MDR site. The analysis
looks at the existing site and river conditions. The City is in the process of contracting
with a separate engineering firm to conduct a ''peer review" of the draft Assessment.
Comments ji-Ol11 the peer review will be provided to PeaceHealth and their consultants so '
that they can finalize the Assessment for their master plan application submittal.
An additional assessment will be prepared as part of the master plan that will examine the
flooding impacts as a result of development on this site, as well as other lands within the
study area. A flood hazard mitigation plan will be prepared based upon these .
assessments to satisfy the requirements of the SDC and the annexation agreement, and
will be reviewed as part of the master plan application.
Exhibit B
Page290fJ28
.
.
.
4/21/03
Based on the evidence submitted by PeaceHealth, as well as the testimony provided to
the City during the public hearing process, the City Council finds that the hospital and the
main access routes will be elevated to be at or above the 500--year floodplain elevation to
ensure that the hospital is functional and accessible during these more extreme flooding
events. The 500--year floodplain criterion exceeds the City's codes and requirements.
Compliance with this commitm~nt will be evaluated as pali of the review of the master
plan. By exceeding the City's standards implementing Goal 7, the City Council finds
that the Amendments are consistent with Goal 7.
Other project opponents have argued that the site is highly prone to ealihquakes or is in a
highly risky geographic zone The City Council finds that there is no credible evidence in
the record to support such alligations including that the area is a highly lisky geographic
zone. The City Council finds that the evidence in the record suppOlis the opposite
conclusion--that the' Gateway MDR site is less prone to earthquakes than other areas.
There is evidence showing the results of field investigations, soil analysis, on-site test pits
and borings, and other reconnaissance perfonned by registered geotechnical engineers:
These investigations concluded that the Gateway MDR site has a low lisk of seismic
hazard. FUlihennore, the metropolitan-wide analysis of relative ealihquake hazards
prepared by the state Department of Geology and Mineral Industries indicates that the
Gateway MDR site and its approaches are at relatively low lisk. In response to issues
raised in the hearing process concel11ing seismic lisk, PeaceHeaIth submitted evidence
demonstrating that the proposed hospital site is of low seismic risk. The evidence in the
'record also demonstrates that none of the existing hospitals in Lane County meet cun-ent
seismic standards. The development of a new hospital at the Gateway MDR site will
ensure that at least one hospital facility will meet or exceed CUlTent seismic standards.
Consequently, the City Council finds that the subject property is not witpin a "highly
risky geographic zone" and that approval of the amendments will not violate Goal 7.
Based on the evidence in the record and for the reasons set forth above, the City Council
finds that the Metro Plan and GRP amendments are consistent with Goal 7.
GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS
Goal 8 requires local govel11ments 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 gov~l11mental agencies must plan to meet these needs (1) in
coordination with private enterprise; (2) in appropliate 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 plamlers to give priority in meeting
such needs "to areas, facilities and uses that
"(a) meet recreational needs requirements for high density population
centers,
Exhibit B
Page30 of 128
4/21/03
,,:~'\\ , '
"(b) meet recreational needs of persons oflimited mobility and'
, finances,
"(c) meet recreational needs requirements while providing the
maximum conservation of energy bothin thefranspOliation of persons tot
he facility or area and in the recreational use itself,
"(d) minimize enviromTiental degradation,
. "(e) are available to the public at nominal cost, and
~'(f) meet needs of visitors to the state."
.
GRP is acknowledged as being in compliance with Goal 8. The GRP indicates no
proposed park or school is planned to be located on the Gateway MDR site, nor does the
adopted 1980 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan. The Willamalane Comprehensive Plan,
the Springfield Bicycle Plan and TransPlan depict an alignment for a future multi-use
pathway throughout the Gateway MDR site and along the McKenzie River. TransPlan
and the Springfield Bicycle Plan show thepathway traversing the site from Game Fann
Rd. south to Deadmond Ferry Road on the north. The Willamalane Comprehensive plan
shows a connection to the east along the McKenzie River to points upstream.
The future multi--use path will provide a connection within this area and to adjacent
areas, as well as recreational use within the site. 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 aligmnent and for the potential for other open space recreational needs:
GRP 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 andjloodway in ways that
are sensitive to the natural resource values and private property uses in the area. "
2.2 "The City of Springfield and Willamalane shall cooperatively evaluate 1) the
potential of the McKenzie River jloodway area to help meet long-term open spate and
recreation needs; and 2) the feasibility and desirability of acquiring and/or preserving
the jloodway area for those pwposes ... "
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 as prominent and plentiful vegetation. "
.
Exhibit B
Page31 of 128
4/21/03
.
9.6 (GRP page 38) "The City and Willamalane shall seek easements for
bikewaylpathways along the McKenzie River riparian corridor, as ident[fied in
Willamalane's 1980 Comprehensive Plan and its 1990 draft PROS plan."
None of these GRP policies have been modified by the Amendments.
The existing planned extensions of multi-use paths, the existing policies of the GRP
relating to preservation of natural resources and provision of open space, and amended
GRP Residential Implementation Action 12.4 will ensure the City's and Willamalane's
ability to adequately meet the recreational requirements of Goal 8 dUling the review of
the master plan.
.
DLCD suggests that the amendment to GRP Policy 12.0 would have an effect to
"eliminate McKenzie River public access requirements." DLCD believes that the
Amendmentto GRP Residential Element Action 12.4, does not adequately provide for
public access to the McKenzie River. DLCD does not assert that these two amendments
violate Goal 8 nor does DLCD explain how Goal 8 has been violated. TheCity Council
finds that GRP Residential Element Action 12.4 expressly requires that development
adjacent to the McKenzie River provide public access to the McKenzie River.
Residential Element Action 12.4 reflects the applicant's stated intentions to provide
access to and along the McKenzie River as a fundamental component in designing the
RiverBend campus.
The City Council also finds that the DLCD letter fails to recognize the unchanged text in
the GRP that will be used to guide the master plan approval with respect to other GRP
elements such as Natural. Assets Goal 7. This goal calls for developing an integrated
pathway system throughout the area to encourage bicycle transportation and provide
"public access to the McKenzie River and liparian areas..." PeaceHealth will be
required to adhere to both the Residential Element Action 12.4 and 'other provisions of
the GRP relatedto access to the McKenzie River during the review of the master plan.
The existing GRP Residential Policy 12.0 pennits rezoning of land on the Gateway
MDR site to the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district. The intent behind this
allowance is cited in Policy 12.0, and includes the ability to "promote limited public or
semi-public access to and view of the McKenzie River...." The existing Implementation
Action 12.4 goes on to require that NC uses on-site must meet specific provisions,
including "public access to the McKenzie River" for NC uses abutting the ripalian
setback. The latter "requires" public access only when NC uses abut the river's lipalian
edge and does not establish a broad requirement for access along the length of the
riverfi-ont, as PeaceHealth can do in its master plan submittal and as required under
amended GRP Residential Elernent Action 12.4.
.
Because other provisions in the GRP more directly address liver access independent of
zoning, and that the Amendments simply allow MUC zoning to substitute for NC zoning,
there is no basis to DLCD's assertion that the proposed changes to Residential
Policy 12.0 "is a significant change to the Metro Plan and its component GRP." Nothing
in the proposed text amendments preclude consistency with Goal 8, any Metro Plan
Exhibit B
Page32 of 128
4/21/03
., ;';~ I "
policy subordinate to Goal 8, or any applicable GRP goal, policy or action. For these
reasons, the City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent 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.
The proposed diagram amendments, when implemented through the approved master
plan will increase the City's capacity for economic development by adding MUC and will
facilitate the redesignation of MDR with a nodal overlay. Both of these actions will
permit multiple economic activities that cannot now take place on the subject propeliy's
MDR designation. Additionally, the application of the MS Distlict to portions of the
MDR designation as described by proposed GRP Residential Implementation Action
, 12.6 ~ill allow for the siting of a hospital and associated medical uses. The applicant
indicates that the hospital will result in the location of 2,200 jobs as part of the initial
development. Full build-out of the site through the planning horizon year oi2017 will
result in additional jobs through associated medical, office, and supPOliing cOlmnercial
development on the site. The proposal will increase the number of jobs and other
employment opportunities in the area, especially in relation to the medical services
industry. Other economic benefits from the proposed amendment will be an increase in
employment in construction and transportation sectors and in the matelial supply industry .
providing wood, cement, gravel and other construction matelials. The applicant also
provides an estimate that during the three -year construction period for the hospital
structure 450 construction workers will be employed full time.
The City's most recent Periodic Review Notice (1994) included the requirement to
undertake and complete a city-wide commercial lands study (CLS), analysis and policy
document consistent with statewide Planning Goal 9. That analysis and policy document
was completed on February 7,2000. On July 11,2001 the Department of Land
Conservation and Development issued an order of approval of this Periodic Review work
task. This document constitutes the City's obligation under the rule to propose economic
opportunities coordinated with projected demand and ,consistent with the Metro Plan.
The CLS provides the following relevant policies to guide the City in making land use
decisions.
At page 19, the CLS states that there is a demonstrated demand for 255 acres of
cOlmnercial development land to the year 2015. This figure should be considered to
reflect the low end of the demand spectrum. This figure should also be considered
independent of redevelopment sites identified in TransPlan for nodal development.
The CLS contains the following policies:
Policy I--B "Ensure that an adequate am,ount of COl11l11ercialland is designated in
undeveloped nodes such as Jaspre/Natron and McKenzie/Gateway, toaccol11modate a
.
Exhibit B
Page33 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
portion of the demand for commercial acreage, and to implement the policies and
objectives of the TransPlan."
Policy 3--A "Redesignate and rezone portions of.. residential land within identified
Neighborhood Center or Commercial Center nodes to Mixed Use Commercial to achieve
the objectives of Trans Plan, TPR 12, and to incOlporate higher intensity development in
conjunction ,with residential and employment opportunities. "
While it is true that the proposed plan amendments exceed the acreage recommended by
the CLS for this site in implementation strategy 1--B(2), dropping the 3 acre
recommendation is on point, as is the recommendation to rezone nod.al sites identified in
TransPlan with Mixed Use commercial zoning.
Additionally, the conclusion of the study is that 255 acres is at the low end ofprojected
demand. This conclusion was based on a 3.5year absorption period; a 9 year absorption
period and a 14 year absorption period. The high end is 36 acres per year, the low end is
13 acres per year and the middle ground (9 year period) is 17 acres per year. The
advisory committee felt the true demand, based also on employment and population
figures prepared by the state, would be between the 17 and 36 acre figures. The
cumulative effect of these policies as well as a lower estimate of demand much more
closely approximates the PeaceHealth proposal.
The proposed plan amendments are consistent with the acknowledged Springfield
Commercial Lands study; therefore, the amendments are consistent with State--wide
Planning Goal 9.
Goal 9 requires local governments to develop analyses of potential economic
development opportunities (both a supply/demand analysis, and an assessment of suitable
sites and acreages needed to provide an adequate amount of commercial land to meet
, projected needs through the planning period), and develop policies for inclusion in the
comprehensive plan pertaining to economic development objectives. To comply with
Goal 9 and Metro Plan Policy 32 (i.e., update the commercial buildable lands inventory
for the Springfield UGB), the City Council adopted the Springfield Commercial Lands
Study (SCLS) in February 2000. The SCLS was subsequently acknowledged by LCDC
as confonning to the Metro Plan and Goal 9. In September 2001, DLCD adopted
updated Goal 9 rules (OAR 660-009-0000, et seq.), but the SCLS is still considered a
valid, acknowledged functional plan under the Metro Plan.
New Goal 9 rules can require comprehensive plan amendments to support an economic
oppOliunities analysis (under OAR 660-009-0015 through -0025) to support a PAPA
which changes plan designations "in excess of two acres to or from cOllli11ercial or
industrial use." Celiain opponents, including DLCD have argued that a new economic
opportunities analysis must be prepared. The Goal 9 rules, however, provide that such an
analysis is not required if "the proposed amendment is consistent with the parts of its
acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the requirements" required of Goal 9.
(OAR 660-009-0010(4)(a).) Because the City Council finds that the Amendments are
Exhibit B
Page34 of 128
4/2 I /03
Cj~'
consistent with the, Metro Plan, the SCLS and Goal 9, an economic opportunities analysis .
is not required.
DLCD has questioned the Amendment that changes existing references to neighborhood
commercial in Policy 12.0 and Implementation Action 12.1. The City Council finds that
t the Amendments replace references to neighborhood commercial with the ability to
meet those provisions through the City's new Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) zoning
district. Rather than meet the day-to.:.day commercial needs of the RiverBend area
through stand-alone neighborhood commercial zoning, the new MUC zoning distIict
allows such services to be offered in a veliically mixed-use fonnat. The City Council
finds that DLCD's concem that such a change does not create intemal conflicts within the
Metro Plan is unfounded. The Amendments do not preclude realization of any Metro
Plan policy o!- objective. To the contrary, the Amendments provide the ability to meet
nodal development objectives and otherprovisions for a mix of appropriately-scaled uses
to 'serve the sUlTounding development, as called for in the Metro Plan, GRP, and SDC.
DLCD's comments also disregard other policies within the SCLS that support the
Amendments. For example, the SCLS includes among its findings the fact that the
"Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, while intended to provide smaller-scale
commercial that meets the needs of neighborhood residents, is not widely used in
Springfield." (SLCS; pg. iv.) The NC zoning district predates the adoption of the new
MUC zoning district, which enables appropriately scaled commercial uses to be
integrated with other uses in a vertical mixed-use design. As explained by PeaceHealth, .
it has elected not to pursue NC zoning because it does not allow vertical stacking of uses,
and would result in less efficient use of the land base than the MUC district.
"
Celiain opponents have argued that there is not a deficit of commercial lands. The City
Council finds that there is indeed a deficit that is accurately assessed and reported in
Table 3-8 (pg. 32) of the SCLS. Table 3-8 of the SCLS includes an adjustment for that
pari of the commercial land supply "assumed to be available fi'0111 redevelopment," and
that results in adding only 12 acres to the supply of available commercial land. The
SCLS noted that there is at most 62 acres of commerciallclnd available for
redevelopment, but assumed that only 12 acres would be redeveloped, because
"redevelopment as a significant contributor to the commercial land supply within the
planning period of this Study should not be relied upon." (see pp. 16, 17 and' Table 2.4,
Redevelopable Land Inventory). Therefore, the deficit of needed commercial lands is
real, based upon the City's acknowledged plan for addressing Goal 9. Several policies in
the SCLS directly suppOli approval of the Amendments as a means to reduce this deficit,
and to support nodal development at the RiverBend site. Consequently, by definition the
proposed increase in the commercial land supply not only fulfills SCLS policies but also
inherently satisfies Goal 9.
The SLCS concluded that there is an inadequate supply of commercially designated lands
to meet the demand through the year 2015, resulting in a deficit of 158 acres. (SLCS;
Table 3-8, pg. 32.) To address this deficiency, and enable the City to comply with .
Goal 9, the SLCS contains policy direction, some of which is specific to the RiverBend
area.
Exhibit B
Page35 of 128
4/21/03
r.'_-----'~,
' [
"
o
, Policy I-A states: "Maintain a mixed supply oflarge and small
commercial sites tlu'ough strategies such as rezoning or annexation to
serve Springfield's futur~ population." (SLCS; pp. v, 34.)
The Amendments provide the basis for seeking a zone change to MUC for 33 acres on
the Gateway MDR site. ,All of the area proposed for redesignation and future rezoning
was annexed into the City. Therefore, approval of the Amendments will enable pursuit of
the zone change to help address the City's deficiency in commercial lands to meet the
needs ofthe City's future residential and employment population, consistent with the
above policy.
o Policy l-B obligates the City to: "Ensure that an adequate amount of
commercial land is designated in undeveloped identified nodes such as
JasperlNatron and McKen~ie/Gateway, to accommodate a portion of the
demand for commercial acreage, and tci implement the policies and
objectives ofthe TransPlan." (SLCS; pp. v, 34.)
.i
The RiverBend site is within a larger area identified in TransPlan as potentially suitable
for nodal development. The City Council identified the site as one of six priority sites
eligible for refined analysis through a state grant-funded project. DLCD also pro'vided
the City with technical expertise for arrangement ofland uses to support nodal
development. The Amendments are generally consistent with the layout recOlmnended
by DLCD's consultant. Therefore, the Amendments are consistent with the direction in'
the above policy.
o Implementation Strategy I-B (2) calls for the City to: "Prepare Gateway
Refinement Plan and Metro Plan amendments and designate and rezone
10-15 acres of commercial land in the Gateway MDR site for
neighborhood commercial development. Delete the reference to the
3 acres recommended in the McKenzie-Gateway Conceptual Development
Plan." (SLCS; pg. 34.)
I~'
~
As noted previously, the Amendments replace references to NC zoning in the GRP with
the Mixed Use COlmnercial zoning district. MUC zoning can better accomplish the
objectives otherwise implemented throughNC zoning, given the greater flexibility
inherent in the MUC district. While the amount of acreage sought in the PAPA for
redesignation is more than that recOlmnended above, the proposal will further enable the
City to meet the deficit in commercially designated lands identified on Table 3-8 of the
SLCS. The study recognized that the amount of acreage recommended for redesignation
in the above strategy was not definitive and/or a limitation on the amount to be
redesignated. (See Policy 3-A below.) Moreover, at least some of the area identified for
redesignation is projected to include open channel conveyances to treat runoff from
future development and from the Pioneer Parkway (as required by the City pursuant to its
annexation agreement with PeaceHealth, the GRP, and City standards for treating stonn
water runoff). SLCS findings noted that such requirements consume commercially
designated land: "Requirements for surface stonn water detention systems and
Exhibit B
Page36 of 128
4/21/03
bioswales, necessary to achieve state and federal regulations to protect water quality, .
utilize a pOliion of developable commercial land, which is limited in supply in
Springfield's UGB." (SLCS; pg. iv.) Consequently, not allofthe 33-acre maximum will
be available for commercial development.
o Policy 3-A: "Redesignate and rezone portions of industrial land or
residential land within identified Employment Center, Neighborhood
Center, or Commercial Center nodes to Mixed Use COlmnercial to achieve
the objectives of TransPlan, TranspOliation Planning Rule 12, and to
incorporate higher density development in conjunction with residential
and employment opportunities." (SLCS; pp. v, 36.)
TransPlan did not ultimately distinguish proposed nodal development areas as identified
above. However, the Amendments, which would result in redesignation and subsequent
rezoning MUC(and MS) to provide for a mix of employment, residential, and supporting
commercial uses, are entirely consistent with the above policy.
I
The City Council finds that by approving the Amendments the City will further
implement the above policy objectives outlined in the SLCS to ensure the City confonns
with Goal 9's requirement to provide an adequate inventory of developable commercial
land to meet future needs. The areas proposed forredesignation are intended to provide
the basis for future MUC zoning to support nodal development implementation, as well
as mixed' uses to support adjacent h~spital services as proposed.
.
With respect to nodal developments, the Amendments do not circumvent the pending
grant-funded project to precisely identify nodal developl11ent areas and apply appropriate
designations and zoning. Rather, the Amendments will facilitate its implementation, and
otherwise not preclude the sl!bsequent application of the City's new nodal development
zoning overlay in appropriate locations. The location of the areas proposed for
redesignation largely minor those recommended by City staff based upon the proposed
recommendations offered by DLCD's urban design consultant. The location proposed
not only follows the general recommendation ofDLCD's consultant, but also places such
services within convenient distance of future and existing residents and employees in the
area.
Similarly, the proposed deletion of references in Implementation Action 5.1 to the 3 acres
of neighborhood commercial is consistent with the SLCS and with the recommendation
ofDLCD's consultant - who found the 3 acre,provision as "inadequate" to meet the
commercial service needs of future residents or employees, either underthe existing GRP
designations or those proposed in the PAPA.
GOAL 10 - HOUSING
LCDC's Housing goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for
needed housing as follows:
.
Exhibit B
Page37 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
"Goal: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. "
"Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges
and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon
households and allow for theJlexibility 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 pOliions of the area subject to the plan amendments. 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 the propeliies in the RLS. Proposed=Residential Implementation
Action 12.6requires a similar type of analysis to take place at the master plan level. The
, policy reads: "the adopted master plan shall demonstrate that the site will be able to
accommodate the number of housing units within the range for the MDR land use
designation in the Metro Plan and the GRP". Thislanguage 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 the applicant will be able to rely on the pem1itted
uses in more than one zoning district to meet the required density. The proposed plan
amendments will allow for two zoning distIicts 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 propeliy 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, 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.
Density is limited only by the maximum height restriction.
Within the Eugene-Springfield area, Metro Plan compliance with Goal 10 is achieved
through the metropolitan Residential Land and Housing Study (RLS), which was adopted
and acknowledged in 1999. As noted in the RLS Policy Recommendations Report
(pp. 14, 15), there is a net surplus of all types of residential lands necessary to serve the
metropolitan area. Specifically, the RLS concluded there is a surplus of239 acres ofland
designated Medium Density Residential on the Metro Plan diagram, and 3,646 MDR
residential units.
The surplus identified in the RLS did not account for any mixed-use, nodal development,
nor - in Springfield - did it account for development that could occur on lands subject to
SDC Aliicle 27 (Floodplain Overlay District) provisions. Additionally, the RLS did not
include in its inventory the vacant 18-acre parcel owned by PeaceHealth off Goodpasture
Exhibit B
Page38 of 128
4/21/03
_:- fl' :' " .
Island Road. This parcel is zoned R-3 but is designated for High Density Residential.
All of the above exclusions from the RLS suggest that there is an additional margin
beyond the inventoried surplus.
.
, '
While the narrative in PeaceHealth's submittal referred to approximately 800 units of
future residential development on the site, the project's TIA accounted for some
909 dwelling units. The provision of residential housing proximate to the proposed
hospital and medical services - and within convenient distance to high capacity transit
and supporting commercial development within an identified node - offers superlative
ability to realize nodal objectives to have oppOliunities to live, work and shop in close
proximity and reduce the need for travel by single-occupant auto.
Although DLCD has argued that PeaceHealth has "provided the lowest possible
den~m1inator to each of its needed housing calculations," the City Council finds that
, DLCD's position is not supported in the record. PeaceHealth's ability to provide
approximately 856 residential dwelling units must first be viewed in context of the RLS
technical analysis, the Site Inventory Document. On the RiverBend site in RLS subarea
17, the inventory included a total of 141.45 acres (identified as sites 1,3,4,5,6,7,13,
14, 15, 20 and 22). Of this acreage, 51.98 acres were deemed unbuildable (due to
floodways, Plimarily) or constrained by floodplain, and therefore not given any allocation
in the RLS. This leaves 89.47 buildable acres on the RiverBend property. The RLS
assumed, consistent with the Metro Plan, that approximately 32% of buildable residential
lands would be developed with non-residential uses. Subtracting this 32% leaves 60.8 .
net acres one can reasonably assume to be considered available for developmentin the
RLS. Applying the 856 units assumed above to this remaining developable acreage
results in an average density of more than 14 dwelling units per acre.
Conceptual Development Plan previously approved for the MDR area was designed to '
the minimum density (11 dwelling units per acre) allowed in MDR zoning.
Consequently, the density after the adoption of these Amendments will likely exceed the
pi armed density under the CDP. '
Whereas DLCD has argued thatthe 32% non-residential reduction factor referenced in
the RLS/Metro Plan Housing Element should not be applied as the basis for detennining
needed housing at a particular site, there is no basis to support this contention that a 20%
factor is more appropliate or that using the higher percentage found in the Metro Plan
"would suggest a 1110re auto-Oliented urban fonn is contemplated."
, D LCD's suggestion that the proposal results in "a significant reduction of needed housing
in an MDR designation" simply does not comport with the fact that a housing surplus
will remain. The City Council finds that with approval of the Amendments, the housing
surplus will remain. PeaceHealth is under no obligation to maintain precisely the existing
Metro Plan inventory; nor is the City obligated to provide an analysis on "maintaining"
the existing inventory. The threshold is to ensure that the proposal does not cause a
deficit in the inventory such that the City is no longer in compliance with Goal 10. .
Exhibit B
Page39 of 128
4/21/03
. Based upon testimony presented by PeaceHealth regarding the feasibility of future
residential development on the MDR site, the City Council finds that the Amendments'
allow for in excess of 900 units of residential housing proximate to mixed use areas and
hospital services and high capacity transit infrastructure is wholly consistent with Metro
Plan Housing Elerrtent Policy 10. Siinilarly, Policy 11, which provides: "Generally
locate high density residential development near employment or commercial services, in
proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient nodes,"
supports the Amendments.
In response to testimony submitted by DLCD and other project opponents the City
Council finds that the proposed future application of the City's Medical Services zoning
district to the site does not represent a conflict between zoning and Metro Plan
designation that Housing Element Implementation Measure 12 is intended to address.
The City Council finds that there is no conflict between the MS zone and the MDR Metro
Plan designation because MS development as allowed will not cause a deficit in required
housing opportunities under CUlTent mapping. The Council further finds that if there are
such concems they needed to be raised. The Council fuliher finds that ifthere are such
concerns they needed to be raised prior to the MS acknowledment in 1989 and that the
MS district and SDC are consistent with the Metro Plan, statewide planning goals, and
statutes.
.
In summary, the City Council finds that there is a cunent surplus of residential land and
housing units projected for the metro area;, The Amendments allow a mix of uses,
including residential housing in densities within the MDR range, and at a level identified
as necessary to support nodal development; particularly given the amount of residential
development proposed, the Amendments do not cause a deficit in the residential housing
inventory; and the location of proposed residential housing places it within convenient ,
~-mile walking distance of future high capacity transit lines targeted to serve the
Gateway area. The Amendments and the provide that there is still a surplus in the
residential housing inventory, while increasing the intensity of residential building.
Proposed Implementation Action 12.6 requires that any future lnaster plan for
development of the site include housing density that has been assigned by recognized
plans to the areas subject to these plan amendments; therefore Goal 10 is satisfied.
GOAL 11- PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
This goal requires the provision of a timely, orderly and efficient anangement of public
facilities and services.
.
Prior to annexation of the Gateway MDR site subject to these Amendments, the propeliy
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,
Exhibit B
Page40 of 128
4/21/03
:- 'i' ~ .
police protection, parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls,
communication facilities, public schools, paved streets and St01111 water controls.
.
The annexation agreements also require that a master plan be approved prior to
development. This requirement mirrors the policy requirement contained within the
,amended GRP Residential Implementation Action 13.0. Master plan criteria of approval
3 (37.040) requires a demonstration the proposed on-site and off-site public and plivate
improvements are sufficient to accommodate the proposed phased development and
capacity requirements of the Public Facilities Plan.
The restlictions on development contained within the annexation agreements for propeliy
subject to these plan amendments coupled with the master plan criteria of approval
ensure compliance with Goal 11. The City Council, therefore, finds that the
Amendments are consistent with Goal 11.
GOAL 12-TRANSPORTATION
The City of Springfield's TranspOliation Division has revi~wed the materials provided
with the subject application. The findings outlined below are based on the review of the
submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by .JRH Transportation Engineering
dated September 20, 2002. This review evaluates the application and supporting TIA
with respect to the transportation-related State--wide Planning Goals and Administrative
Rules as required by SDC 8.030 (3).
.
1. Goal 12
LCDC's Transportation goal requires the City to plan and provide for "a safe, convenient,
and economic transportation system." Goal 12 is satisfied by establishing that '
development under the proposed plan and zoning designations will either (1) be served
by a safe and adequate transportation system currently in place or planned to be in place
in time to handle expected impacts, or (2) will not create substantially greater or different
transportation demands and impacts than development under the existing acknowledged
designations. Goal 12 is satisfied because with the required conditions of approval the '
findings below demonstrate the application will not create substantially greater or
different transportation demands and impacts on affected transportation systems. The '
applicant's traffic consultant JRH Transportation Engineering has prepared a traffic
impact analysis ("TIA"). The TIA is Exhibit 6 to the application, and is incorporated in
its entirety herein by reference. Where there is a conflict with these findings, these
findings shall control. The TIA examines the impact of the proposed Amendments in the
horizon planning year of 20 18.
For levels of service (for city and county intersections) and volume to capacity ratios (for
ODOT facilities) The TIA concludes that in 2018 under a "reasonable worst case"
scenario of development on the property, and with a limitation on vehicle trips: .
. Affected intersections that meet mobility standards will continue to meet those
standards, and
Exhibit B
Page41 of 128
4/21/03
.
. Affected intersections that do not meet mobility standards will not be fm1her
degraded.
Accordingly, the City finds that the Amendments will not create substantially greater or
different transp011ation demands and impacts than development under the existing
acknowledged designations.
2. TPR
The Transp011ation Planning Rule (TPR) is set f011h at Chapter 660, Division 12, and
implementing Goal 12., OAR 660--012--0060 ("Plan and Land Use Regulation
Amendments") applies to the adoption of comprehensive plan and land use regulation
amendments. .
Under the TPR, mitigation measures are necessary for plan and zoning amendments that
significantly effect a transp011ation facility. If a proposed amendment is found to have a
significant affect on one or more transportation facilities, then the TPR requires that the
impact be mitigated by one or more of four methods.
.
A. Applicable TPR Critelia
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) as set f011h in Oregon Administrative Rules
Chapter 660, Division 12, and the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) contain the
following criteria, which are relevant to this application.
OAR 660--012--0060(1) states:
"(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive
plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect a
transp011ation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are
consistent with the identified function, capacity, and perfonnance
standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of
the facility. This shall be accomplished by either:
a. Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function,
capacity, and perfonnance standards of the transp011ation facility;
b. Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support
the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division;
c. Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce
demand for automobile travel an~ meet travel needs through other modes;
or
.
d. Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity and
perfonnance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle
congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian friendly development where
multimodal travel choices are provided."
Exhibit B
Page42 of 128
4/21/03
~ () ['.
OAR 660-012-0060(2) establishes that a proposed plan amendment will "significantly
affect" a transportation facility if it:
.
a. Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transpOliation
facility.
b. Changes standards implementing a functional classification system.
c.Allows types or levels ofland uses which would result in levels oftravel or access
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transpOliation
facility; or _
d. , Would reduce the level of service of a facility below the minimum acceptable
level identified in the TSP."
The four tests for significant effect will be referred to as Criteria 2--a to 2--d and the four
mitigation measures will be refelTed to as 1--a to 1--d.
, Regarding Criteria 2--d, OHP Action IF. 6 states:
"For purposes of evaluating amendments to transportation system plans,
acknowledged comprehensiveplans and land use regulations subject to
, OAR 660-12-060, in situations where the volume to capacity ratio for a
highway segment, intersection or interchange is [substandard] above the
standards in Table 6 or Table 7, or those otherwise approved by the
Commission, and transportation improvements are not planned within the
planning horizon to bring perfonnance to standard, the perfonnance
standard is to avoid further degradation. If an amendment to a
transportation system plan, acknowledged comprehensive plan or landuse
regulation increases the volume to capacity ratio further, it will
significantly affect the facility."
.
B. Applicability of Criteria
The test for significant effect is Clitelion 2-d. The other criteria are briefly addressed as
follows:
a.
· Criterion 2-a is not applicable becalise the proposed amendments do not change the
functional classification of any transportation facility.
· Criterion 2-b is not applicable because the proposed designations do not change any
standards implementing a functional classification system for transportation facilities.
· Criterion 2-c is not applicable because the application does not allow types or levels
of land use inconsistent with functional classifications. Primary access to the site will
be via state highways and alierial streets whose function is to carry traffic to and from
major destinations within and without the urban area. Secondary access will be
provided by designated collector streets whose function is to distribute traffic to and
.
Exhibit B
Page43 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
froin the arterial street system and provide a limited amount of direct access to
abutting land.
Thefunctional classifications of streets in Springfield are designated on the map titled
"FederallyDesignated Roadway Functional Classification Eugene-Springfield Metro
Area," in Appendix A to the September, 2001 TransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield
Metro Area's adopted TSP). City streets that would serve as primary access routes to
the site are the Pioneer Parkway Extension (PPE) and Beltline Road East, both of
which are designated as minor mierials. Harlow/Hayden Bridge Road, whichis
designated as major collector on the map, will serve as a secondary access route.
b. OAR 660--12--060(2)(d)
Critelion 2--d is applicable and is satisfied by the plan amendment application and
suppOliing TIA as explained in the following discussion.
1. Level-of-service Standards
TransPlan's TSI Roadwdy Policy # 2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service establishes
perfonnance standards for local facilities and includes OHP mobility standards for state
facilities as follows:
"I.
Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptable
and reliableperfonnance on the roadway system. These standards
shall be used for:
Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to
transpOliation plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-
use regulations, pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-12-0060).
Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-
use regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
b.
c.
d.
"2. Acceptable and reliable service is defined by the following levels
of service under peak hour traffic conditions: Level of Service E within
Eugene's Central Area Transportation Area, and Level of Service D
elsewhere.
"3. Perfonnance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan 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 transpOliation system improvements to
bling performance up to standard within the planning h01izon 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 irnprovement may arise from severe
constraints including but not limited to enviromnental conditions, lack of public
Exhibit B
Page44 of 128
4/21/03
agency financial resources, or land use constraint factors. It is not the intent of \el
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 transpOliation system improvements until existing constraints can be
overcome or develop an altemative mix of strategies (such as: land use measures,
TDM, shOli-teml safety improvements) to address the problem." September 2001
TransPlan Ch. 2, Page 11.
The above described TransPlan Levels of Service (LOS) standards are based on cliteria
contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the National Research
Council's Transpoliation Research Board. For signalized intersections the HCM uses
seconds of average-vehicle delay to define LOS.
Tables 6 and 7 in the 1999 OHP establish mobility standards based on Volume-to-
Capacity (v/c) ratios for state facilities. The application of those standards is detailed in
the TIA and is summarized in the following discussion.
To establish a time frame for analyzing impacts of plan amendments, OHP Action 1 F.2
states:
"Apply the highway mobility standards over a 20-year planning horizon
when developing state, regional or local transportation system plans,
including ODOT's corridor plans. When evaluating highway mobility for
amendments to transportation system plans, acknowledged comprehensive
plans and land use regulations, use the planning horizons in adopted local
and regional transportation system plans or a planning horizon of 15 years
from the proposed date of amendment adoption, whichever is greater."
.
The planning horizon adopted for TransPlan is 20 15 and adoption of the proposed plan
amendments is assumed to occur in 2003. The TIA uses a horizon year of2018.
Through coordination with affected state and local agencies the scope of the TIA was
established to include the following transportation facilities:
.
Belt Line Road from Coburg Road to Game Fann Road South
Belt Line Road at Coburg Road ramp tenninals
~-5 from north of Belt Line Road to south ofI-105
1-5 at Belt Line Road interchange
1-5 at 1-105 interchange
Gateway Street/ Game Faml Road North from Intemational Way to Harlow Road
Game Fann Road East, Intemational Way and Deadmond Fen)' Road
Game Faml Road South between Deadmond Ferry Road and Hayden Bridge Road
Hayden Bridgel Harlow Road from 1-5 to Pioneer Parkway
Pioneer Parkway from Belt Line Road to south of Highway 126 (including the
Pioneer Parkway Extension)
1-1051 Highway 126 from 1-5 to Pioneer Parkway
Highway 126 at Pioneer Parkway interchange
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Exhibit B
Page45 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
· Q Street from westbound Highway 126 off ramp to westbound Highway 126 on ramp
· Planned on-site transpoliation facilities
11. Level of Service Analysis
The TIA examined the potential for the proposed plan amendments to cause operational
perfonnance on the above listed transpoliation facilities to fall below the minimum
acceptable standards identified in TransPlan through the required 2018 horizon year.
Implicit in the TIA's approach to addressing OAR 660-12-060(2)(d) is the assumption
that development of the subject property and sUlTounding lands under existing plan
designations would require additional roadway capacity to be provided by 2015.
TransPlan confirms, and the TIA con-ectly assumes, that by 2015 additional roadway
capacity will be provided by the following projects shown on the Financia~ly-
Constrained Roadway Projects map and list:
· TransPlan Project #768 - Pioneer Parkway Extension - Extend Pioneer Parkway
from Harlow Road to Belt Line Road
· TransPlan Project #606 - 1-5 at Belt Line Road - Right-of-way purchase
· TransPlan Project #606 - 1-5 at Belt Line Road - Reconstruct interchange ,md 1...5;
upgrade Belt Line Road East to 5 lane urban facility; and construct 1-5 bike and
pedestrian bridge
.
TransPlan Project #622 - Belt Line Road at Co burg Road - Construct ramp and
signal improvements
.
TransPlan Project #774 - Q Street at Pioneer Parkway - Traffic control
improvements
.
TransPlan Project #721 - Cardinal Way from Game Fann Road to MDR north-south
connector - Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urban facility, new collector street
.
TransPlan Project #756 - McKenzie-Gateway MDR Loop Collector - New 2 to 3-
lane collector into site
.
TransPlan Project #762 - North-south connector within MDR site - Construct new 3-
lane north-south collector
.
TransPlan Project #785 - Gateway/ Harlow intersection - Intersection improvements
.
TransPlan Project #715 - Baldy View Lane from Deadmond Ferry to end of
dedicated right-of-way - Upgrade to urban standards
.
TransPlan Project #724 - Deadmond Ferry Road from Baldy View Lane to McKenzie
River - Upgrade to urban standards
Exhibit B
Page46 of 128
4121/03
.fl.
· TransPlan Project #737 -Game Fann Road Southfrom Game Fann Road East to
Harlow Road- Upgrade to 2-1ane urban facility
.
· TransPlan Project '#750 - Laura Street from Scott's Glen Dliveto Harlow Road -
Widen to 3-lane urban facility
· TransPlan Project #606 - 1-5 at Belt Line Road - Project development work
In addition, the Future Roadway Projects map and list in TransPlan include "Project
#727 - Highway 126 at Pioneer Parkway - Interchange improvements." Future (beyond
2015) projects are not planned for construction during the planning period. Although
these projects are not pari of the financially constrained plan they can be implemented
earlier if additional funding is identified.
The City finds that, as one of the three enacters of Trans Plan, it interprets this provision
as follows. First, future projects are TSP projects. Second, the future designation may be
funded with private sources and, consistent with the TransPlan language, may be
implemented earlier. Finally, private funding does not require a TransPlan amendment
since it does not displace publicly funded projects.
The current City of Springfield Capital Improvement Program 2002-2007 includes
, $200,000 per year of programmed funding for "Gateway traffic improvements -
TranspOliation improvements at various locations in the Gateway area to increase
capacity and relieve congestion."
.
Project development work on TransPlan Project #606 - 1-5 at Belt Line Road has
produced an Enviromnental Assessment document (EA), which provides more detail
about the likely design of these planned facilities than is typically available in TSPs. The
TIA took advantage of this additional detail to enhance the accuracy of its facility
perfonnance analysis. The TIA analyzed and compared perfonnance of the above listed
transportation facilities in 2018 under two development scenarios:
· "Existing Designation" Scenario - this scenario assumed the CUlTent plan designation
and MDR zoning for the site and the future-year land-use allocation included in the
regional transportation model as used to develop TransPlan.
· "Proposed Designation" Scenario - this scenario assumed specific types and levels of
development through the 2018 horizon year based on the applicant's intended future
uses.
.
Exhibit B
Page47 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
The results of this analysis are summarized in the following tables:
Table 1 - Belt Line Road at Coburg Road
Mobility Volume-to-capacity Ratio by Scenario
Facility Standard 2018 "Existing 2018 "Proposed
(max v/c) Designation" Designation"
, ,
, Westbound ramp tem1inal 0.85 1.31 1.31
signal
Eastbound ramp tenninal 0.85 1.31 1.31
signal
Westbound ramp merge 0.85 0.76 0.80
Eastbound ramp diverge 0.85 0.78 0.79
NOTE: The westbound diverge and the eastbound merge areas are analyzed as weaving
segments; the results are provided under TheI--5/ Belt Line Road summary.
Exhibit B
Page48 of 128
4/21/03
Table 2 - 1-5/ Belt Line Project Area
Mobility Volume-to-capacity Ratio and LOS by
Standard Scenario
Facility (max v/c 2018 "Existing 2018 "Proposed
and/ or ,LOS) Designation" Designation"
Belt Line Road at Gateway 0.85 0.70 0.79
Street
Belt Line Road at Hutton LOSD LOSB LOSB
Street
Belt Line Road at Game Farn1 LOSD LOSB LOSB
Road \
Game Farn1 Road at LOSD LOSB LOSB
International Way
Gateway Street at Game Farm LOSD LOSB LOSB
Road
Gateway Street at Gateway LOSD LOSB LOSB
Loop .
Gateway Street at Postal Way LOSD LOSD LOSD
Game Farn1 Road at LOSD LOSC LOSD
Deadmond Ferry Road
NorthboundI-5 off-ramp 0.85 0.66 0.68
signal
Southbound I-5 off-ramp 0.85 0.62 0.70
signal
Northbound I-5 weave
between 0.80 0.58 0.59
1-105 and Belt Line Road
Northbound I-5 off-ramp split 0.80 0.51 0.51
Northbound I-5 merge 0.80 0.50 0.51
Southbound I-5 diverge 0.80 0.55 0.55
Southbound 1-5 off-ramp split 0.80 0.53 0.53
Westbound Belt Line Road .
weave between I-5 and Coburg 0.85 0.70 0.75
Road
Eastbound Belt Line Road
weave between Coburg Road 0.85 0.52 0.53
and I-5
Westbound to southbound loop 0.80 0.40 0.45
ramp merge
Southbound 1-5 weave
between Belt Line Road and I- 0.80 0.50 0.53
105
Exhibit B
Page49 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
.
Table 3 - Levels of Service for Gateway Mall Area Intersection
Mobility Volume-to-capacity Ratio and LOS by
Scenario
Facility Standard
(max v/c 2018 "Existing 2018 "Proposed
and/ or LOS) Designation" Designation"
.
Northern Mall Access at LOSD LOS A LOS A
Gateway Street
Southern Mall Access at LOSD LOSB LOSB
Gateway Street
Harlow Road at Gateway LOSD LOSC LOSC
Street
Harlow Road at Beverly Street LOSD LOSC LOSC
Table 4 - Hayden Bridge Road Intersections
.
Mobility Volume-to-capacity Ratio and LOS by
Standard Scenario
Facility (max v/c 2018 "Existing 2018 "Proposed
and/ or LOS) Designation" Designation"
,
Hayden Bridge Road at Laura
Street and Game Farm Road LOSD LOSC LOSC
,
South
Hayden Bridge Road at LOSD LOSD LOSD
Pioneer Parkway (Extension)
Table 5 - Highway 126/ Pioneer Parkway Interchange Area
.
Mobility Volume-to-Capacity Ratio and LOS by
Standard Scenario
Facility ,
(max v/c 2018 "Existing 2018 "Proposed '
and/ or LOS) Designation" Designation"
Pioneer Parkway at Pioneer ,
Plaza Access LOSD LOS A LOS A
Pioneer Parkway at Q Street 0.85, LOS D 0.73, LOS C 0.83, LOS C
Q Street at westbound 0.85 0.64 0.67
Highway 126 off-ramp
Pioneer Parkway at eastbound 1.12 - unmitigated
Highway 126 ramps 0.85 1.03 0.93 - mitigated
Eastbound Highway 126 ramp 0.85 0.88 0.88
diverge
Eastbound Highway 126 ramp 0.85 ' 0.78 0.81
merge
Westbound Highway 126 ramp 0.85 0.72 0.73
diver,ge
Exhibit B
Page50 of 128
4/21/03
r (', I
Table 6 - 1-105/ Highway 126 at 1-5 Interchange
Mobility Volume-to-capacity Ratio by Scenario
Standar
Facility d 2018 "Existing 2018 "Proposed
(max Designation" Designation"
. v/c)
Eastbound! westbound I-I 05 to 0.85 0.76 0.76
northbound I-5 ramp combine .
Eastbound! westbound 1-105 to 0.80 0.82 0.82
southbound 1-5 ramp combine
Northbound to westbound loop diverge 0.85 0.48 0.49
Northbound to westbound loop merge 0.85 0.61 0.61
Southbound to westbound merge 0.85 0.63 0.65
Westbound to southbound diverge 0.85 0.64 0.64
Westbound Hwy. 126 weave between 0.85 0.74 0.74
Pioneer Parkway and 1-5
Northbound to eastbound merge 0.85 0.84 0.84
Northbound to eastbound diverge 0.80 0.53 0.54
Eastbound to northbound diverge' 0.85 0.96 0.96
Eastbound to southbound diverge 0.85 0.95 0.95
Eastbound to southbound merge 0.80 0.64 0.65
Southbound to eastbound loop diverge 0.80 0.56 0.58
Southbound to eastbound loop merge 0.85 0.92 - 0.92
Table 7 - Planned Facilities within the Development Vicinity
Facility Mobility LOS under the 2018 "Proposed
Standard (LOS) Designation" Scenario
Pioneer Parkway at Cardinal Way LOSD LOSC
Pioneer Parkway at southern LOSD LOS A
access road
Cardinal Way at Game Farm Road LOSD LOSC
Cardinal Way at RiverBend Street LOSD - LOSC
RiverBend Street at southern LOSD LOSB
access road
RiverBend Street at right-in! right- LOSD LOSC
out access road -
As shown in Table 5 above, the only intersection where the mobility (level-of-service)
standard specified in the OHP is not met is for the OR 126 Eastbound Ramps/Pioneer
, Parkway intersection. Under the "Existing Designation" scenario the vlc ratio in 2018 is
estimated to be 1.03 instead of the maximum 0.85. Therefore, under OHP Action IF.6,
the perfOlmance standard for the proposed plan amendments is to avoid further
degradation. Without mitigation, development pennitted under the designations
proposed in this application would cause the v / c to fall to 1.12. To demonstrate that the
proposed amendments would avoid further degradation and thus not "significantly affect"
the facility as defined in OAR 660-12-060 Criterion 2-d, funding must be assured for a
pOliion of the capacity-adding improvements anticipated in TransPlan Project #727.
Exhibit B
PageSlof128
.,
.
.
4/21/03
.
Condition of Approval 2, listed on Exhibit A ofthe Planning Commission's
Recommendation specifically requires the applicant to provide the funding necessary to
construct the identified portion of TransPlan project #727 and ensures compliance with.
Goal 12. The proposed land uses are thus consistent with the planned improvements in
the TSP.
Residential Implementation Action 13.7 requires the applicant to submit with the required
master plan, a "Trip Allocation Plan" that caps the maximum number of vehicle hips
from areas that are zoned MUC or MS to 1,840 at the P.M. Peak Pour. All subsequent
site plan review applications must be consistent with the approved trip allocation plan.
This policy ensures that the maximum trip generation that will be produced by the areas
subject to these plan amendments is limited to the "reasonable worst case" analysis as
, ,
presented in the applicant's TIA. The City Transportation Engineer and representatives
from ODOT have reviewed this policy and have detennined that it provides the
assurances necessary in oxder for these applications to meet the
OAR 660.,012-0060(1)(a).
The City finds that the application satisfies the relevant and applicable provisions of the
TPR as follows:
.
1. The first step in detennining compliance with the TPR is to detennine whether
there is a significant effect. lfthere is no significant effect, the City need not
consider the mitigation measures under OAR 66-012-0060(1)(a).,(d). The'
City must first detennine whether the City's existing transportation facilities
are adequate to handle through the relevant planning period of2018, the
additional traffic the proposed, amendment will generate. lfthe City finds that
the answer to that question is j'yes," then the City can also find that the there is
no significant effect pursuant to the TPR.
lfthe answer is "no," then the City must consider whether any new and
improved facilities anticipated by the TSP will generate sufficient additional
capacity, and will be built or improved on a schedule that will accommodate
the additional traffic generated by the proposed amendment. If the answer to
that question is "yes;" then the proposal does not significantly affect a
transportation facility.
The City finds that existing facilities will not accommodate the hips from this
application but, as explained below, planned facilities with one exception, will
accommodate the trips from this application if there is a vehicle trip limitation
as a mitigation measures.
.
2. The TlA demonstrates that, with one exception, through the planning horizon
year of 20 18, all of the affected intersections will have a volume to capacity
("v/c") or level of service ("los") equal to or less than what would otherwise
occur without this appliCation assuming a limitation on vehicle trips. With the
exception of this intersection, the City finds, considering the facilities
anticipated by TransPlan through the planning horizon year of 20 18, that there
Exhibit B
Page52 of 128
4/21/03
'\ .
will be nO significant effect caused by this application if vehicle trips are
limited.
.
3. The sole intersection that will have a vlc exceeding the applicable mobility
standard in the OHP is Pioneer Parkway at the eastbound Highway 126 ramp.
The mobility standard for this ODOT facility is a vlc of 0.85. By the year
2018, under the existingMDR designation for the area subject to this
application, the vie ratio at this intersection would be 1.03. Development
pennitted under the designation proposed by this application would cause the
vlc to rise to 1.12. However, with improvements anticipated by TransPlan, as
implemented through Condition of Approval 2, this intersection will have a
v/c no worse than 1.03.
4. TransPlan defines improvements in three categories:
. "Programmed improvements" are those projects to be built within zero to
five years that have been identified in a local agency's capital
improvement program ("CIP"), the regional transpOliation improvement
plan ("TIP") or the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
("STIP").
'''Unprogrammed projects" are those planned for construction by 2015 that
do not have specific funding sources but are expected to be funded with
reasonable assumptions about expected revenues. Thus, TransPlan
programmed and unprogrammed projects are expected to be built within
the planning horizon year of2015.
. "Future projects" is the final category. These are projects beyond 2015
which TransPlan describes as not plarined for construction but "these
projects could be implemented earlier if additional funding is identified."
.
.
5. TransPlan includes as a future projectthe Pioneer Parkway/Q Street
interchange, including the intersection that will have a reduced volume to
capacity ratio because of this application. As a condition of approval, the City
has required, pursuant to the TransPhin requirement for an identified funding
source, that the applicant fund the improvement necessary to mitigate the
impact of this application on this intersection. This condition of approval is
consistent with TransPlan (for the reasons explained above, no TransPlan
amendment is required) and is not a mitigation measure under OAR 660-012-:
0060(1) since the project is an improvement that, based on funding, is
reasonably certain to be constructed before the planning horizon year and is
already in the TSP.
6. Additionally, the City finds that, without limitation on vehicle trips, the
amendments would have a significant effect on transportation facilities,
pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(2)(d), beca,use potential land uses would
exceed applicable mobility standards. Thus, for this reason alone, the City
finds that while the planned TransPlan improvements can accOlmnodate the
.
Exhibit B
Page53 of 128
4/21/03
.
proposed designations, if the land uses are unlimited, there would be a
significant effect without a mitigation measure. The City, therefore, imposes a
condition of approval as explained above to limit the' allowed number of
vehicle trips to be consistent with the perfomlance standards in TransPlan (the
TSP) pursuant to OAR660-012-0060(1)(a). This condition of approval, as
explained above, limits the vehicular trips from the proposed land uses to no
more than planned transportation facilities' can accOlmnodate.
c.
OAR 660-012-0060(3)
This section of the TPR requires that the detenninations under OAR 660-012-0060(1)
and (2) be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and
other affected local governments. The applicant and the City have met a number of times
with ODOT region and district officials, City of Springfield transpOliation officials and
Lane Transit District ("LTD") officials. Additionally, pursuant to the statutory not,ice
requirements, the City has provided an opportunity to comment on the application to each
of these agencies and to Lane County prior to the close of the record in this application.
The City finds that this section of TPR is satisfied.
d.' OAR 660-012-0045(3)-(5)
.
This section of the "!'PR provides for transit, bicycle and pedestrian- fIiendly measures.
OAR 660-012-0055(3) requires that cities that do not have acknowledged ordinances
implementing these sections must apply them directly to all land use decisions.
According to the City Planning Department, the City has not implemented all of the
requ,irements of OAR 660-012-0045(3)-(5). Accordingly, this portion of the findings
address these sections.
i. OAR 660-012-0045(3). This section requires that cities adopt land use and
subdivision regulations to provide for safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular circulation consistent with various standards. The City finds that it is feasible
to provide safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation standards in
the PeaceHealth development at the subsequent development stages. Moreover,pursuant
to ORS 197 .522( 1), it is appropriate for the City to impose conditions of approval
requiIing that these elements be specifically addressed.in the master plan and site plan
reVIew.
Because the City has found it is feasible to make the pedestrian, bicycle and transit
improvements required by OAR 660-012-0045(3)-(5), the applicant shall include these
improvements in its required master plan and site plan review.,
.
ii. OAR 660:'012-0045(4). Sections (4)(a)-(t) require improvements to support
transit use in urban areas containing a population greater than 25,000 where the area is
already served by a public transit system. ' The sections require transit routes and transit
facilities be designed to support transit use through the provision of bus stops, pullouts
and shelters and other improvements. They further require that new retail, office and
institutional buildings at or near major transit stops, provide for convenient pedestrian
Exhibit B
Page54 of 128
4/21/03
~ ":" ~
access through walkways and pedestrian connections, with certain exceptions. .
Additionally, designated employeeparking areas in new developments are to provide
preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. The City can find that it is feasible to
satisfy these requirements through the Master Plan and site plan review. As noted above,
the City can impose a condition of approval pursuant to ORS 197 .522( 1) requiring that
these improvements be shown on the above-referenced pennits.
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 retail 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.
DLCD has argued that Goal 13 requires the applicant to demonstrate that the eventual
development will "provide demonstrable gains" in energy conservation, particularly with
regard to urban and site design and with regard to transpOliation issues. DLCD cites
OAR 660-oi2-0000 as authority for this proposition. Notwithstanding the fact that
OAR 660-012-0000 sets fOlihthepurpose stateIi1ent for Goal'l2and not Goal 13, the
'" City Council finds that there is nothing in Goal 13 that requires the City or the applicant
to demonstrate that the ultimate development will provide "demonstrable gains" in
energy conservation. Such a standard would go well beyond any requirements in the
TranspOliationPlanning Rule to ends that would prohibit any uses that would result in
any increase in energy consumption, or otherwise fail to result in a net conservation or
reduction in energy usage. There is no such standard in Goal 13.
.
Goall3'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 Amendments will enable the development of a,hospital within the
Gateway MDR site, as well as the potential for implementation of nodal development
objectives with a mix of residential, medical office, general office, and appropliately
scaled supporting services proximate 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 finding of compliance with Goal 13 where findings noted the
placement of facility near public services, including mass transit and commercial areas.
Hubenthal v. City of Woodburn, 39 Or LUBA 20 (2000). The subject property is
adjacent to a planned Bus Rapid Transit. LUBA has also stated that Goal 13 "is directed .
at the development oflocal energy policies and implementing provisions, and does not
state requirements with respect to other land use provisions, even if those provisions have
Exhibit B
Page55 of 128
4/21/03
.
incidental impacts on energy use and conservation." Barnard Perkins COlp. v. City of
Rivergrove, 34 Or LUBA 660 (1998).
The City Council finds that the approved amendments are consistent with Goal 13.
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION
Goal 14 requires local jurisdictions: "To provide for an orderly and sufficient 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 fonll which is the
subject of the LCDC's Urbanization goal.
.
The City Council is not persuaded by the argument that the City must demonstrate that
allowing a major hospital facility in an "edge area" of the lnetro area is consistent with
Goal 14's Factor 4, i.e., maximizing urban efficiency. Other opponents have generally
argued that the amendments violate Goal 14 because portions of the subject property abut
the UGB. The City Council concludes that Goal 14, the Metro Plan and the GRP do not
refer to "edge" areas or otherwise demand special treatment to property based on the fact
that the property abuts a UGB. Goal 14 in general, and Factor 4 inparticular, apply to
the amendment of urban growth boundaries. LUBA has held that Goal 14 applies to the
conversion of rural to urban land use consistent w,ith the standards set forth in Goal 14.
LUBA has rejected arguments that Goal 14 applies to an argument concerning efficient
use ofm'ban land where rural land has already been converted to urban land. The City
Council finds that Goal 14 is not directly applicable since the Amendments relate to
property wholly within the Springfield city limits and the UGB. Goal 14 establishes the
seven factors as the basis for "establishment and change of the boundaries" in the UGB,
and does not apply to development penllitted within established UGBs.
The fact that the Gateway MDR site abuts the "edge" of the Splingfie1d UGB has no
more applicability than the fact that the city's existing major employment center, the
McKenzie-Gateway Campus Industrial area, borders the UGB. The fact is that the MDR
site is only 3.5 miles from PeaceHealth's Hilyard cmi1pus, and less than a mile from I~5.
The Gateway MDR site is not isolated on the peliphery of the metropolitan area, but is
actually centrally located within the Eugene-Splingfield community. Moreover, the
Gateway MDR site is already zoned for urban, medium density residential use.
The City Council finds that the site's proximity to numerous key roadways, highways and
to the McKenzie River offers accessibility to hospital patients from the surrounding five-
county region.
.
The City Council finds that the Amendments, which merely redesignate urban land
within the existing city limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary to allow for
different urban uses, do not implicate Goal 14's requirements. The City Council,
therefore, finds that the Amendments are consistent with Goal 14.
Exhibit B
Page56 of 128
4/21/03
.
GOAL 15 - 'VILLAl\1ETTE RIVER GREENWAY
This goal is inapplicable because the subject site is not within the boundaries of the
Willamette River Greenway.
GOALS 16-19 - COASTAL GOALS
These goals are inapplicable.
E. City Council Findings Regarding Consistency with Statewide
Planning Goals
Based upon the findings above and the evidence set forth in the record, the City Council
finds that the Metro Plan Diagram amendment is consistent with applicable Statewide)
Planning Goals. Consequently, with respect to the amendment to the Metro Plan
Diagrani, the City Council also finds that Criterion (a) for Metro Plan amendment
approval contained in SDC 7.070(3) is fulfilled.
Based upon the findings above and the evidence set forth in the record, the City Council
finds that the Gateway Refinement Plan Diagram and text amendments are consistent
with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, administrative rules and SDC provisions.
The City Council therefore finds that Criterion (3) for GRP map and text amendment
approval set forth in SDC 8.030 is also fulfilled. ' '
.
F. Compliance with State Statutes
The City Council finds that, other than the state statutes and rules discussed above with
respect to compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals, there are no state statutes that
the applicant, the staff or those providing testimony have identified as applicable to the
Amendments; therefore, the City Council finds that Criterion (2) for GRP Diagram and
text amendment approval contained in SDC8.030 is satisfied.
.
Exhibit B
Page57 of 128
4/21/03
.
G. Metro Plan Consistency
This section ofthe application addresses the applicable policies of the Metro Plan. While
there are a number of Metro Plan policies, the findings below discuss only those policies
that the City Council has detennined apply to this application. Additionally, no party has
suggested that additional goals, policies, or implementation measures apply to this
decision. In general, the findings below to not discuss those Metro Plan that(l) 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
proposalsthat will be addressed through compliance with applicable City regulations
during master plan and site development review. As is discussed below, the City Council
finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that the applicant has
addressed all applicable Metro Plan policies and that the Amendments are consistent with
and do not result in any intemal inconsistencies with the Metro Plan.
The Metro Plan Introduction, Section D provides the following definitions:
.
o A goal as a broad statement of philosophy that describes the hopes of the people
of the community for the future of the community. A goal may never be
completely attainable, but is used as a point to strive for.
o 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 intennediate
point that will help fulfill the overall goal.
o A policy is a statement adopted as part of the Plan to provide a consistent course
of action moving the community towards attaimnent of its goals.
As an element of the Metro Plan, the above findings apply equally to the Goals, Policies
and Implementation Measures of the GRP. In recognition of the fact that the fulfillment
of the adopted Metro Plan Policies willleadthe community towards the achievement of
the Metro Plan and GRP Goals and Objectives, the findings of fact and conclusions of
law set forth in this section and those below dealing with compliance with the GRP deal
exclusively with the Metro Plan and GRP Policies and Implementation Measures. The
City Council finds that compliance with the policies implementing the goals, necessarily
demonstrates compliance with the Metro Plan Objectives and Goals..
The following findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the Metro Plan and GRP
are based upon the two following Criteria of Approval:
.
1. ' For the Metro Plan Map amendment, the an1.endment must not make the Metro
\ Plan internally inconsistent (SDC 7.070(3)(b)).
2. For the Gateway Refinement Plan, the proposed amendments must demonstrate
consistency with the Metro Plan (SDC 8.030(1)).
Exhibit B
Page58 of 128
4/21/03
'\ t'
Except for the Growth Management Goals, which are addressed below, each of the Metro
Plan Goals is addressed in the order in which they appear in the Plan Element section of
, the Metro Plan.
.
PLAN ELEMENTS
Growth 'Management
Policies (Metro Plan page II-B-3)
1. "The urban growth boundalY and sequential d~velopment 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 boundalY. "
The City Council finds that the Amendments 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. After approval of the Amendments, the
applicant will be bound byanriexation agreements that restrict development on the
Gateway MDR site until such time that a full level of urban services are extended to serve
that future development. The City's master plan and site plan review processes will .
ensure that the appropriate level of these services is efficiently extended to each phase of
future development. Therefore, the City Council finds that the Amendments are
consistent withthis Metro Plan policy.
"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. "
The City Council finds that the Amendments satisfy this policy because the UGB
includes the full rights-of-way relevant at the Gateway MDR site including Pioneer
Parkway, a project show on TransPlan, The UGB at the Gateway MDR site follows the
McKenzie River along the eastern portion of the subject site and continues along the
McKenzie as the river flows northwest. All rights-of-way that currently serve the site
and that are anticipated to serve future development are within the UGB. As such, all of
the streets that will eventually serve the site will be upgraded to full urban standards.,
Therefore, The City Council finds that the Ani.endments are consistent with this Metro
Plan policy.
"3. ' Control of location, timing, and financing 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 major public investments relevant to this application are those affecting public
services, especially transportation. The Amendments provide for the coordination of
these improvements as they relate to this site. The major transportation facilities that will
.
Exhibit B
Page59 of 128
4/21/03
.
serve the eventual development of the Gateway MDR site are identified in TransPlan.
The applicant's transportation analysis demonstrates that these facilities are sufficient to
accommodate the development the amendments will allow. As a component of the
development of the site, the applicant will be required to construct portions of several
new on-site collector streets that have been identified in TransPlan as financially
constrained. The applicant is also bound by several annexation agreements to contIibute
financially to facilitate the construction of off-site transpOliation improvements at Pioneer
Parkway and 1-105 and at the Beltline Gateway intersection. Therefore, the City Council
finds that the Amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan policy.
"8, Land within the Urban Growth Boundal)J l1uiy be convertedfi"om urbanizable to
urban only through annexation to a city when it isfound that:
a. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area
in an orderly and efficient manner.
b. There will be logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and
facilities. Conversion of urbanhable land to urban shall also be consistent with
the Metropolitan Plan."
.
The Gateway MDR site subject to the Amendmentsare within the Urban Growth
Boundary. When the Gateway MDR site and pOliions thereof were brought into the
UGBand the City limits, the Lane County Local Boundary Commission and the City
detennined that a minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to
the site in a logical progression, both in tenns of geography and time. Further, the
Boundary Commission decision detennined that conversion ofurbanizable land to urban
was consistent with .the Metro Plan. All of the propeliy within the Gateway MDR site
affected by the Amendments is located within the Springfield city limits. While urban
services do not cUlTently serve the entire site, annexation agreements between the
applicant 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. Therefore, the City Council finds that the Amendments are
consistent with this Metro Plan policy.
, Residential Land Use and Housing Element
Policies (Metro Plan page III-A-6)
"A.! Encourage the consolidation of residential{v zoned parcels to facilitate
more options for development and redevelopl11ent of such parcels"
.
The Gateway MDR site consists ofa few large parcels, most of which are cunently
owned by PeaceHealth. Arlie and Company owns the balance of the annexed portions of
the Gateway MDR site (12.4 acres). 'PeaceHealth will 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
Amendments require that the consolidated property be comprehensively planned pursuant
Exhibit B
Page60 of 128
4/21/03
to a master plan. This will facilitate options for development and will implement this
Metro Plan policy. Therefore, City Council finds that the Amendments ate consistent
with this element.
.
"A.2 Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with
the Metro Plan and applicable plans and policies; however, existing agricultural
zoning may be continued within the area between the city limits and the UGB until
rezoned for urban uses. "
Following a zoning map amendment which is expected to be submitted in conjunction
with the master plan, the site will be zoned consistent with the Metro Plan and GRP-
diagrams as amended by this application. The Amendments establish the policy
necessary to both redesignate the subject property (Residential Implementation Action
12.1) and rezone the property (Residential Implementation Action 12.0). This policy
arrangement eliminates the potential for a plan-zone conflict in confom1ance with this
Metro Plan policy. The property is within the UGB so the provisions of this policy
relating to lands outside the UGB do not apply. Therefore, the City Council finds that
the Amendments are consistent with this element.
A.3 "Provide an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the UGB f01~
the 20-year planning period at the time of Periodic Review."
This policy calls for ensuring an adequate supply of residentially designated land within
the region. Similar to the Goal 10 requirement, this application must demonstrate that it
will not reduce the residential inventory below the acceptable leveL
.
The region has completed the "Eugene-Splingfield Metropolitan Area Residential Land
and Housing StudyPolicy Recommendations RepOli" dated August 1999. The report
w'asprepared as a periodic review task and has been acknowledged by DLCD. The
repoJi concludes that the area has 828 acres QfMDR designated land with a demand of
589 acres, leaving a surplus of239 acres. The report also concluded that the area has a
surplus of 3,646 MDR designated miits through the planning horizon. The Metro Plan
and GRP diagram Amendments propose to redesignate 33 acres from MDR to
Commercial and Mixed Use (respectively), leaving a surplus of206 acres ofMDR-zoned
property. As explained elsewhere in these findings, a portion of the remaining MDR
designation will be developed following approval to apply the MS zoning district for a
hospital and associated uses, still leaving a surplus of more than 100 acres ofMDR
designated land. 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 confonnance to Goal 10 requirements, and to maintain the existing surplus.
Additionally, Residential Implementation Action 12.6 requires that any master plan for
the Gateway MDR site demonstrate that the assigned number of dwelling units for this
site are preserved. This ensures that the Amendments 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 ample buildable residential land remaining at the
Gateway MDR site to meet these objectives. Based on the inventory in the
acknowledged study and the evidence in the record regarding the remaining surplus of
.
Exhibit B
Page610f128
4/21/03
.
residential land through the planning horizon, the City Council finds that the region will
continue to have an acceptable inventory of residential land, consistent with this policy.
"A.8 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the localjurisdiction, 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. "
Although no development is proposed or specifically authorized through the approval of
the Amendments, when development commences, PeaceHealth will pay appropriate costs
to extend public services and infrastructure to the site validly imposed on it by the City.
In addition, the Annexation Agreement acknowledges that additional infrastructure may
be required as a condition of specific development approval. These requirements will
come in the fonn 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. The
City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
.
"A.11 Generally locate higher density residential development near employment
or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation ~ystems or within
transportation-efficient nodes. "
The Amendments will facilitate the location of nodal overlay on MDR, MS and MUC
zoning districts. Each will allow for a higher residential density that the CUlTent Gateway
MDR zoning. Higher density residential development on the Gateway MDR site will be
located within approximately one-qumier mile of existing and future employment and
commercial services, as well as future high capacity transit (i.e., Phase 2 of the Bus Rapid
Transit system). PeaceHealth's contribution of right-of-way and construction funding for
extension of the Pioneer Parkway, as well as the development of an internal collector '
street system within the RiverBend site, will provide convenient transit access to serve
future employment and residential development at densities conducive to supporting
transit service. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this
policy.
"A. 12 Cooi'dinate higher density residential development with the provision of
adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities."
.
The Gateway MDR site is within the city limits of Springfield. Pursuant to the
mmexation agreement 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 Amendments will
facilitate the City's nodal implementation project which when complete will allow for a
higher densitY of dwellirig 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 BRT, and has specific design
requirements for the provision of open space and other urban amenities. Moreover,
Exhibit B
Page62 of 128
4/21/03
,:,'"
through the master planning process, the City will ensure that residential development
will be consistent with all applicable City standards, including infrastructure, services,
open space and other urban amenities. Therefore, the City Council finds that the
Amendments are consistent with this policy.
.
"A. 13 Increase overall residential density in the lnetropolitan 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 Amendments will create an opportunity 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 Plan diagram Amendments are necessary antecedents to applying the '
City's new Mixed Use Commercial zoning district on a portion of the site. The
Amendments will allow up to 33 acres ofMUCat the Gateway MDR site and 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 zones
will also allow for a mixture of uses not cUlTently available to developers. The Gateway
MDR site subjeCt to the Amendments is undeveloped, so implementation of the
Amendments will have no direct affect on existing neighborhoods. The City Council
finds that the Amendments are consistent with, this policy.
.
"A. 17 Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size,
cost, and location"
Approval of the Amendments 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 will 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 Amendments
will widen the range of housing types available at the Gateway MDR site byaddihg the
MUC to an area dominated byMDR designation. The MUC designation allows for the
mix ,ofresidential and commercial uses in a vertical alTangement. Additionally,
Residential Implementation Actions 12.0, 12.1 and 13.6 and Commercial Element Policy
5.0 will facilitate the City's nodal implementation project. Once implemented, the INDO
district will allow for a mixture of uses and a mixture of housing types. Implementation
Action 19.0 will allow for a housing density bonus if developers offer low-moderate
income housing opportunities. The City Council finds that the Amendments are
consistent with this policy.
"A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and
existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulatiolls. "
.
Exhibit B
Page63 of 128
4/21/03
.
The application ofthe 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. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with
this policy.
Economic Element
Policies (l\1etro Plan page III-B-4)
"1. Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those
providing above-above wage and salary levels, and increased variety o.f;ob
opportunities, a rise in the standard of living, and utilization of our existing
comparative advantage In the level of education and skill of the resldent labor force. "
.
Approval of the Amendments will assist in achieving this goal by providing for increased
opportunity for new health care related employment in the City. In general, the hospital
will provide above-average wage and salary levels, an increased variety of job
opportunities, a rise in the standard ofliving, 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. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent
with this policy.
"2. Encourage economic development which utilizes local and imported capital,
entrepreneurial skills, and the resident labor force. "
The eventual development that enabled by the Amendments will utilize both local and
impOlied capital and will employ the resident labor force in a variety of skilled, semi-
skilled, and unskilled positions. The constmction of and the use of a hospital, associated
medical uses and the retail and residential node that these Amendments will pennit 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. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"3. Encourage local resldents to develop job skills and other educational attributes
that wU/ enable them to fill existing job opportunities.
.
The Amendments further this policy by providing job oppOliunities both through the
constmction and operation of the hospital as well as through the eventual mixed use
development oppOliunities that will encourage local residents to develop their job skills
and other educational attributes. The City Council finds that the Amendments are
consistent with this policy.
Exhibit B
Page64 of 128
4/21/03
.... ~ , . .
"6. Increase the amount o.fundeveloped land zonedfor light industlyand commercial .
uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and availability with the
projections of demand. "
The Amendments add up to 33 acres of undeveloped Mixed Use Commercial, consistent
with recommendations to increase the commercial lands inventory made in the
Springfield Commercial Lands Study. The Amendments suppOli this policy by
increasing the amount of undeveloped land zoned for commercial uses because it
provides for additional commercial land consistent with the region's desire to have a
surplus. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"11. Encourage economic activities which strengthen the metropolitan area's position
as a regional distribution, trade, health, aild service center. "
The Amendment 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.
"14. ,Continue efforts to keep the Eugene and Springfield central business districts as
vital centers of the metropolitan area.",
The Amendment will not detract from the City's central business district's position as a
vital center of the metropolitan area because the large tracts ofland at RiverBend needed .
to. accommodate the proposed medical center are not available within the central business
distlict of the City. Moreover, the evidence in the record does not 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 distlict,PeaceHealth is dedicating
approximately $50 million toward renewal of the existing Sacred Hemi Medical Center in
Eugene. The dual campus strategy will result in the retention and consolidation of
approximately 1 ,800jobs 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 proposed by
the Amendments in the Springfield downtown would result in multiple non-confonning
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. Therefore, the Amendments are in
confonnance with this Metro Plan policy.
"15. Encourage compatibility between industrially zoned lands and adjacent areas and
local planning programs.
.
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 SpIingfield
Exhibit B
Page65 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
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 FenyRd. The
Amendments are compatible with the industlially zoned lands to the north and will be
made so through the local plmming program in the City including, but not limited to, the
master plan and site plan review processes. The City Council finds that the Amendments
are consistent with this policy.
"16. Utilizeprocesses and local controls which encourage retention of large parcels
or consolidation of small parcels in industrial or commercially zoned land to facilitate
their use or reuse in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion. "
, '
The circumstancessunounding these Amendments are unique in that there are only two
propeliy owners that own annexed property at the Gateway MDR site, PeaceHealth and
Arlie and Company. 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 confonnance with this Metro Plan policy. The Amendments, therefore, satisfy
this policy because they encourage the retention of a large parcel ofland proposed to be
zoned commercial to facilitate its use in a comprehensive fashion. The land will be
reused in a comprehensive fashion through the master plan and site plan review process.
The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"18. Encourage the development of transportatioil 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 Amendments suppOli this policy because they will encourage the development of
transpoliation 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 Amendments require that any development on the Gateway MDR
site achieve master plan approval. The critelia of master plan 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 33
acre commercial area and to the Campus Industrial area to the north will be accounted for
in the master plan. Therefore, the Amendments are in confonnance with this Metro Plan '
policy.
"22. Review local ordinances and revise them to promote greater flexibility for
promoting appropriate commercial development in residential neighborhoods. "
The City adopted SDC Articles 40 Mixed Use Zoning Districts and Aliicle 41 Nodal
DelJelopment Overlay District in July of 2002. These 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 adopted by this decision require that the
required master plan include comply with the development and siting standards of SDC
Exhibit B
Page66 of 128
4/21/03
., ' , '.
Articles 40 and 41. These Amendments achieve 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. The City Council finds that the
Amendments are consistent with this policy.
.
"23. Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under
procedures which clearly define the conditions under which such uses shall be
permitted and which: (a) preserve the suitability of the ~ffected areas for theirprimmy
uses; (b) assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potential for increased tr~ffic
congestion. "
The Amendments satisfy this policy for several reasons. First, the proposed text
amendments will provide for the limited mixing of commercial and office uses. Such
mixing will be accomplished under procedures in the City's Master Plan and Site Plan
Review processes, which clearly define the conditions under which such uses can be
pennitted. Additionally, the application preserves the suitability of the MDRsite area for
its primary use (residential uses). Further, the application assures compatibility because
the Master Plan and Site Plan Review processes are required to be followed. The City
Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"28. Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing
services and goods to a particular neighborhood. "
.
Through the City's nodal implementation project, it is anticipated that a great deal, if not
all, of the MDR zoned property that at the Gateway MDR site will have the nodal overlay
applied to it. In this case, up to 20 percent of the gross floor area of the residential'
developments can be dedicated to commercial uses as regulated by SDC AIiicle 40. This
provides assurance that an appropriate level of neighborhood commercial facilities can be
provided to the future residents of the site. Therefore, the applications are in confonnance
with this Metro Plan policy.
"29. Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood
commercial facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the
characteristics of the support population change."
Given the significant development - both office and residential- that is expected to occur
on the Gateway MDR site based on the approval of these Amendments, 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
developme~t. '
.
Exhibit B
Page67 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
Environmental Resources Element
Policies (Metro Plan page III-C-7)
"1. Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts when
planning for organization, flood control, urban storm runoff, recreation, and water
quality along the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers."
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 rate of stonnwater
runoff from developments and promote water quality. The applicant's st01111 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. Therefore, the
applications are in confonnance with this Metro Plan policy.
PeaceHealth has testified that its proposed development at RiverBend will use existing
natural amenities as focal points for design, while protecting and enhancing the site's
scenic and natural resources. The RiverBend development will not negatively impact the
productivity or use of agricultural uses adjacent to the 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. '
According to PeaceHealth's testimony, the design of the RiverBend campus, and hospital
in particular, will take advantage of the scenic value associated with the existing stand of
Douglas fir trees; proximity to the McKenzie River for visual access to, and physical
access along, the liver; and the vistas of the Coburg Hills and other prominent
topographic features off-site. Whereas the river's edge cUlTently is marked by non-native,
invasive species, the site's master plan will include means of enhancing and restoring the
, site's ripmian enviromnent. 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 Code language in confonnance with the federal
Endangered Species Act. Therefore, future development associated with the proposed
Plan diagram and text amendments will be required to confonn with standards and
policies that ensure confonnance with the above objective.
"2, Except as otherwise allowed according to FEMA regulations, development shall be
prohibited ill jloodways if it could result ill all increased jlood leveL The jloodway is
the channel of a river or other water course and the adjacent land area that must be
reserved to discharge a one-percent-chanceflood in any given year."
Exhibit B
Page68 of 128
4/21/03
'to:'. .
Although these Amendments do not directly involve a development proposal (the .
subsequent submittal of a requIred master plan willmore 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 of a passive nature (e.g., recreational facilities,
riparian enhancements) that will allow potential flood flows to pass through the site
unabated, as required by SDC A1iicle 27. SDC Aliicle 27 Floodplain Overlay Distlict
will apply to any development at the Gateway MDR site that is within the 100-year flood
hazard area, including the floodway. SDC 27.040(3) excludes any encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements or other development in the
floodway unless a registered engineer celiifies that the encroachment will not result in
any increase in flood levels. Therefore, the Amendments are in conformance with this
Metro Plan policy.
"4. Local government shall require site- specificsoil surveys and geologic studies
where potential problems exist. When problems are iden#fied, local governments shall
require special design considerations and construction mea'sures be taken offset the
soil and geologic constraints present, to protect life and property, public investments,
and environmentally-sensitive areas. "
The Gateway MDR site contains no soils or areas subject to instability that would be
applicable to this policy. The ripmian area along the McKenzie River is an
enviroru11entally-sensitive area. The applicant's preliminary plans recognize the
sensitivity of this area and will be required to incorporate appropriate land use and
environmental safeguards to protect this area. During the review of any master plan, as
required by the Amendments, and during any subsequent site plan review application, the
City Engineer will verify that the soil type is adequate to acconunodate any proposed
development. Therefore, the Amendments are in confonnance with this Metro Plan
policy.
.
"6. Agricultural production shall be considered an acceptable interim and tempora1Y
use on urbanizable land and on vacant and undddeveloped urban land where no
cOliflicts with adjacent urban uses exist. "
The Gateway MDRsite has a small hazelnut (filbert) orchard. This orchard is an interim
and temporary use on urbanizable land until the PeaceHealth project is developed. The
entirety of the MDR zoned property at the GatewayMDR site will continue to can)' a
MDR designation until the master plan as provided for in the proposed amendments and
subsequent zone change is approved. ,SDC Article 16, which regulates development in
residential areas, pem1its cultivation of undeveloped land in the MDR district. The'
proposed plan amendments will allow for 33 acres of the MDR to be changed to Cc.
Even though the implementation and delineation of any of the CC will not take place
until master plan approval, SDC Article 18, which regulates commercial districts, pennits
agricultural cultivation of undeveloped land and thus ensures that the approval 6fthe
Amendments will not cause an inconsistency with the Metro Plan.
.
Exhibit B
Page690f 128
4/21/03
.
"20. Positive steps shall be taken to protect the Springfield municipal groundwater
supplies along the McKe'nzie River and the middlefork of the Willamette River."
The Gateway MDR site is adjacent to the McKenzie River on the east. All development
on the property must comply with applicable SDC provisions governing municipal
groundwater supplies and their protection. Nothing inherent in the uses that are expected,
to be developed based on the approval of the Amendments would necessarily contribute
to degradation of Springfield's municipal groundwater supply. Portions ofthe Gateway
MDR site are within the 10 and 5 year Wellhead Protection Zone times of travel. Any
development in this area that the proposed plan will be subject to the provisions of SDC
Article 17 Drinking Water Protection Overlay District. Aliicle 17 regulates activities
within the wellhead time of travel zones to protect the wellheads from potential'
contamination. Any development within the Gateway MDR site within the above
referenced :times of travel zone will be reviewed for compliance with Article 17 and
guarantees that this Metro Plan policy will be complied with. '
"21. 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 SDC was amended in August 2002 to achieve compliance with federal regulations
relating to water quality in streams containing threatened and ~ndangered 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 adoption of these
Amendments 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. Therefore, the Amendments comply with this
Metro Plan policy.
"24. When planningfor and regulating development, local governments shall consider
the needfor protection of open spaces, including those characterized by significant
vegetation alld wildl~{e, Means o.{protecting open space include but are not limited to
outright acquisition, conservation easements, planned unit development ordinances,
streamside protection ordinances, open space tax deferrals, donations to the public,
and peiformance zoning. "
.
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 pmi of its new Code language responding to Endangered Species Act
protections, and density transfers established in the Gateway Refinement Plan
(Residential Element, Implementation Action 15.1) for protecting identified natural
assets. PeaceHealth's development proposals that will be submitted as part of a master
plan, will meet or exceed the riparian setback standard, and otherwise seek to conserve
significant vegetation, such as the Douglas fir grove identified in the GRP as "other
prominent vegetation." Through these and other design elements offered in
PeaceHealth's master plan, a substantial amount of opti:D space will remain conserved on-
Exhibit B
Page70 of 128
4121/03
",\\ '
site and incorporated into the overall design of the site. These issues will more .
appropriately be addressed through the review process ofthe master plan. However,
nothing in the adopted Amendments 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. The City
Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"27. 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 Amendments can satisfy this policy because no endangered and threatened plant and
wildlife species are located on the site. Further, the applicant will provide appropriate
enviroilll1ental safeguards so that any such species located downstream in the McKenzie
and Willamette Rivers will be unaffected by this application. Several threatened 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 after
adoption of the Amendments will allow will be subject to these standards and will be in
confonnance with this Metro Plan policy. The City Council finds that the Amendments
are consistent with this policy. The City Council finds that the Amendments are
consistent with this policy.
.
"32. Designo.fnew street, highway, and transitfacility shall consider noise mitigation
me'asures where appropriate. "
TheLane Transit District has indicated that the transit service would remain on Pioneer
Parkway. Appropriate noise mitigation measures will be considered, if deemed
appropriate, and during development of the site and through master plan approval. The
master plan required by Residential Implementation Action 13.0 prior to any
development is required by Residential Implementation Action 13.2 to.include the
consultation of an 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 that this metro plan policy is complied with. The City Council finds that the
Amendments are consistent with this policy.
.
Exhibit B
Page?l of 128
4/21/03
.
Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterway
Element
Policies (Metro Plan page III-D-4)
"1. Periodically, local government shall review Greenway boundaries, uses, and
potential acquisition areas to ensure continued compliance with state and local
Greenway goals. "
The Amendments satisfy appropriate Greenway-dl1ven policies and concerns. Consistent
with the statement in this portion of the Metro Plan, the applicant intends to utilize the
11parian area along the McKenzie River for open space and recreational purposes. The
development anticipated upon adoption of the Amendments 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 McKenzie River and limits the uses within
this setback; therefore ensUl1ng a greenway buffer along the river. During master plan
review, the potential for acquisition of areas to ensure continued compliance will be
evaluated. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
.
"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
thosewaterfeatures. "
.
Although no development is proposed as part of this application, the Amendments
establish 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 empil1cal research that demonstrates the positive effects
of access and views of natural enviromnents 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 and environmental qualities of the McKenzie River. The
Amendments provide a policy basis in the GRP text that corresponds with the fact that
uses allowed in the Medical Services (MS) zoning district may be located within areas
designated Medium Density Residential. Insofar as the SDC and its provisions have been
acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the Metro Plan and statewide planning
goals, the MDR designation proposed along the McKenzie River in this application is
inherently compatible with the river's ecological features and qualities, and consistent
with the above policy. The Amendments simply enable the future development of a
compatible mix of supporting uses away from the river con'idor to complement the
planned hospital and medical services development. Additionally, Residential
Implementation Action 12.6 reserves the ability of the City Council to regulate the height
and setbacks of during master plan review. City officials and the public will have an
opportunity during the master plan review to review uses and arrangement of
development to ensure that the development is compatible with the natural, scenic, and
environmental qualities of those water features and ensures that this Metro Plan policy is
complied with.
Exhibit B
Page72 of 128
4/21/03
~ j. ~ .
Environmental Design Element
.
Policies (Metro Plan page III-E-3)
"1. In order to promote the greatest possible degree of diversity, a broad variety of
commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be encouraged when
consistent with other planning policies. "
The Gateway MDR is cun-ently designated for Medium Density Residential use. The
Amendments will create Plan designations that allow a diverse mosaic of hospital, ,
residential and commercial uses to be an-anged in way that will allow for nodal
development principles to be realized in the area. The Amendments enable the
development of a master plan for an integrated live/work envirollinent that embraces the
site's natural amenities, enhances recreational opportunities and helps meet other
objectives outlined in Gateway Refinement Plan policies. The Amendments will allow
for a mix of uses that cun-ently are not pennitted at the Gateway MDR site and will
therefore increase the diversity of commercial and residential development. Additionally,
the required master plan review will include a review of recreational land at the site to
ensure that it is adequate to serve the future residents and other uses ofthe site and
ensures compliance with this policy.
"2. Natural vegetation, natural water features and drainageways shall be protected
and retained to the maximum extent practicaL Landscaping shall be utilized to
enhance those natural features; This policy does not preclude increasing their
conveyance capacity in an environmentally responsible manner. "
.
To the extent naturaLvegetation (large trees) is protected by the City's Goal 5
designations, PeaceH,ealth will endeavor to minimize disruption to that resource during
the master plan review process. The McKenzie River, to the extent it is considered a
natural water feature will be protected through compliance with buffer requirements set
forth in the Applicable Annexation Agreement and through the application of the
stonnwater quality requirements of the SDC. Landscaping will be used to enhance the
natural vegetation in the McKenzie River area as required by SDC A1iicle 32 and will be
reviewed at site plan review. Any development pennitted by the Amendments must
comply with SDC Aliicle 31. SDC 31.240 contains standards for protecting open
drainage ways as described in this Metro Plan policy. The applicant 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.
"3. The plaJiting of street trees shall be strongly encouraged, especially for all new
developments and redeveloping areas (where feasible) and new streets and
reconstructi01i ofmajor arterials within the urban growth boundaJY, "
SDC Section 32.050 requires street trees to be planted as acomponent of development. .
Planting of street trees will be a condition of development approval 'and implements this
policy. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
.
Exhibit B
Page73 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
"4. Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that
preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and
promotes their sense of identity. "
Residential Implementation Action 13.6 requires that development within ~ mile of the
future BRT transit station at the Gateway MDRsite be designed in conformance with
SDC Aliicles 40 and 41. Aliicles 40 and 41 contain required design features that
promote pedestlian scaled development including connections to the sun-ounding existing
neighborhoods. This, coupled with ability ofthe 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
sun-ounding neighborhood and a multi-use path along the McKenzie River and shown in
TransPlan and the Springfield Bicycle Plan to provide recreational opportunities to
existing residents. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this
policy: PeaceHealth has expressed an intention to work with the neighbors living west of
Game Fann Road South to ensure that the development between Pioneer Parkway and
Game Fann Road South is appropriate for that area and, to the extent practical, preserves
and enhances the desirable feature of the local and neighborhood area while promoting
the identity of the area.
"5. Carefully develop sites that provide visual diversity to the urban area and optimize
their visual and personal accessibility to residents. "
The Gateway MDR site provides visual diversity in the Springfield urban area.
PeaceHealth has explained that the eventual design will incorporate broad vistas through
open areas and will leave the McKenzie River liparian area in an open state for visual
accessibility. Moreover, the design and configuration of development pem1itted by the
Amendments will be reviewed dmirig the required master plan process by the City to
ensure visual and personal accessibility to residents. Ped~strian, bicycle and vehicle
access to the sight from sun-ounding residential areas will be a requirement of master plan
approval. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"7. The development of urban design elements as part of local and refinement plans
shall be encouraged. "
The Amendments include policies that require development of pOliions the applicant's
property to be designed tocomply with design elements ofSDC Articles 40 and 41.
These two Articles contain the City newest urban design elements; therefore, this Metro
Plan policy has been complied with. The City Council finds that the Amendments are
consistent with this policy.
Exhibit B
Page74 of 128
4/21/03
~')\ :
"8. Site planning standards developed by local jurisdictions shall allowforflexibility .
in design that will achieve site planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions
to design problems. "
The SDC Article 11 Variances and Modifications of Provisions provides developers with
a vehicle to achieve flexibility in the standards ofthe SDC that may not be congruent 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 the developer can
demonstrate, and that the City Council concurs, that thePurpose of the Nodal Overlay
District (40.010(1)) is met. This flexibility allows for the compliance with this Metro
Plan policy. The applicant has indicated the PeaceHealth development will incorporate
the flexibility inherent in Springfield Development Code provisions to achieve optimum
creative solutions for the development of this site.
Transportation Element
Land Use Policies (Metro Plan page III-F-4)
"F.l Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that
have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern. "
.
The Amendmen~s implement this policy because they will allow for the imposition of
nodal development in this area pursuant to TransPlan's recommendation that this area be
a node. The Amendments 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 effectof the combined three land use areas
developed through an overall master plan provides 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 confonnance
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 property at the Gateway 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 41in areas within one-quarter mile of the proposed transit stop ensures that this
policy is implemented. These Amendments and tq.e eventual development will provide
.
Exhibit B
Page75 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
for a transit-suppOliive land use pattern adjacent to a BRT line on Pioneer Parkway. The
development will incorporate medical services, office, commercial and residential land
use., The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent withJhis policy.
"F-4. Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed-use and multi-unit residential development.
The SDC has been acknowledged by the DLCD as being consistent with TranspOliation
Planning Rule 12, including containing adequate provisions for bicycles and pedestrians
facilities. The applicant will be required to comply with these standards for any
development approved by these plan amendments. Additionally, the City and Lane
Transit District have dete1111ined that Bus Rapid Transit phase 2 will extend BRT to the
Gateway MDR site. The master plan approval process will ensure that the transit stop is
approp11ately placed to encourage transit use. Therefore, this metro plan policy is
fulfilled.
"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 MDRsite is one 'ofthese sites.
The assessment of this site is underway. It is anticipated that the redesignation of
approp11ate property at the Gateway MDR Site will be processed concurrently with the
applicant's master plan; therefore, this policy is fulfilled. The Amendments further 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.
Transportation Demand Management Policies (Metro Plan page III-F-6)
"F.6 Expand existing TDM programs and develop new TDM programs. Establish
TDM benchmarks and if the benchmarks are not achieved, mandat01Y programs may
be established. "
Residential Implementation Action 13.7 requires a Trip Allocation Plan to be subnlitted
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. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"F.8 Implemeilt TDM strategies to manage demal1d at congested locations."
The trip cap required by Residential Implementation Action 13.7, in addition to the
extension ofBRT, are strategies intended to reduce congestion. The applicant will be
required to submit a TranspOliation Impact Analysis for both the required master plan
Exhibit B
Page76 of 128
4/21/03
-':~q\ t
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. The City
Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
.
Transportation System Improvements: System-Wide (Metro Plan page III-F-7)
"F.10 Protect and manage existil1g and future existing transportation infi'astructure. "
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 Amendments protect and
manage existing and future transportation infrastructure because, as explained in sections
of this application addressing the transpOliation planning rule and the Oregon Highway
Plan, this application maintains acceptable volume to capacity ("V/C") ratios at relevant
intersections. Additional findings relating to this and other transpoliation related policies
are discussed under the Goal 12 findings set forth above. The City Council incorporates
those findings here with respect to these transpOliation policies.
"F.ll Develop or promote in term odal linkages for connectivity and ease of tramfer
among all transportation modes. "
The Gateway MDR site will have intennodallinkages between BRT and pedestlian and
bicycle facilities. Moreover, the applicant will be required to provide bicycle and .
pedestrian connections through the areas subject to these plan amendnients to
surrounding residential area as required bySDC Articles 31 an 32. BRT and/or
traditional bus service will provide transit linkage to the site. All intennodallinkages
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.l3 Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability. "
This application furthers this policy by encouraging development of areas adjacent to a
transit line with connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle links. The BRT line, the on-site
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and the required linkages to the surrounding developed
residential 'areas as approved by the required master plan will create livability within new
neighborhoods at the Gateway MDR site and will enhance livability in existing
surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, this Metro Plan policy can be complied with.
Transportation System Improvements: Roadways (Metro Plan page III-F-8)
"F.1S motor vehicle level of service policy';
"1. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptable and
reliable pel10rmance on the roadway system. These standards shall be used
for:
a) Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
.
Exhibit B
Page77 of 128
4/21/03
.
b) Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations, pursuant
to the TPR (OAR 660-12-0060).
c) Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction. "
This application implements this policy because, as explained elsewhere, the affected
roadways will not experience an unacceptable decline in capacity due to this application.
The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis in suppOli of the proposed plan
amendments. The TIA has been reviewed by the City Transportation Engineer and by
ODOT who have deterinined 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 pel:formance is defined by the following levels of service
under peak hour traffic conditions: LOS E within Eugene's Celltral Area
Tran!!'portation Study (CATS) area, and LOS D elsewhere."
This application does not change the definition of acceptable and reliable perfom1ance.,
As this, application explains and the attached traffic analysis demonstrates, the application
will maintain required levels of service.
.
"3. Pelformance 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
pelformance 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 !!'ystem 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 ofTSI Roadway Policy #2: Motor Vehicle
Level of Service to require deferral of development in such cases. The intentis to defer
motor vehicle capacity increasing tran!!'portation system improvements until existing
constraints can be overcome or develop an alternative mix of strategies (such as: land
use measures, TDM, short-term safety improvements) to addl~ess the problem. "
The Amendments do not affect the use of perfoTInance standards from the OHP on state
transportation facilities. As the findings elsewhere in this decision demonstrate, the
Amendments and eventual development will maintain required volume to capacity
("Vie") 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. "
Exhibit B
Page78 of 128
4/21/03
e......
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 authOlized by these plan
amendments dUling the development review process and will ensure compliance with this
Metro Plan policy.
Transportation System Improvements: Transit (J\1etro Plan page III-F-9)
"F.18 Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility,
attractiveness, and convenience for all users, including the transportation
disadvantaged population. "
The Gateway MDR site has been identified by LTD and the City as a BRT phase 2
service area. L TD is on the City's Development Review Committee and will provide
recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council during the master
plan review on the most efficient way to provide traditional and rapid transit service to
any development pennitted by these plan amendments. The City Council finds that the
Amendments are consistent with this policy. ,
"F.19 Establish a BRT system composed offrequent, fast transit service on maJor
corridors and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service and
with activity centers, ~f the system is shown to increase transit mode split along BRT
corridors, if local governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the ~ystem is
feasible. "
.
The City of Springfield is working with L TD to facilitate the extension of the BR T line to
serve the area subject to these plan amendments in confonnance with this Metro Plan
policy. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
Transportation System Improvements: Bicycle (Metro Plan page III-F-IO)
"F.22 , Construct and improve the region's bikeway system and provide bicycle !:lJ)stem
support facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion. "
The Amendment further this policy by providing for an opportunity for extensive bike,
system improvements adjacent to and connecting with the local roadway network on the
site. While these Amendments do not directly affect the provision of bicycle service to
the subject area, the Springfield Bicycle Plan shows bicycle connections and a multi-use
path through the areas subject to these plan amendments. The construction of these
bicycle facilities as well as bicycle suppOli facilities such as covered bicycle parking in
confonnance with SDC 31.220, will be a requirement of development approval and will
implement this Metro Plan policy.
"F.23 Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector
streets, "
.
Exhibit B
Page79 of 128
4/21/03
.
TransPlan, adopted by the three jurisdictions iil December of 200 1, implements this
policy by requiling bikeways along all new and reconstruyted alierial and major collector
streets. The areas subject to these Amendments will contain alielial and collector streets
that will be improved with bikeways as provided for in TransPlan. PiOIieer Parkway will
contain a bikeway. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this
policy.
"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
pennitted by these Amendments at the time of master plan and subsequent site plan
review and implements this policy. This application furthers this policy by providing
bikeways to connect this development with nearby neighborhood activity centers and
major destinations including retail and employer destinations to the nOlihwest and north
and retail destinations to the south. The City Council finds that the Amendments are
consistent with this policy.
Transportation System Improvements: Pedestrian (Metro Plan page III-F-ll)
.
"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 SDCArticle 41. These standards are designed to create a pedestrian
envirollinent 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 envirollinent integrated with adjacent land uses and not only designed
to enhance the safety, comfOli and convenience of walking but will encourage pedestrian
activity. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this policy.
"F.27 Provide for a continuous pedestriallnetwork with reasonably direct travel
routes between destination points. rr
The 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 pOliions of the Gateway MDR site.
There is enough annexed ten-itory at the site to allow for a comprehensive review of this
plan to ensure consistency with this Metro Plan policy.
.
Exhibit B
Page80 of 128
4/21/03
"F.28 Construct sidewalks along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except
freeways. ,i
.
" SDC 32.040 requires sidewalks to be installed along both sides of all minor mierial,
collector and local roadways within Splingfield. This standard will b~ applied to any
development pemlitted by these Amendments and therefore ensure compliance with this
Metro Plan policy.
Transportation System Finance (MetI'o Plan page III-F-14)
"F.36Require 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 to pay over 11 million dollars to
construct off-site transportation improvements to accommodate traffic. If additional
impacts are identified during the development review process, the City has a policy of
exacting additional improvements that are proportional to the impacts of the proposed
development. Therefore, confonnance with this policy will be achieved.
"F.3 7 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 includingtransportation infrastructure. Residential
Implementation Action 13.6 requires development pennitted by these plan amendments
to be designed in confonnance with the nodal standards adopted in Articles 40 and 41
and ensures consistency with this Metro Plan policy.
Public Facilities and Service Element
Services to Development Within tbe Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and Coordination
Policies (Metro Plan page III-G-4)
"G.] Extend the minimum/eve/ andfull range of key urban facilities and services ill an
orderly and efficiellt mallller 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 Council during
the master plan process. Therefore, any development approved by this amendment is guaranteed
to have these services and this application is in confonnance with this policy. The application
will result in the extension of key urban facilities and services in an orderly and efficient manner
.
Exhibit B
Page81 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
to a site within the City's UGB. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with
, this policy.
"G.2 Use the Planned Facilities Map of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide the
general location of water, waste water, stormwater, and electrical projects in the metropolitan
area. Use localfacility master plans, refinement plans, and ordinances as the guide for
detailed planning and proj(!ct implementation. " , ,
The Amendments will penllit development that will utilize the facilities as planned for in the PFP.
The application will allow development that will result in implementation of the Platmed
Facilities Map of the PFP. No amendments to this plan are required; therefore, this application is
in COnf0l111anCe with this Metro Plan policy. .
"G.3 Mod(fications and additions to or deletions from the project list in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan for water, waste water and stormwater publicfacility projects or significant
changes to project location, from that described in the Public Facilities and Services Plan maps
J, 2 and 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. The
Amendments will pel111it development that will utilize the facilities as plal11led for in the PFP. No
amendments to this plan are required; therefore, this application is in COnf0l111anCe with this
Metro Plan policy.
"G.S 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. "
The applicant has been in constant contact with the City regarding its proposal to locate a major
medical facility at the Gateway MDR site and will be required to work with the City to ensure
that public facilities are not overloaded by development of the Site. The City's coordination with
McKenzie- Willamette Hospital has resulted in the creation of the Hospital Support Overlay
District (SDC Article 27) that was adopted with the Development Code in 1987 and also in the
creation ofthe Medical Services DistIict (Article 22), adopted in 1989. Springfield staff have
been working with PeaceHealth since they began investigating the potential of siting a hospital in
Springfield. Staff will continue to plamling coordinate with both hospitals in the future in
conformance with this Metro Planpolicy.
"G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan area to
develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address regional public facility
needs. "
The Amendments further this policy by encouraging the development of a site within the existing
urban growth boundary which implements the regional growth management strategy. The three
jurisdictions have adopted the PFP and the Metro Plan both of which contain growth management
strategies and address regional pubic facility needs, The Amendments do not permit development
that is incongruent with, or requires the amendment of, either of these documents, therefore it is
consistent with this Metro Plan policy.
Exhibit B
Page82 of 128
4/21/03
'."fl'
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water (Metro Plan page
III-G-6)
.
"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
boundUlJ""
The area subject to these Amendments is entirely annexed and will be served by SUB in
confonllance with this Metro Plan policy.
"G.10 Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities, county and
"other sen1ice 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 subject to these Amendments fall within the 5 and 10 year time of travel as depicted on the
Springfield Wellhead Protection Map. As such all development permitted by theseplan
amendments will be subject to the provisions of SDC Article 17 Drinking Water Protection
Overlay District thus ensuring compliance with thls Metro Plan policy.
"G.11 Ensure that water main extensions within the urban growth boundUlJ' 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 ofthis planned water extension
will be done prior to development penllitted by these Amendments. The Springfield Fire Chief,
in consultation with SUB, detem1ined during the annexation proceedings for the area subject to
the Amendments that adequate fire flow would be available to serve development. Therefore,
this Metro Plan policy has been complied ,with.
.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater Policies (1\1etro
Plan page (IIl-G-7) ,
c
"G.13 Improve sUlface and groundwater quality and quantity in the metropolitan area by
developing regulations or instituting programs for storm water to (omitted). "
Approval of these Amendments and the eventual development will result in a development that
relies on the steps implemented by the localgovemments to ensure groupdwater quality. The
provisions of SDC Article 17 regarding groundwater protection and SDC Articles 31 and 32
relating to stom1water quality will be imposed upon any development permitted by these
Amendments. Therefore, this compliance with tillS Metro Plan policy is ensured.
"G.14 Implement changes to storm water facilities and management practices to reduce the
presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act. "
The development of the site must comply with applicable local regulations intended to implement
this policy. The SDC, as amended in August of 2002, requires stonllwater facilities and
management practices for pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and address the
.
Exhibit B
Page83 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
requirements of the ESA. These standards will be applied to any new developments pemlitted
by these Amendments and ensure compliance with this Metro Plan policy.
"G.15 Consider wellhead protection areas and sUlface water supplies when planning
fi 'l" "
storm water act ltl,es.
The provisions of SDC Article 17 and A1iicles 31 and 32 consider wellhead protection and water
quality of surface waters. The requirements of these atiicles will be applied to any development
pennitted by these Amendments at the time of development review and ensures compliance with
this poliCy.
"G.16 Manage or enhance J1'aterways and open storm water systems to reduce water quality
impacts.fi'om runoff and to improve stormwater conveyance."
SDC Ariicle 32 and 32 and the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
contain standards that manage and enhance waterways and open stol1nwater systems and reduce
water quality impacts. 'These requirements will be applied to any development pel1nitted by the
Amendments and ensure compliance with this policy. Approval of the Amendments will not
result in a development which minimizes water 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 sUlface in new development in a manner that reduces stormwater pollution, reduces
the negative affects from increases in runo.ff, 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 financial incentive for developers to
install less impervious surfaces. The City's Mixed Use and Nodal OverJaydistricts, which will
apply to developments pennitted by the A111endments, iriclude a maximum number of parking
spaces which limits impervious surfaces. Therefore, this policy will be met.
"G.19 Maintain.flood storage capacity withinthefloodplain, to the maximum extent
practical, through measures that may include reducing impervious sUl:{ace in the floodplain
and adjacent areas. "
No development is proposed as part of these application and any issues regarding floodstorage
capacity are more appropri~tely addressed during master plan, site plan review or other
comparable processes. The applicant is bound by annexation agreement to produce flood studies
to accompany the required master plan. The City Engineer will evaluate the drainage plan to
ensure confomlance with this policy and with the requirements of SDC Article 27 which
, regulates floodplain development and which has been recognized as being in confonnance with
this Metro Plan policy as well as Goal 7. Therefore, the City Council finds that the A1nendments
are consistent this Metro Plan policy.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools (Metro Plan page
II-G-I0)
"G.21 The cities shall initiate a process with school districts within the urban growth
boundaIyfor coordinating land use and school planning activities. The cities and school
districts shall examine the following in their coordination efforts: (omitted)."
Exhibit B
Page84 of 128
4/21/03
The Gateway MDR site is within the 4J School District. The District reviewed the am1exation
request and detennined 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. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan
policy.
.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Financing Policies (J\letro
Plan page III-G-15)
"G.36 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by localjurisdiction, o.fextending
urban facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a development willfu(fill goals and
recommendations in the Metro Plan and other applicable plans detel:mined by the local
jurisdiction to be of particular importance or concem. "
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 fom1 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. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this
Metro Plan policy.
"G.3 7 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 systeill expansion. "
.
The applicant will be required to pay appropriate SDC charges. The City assesses SDCs on new
de\lelopments in the City. Any development at the Gateway MDR site must contribute SDCs at
the time of development. Therefore, compliance with this policy is ensured.
Parks and Recreation Facilities Element
Policies (Metro Plan page III-H-4)
"Encourage the development of private recreational facilities."
Will(ilnalane is on the City's Development Review Committee and will participate in the review
of any development permitted by the Amendments. The City will coordinate with Willamalane
to ensure both public and private recreational facilities are adequately planned for at the master
plan level. This review will ensure compliance with this policy.
Historic Preservation Element
Policies (Metro Plan page III-I-2)
"]. Adopt and implement historic preservation policies, regulations, and incentive programs
that encourage the inventOlY, preservation, and restoration of structures; landmarks; sites; ,
areas of cultural, historic, or archeological significance, consistent with overall policies. "
.
Exhibit B
Page85 of 118
.
.
.
4/21/03
To the extent an inventoried adopted historic stmcture is on the site, the applicant will comply
with applicable goveming regulations. SDC Article 30 Historic Overlay District regulates the
alteration of recognized historic resources in Springfield. There are at least three contributing
histOlic stmctures, as identified in the GRP, in the area affected by the Amendments. Any
impacts to these stmctures by development permitted by the Amendments will be reviewed under
the guidelines proscribed in Article 30 and ensures that these resources are considered under the
guidelines of this policy. .
Energy Element
Policies (Metro Plan page III-J-:!l
"3. Land allocation and development pattems shall perm itth e 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 and
MUC zoning districts pem1itted by the Amendments will be subject to the solar setback standards
of SDC 16.050(5) where they abut residential areas to the north. The application ofthese
standards at the development review phase will ensure that this policy is met.
"4. Encourage development that takes advantage of natural conditions, such as microclimate,
and utilizes renewable energy supplies, such as solar energy, to minimize nonrenewable and
overall energy consumption. "
Although no development is proposed as pari ofthis approval, any development that does occur
on the Gateway MDR site will take advantage ofthe natural conditions of the area for a variety of
purposes, including maximization of solar energy utilization. During the development review
phase of any uses pem1itted 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. The City Council finds that the Amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan
policy.
"7. Encourage medium and high density residential uses when balanced with other planning
policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of allforms 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 home, work, and shopping and reducing energy consumption.
This will not result in residential development being located any further from public
transportation facilities or paths than is already planned because the application proposes to
change the Plan Map designation of residential land to commercial land. The Amendments will
allow for MDRlnodal development adjacent to areas zoned for MS and MUC. MDR with a nodal
overlay has no maximum density; the density is limited by a maximum height restriction. This
potential density wili encourage developers to utilize creative tec1miques in the design of the
Exhibit B
Page86 of 128
4/21/03
;.',"\\ I ,
residential areas of the areas affected by the Amendments. Therefore, the City Council finds that
the Amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan policy.
.
"8. Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the greatest
extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel distances, optimize reuse of
waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy generation. "
The Amendments will allow for MUC and MS and MDR and will facilitate the designation of a
nodal overlay. This will allow for a mixing of commercial and residential uses that is not
currently possible at the site. This mixture of use will allow future residents and users of the site
to live, work and shop within a 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 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. The City Council finds that the
Amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan' policy. '
H. City Council Findings Regarding Consistency with the Metro
Plan
Based upon the findings above and the evidence set forth in the record, the City Council finds that
the Metro Plan map amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan. With respect to the
amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram, the City Council also finds that Criterion (b) for Metro
Plan amendment approval contained in SDC 7.070(3) is fulfilled.
.
Based upon the findings above and the evidence set forth in the record, the City Council finds that
the Gateway Refinement Plan Diagram and text amendments are consistent with the Metro Plan.
The City Council finds that Criterion (1) for GRP map and text amendment approval contained in
SDC 8.030 is fulfilled.
I. Consistent With Gateway Refinement Plan For The Metro
Plan and GRP Diagram Amendments
1. Summary
This section of this findings addresses the applicable goals, objectives, and policies 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. That this
application addresses certain Goals, Policies, and Objectives that could arguably fit
within one of those three categories of exclusion should not be considered a waiver by
the applicant of the argument that a Goal, Objective, or Policy does not apply to this
application by virtue ofthe fact that it falls within one those three categories.
.
Residential Element Policies and Implementation Actions
Exhibit B
PageS7 of 128
.'
.
4/21/03
"1. 0 The City shall, through site plan review, home and neighborhood improv~ment
programs, and/or other related programs, actively participate in efforts to
maintain and enhance existing residential neighborhoods and attract
compatible multi-family developments that would enhance the Gateway
Refinement Plan area. "
This application 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 andhospitallmedical uses planned at RiverBend.
"15.0 Encourage the inc01poration of sign~ficant 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. This policy will be
implemented through the master planning process.
"16.1 At the property owners' request, the City shall work with the property owners
and appropriate state, federal, and non-profit agencies, to seekfinancing
, assistal1ce for housing developments and associated public facilities and
amenities, where a minimum of 20% of the total units would provide low-
moderate income housing opportunities, consistent with US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines for low-moderate income. "
,
No specific devClopment is proposed as part of this application; 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 011 residential areas."
No specific development is proposed as pari of this application; therefore, it is not
appropriate to consider the impacts of public facilities at this time.
Exhibit B
Page88\of 128
4/21/03
"17.1 Future electrical substations, roads, fire stations; and sanitaJ:l7 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 maS0111:l7 fences or walls, and other methods that provide aesthetic
b11;,ffering. "
.
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 the 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
MDR, to LDR in theconte.xt 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 application does not affect the MDR designated)and located east of Baldy View
Lane.
4.
Commercial Element
Goals
.
"1.. Improve the appearance and vitality of all commercial activities ill the Gateway
Refinement Plan area, especially those that promote regional economic
, developmelit and provide everyday neighborhood services. "
The CCdesignation and Mixed Use Plan zoning will help to ensure the long-tenn vitality
of the GRP area, and provide the opportunity for a compatible mix of medical, office, and
small-scale comniercial retail uses that will provide everyday support services to the Site.
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 application, the required
master plan and any specific development proposals, including the placement of the
MUC zoning, for the site will carefully consider the interaction of the commercial and
residential uses of the site and the interaction of site uses with adjacent development. It
is through the master plan and site plan review processes that designs can be evaluated to
detennine if there are any potential conflicts between residential and commercial
development, and how such conflicts may be minimizedand/or mitigated.
"3.
Ens';r'! availability of an adequate supply of land appropriate for commercial
development. "
.
Exhibit B
Page89 of 128
.
.
.
4121/03
As noted previously in this application, Spllngfield's acknowledged Commercial Lands
Study (SCLS) found there to be a deficit of needed commercial lands 'city~wide and
specifically in the McKenzie/Gateway area. This application will result in an increased
supply of cOlmnercialland and is, therefore, consistent with the SCLS and this goal. The
Findings under Goal 9 discuss this issue in greater detail.
Policies and Implementation Actions
"1. 0 Provide for appropriate buffering between commercial and adjacent residential .
uses. "
The Amendments will result in development of conlmercial uses as allowed in the Mixed
Use Commercial zoning district. 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 be required to provide an
appropriate buffer between these different uses consistent with this policy and the
regulations in the master plamling process. The precise method and width of buffering
will most appropliate1y be addressed dming the lllasterplan and site plan review
processes.
"4.0 Recognize existing neighborhood commercial-scale uses; utilize NC and GO
Re.finement Plan designations to accommodate the uses where appropriate,
providing a bu.ffer for residential areas from more intensive commercial uses
and arterial streets. "
There are no existing neighborhood commercial scale uses on the site.
"6.0 Resolve conflicts between plan designations and zoning. "
There are no current conflicts between the site's plan designations and zoning. The CC
designation and MUC zoning will be applied through the master plan or nodal
implementation process, thus resolving any temporary conflict.
5. Natural Assets, Open Space/Scenic Areas, and Recreation Element
Goals
"1. Provide for development of the Gateway Refinement Plan area that is sensitive
to and integrates, to the maximum degree practicable, the multiple functioilS
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 on the site through the master plan will be sensitive to the natural
resources present by integrating these natural amenities into the overall design for a
Exhibit B
Page90 of 128
4/21/03
"'\\ :
healing enviromnent at RiverBend. All development must be consistent with all.
applicable SDC regulations, which implement this Goal. While relevant to the master
plan rather than these Amendments, PeaceHealth's overall design for the Site will be
. required to include significant open space, conservation ofthe major tree groves, and
areas for passive recreation and enjoyment ofthe area's ecology, as well as enhancements
to the functions and values of the river's liparian corridor consistent with SDC
regulations.
"2. Utilize the functions and values of the Re.finement Plan area's natural assets
(e.g. swales and drainageways), to assist and accommodate development, while
maintaining their ability to provide long term b11;,ffering of the natural resource
values outside the UGB from urban development within the UGB. "
The McKenzie River liparian 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 appropliate development buffers
along the river's riparian conidor. Adoption of the Amendments 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 areas.
"3.
Emphasize the Refinement Plan area as a "Gateway to the McKenzie" by
maintaining and enhancing the attributes that contribute sign~ficantly 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 oppOliunity to realize the GRP's goals to provide the
public with physical and visual access to and along the liver. . 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, there can be no impact
to these resources. Through the master plan and sitedevel9pment 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 5paces that include, where practical,
remnants of the area's agricultural character. "
Adoption of the Amendments will not affect the ability to provide educational and
recreational opportunities. The proposed change ftom the current residential designation
to a commercial designation will not reduce those opportunities because there is nothing
inherent in a cOlmnercial use that has a greater effect on those oppOliunities than a
residential use. The ability to integrate proposed future development with natural
.
Exhibit B.
Page91 of 128
4/21/03
.
resources, scenic areas, etc. will be reviewed through the master plan process rather than
this application.
'1
"5. Encourage and plan for recreational opportunities within the Re.finement 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 oppOliunitiesin a comprehensively planned development
on the site. Moreover, through the master plan process, PeaceHealth will be required to
comply with all applicable SDC regulations implementing this policy. Nothing in the
Amendments will affect the ability to provide these beneficial recreational oppOliunities
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.
"6. Provide s11;,fficient, high quality, accessible recreational services/opportunities to
residents within the Refinement Plan area; and expand the
recreational/educational opportunities associated wit!, the area's natural and
historic values for enjoyment and education of the entire community."
The Amendments do hot affect the ability to provide recreational oppOliunities or
services, and the above policy is more appropriately assessed in relation to the required
master plan for the site.
.
"7.
Develop a pathway system that encourages bicycle transporta~ion throughout
the Refinement Plan area, provides public access to the McKenzie River and
ripal'ian areas, and enables recreational/educational appreciation of the area's
natural assets and open ~pace/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 confonnance with this goal, and all
development must comply with applicable provisions of the SDC impleli1enting this
policy.
"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
pedestlianlbicycle network internally, but also will provide effective connections to th~
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
confonnance with the above goal is appropriately considered through the review of the
master plan and not this application. The Amendments will not affect the ability to
Exhibit B
Page92 of 128
4/21/03
provide a pathway system because there is nothing inherent in a commercial use 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 under this application, PeaceHealth's master plan is
expected to conserve the mature tree stands, the riparian zones and other natural assets
illustrated in the GRP as much as practicable. The changes proposed by this application
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 l~fe and property related to development within
the.floodway 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 River and the local aquifer."
The City's identified wellhead protection zones encompass portions of the site and area
subject to proposed redesignation. Future uses within these various Time of Travel zones
will have to confonn to all provisions in the Springfield Development Code Article 17
(Drinking Water Protection Overlay District) to maintain groundwater quality. The
master plan and Site Plan Review processes are the appropriate venues for detennining
specific confonl1ance with the above policy, as there is nothing inherent within any uses
allowed in the proposed Plan designations that would necessarily hann groundwater
quality.
Likewise, management of stonnwater runoff from future development on the site will be
assessed through the master plan and Site Plan Review processes to ensure protection of
the quality of McKenzie River water. It should be noted, however, that the topography
on the site and direction of surface water flows is generally to the northwest and away
from the river as it abuts the site to the east. Additionally, the site possesses highly
penneable soils that may be suitable for alternative stonnwater management methods,
provided that such proposals eonfonn with Article 17 requirements. PeaceHealth's
annexation agreement with the City requires that the RiverBend master plan include a
comprehensive stonnwater management plan consistent with best management practices
promulgated in the City of Portland's stonnwater management manual. All of the above
.
Exhibit B
Page93 of 128
4121/03
.
issues will be addressed through the master plan process, rather than as pari of this
app li cati on.
"12. A cknowledge the importance of trees and other landscape features to the
overall image and livability of the Re.finement 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 enviroill11ent. 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 confom1 with applicable provisions of the SDC
implementing this policy.
Policies and Implementation Actions
"1. 0 Protect the waterside (riparian) corridors and natura/vegetative fringes
associated with the McKenzie River and Maple Island Slough."
.
Adoption of the Amendments will not result in an increased impact on the lipari~m
corridors because the same level of impact would be allowed under both the current
residential designation and the proposed commercial designation. 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 thefollowing interim protection measures shall
be applied to the entire McKenzie River riparian area (as 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 intelim
management measures to site development at this time because no development is
proposed as pari ofthis application. All intelim measures will necessarilybe complied
with during the master plan and Site Development Review process.
"2.0 Recognize the unsuitability (due to flood hazard) of the McKenzie River
floodway for urban development, and explore its suitabilityforfu(filling
community recreation needs, and for bu.ffering 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.
.
Exhibit B
.Page94 of 128
4/21/03
"3.0 Ensure adequate storm drainage management planning, emphasizing the
minimization of negative impacts on water quality and quantity resultingfrom
development in the Re.finement Plan area. "
.
It is not appropliate to address st0l111 drainage management planning at this time because
no development is proposed as pari of this approval. Stonn 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 pari of this approval, it is inappropriate to
address protection of any open drainageways or swales present on the site atthis time.
PeaceHealth's master plan for the site will be required to incorporate existing and new
open drainages, swales, and other st0l111water management measures with oppOliunities
for natural resource protection and enhancement and will be required to comply with all
applicable SDC provisions relating to stonnwater.
"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 cOlltinued provision of wetland functions and values. "
Although no development approval is being sought as part of the Amendments, the two
small wetlands on the site have been delineated and the Division of State Lands has '
concurred with that wetland delineation.
.
"7.1 Through the site plan review process, require wetland delineati01i 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 S 16. The two jmisdiciional
wetlands on the, Site (each 0.02 acres in size) have been delineated.
"8.0 Afaintain and enhance the scenic and open space amenity values in the'
Refinement Plan 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.
.
Exhibit B
Page95 ofl28
4121/03
.
6. Historic Resources Element
Goals
"1: As development and change in the Gateway Re.finement Plan area occurs, the
retention and rehabilitation of significant historic' resources should be achieved
in order to maintain the area's historidculturallinkages to past settlement
patterns, and to maintain the educational, cultural, and aesthetic amenity
values associated with them. "
Although some "contributing histOlic 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. Through the master plan review, this policy and all
implementing provisions of the SDC must be adhered to.
.
"2. Establish policies, and incentives where possible, to ensure sufficient
consideration and documentation of ident~fied significant historic resources, so
that future developments and/or del11olitions 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 historic resources in the GRP. The existing'contIibuting historic
resources' identified on the site will be addressed appropriately through subsequent
processes and not part of this application.
"3. Provide policy guidelines adequate to ensure compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 5 and the Metro Plan (as they pertain to historic preservation)
specific to the newly identifiedsignificant historic resources within the Gateway
Refinement Plan area. "
Springfield Development Code Article 30 (Historic Overlay Zone) serves as the policy
basis for treatment ofhistOlic resources in the GRP. The existing "contributing historic
resources" identified on the site will be addressed appropriately through subsequent
processes and not pari of this application
Policies and Implementation Actions
"2.0 On-site retention ofsignificant GoalS historic resources shall be encouraged.
However, moving the structures shall be allowed. "
-.
Although some "contributing historic resources" may be located on theSite, 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. All development approved through the
Exhibit B
Page96 of 128
, 4/21/03
master plan process will be required to comply with the applicable historic overlay and
Goal 5 implementing pOliions of the SDC.
.
7. Transportation Element
Goals
"1. Provide for a safe and efficient transportation system for tile Gateway
Refinement Plan area. "
As explained elsewhere in these Findings, the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the Site
and layout of this system as pari 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.
"2. Reduce the reliance on single-occupancy vehicles by providing cost-effective
and convenient alternate transportation modes. "
Nothing in this application will affect provision of alternative transpOliation 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 Fann Road
South that are incompatible with the road's design and function, and which have long
plagued residents of the Game Fann 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
PeaceHealth's participation in improving the Pioneer Parkway extension and other
connecting streets. Again, more specific Findings are set forth with respect to Goal 12.
"4. Plan and design an efficient and flexible transportation !<.ystem 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 application, the movement of
pedestrians and bicyclists will not be affected by these Amendments. More.over, 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.
.
Exhibit B
Page97 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
" 7.
Establish a network o.f pedestrian and bicycle pathways that connects the
Re.finement Plan area to a broader metropolitan tramportationand
recreational system. " ,
Because no specific development is proposed as pari ofthe 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 pari of Peace Health'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 considered in
conjunction with the TIA and will be more fully illustrated with detailed access and
circulation through PeaceHealth's master plan for the site.
"5.0 Coordinate with LTD to improve the efficiency and convenience of bus service
to the area. "
This application has no effect on the operation of the bus system or coordination of bus
service because no development is proposed, but such coordination will occur as part of
PeaceHealth's master planning process. More specific Findings regarding this policy are
set fOlih 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 p31i of the application, but this will be considered as pali of the RiverBend
master plan. All transpcniation-related provisions in the SDCand TransPlan related to
, bicycle transportation must be complied with dUling master planreview.
"6.1 Construct on-street bike lanes along Game Farm Road North and GameParm
Road South as specified by TransPlan projects #670 & #671. Explore the
feasibility of developing an off-street bike path along the section of the former
.'
Exhibit B
Page98 of 128
4/21/03
t-"',
Southern Pac~fic right-of-way that runs from Harlow Road to Game Farm
Road South. "
.
This application 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 pad of Peace Health's master plan for
the site and all transpOliation-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 application; 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. "
Design of a complete network of sidewalks and pathways will be included as pari of the
Site's master plan, and not pmi of this application, subject to the provisions of the SDC
and TransPlan.
"7.1 Requirefull street improvements in conjunction with new residential,
commercial, and industrial development projects during the site plan review
process. "
.
This application has no effect on street improvements because no development is
proposed as part ofthe application; however, all such improvements required under the
SDC and TransPlan will be provide through the master plan process. '
"7.4 Upgrade Game Farm Road South between Harlow and Belt Line Roads to a 2-3
lane, city- standard street, including sidewalks and bike patbs, consistent with
TransPlan project #275. If the Pioneer Parkway is extended to serve a
north-south arterial function (#17 on the Trallsportation 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 Fann Road South to urban standards, at least in the
short-teml. This policy and the transportation-related improvements are more
pmiicularly addressed under the findings for Goal 12. ,
"8.0 Encourage concentrations of pedestrian and transit am ell itiesin high activity
areas and along arterial streets with high pedestrian traffic. "
This application 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.
.
Exhibit B
Page99 of 128
4/21/03
.
Pursuant to t~e 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 f>peciallight 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 within
convenient distance for pedestrians and for transit riders. Because no development is
pmposed, 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 f>J)stem, providing a convenient pedestrian/transit system. "
Although the an-angemerit and mix ofland uses enabled by the Amendments will help
provide destinations convenient for pedestrian and transit acc,ess, actual building
placement and orientation will appropriately be considered through the master plan and
site plan review processes rather than as part of this application.
.'
"11. 0 Plan and design new streets in a manner that reduces substandard dead-end
,streets, provides adequate access and circulation (particularly for eme,:gency
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 f>ystem development in the McKenzie-Gateway SLI and
the 180-acre MDR sites should occur as needed in conjunction with SLI and
MDR development, and shall include pedestrian, bicyCle, and transit facilities to
reduce vehiCle trip generation. "
Design of transportation systems for all modes of travel will be incorporated in the site's
master plan. Because no development is proposed as part of this application, it is
inappropliate to address transpoliation system development at this time; however, to the
extent applicable, additional findings regarding transpOliation-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 Fann Road South and through the local
neighborhood. However, the design of this and other transportation facilities is
Exhibit B
PagelOO of 128
4/21/03
"(V
appropriately assessed through the master plan process instead of the Plan amendment
process.
.
"23.0 Connect pathway networks through open space corridors, bike and pedestrian
paths, and on-street bike route connectors both within the Gateway boundaries
'. and beyond to the regional pathway system. "
Pathway networks and connections to the regional system will be considered fully
through the master plan process. Adoption of the Amendments has no impact on
pathway networks because no development is proposed and nothing inherent in the
Amendments would affect such pathways. '
"23.3 Provide on-street bike routes as part of street construction of projects listed 011
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 alld 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
maimer 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 Belt1ine and Game Fam1 Road East/Deadmond Ferry Road to provide needed
campus industrial access, and to minimize neighborhood impacts. , The City Council
pared down a list of several options for location of the North Link to two, both of which
are located outside of the Site. Therefore, the proposed Plan amendments have no
bearing on the selection of the preferred North Link option. Additionally, the findings
under Goal 12 more particularly discuss the transportation-related elements of the GRP.
.
"25.0 Facilitate the efficient operation of transportation systems serving the
commercially developed areas. "
The applicantion's TIA demonstrates that development on the RiverBend campus
through the planning horizon will not have a significant effect on transportation systems
in the are,a 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 pari of this Plan amendment application. '
"25.1 Provide for the future expansion of the intersection of Gateway Street and Belt
Line Road when reviewing site plans for developments fronting this
intersection. "
Nothing in this application affects the City's ability to review site plans for developments
fronting on Gateway Streeta,nd Belt Line Road, and no pari of the Site fronts onto this
.
Exhibit B
PagelOl of 128
4/2 I /03
.
intersection. However, through its annexation agreement with the City, PeaceHealth has
committed to providing $7,000,000 for future improvements to this intersection.
"25.2 Providefor transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities as part of new retail and
office commercial development. "
Provision for such facilities will be considered appropliately through the master plan and
Site Plan Review processes.
"26.0 Ensure that thefuture road system in the area ident~fied as the
"McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site" meets the transportation needs of the area in a
manner that is sensitive to the interests and cOllcerns 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 characteristicsfor all road improvements and/or
additions to the road system within the urbanizable a;-ea identified on the
Refinement Plan Diagram as the McKenzie-:Gateway MDR site, shall be .
determined and established jointly by the Lane County Board of Commissioners
and the Springfield City Council"
.
With the exception of the exact North Link option, the aligmnent 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 confonnance 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 o.f public sanita1:J7 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 phin process. Nothing in this application 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 this Goal applies to this
application, 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
developedfacilities or undeveloped property prematurely. "
Exhibit B
Page102 of 128
4/21/03
This goal does not apply to this application because the phasing of construction of public
facilities should be addressed through the master plan process or when constiuction of
those facilities is proposed.
.
"3. Design and construct public facilities to minimize impacts on surrouilding 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. Inc01porate 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 pari of this application; therefore, thereis no
impact on planning and construction of public facilities from this application.
Policies and Im.plementation Actions
. "2.0 Provide storm drainage facilities to newly annexed areas. "
Although the site is a newly am1exed area, there is ample room on the site for stonn
drainage facilities. A change in designation from residential to comrn,ercial by itself does
not affect the provision of stonn drainage facilities and the siting and design of those'
facilities is more appropriately addressed during the master plan and site plan review
processes.
.
"2.2.. Require the consideration of the use of storm drainage facilities that store mid
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 POliland's
stonl1water management design manual to incorporate the use of best management
practices. Confonnance with these provisions will be appropriately considered through
the master plan and Site Plan Review processes. There is nothing inherent in the change
from a residential to a commercial designation that would affect the ability to consider
the construction of stonn drainage detention facilities or the use of natural stonl1 water
drainage features during the site plan review Process.
"4.0 Continue providing pure and ample supplies of water to the Re.finement Plan
area. "
Splingfield 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
.
Exhibit B
Pagel03 of 128
4/21/03
.
in the change in designation to commercial that will result in the failure to provide ample
water supplies.
"4.2 All storm drainage systems serving properties north of Belt Line Road shall be
designed to ensure the continued purity of the Rainbow well field to the north. "
Although a small pOlii6n 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 dUling the Site Plan Review
process.
J. City Council Findings Regarding Consistency with GRP
Based upon the findings above and the evidence set fOlih in the record, the City Council
finds that the Metro Plan Map amendment is consistent with the GRP. Consequently,
with respect to the amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram, the City Council also finds
that Criterion (b) for Metro Plan amendment approval contained in SDC 7.070(3) is
fulfilled.
.
Based upon the findings above and the evidence set forth in the record, the City Council
finds that'the Gateway Refinement Plan Diagram and text amendments are consistent ,
with the GRP. The City Council therefore finds that Criterion (I) for GRP map and text
amendment approval set forth in SDC 8.030 is also fulfilled.,
K. Response to Public Testimony Received During the City
Council Public Hearing
1. Issue: "General support of proposed amendments."
Those Raising the Issue: Susan Pennington, Jeri Stark, Barbara Vander Meer, Janet Burch,
David Deutch, Anna Mitchell, Christine Traver, Stub Stewart, Jolm Thomas, Marian Woodreff,
Chuck McGlade, frank Casebolt, Ericka Thessen, Linda Center, Michelle Bivens, Linda Jolm,
Kathryn Bruebaker, Richard NurTe, Rosella Jones, CynthIa Hart, Maurice Moore, Dawn
Cham:poux, Jay Christensen, James Horniman, Nonnan Pianalto, Randy Nawalanier, Martin
Thiele, Victor fresolone, Joseph Gonyea, Michael Mellor, Helen Walsh, Mrs. Saul, Mathews
fish, Patricia Adlum, Roscoe Lawless, Roger and Patricia Lee, qeorge Mayer, Tom Ewing,
Richard Johnston, Charlotte Stirling, Don and Karen Bridges, Richard Sharboneau, Michael
Wildish, Scott Siebert, Brian Churchill, Laurel Smith, Lyml Jolly, Steve Jamison, Ada Lee, Kevin
Gent, Mark Hetrick, David and Donna Hawkins, Linda Jackson, Jerome fitzgerald, Ralph
Jolmson, Jo1m Phillips, Debi White, Susan Ban, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Rich Hicks,
Sister Monica Heeren, Christine Lundburg, Tim HarrmaIm, Vernon Katz, Alice Wagner, Gary
LeClair, Casey Woodard, Roger Saydeck, Greg Harris, John Hyland, Robert Walwyn, Clark
Winston Cox Ir., Lisa Van Winkle, Larry Reed, Mike Sc1mlidt, Carmen Urbina, Tim Malloy. .
.
Staff Response: These individuals submitted written or oral testimony that did not raise an issue
specifically, but provided testimony or portions of testimony that is generally in favor ofthe'
proposed plan amendments.
Exhibit B
Pagel 04 of 128
4/21/03
t'"f"''-'" .
.2.
Issue: "General opposition to the proposed amendments."
.
Those Raising the Issue: Tom Aldennan, D.L Rush, Eden May, Dori Matlock, Elenore Brinton,
R Schleyer, Lois Beisell,Ron Tumer, Craig Shelby, Hanalei Rosen, Donna Goles, James Fox,
Gail Campbell, .Tolm Fluent, Carolyn Wells, Aaron Helfrich, Dave Jolliffy, Cathy Ellis, Susan
Wolling, Art Farley, Carol James, Greg Shaver, Dave Carvo.
Staff Response: These individuals submitted written or oral testimony thatdid not raise a
specific issue, but' provided evidence or portions of testimony that is generally in opposition to
the proposed plan amendments. The following points raised were in opposition to the proposed
amendments
3. Issue: "Adequacy of public participation (Goal 1 ) for the procedural steps taken
during the plan amendment proceedings."
Those Raising the Issue: Linda Shaver, Jan Wilson, Kristine Bowerman, Tom Bowennan, Ken
& Barbara Cerotsky, Don Bishoff, Lauri Segel, Anne Heinsoo.
Staff Response: While Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (PAPAs) such as the ones
before the City Council may have impacts that affect the general community, the Springfield
Development Code, which has been recognized by the State as implementing the Statewide
Planning Goals and the Metro Plan, contains no requirement that the City or the applicant
organize or participate in a community-wide public discussion. The procedures, found in Articles
7 and 8 and in AIticle 14 of the SDC, have been followed during the processing of these,
applications. Opportunities for citizen influence have been available at all stages of the pIau
amendments. The required master plan will follow a similar procedural path, with work sessions .
and public hearings before both the Plamling Commission and the City Council.
4. Issue: "Those who feel Eugene and Lane County should pmiicipate in the
decision making process."
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson, Kevin Matthews, Lauri Segel, Anne Heinsoo.
Staff Response: Much ofthe discussion regarding this issue focuses on the argument that the
. location of a regional hospital would have affects on health care provision and other issues '
beyond the home city, therefore it would be appropriate to involve all three jurisdictions. Sonie
testimony entered into the record implies that it is a legal requirement to involve all three
jurisdictions. This is not the case. The Metro Plan map amendment to change up to 33 acres of
MDR to MUC is a Type II Metro Plan amendment as defined by the Metro Plan.
Springfield Development Code section 7.070 provides that, "To become effective, a Metro Plan
Type II amendment inside the city limits must be approved by the Home City." The subject ,
amendment is a site-specific Type II amendment involving land that is entirely within the city
limits of the City of Springfield. Accordingly, it requires only approval by the Springfield City
Council to become effective.
The question of whether the City of Eugene should participate in plan amendments applies only
to the Metro Plan Map amendment, in this case the MDR to CC. The amendments that would
allow for the rezoning of MDR to MS, and thus allow for the construction of a hospital, does not
require a Metro Plan amendment but does require Gateway Refinement Plan text amendments.
For refinement plan amendments, the provisions of SDC Article 7 do not apply and there is no
.
Exhibit B
Page105 of 128
4/21/03
.
need to make a detemlination of regional impact and home city. The City of Springfield has
jurisdiction over all of the refinement plans within the Springfield UGB. The only question over
shared jurisdiction for refinement plans is in regards to affects the amendments would have on
property outside of the city limits. If the amendments affect property outside of the city limits
then Lane County must pmiicipate. The proposed plan amendments in these applications affects
are limited to property inside the city limits. Therefore, the decision on these matters is wholly a
decision of the City of Springfield.
Please also refer to the explanatioli of Type II amendments under the Type of Plan Amendments
in the Application of the Criteria section of the staff repOli.
5. Issue: "The plall amendments are incongruent with GRP Natural Assets, Open
Space/Scenic Areas & Recreation Element Iniplementation Action 8.2 calls for
orientation and location of buildings at the Gateway MDR site in a manner to "avoid or
minimize obstruction of scenic views of the McKenzie River cOlTidor alld the Coburg
Hills. "
Those Raising the Issue: Kristine Bowemlan.
.
Staff Response: The proposed GRP amendments do not propose any change to GRP Natural
Assets, Open Space/Scenic Areas & Recreation Element Implementation Action 8.2. Nor do they
propose or allow any construction or chart a path regarding the arrangement of structures on the
site. DUling the review of any future master plan and/or site plan review application the City
Council and staff will apply this policy to development requests.
6. Issue: "The Metro Plan and GRP text amendments are not site specific and
therefore constitute a Type I Metro Plan amendment." ,
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson.
Staff Response: Residential Implementation Action 12.1 allows for 33 acres of CC plan
designation to replace MDR designation for annexed property at the Gateway MDR site. The
Gateway MDR site is a geographically defined area as depicted in the GRPand is therefore a site-
specific area. The Metro plan contains no policy language defining "site~specific" nor does it
have a policy requiring that a legal description of the property in question must acconipany a
plan designation ainendment. To illustrate the intentional generalization of the Metro Plan
Diagram, Page II-E-l ofthe Metro Plan describes the Plan Diagram as "...drawn at a
metropolitan scale, necessitating supplementary planning on a local level." The local level
planning that will affix the designation within the Gateway MDR site is the master plan.
. Please also refer to the findings regarding the type of plan ameridments on page 16 ofthe staff
report.
7. Issue: "Application does not address the potential need for increased fire and life
safety personnel/infrastructure."
.
Those Raising the Issue: Lauri Segal, Ken Cerotsky.
Staff Response: While it is true that there is little evidence submitted into the record regarding
the impacts on the City's Fire and Life Safety Department by uses that will be allowed if the plan
amendments are approved this fact has not been related to a criteria of approval. Staff have
Exhibit B
Pagel 06 of 128
4/21/03
alerted PeaceHealth that their master plan application must be accompanied by a comprehensive
emergency service impact study. The task the applicant is required to perform is to provide a
technical, unbiased review of the impacts of the master plan development on emergency services
and the citizens served by the Springfield Department ofPire and Life Safety.
.
8. Issue: "Concern regarding delineation of the CC plan designation at master plan
approval rather than dming the plan amendment process" (Residential Implementation
Action 12.1).
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson, Peter Sorenson.
Staff Response: Approval of the plan amendments will replace up to 33 acres of Medium
Density Residential (MDR) with Community Commercial (CC) on the Metro Plan Map and
(MUC) on the GRP Map. The City of Springfield is choosing to implement this map amendment
through the utilization of the City's AIiicle 37 Master Plans. Because a master plan must by
criteria be consistent with the refinement plan the plan amendments must precede the master plan.
Upon master plan approval, the maps will be updated to reflect the delineated application of the
respective districts. This is the most efficient method to effectuate the map changes because the
City has not approved the alignment of the future intemal roadway system or the aHangement of
the future site uses. These activities will take place at the master plan. To assign the designation
during these proceedings would result in an additional plan amendment to reconfigure the map
once the master plan is approved. Proceeding under this policy does not give the applicant any
ability to place the MUC wherever they wish. The Council, under recommendation by the
Planning Commission, and after considering testimony from the neighbors and other interested
parties will decide the most appropriate alTangement for the commercial designation. The policy
and the application are site specific because it sites the CC within mmexed property in the
geographically distinct Gateway MDR site.
.
9. Issue: "Trees greater than 12-inch DBH should remain. Structures should be
setback from the river 200 feet to ensure adequate open space."
Those Raising the Issue:' Ken Cerotsky.
Staff Response: This application is intended to change several policy objectives of the GRP
primarily to allow for the siting of a hospital, medical office buildings and expanded commercial
options. The protection of trees mid setbacks from the river are issues that will be considered by
the City Council during the master plan process. The applicant will be submitting with their
master plan a tree preservation plan showing any proposed tree removal and an associated
mitigation plan. Regarding the riparian setback, Springfield's recent Code amendments relating
to protecting water quality now require a minimum of a. 75 foot setback from the top of bank. A
requirement of one amlexation agreement between PeaceHealth and the City, is that any
development on the PeaceHealth site must be setback the minimum 75 feet from the top of bank,
with an average of 100 foot setback for the entire site.
10. Issue: "Concern that it is difficult to evaluate the merits of the plan amendments
. in the absence of a master plan and feel the master plan should be processed before the
plan amendments."
Those Raising the Issue: Peter Sorenson, Ken and Barbara Cerotsky, Lauri Segel, Rob Handy.
.
Exhibit B
Pagel07 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
Staff Response: In the GRP there is no policy directive to allow for the submittal of a master
pIal} for the Gateway MDR site; the Conceptual Development Plan requirement is still ilrplace.
The policy pieces that will allow for the submittal of a master plan are replacing the current GRP
requirements. Additionally, Criteria (2) of Article 37 Master Plans requires that the master plan
confonn to the refinement plan. Therefore, the amendments to the refinement plan that make the
proposed uses allowable must take place before the master plan is submitted.
11. - Issue: "Define PeaceHealth's main hospital facilities as core to a nodal
development center."
Those Raising the Issue: Mark Radabaugh.
Staff Response: Staff agrees that the hospital and associated medical uses should be included in
the node. Proposed Residential Implementation Action 13.6 has been revised to require that the
MS district within a ~ mile radius from a transit stop be identified for nodal developnlent and
that all development within the area be designed according to Article 40 and or Article 41.
12. Issue: "Support the Planning Commission's recommended 60 foot height
restriction in the MS zone."
Those Raising the Issue: Robin Jaqua, Ken and Barbara Cerotsky, James Fox, Gail Campbell,
Aaron Helfrich, Bob Bumstead, Glen Love.
Staff Response: Because there is little infonnation in the record to evaluate the merit, of any
regulation relating to building height, staff is reluctant to support or oppose any specific height
limitations in the MS distlict.
13. Issue: "Oppose the Planning Conm1ission's 60-foot recommended height limit or -
the height of structures in the MS district should be detennined at the master plan level."
Those Raising the Issue: JimWerfelmalm, Alex Bonutti, Edwin Brown, Beth Kenmlerer, Don
Lutes, John Alvord, Jay Christensen, Randy Nawalanier, Art Paz, George Mayer, Jolm Hyland,
Robert Walwyn, Clark Winston Cox Jr.
Staff Response: Because there is little infom1ation in the record to evaluate the merit of any
regulation relating to building height, staff is reluctant to support or oppose any specific height
limitations in the MS district. .
14. Issue: "Concern that more than 66 acres ofMS and more than 33 aCres ofMUC
will be allowed."
Those Raising the Issue.: JanWilson.
Staff Response: In response to tlus concem from the Planning Commission, staff revised
Residential Implementation Action 12.1 to reflect that "not more than 33 acres" ofMUC may be
redesignatedto Commercial. Additionally, the enacting ordinance for the GRP amendments
contains the following language: "To allow for the Medical Services District to be applied to up
to 66 acres ofMDR plan designation." And the Metro Plan amendment enacting ordinance reads
in part: "An ordinance amending the metropolitan area General Plan Diagram by redesignating
up to 33 acres ofland from Medium Density Residential to COm1llUluty Commercia!." The only
Exhibit B -
Page108 of 128
4/21/03
way the more than 66 acres ofMS or 33 acres ofMUC can be allowed is through an additional
Metro Plan and/or refinement plan amendment.
.
15. Issue: "Concem regarding light pollution from parking areas and buildings."
Those Raising the Issue: Robin Jaqua.
Staff Response:, Springfield Development Code section 31.160(3) requires all lighting to reflect
away from any less "intensive use and pubic rights of way. It would be impossible to have any
, urban development at the Gateway MDR site, whether residential or as proposed, and have the
same appearance at night as it currently does as undeveloped property. To ensure that there are
no glari.ng (no pun intended) incompati.bilities with the surrounding properties, the applicant will
be required to submit an illumination plan with the site plan review application for the hospital.
Staff and surrounding property owners will then be afforded the opportunity to review the
impacts and the application can be conditioned accordingly.
16. Issue: "Concems that traffic generated by uses allowed by the proposed changes
will increase congestion and require additional capacity improvements and maintenance
funding. "
Those Raising the Issue: Betsy Shedd, Ken and Barbara Cerotsky, Randy Gicker, Don Bishoff,
Jan Wilson, Bonnie Ullmann, Carol James, Alice Verret, Rob Handy.
Staff Response: TransPlan demonstrates that substantial transportation infrastructure
improvements would be necessary to support development on the subject site under the existing
MDR designation. The city and ODOT began working to refine project definitions and develop
funding for these improvement projects several years before PeaceHealth purchased land in the
Gateway Area, and substantial funding already has been conunitted.
.
The issue now before the city is whether the proposedPeaceHealth plan aniendments would
allow development that could impact one or more transportation facilities in ways not consistent
with the adopted TransPlan. The criteria for deciding this issue are established in LCDC's
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) as set forth in OAR 660-012-0060, which implements
Statewide Land-Use Plmming Goal 12. OAR 660-012-0060 specifically applies to the adoption
of comprehensive plan and land-use regulation amendments.
Staff believe the PeaceHealth application - with recommended conditions of approval -
adequately addresses the TPR requirements. In addition, local requirements ate in place to ensure
that site development under the amended plan designations will remain consistent with adopted
plans.
The PeaceHealth mmexation agreement requires that a master plan for the PeaceHealth site be
approved before any development can occur. During this process the transportation infrastructure "
needed to support each proposed phase of development can be specifically identified. Conditions.
can then be placed on the master plan approval to ensure that adequate transportation facilities
will be in place to serve each development phase.
In addition, development of specific sites on the PeaceHealth property must have subdivision
. approval and/or site plan approval before construction can occur. This will provide additional
opportunities to ensure that adequate transpOliation facilities will be in place to serve each site
development.
.
Exhibit B
Pagel09 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
17. Issue: "Impacts of building additional city streets/infrastructure when
maintenance funding is low."
Those Raising the Issue: Tom Bowennan, Kevin Matthews.
Staff Response: Almost all construction of new streets adds to City's maintenance responsibility.
Policy makers have recognized this fact during the development of TransPlan policies that set a
priority on preserving, maintaining and extracting maximum capacity from our existing systems.
It maybe mentioned that the improvements to transpOliation facilities in the Gateway area would
need to take place even if the Gateway MDR site were to entirely develop as cun-ently planned
under MDR zoning. The proposed plan amendmentscalmot be supported without a certain
amount of capacity-adding new road construction. The property that is subject to these plan' .
amendments is bound by a series of mmexation agreements that require the property owners to
provide funding to the city for specific off-site transportation improvement projects. These
contributions are in addition to the on-site infrastructure improvements that will be required with
development of the properties.
18. Issue: "Arlie & Co should have their 12.4 acres as MUC as part of this
application. "
Those Raising the Issue: Arlie ai1d Company, Larry Reed.
Staff Response: The proposed plan amendments apply to all annexed property within the
Gateway MDR site. This includes all 165 acres of mmexed PeaceHealth property as well as a
12.4 acre parcel owned by Arlie and Company. Arlie and Company representatives have testified
at several public hearings that their 12.4 acres should be given commercial plan designation and
Mixed Use Commercial zoriing during these proceedings. The timing of their argument is
somewhat premature. While these proposed plan amendments approve changing up to 33 acres
ofMDR to CC on the Metro Plan Diagram, the implementation (in other words, when the City
determines the exact boundaries and applies the designation to actual property) will not take place
until the Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed the master plan application
and the City's nodal implementation and the City Council approves the location. This means that
, the 33 acres ofMUC zoning could potentially be assigned to portions ofthe Arlie property as
well as portions ofthe PeaceHealth property. Residential Implementation Actions 12.0 and 12.1
have been revised to clmify this relationship and to ensure that sufficient MUC is reserved for the
retail pOliions of the node. PeaceHealth submitted Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement plan
diagram maps with their applications; Arlie and Company submitted maps with their written
testimony showing MUC on their property. Because the MUC will not be affixed until master
plan approval and or nodal implementation, staff have not included any map or legal description
of the MUC area in the Council enacting ordinance.
At the time of the master plan review and the nodal implementation project, the Plmming
Commission and the City Council will be presented with facts relating to the amount and most
efficient arrangement of the MUC. At that time, both PeaceHealth and Arlie and Company can.
present their [mdings to the Planning Commission conceming why they feel the MUC is or is not
appropriately placed. The Commission and the Council will then base their decision on the
placement of the MUC on this evidence. To assign the MUC now, in the absence of any
infonllation concerning why it should be affixed, would not be in the interest of good plmming.
Exhibit B
Pagel 10 of 128
4/21/03
Staff have suggested on several occasions that Arlie and Company endeavor' to work with
PeaceHealthon a combined plan for the arrangement of the various uses and necessary facilities
to create an integrated development area with an efficient layout that would be beneficial to all.
To date staff is not aware that any cooperative pursuits are underway.
.
19. Issue: "Not all of the transportation system improvement projects assumed in the
TIA are funded."
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson.
Staff Response: Ifby "funded" the questioner mean "programmed" then this is true. In fact, not
all projects needed to support development on the MDR site under "existing" plans are
programmed in Capital Improvement Plans or other programming documents. However, there is
no requirement in the TPR that funds be cUlTently programmed for all projects needed to supp011
either the land-use designations under the existing plans or those proposed in the PeaceHealth
plan amendments.
20. Issue: "The proposed amendments are not demonstrated to be consistent with
TransPlan's nodal development strategy and the City cannot legally approve them at this
time. "
Those Raising the Issue: Rob Zako.
. Staff Response: The City is under no legal obligation to perfonn a nodal assessment prior to
approving or denying any land use application in any area identified in TransPlan as considered
to have potential for nodal development. The City has adopted SDC Articles 40 and 41 in
compliance with the Metro Plan policies regarding nodal development. However, the nodal
designation has yet to be established anywhere in Springfield. In recognition of the Councils
commitment to hnplementing nodal development, and at the Gateway MDR site in particular,
proposed Residential Implementation Action 13.6 requires any master plan that is submitted prior
to the City's nodal implementation to identify the area within ~ mile of a transit stop as a nodal
development area and to show all uses and design to be consistent with Article 41 Nodal
Development.
.
'21. Issue: "The hospital development should be designated as commercial in the
metro plan."
Those Raising the Issue: Mark Radabaugh (DLCD).
Staff Response: Hospitals and associated medical uses are pennitted in the Medical Services
zoning district which can be applied to MDR designation when abutting an arterial street. This
zoning district was adopted by the City Council in 1989 and has been acknowledged by DLCD as
being consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and state statutes. It is unclear why in this
particular instance the State feels that the siting of a pemlitted use in an acknowledged zoning
district would somehow necessitate the evocation of some other plan designation without any
clear standards or directives in metro policy or local ordinances as to the triggering mechanism
for such action.
22. Issue: "Concern regarding potential negative impacts on McKenzie Willamette
Hospital and resulting implications on healthcare/health structure in the Metro area."
.
Exhibit B
Page 11 1 of 128
4/21/03
.
Those Ra,ising the Issue: Lilly McNiel, MargorieWilliams, Susan Smith, Monica Smith,
Williani. & Lea McGill very, Tom Happy, Randy Gicker, Don Bishoff, Tom Duggan, Carol
James, Jim Hale.
Staff Response: This issue was raised by many people both in writing and orally; however, there
was no evidence submitted into the record regarding how this issue is related to the proposed plan
amendment's confomlance with the Metro Plan, Statewide Plamling Goals, State statutes or
Administrative Rules. Therefore, staff must find that this issue is not gemlane to the criteria of
approval.
23. Issue: "There will be a loss of employment and associated negative impacts in
central Eugene ahd negative impacts to existing gateway commercial activities."
Those Raising the Issue: Kevin Matthews, Domla Goles.
Staff Response: No evidence or facts have been submitted into the record regarding how this
issue is related to the proposed plan amendment's confomlance with the Metro Plan, Statewide
Planning Goal (especially Goal 9), State statutes or Administrative Rules. Therefore, staff must
find that this issue is not germane to the criteria ofapproval. Please refer to the Goal 9 analysis
under the Application of the Criteria Section of the staff report.
24. Issue: "Concern regarding the potential hazards of siting a hospital in portions of
the floodplain."
.
Those Raising the Issue: Mmjorie Williams, Tom Happy, Craig Shelby, Tom Bowemlan,
Kevin Matthews, Ian Nelson, BOlmie Ullmann.
Staff Response: Portions of the Gateway MDR site are within the lOa-year flood hazard area as
mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). Any development within this identified area is subject to the standards and regulations
contained within Springfield Development Code Article 27 Floodplain Overlay District which
allows development in the floodplain if it meets certain design standards. The SDC standards for
development in the 100-year floodplain are intended to minimize public and private losses due to
flooding. As such, the development standards address building construction and elevations,
access requirements, and utility protection. The SDC pemlits the use of fill to elevate.
development sites above the lOQ-year flood elevation as a valid method of mitigating the flood
hazard at a development site.
In addition to the infoDllation contained in the FEMA flood maps, the applicant is required by an
annexation agreement to perfoml a flood analysis along a three mile stretch of the McKenzie
River adjacent to the subject property. The study's first component will show the existing
floodplain at a greater detail than the FEMA maps. The second component will provide a post-
development scenario analysis of the floodplain, the affects of on-site fill on sunounding
properties and a plan to mitigate any off-site impacts.
.
The City understands that PeaceHealth would like to construct at least one, if not more, of the
roadways that access the hospital to above the 500-year flood plain to assure access in floods
greater than the 100 year flood event. TIllS is an acceptable design proposal. Portions of the
proposed Pioneer Parkway Extension (PPE) are currently plamled to be above the 500-year
floodplain. The City is willing to work with the hospital to ensure that the horizontal elevation of
Exhibit B
Pagel12 of 128
4121/03
the PPE meets the access needs of the hospital. Please also refer to the response under Goal 7 in
the Application of the Criteria section of the staff report. .
~.
25. Issue: "Provide additional MDR and HDR housing oppoliunities to rebalance the
GRP with the proposed land use pattern. This could be done by amending some of the
remaining MDR land to HDR.,i
Those Raising the Issue: Mark Radabaugh (DLCD).
Staff Response: There is no evidence in the record that demonstrates that there will be any
unbalance in housing oPPOliunities if the plan amendments are approved. Additionally, the
implementation of nodal development at the site, both on the PeaceHealth property and elsewhere
at the site will lift the maximum density of 20 DU/acre from the MDR and will allow for density
in the MDR to equate that ofHDR if the market demands such.
26. Issue: "The City should develop a conceptual plan showing the general location
of the hospital site and its node, major streets, transit stops and a potential secondary
node and the general location of enviromnentally protected areas."
Those Raising the Issue: Mark Radabaugh (DLCD).
Staff Response: As required by proposed GRP policies and SDC Article 37, the master plan for
the hospital will show the location of the hospital site, the identified nodal area, all streets for the
annexed portions of the site, transit stops, the location of enviromnentally protected areas and a
, host of other development features. Because the master plan will be reviewed by the Plmming
Commission and ultimately approved by the Council, staff do not recognize the merit of
perfomling an additional, redundant plmming exercise as suggested by the State.
.
27. Issue: "The City should amend the Commercial Lands study Implementation
Strategy B(2) to allow the proposed level of commercial development."
Those Raising the Issue: Mark Radabaugh(DLCD).
Staff Response: While it is true that the proposed plan amendments exceed the acreage
recommended by the Commercial Lands Study (RLS) for this site in implementation strategy 1-
B(2), dropping the 3 acre Neighborhood Commercial recommendation is on point, as is the
recommendation to rezone nodal sites identified in TransPlan with Mixed Use commercial
zonmg.
The conclusion of the RLS is that 255 additional acres of commercial is at the low end of
projected demand. This conclusion was based on a 3.5 year absorption period, a 9 year
absorption period and a 14 year absorption period. The high end is 36 acres per year, the low end
is 13 acres per year and the middle ground (9 year period) is 17 acres per year. The RLS advisory
committee felt the true demand, based also on employment and population figures prepared by
the state, would be between the 17 and 36 acre figures. The cumulative effect of these policies as
well as a lower estimate of demand much more closely approximates the PeaceHealth proposal.
28. Issue: "PeaceHealth is only contributing $750,000 to the IS Million PPW/126
intersection. "
.
Those Raising the Issue: Linda Shaver
Exhibit B
Page113 of 128
4/21/03
.
Staff Response: The eventual need for a $15-Million improvement to the PPW/126 Interchange
was identified and included in TransPlan well before PeaceHealth purchased the RiverBend
property. PeaceHealthis funding improvements to mitigate potential impacts from PeaceHeaIth's
own planned development, but is not obligated to fund improvements beyond that level.
29. Issue: "The tax exempt status of the non-profit hospital will cause a financial
burden onto the public."
Those Raising the Issue: Ken and BarbaraCerotsky, Dave Carvo.
Staff Response: As part of a recorded annexation agreement, PeaceHealth agreed to compensate
the City on an ongoing basis an estimate of what the tax revenue the City would receive if the site
developed as Medium Density Residential until such a time thatthe actual tax revenues of the
portions of the site that are not tax-exempt (medical office buildings, residences, commercial
node, etc.) exceed the projected MDR tax-revenue. There was no evidence submitted into the
record relating to how this issue is related to the criteria of a ppro val.
30. Issue: "Staff has recommended that the trip cap can be increased viaa future
refinement plan amendment. To easily allow an increase in a cap is no cap at all."
ThOse Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson.
.
Staff Response: Accordfug to Residential Implementation Action 13.7, in order to increase the
t~p cap, the Gateway Refinement Plan would have to be amended or there would have to be_a
public hearing before the Planning Commission and/or the City Council on a zoning map. '
amendment, master plan approval or master plan modification. As the SDC, the ORS and the
policy directs a proposal would, among other requirements, have to show consistency with the ,
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). To do this the proposal would have to be accompanied by a
Transportation Impact Analysis to be reviewed by ODOT, City staff, all affected agencies and the
public. -Only if adequate capacity in the transportation system is demonstrated to allow for more
trips to be added to the trip cap will the City and ODOT transportation experts support the change
before the Planning Commission and/or the City Council.
31. Issue: "Does the trip cap apply in relation to TransPlan project 606, the 1-
5/Beltline interchange."
. Those Raising the Issue: Peter Sorenson
Staff Response: The trip cap is not calculated for a particular intersection. It is a limit on the
number of PM Peak Hour vehicle trips that may be generated by development on the 99 acres of
land for which PeaceHealth is requesting their zone-change plan amendments.
32. Issue: "Can the 1 26/Pioneer Parkway improvements that are on the TransPlan
future list be funded by PeaceHealth without an amendment to TransP.1an?"
.
Those Raising the Issue: Peter Sorenson
Staff Response: TransPlan states, "Future (beyond 20 years) projects are not planned for
construction during the 20-year planning period. These projects are not part of the fmancially
constrained plan. However, these projects could be implemented earlier if additional funding is
Exhibit B
Page114 of 128
4/21/03
identified." and, "As described in the Capital Investment Action Implementation Process on page
4, in all cases, inclusion of a project in a particular phase does not represent a coinmitment to
complete the project during that phase. It is expected that some projects may be accelerated and
others postponed due to changing conditions, funding availability, public input, or more detailed
study performed during programming and budgeting processes."
.
As the above passage from TransPlan explicitly states, TransPlan "expects" some project~ on the
"Future" list to be funded and constructed within the 20-year planning horizon, without any need
of amendment.
33. Issue: "PeaceHealth's plans to raise the roadways may direct floodwater onto
residential areas."
Those Raising the Issue: Bonnie Ullmann
Staff Response: It is poss~ble that the new roadway and site construction would direct flood
waters onto other lands. Because of this potential, the Ai1nexation Agreement requires PH to
produce flood plain studies to show both the existing conditions and any changes that may occur
as part of their development. These studies are due as part of their master plan s:ubmittal. They
are further required to mitigate any flooding areas that they cause that are not currently mapped as
flood plain. We will have a specialist peer review their work to verify that their modeling and
mitigations are appropriate.
34. Issue: "Concern regarding the loss of riparian habitat restoration opportunities
due to the need to maintain riverside revetments to limit flooding'potential."
.
Those Raising the Issue: Kevin Matthews
Staff Response: The Annexation Agreement also calls for a riparian area setback of a minimum
of 7 5 feet with an average site setback of 1 00 feet PeaceHealth is also required to provide a
riparian assessment and report as part of the master plan and address how this area is protected
during the development. Keeping the existing revetments in place could limit some of the
mitigations, but removing the revetments will also threaten a larger portion of the Gateway area
with flooding. The Metro Waterways Project with the Corps of Engineers, the County and the 2
cities will be looking at the McKenzie floodplain and riparian area. No work will be permitted on
the revetments without a full comprehensive analysis on of the impacts.
35. Issue: "The City should not allow for development in the floodway in order to
comply with GRP Natural Assets Implementation Action 2.0 (GRP at 34) which states
"Recognize the unsuitability (due to flood hazard) of the McKenzie River floodway for
urban development and explore its suitability for fulfilling community recreation needs
and for buffering the river-oriented natural resource system"
Those Raising the Issue: Kristine Bowerman
Staff Response: These plan amendments do not propose to change GRPNatural Assets
Implementation Action 2.0. Additionally, SDC Article 27 Floodplain Overlay District
recognizes the floodway as "an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters
which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential" and severely limits development
within the floodway. While these plan amendment are not proposing any change to the City's
policy for development in the floodway, the required master plan will have to show any proposed
.
Exhibit B
Page1J5 of 128
4/21/03
..
uses in the floodway, Such proposals would be subject to Natural Assets Implementation Action
2.0, SDC Article 27, public review, a Planning Commission recommendation and ultimately
Council. approval.
36. Issue: "Residential Action 12.6 allows buildings is the MS zone to be deemed
residential and is inconsistent with the "auxiliary use" definition of the Metro Plan."
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson.
Staff Response: There is no language in Residential Implementation Action 12.6 that would
consider a structure in the MS zone to be deemed residential unless it was pernlitted and
constructed as a dwelling. SDC Article 22 Medical Services District allows housing for the
elderly and handicapped and residential care facilities. These would be considered residential for
calculation of density. Residential Implementation Action 12.6 requires a master plan that
proposes to utilize the MS zoning to demonstrate that the planned density for the residential land
where the medical uses will be placed can be realized elsewhere on the site. There is no intention
either explicit or implied in Residential Implementation Action 12.6 to correlate medical uses
with the auxiliary use definition of the Metro Plan
37. Issue: "The staff continues to asseli that construction jobs can justify a positive
finding on economic development grounds. Goal 9 is not satisfied because construction
jobs shouldn't be considered in a Goal 9 analysis:'
.
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson
Staff Response: Whether or nor construction jobs can or calIDot be considered in a Goal 9
analysis is irrelevant in regards to the construction of the hospital and any Medical Office
Building in the MS district Because the rezoning of the 66 acres ofMDR to MS is a rezone and
not a change to the plan designation, Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660 009 0010 (4)
allows the activity to take place without a Goal 9 analysis. Regarding the Goal 9 analysis for the
redesignation of 33 acres of MDR to commercial, again construction jobs mayor may not be
relevant to the required Goal 9 analysis, but what is relevant is the fact that 33 acres ofthe
projected 255 acres of needed commercial as recognized in the CLS is being created. This fact is
in compliance with CLS, the City's recognized plan for achieving City-wide Goal 9 consistency.
38. Issue: "The ordinances are proposed as "emergency" and will allow thernaster
plan to get ahead of the City's nodal implementation process."
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson.
.
Staff Response: The Council is processing the applications as "emergencies" so that they will go
into effect the date of the Council's final action. Without the emergency clause, an ordinance
goes into effect 30 days after the Council takes action which usually occurs at a second reading.
The emergency clause will allow the applicant to submit a master plan application in April if the
Council approves the Plan amendments. Staff appreciates the public's concern regarding the
.Plamling Division work programming. If there were any conflicts between the master plan
timing and nodal implantation, there would be no recommendation from staff to proceed with the
emergency. The staff are fully aware of the timing of the City's nodal implementation project
For this reason, staff have suggested Residential Implementation Action 13.6 which allows
Peacehealth to proceed with their master plan application while preserving the City's ability to
perfonn nodal impkmentation for the propeliy concurrently or at a later date.
Exhibit B
Pagel 16 of 128
4/21/03
.
L. Response to Public Testimony Received During the Planning
Commission Public Hearing .
1) Issue: "General support of proposed amendments".
Those Raising the Issue: Linda Hawley, Mike Alltucker, Lois Hart, Susan Ban, Garda Page,
Cynthia Hart, Betty and Zane Smith, Sister Monica Heeran, Casey Woodard, Roger and Patricia
Lee, Quintin Mikell, Bob Siegmund, Annette Gamer, Charlene Shope, Anne Coleman, Ron
Gordon, Carol Fulks, Robert Walwyn, Rick Lyons, Robert Newburn, Jo Courtemanche, 'Susan
Pfanner, Tina Williams, Robert Fenstennacher, Brenda White, Fairl Gene Henson, Gerry Gaydos,
Jeff Robinson, Gary LeClair, David Hilles, Jim Harrison, Mr. & Mrs. Jolm Harrison, John
Dunphy, David White, Randy & Judy Allen, Kathy Baker, Mitch Costin, Karla Casebolt, Edwin
Baker, Elizabeth Scholze & Tim Sc1unidt, Lorna Wong, Thomas Roe, Lisa VanWinkle, Don &
Karen Bridges, Dale Moore, Linda Flint, Karen Hall, Lola Fritz, Ron Gamma, Jeff Miller, Lynn
Lafey, John Harrison, Dan Reece, Chera Meeks, Jemlifer Solomon, Virginia Anderson., Candace
Shorack, Jolm Alvord, Barbara Susman, Jolm Griffin, Clark Palmer, Robert Harrison, Elizabeth
Chambers, Fred Hample, Kim Tyler, Donald Tykeson, Roxie Cuellar, Mrs. Jolm Warren, Bill
Roberts, Susan Slocum-Webb, Lisa Shoults, Amy Seery., J.R. & Jo-Mae Gonyea, Jolm Haughom,
Dawn Fisher, Guy Justice, Ron & Eunice Fenchak, Sondra Fish, William Anderson, Jason &
Tammi Miller, Elaina Lawson, Jane Franz, Shaun Hyland, Lois Fondren, Virginia Nafus, Mary
Duke, Wendy Codding, Barbara Haase, Jeffery :Larson, Steph Langman, Mark Lyon, Kayce
Hawk, Elizabeth Walsh, Claire Carver, Joni Strub, Michael Coughlin, ThomasWickesser, Dana
Haskins, Matt Stopher, Tracy Ellis, Clary Brunkow, Erika Thessen, Mary Roberts, Mark
Houston, Brad & Kathy Jolmson, Mark Herbert, Cindy Clair, Linda Center, Lyle and Geraldine
Teman, Alice Wagner, Patrick Farr, Christopher Monnette, Jackie Rice, Howard Traver, Richard
Paget, Alicia Langoise, Jolm Tepper, Bob Sheri.
.
Staff Response: These individuals submitted written or oral testimony that did not raise an issue
specifically, but provided testimony or portions'oftestimony that is generally in favor of the
proposed plan amendments.
2) Issue: "General opposition to the proposed amendments."
Those Raising the Issue: Linda Lu, Alice Doyle, Friends of Oregon, Anne Heinsoo, Nena
Lovinger, Robert Emmons, Ken Rumenlhart, McKenzie Bowennan, Kristine Bowennan, Frank
& Deloris Long,'Don Dugdale, Connie Dugdale, Art Farley, Susan Rumelhart, Geoffrey Gordon,
Fred Felter, Linda Cheney, Sue Wolling, Elenore Brinton, Louis Howard, Paul Spencer, Russ
Norberg, Charles Lucier, Claire Carver, Mona Linstromberg; Jonh Blomquist, James Knight,
John Alcott, Jim Williams
Staff Response: These individuals submitted written or oral testimony that did not raise a
specific issue, but provided evidence or portions of testimony that is generally in opposition to the
proposed plan amendments. The following 28 points raised were in opposition to the proposed
amendments
3) Issue: "Adequacy of public participation (Goal 1) for the procedural steps taken during the
plan amendment proceedings."
.
Exhibit B
Page117 of 128
4/21/03 '
.
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson, Rob Zako, Nena Lovinger, Joan Annstead, Allen
Hancock, Carol James, Tom Bowerman, Russ Norburg, Jean Brinton, Don & Connie Dugdale,
Rob Handy, Lauri Segel, Mark Radabaugh, Fred Simmons
Staff Response: While Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (PAPAs) such as those now
before the Planning Commission may have impacts that greatly affect the general community, the
Springfield Development Code, which has been recognized by the State as implementing the
State-wide Planning Goals and the Metro Plan, contain no requirement that the City or the
applicant organize or participate in a community-wide public discussion. The procedures, found
in Articles 7 and in Article 14 of the SDC, have been and will continue to be followed as these
applications continue to be processed. Opportunities for citizen influence have been and will be
available at all stages of the subject plan amendment. The required master plan will follow a
similar procedural path, with work sessions and public hearings before both the Plarlliing
Commission and the City Council.
4) Issue: "Contend that Eugene and Lane County should participate in the decision making
process."
Those Raising the Issue: Choices, Carla Baltrush Dow, Rob Zako, Anne Heinsoo, Allen
Hancock, Phil Barnhart, Lauri Segel, Mark Radabaugh, Dave Carvo, Bob Cassidy, Clark Winston
Cox
Staff Response: Please refer to the Staff Response to Planning Commission Question # 9.
.
5) Issue: "Concern regarding impacts on the residential inventory by redesignating MDR to
MUC and MS (Goal 10)." -
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson, Lauri Segel, Mark Radabaugh
Staff Response: Please refer to the Staff Response to Planning Commission Question # 4.
6) Issue: "Concern regarding affixing ofthe MUC Metro Plan designation at master plan
approval rather than during the plan amendment process (Residential Implementation Action
12.1)."
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson, Bonnie Ullmam1, Lauri Segel
.
Staff Response: Approval of the plan amendments will replace up to 33 acres of Medium
Density Residential (MDR) with Community Commercial (CC) on the Metro Plan Map and
(MUC) on the GRP Map. Upon master plan approval, the maps will be updated to reflectthe
delineated application of the respective districts. This is the most efficient method to effecutate
the map changes because the City has not approved the aligllli1ent ofthe future internal roadway
system or the arrangement of the future site uses. These activities will take place at the master
plan. To assign the designation during these proceedings would result in an additional plan
amendment to reconfigure the map once the master plan is approved. Proceeding under this
policy does not give the applicant any ability to place the MUC wherever they wish. The
Council, under re.commendation by the Planning Commission, and after considering testimony
from the neighbors and other interested parties will decide the most appropriate arrangement for
the commercial designation.
Exhibit B
Pagel18 of 128
4/21/03
7) Issue: "The hospital should be designated Commercial not Medical Services (MS) on
Medium Density Residential Plan designation."
.
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson, Bonnie Ullmann
Staff Response: Hospitals are a pernlitted use in the MS District.
8) Issue: "The Gateway Refinement Plan should require "auxiliary" uses to be shown on the
master plan." -
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson
Staff Response: Springfield Development Code Article 37 Master Plans, Section 37.030(5)
requires the master plan to depict all land uses. This requires all auxiliary as well as primary uses
to be shown on the master plan.
-- )
9) Issue: Contend that Article 22 MS District does not allow for large-scale hospital uses.
Those Raising the Issue: Lauri Segel
Staff Response: SDC Article 22 Medical Services District (MS), Section 22.010(2) states that
the District was established to provide for suitable, geographically dispersed areas for the
development of hospitals and associated medical residential facilities. Section 22.020 lists
hospital services as a primary use. While it is clear that the intent of SDC Article 22 is to allow .
for hospital uses there is no restriction or guidance in the Article related to the size of the use.
.
10) Issue: "Concern that it is difficult to evaluate the merits ofthe plan amendments in the
absence of a master plan."
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson, Bonnie UllmaIUl, Dave Carvo, Carla Baltrush Dow
Staff Response: In the GRP there is no policy directive to allow for the submittal of a master
plan for the Gateway MDR site; the Conceptual Development Plan requirement is still in place.
The policy pieces that will allow for the submittal of a master plan are replacing the current GRP
requirements. Additionally, Criteria (2) of Article, 37 Master Plansrequires that the master plan
confornl to the refinement plan. Therefore, the amendments to the refinement plan musttake
place before the master plan.
11) Issue: "The HospitaVMS zone should be in the node."
Those Raising the Issue: Jan Wilson, Mark Radabaugh
Staff Response: Staff agrees that the hosPital and associated medical uses should be included in
the node. Proposed Residential Implementation Action 13.6 has been revised to remove the
exemption of the MS district from the area.identified for the Nodal Overlay in the master plan.
12) Issue: "What will happen to the residential area east of Baldy View?"
Those Raising the Issue: Bonnie Ullmann
.
Exhibit B
Pagel 19 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
Staff Response: While the eventual status of the property east of Baldy View will ultimately be
deternlined at the time of master plan approval and/or nodal development implementation, it is
expected that this area will remain as Medium Density Residential. It is also likely that a portion,
if not all will be identified for inclusion in the nodal, overlay. This will provide the property
owners with additional opportunities for development that do not exist under the MDR zoning
district.
13) Issue: "Concern that more commercial than 33 acres will be allowed."
Those Raising the Issue: Bonnie Ullmann
Staff Response: In response to this concern, staff revised Residential Implementation Action
12.1 to reflect tl).at "not more than 33 acres" of MUC may be redesignated to Commercial.
14) Issue: "Status of Arlie's 12.4 acres and its relation to the node."
Those Raising the Issue:' Bonnie Ullmann, Arlie and Company, Bill MOlTisette, John
Mecumecci, Clark Winston Cox, Larry Reed
Staff Response: Please refer to the Staff Response to Planning Conunission Question #5.
15) Issue: "Concerns that traffic generated by uses allowed by the proposed changes will require
additional capacity improvements."
Those Raising the Issue: Carla Baltrush Dow, Lauri Segel, Geoffrey Gordon, Tom Bowernlan"
Rob Handy.
Staff Response: It is not clear from the question exactly what is meant by "additional capacity
improvement." Assuming the meaning is capacity improvements to the existing transportation
system, TransPlan demonstrates that substantial transportation infrastructure improvements
would be necessary to support development on the subject site under the existing MDR
designation. The city and ODOT began working to refine project definitions and develop funding
for these improvement projects several years before PeaceHealth purchased land in the Gateway
Area, and substantial funding already has been conunitted.
, The issue now before the city is whether the proposed PeaceHealth plan amendments would
allow development that could impact one or more transportation facilities in ways not consistent
with the adopted TransPlan. The criteria for deciding this issue are established in LCDC's
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) as set forth.in OAR 660-012-0060, which implements
, Statewide Land-UsePlmming Goal 12. OAR 660-012-0060 specifically applies to the adoption
of comprehensive plan and land-use regulation amendments.
Staff believe the PeaceHealth application - with recommended conditions of approval -
adequately addresses the TPR requirements. In addition, local requirements are in place to ensure
that site development under the amended plan designations will remain consistent with adopted
plans.
The PeaceHealth mmexation agreement requires that a master plan for the PeaceHealth site be
approved before any development can occur. During this process the transportation infrastructure
needed to support each proposed phase of development can be specifically identified. Conditions
Exhibit B
Pagel20 of 128
4121/03
can then be placed on the master plan approval to ensure that adequate transportation facilities
will be in place to serve each development pha~e.
.
In addition, development of specific sites on'the PeaceHealth property must have subdivision
approval and/or site plan approval before construction can occur. This will provide additional
opportunities to ensure that adequate transportation facilities will be in place to serve each site
development.
16) Issue: "MS District is not located directly on arterial street as is required by the siting
requirements of Article 22."
Those Raising the Issue:' Jan Wilson
Staff Response: When property is rezoned to MS the site must meet specific siting standards,
one of which is that it must be located on an arterial street. The proposed plan amendments do
n<;lt rezone property, only state that is appropriate to rezone MDR property at the Gateway MDR
site to MS. The applicant must apply for and receive zone change approval; it is anticipated that
a zone change application will be submitted with the master plan. At that time, the applicant .
must demonstrate that all of the siting standard of the MS zone have been met, including fronting
onto an artei"ial street, or the MS zone change cannot be approved.
17) Issue: "Impacts of building additional city streets/infrastructure when maintenance funding
is low."
Those Raising the Issue: Lauri Segel, Robert Emmons, Carol James
.
Staff Response: Please refer to the Staff Response to Planning Commission question # 1 O.
18) Issue: "TIA is not accurate because it only looks at traffic generated by site itself. Medical
offices and other auxiliary uses will follow to the area around if not on the Gateway MDR site."
Those Raising the Issue: Rob Zako
,
Staff Response: The impacts of development on lands outside the MDR site are accounted for in
the TIA through its use of the LCOG transportation system model. This model is the basis for the
"needs analysis" used to develop the TransPlan projects list and it includes assumptions for
development on the "off-site" lands. This model was also used in the I-5/Beltline Environmental
Assessment traffic analysis so that there is consistency between the PeaceHealth TIA and these
previous works.
19) Issue: "Not all ofthe transportation system improvement projects assumed in the TIA are
funded. "
Those Raising the Issue: Rob Zako, Phil Barnhart
Staff Response: If by "funded" the questioners mean "programmed" then this is true. In fact, not
all projects needed to support development on the MDR site under "existing" plans are
programmed in Capital Improvement Plans or other programming documents. However; there is
no requirement in the TPR that funds be currently programmed for all projects needed to support
either the land-use designations under the existing plans or those proposed in the PeaceHealth
plan amendments.
.
Exhibit B
Pagel21 of 128
.
.
.
4/21/03
20) Issue: "PeaceHealth is taking all of the extra-capacity in the Gateway area leaving none for
other/future events."
Those Raising the Issue: Rob Zako
Staff Response: There is no evidence to support this assertion either in the PeaceHealth TIA or
any other traffic analysis in or out of the hearing record.
21) Issue: "Concern regarding installation of an intersection at Game Farnl Road and Mallard"
Those Raising the Issue: BOilllie Ullmann
Staff Response: The intersection is .outside the Springfield city limits and under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Lane County. Proposed modifications would have to be justified through
additional design analysis and would include a public involvement process. The way that the
, new streets on the PeaceHealth site intersect with the existiilg neighborhood streets will be
reviewed and ultimately approved by the City Council through the master plan process upon a
recommendation by the Plalming Commission and in light of testimony provided by the
neighbors and other interested members of the public. -
22) Issue: "Concern regarding potential negative impacts on McKenzie Willamette Hospital and
resulting implications on healthcare/health structure in the Metro area."
Those Raising the Issue: Carla Baltrush Dow, Rob Zako, Nena Lovinger, Robert Emmons, Ken
Rumelhart, Kristine Bowennan, A1me Heinsoo, Art Farley, Maureen Weathers, Geoffrey Gordon,
Lawrence Vinis, Jan Sikes, Phil Barnhart, Carol James, Glenn Keiper, Tom Bowemlan, Sandra &
Allen Huffstutter, Jean Brinton, Susan Wasner, Edward Winter, Sharon Cutsforth, Randall Henry,
Jim Hale, Jim Williams, Bob Cassidy
Staff Response: This issue was raised by many people both in writing and orally; however, there
was no evidence submitted into the record regarding how this issue is related to the proposed plan
amendment's confornlance with the Metro Plan, Statewide Plmming Goals, State statutes .or
Administrative Rules. Therefore, staff must find that this issue is not germane to the criteria of
approval.
23) Issue: "There will be a loss of employment and associated negative impacts in central
Eugene and negative impacts to existing gateway commercial activities."
Those Raising the Issue: Lauri Segel, Rob Zako, Rosc6 Divine, Tom Bowernlan, Rob Handy, Jan
Wilson, Bonnie Ullmmm, Robert Emmons
Staff Response: No evidence or facts have been submitted into the record regarding how this
issue is related to the proposed plan amendment's confornlance with the Metro Plan, Statewide
Planning Goal (especially Goal 9), State statutes or Administrative Rules. Therefore, staff must
find that this issue is not germane to the criteria of approval. Please refer to the Goal 9 analysis
under the Application of the Criteria Section of this report. .
24) Issue: "Concern regarding the potential hazards of siting a h.ospital in portions of the
floodplain."
Exhibit B
Pagel22 of 128
4/21/03
Those Raising the Issue: Robert Emmons, Kristine Bowerman, BOlmie Ullmann, Iolm Fluent,
, Rosco Divine, Glenn Keiper, Tom Bowerman, Don & Connie Dugdale, Edward Winter, Peggy
Robinson, Ian Wilson
.
Staff Response: Please refer to the Staff Response to Planning Commission question #6.
25) Issue: "Concern that the height of the hospital as indicated by PeaceHealth is out of scale for
the Gateway MDR site."
Those Raising the Issue: McKenzie Bowern1an, Kristine Bowennan, Bonnie Ullmann, Tom
Bowennan, Lauri Segel
Staff Response: Please refer the Staff Response to planning Commission question # 7.
26) Issue: "Concern that public access to the McKenzie will be restticted (proposed Residential
Element 12.0)" .
Those Raising the Issue: Bonnie Ullmann
Staff Response: Proposed Residential Implementation Action 12.4 has been revised to require
that any development, not just MUC development, provide public access to the river and riparian
area.
27) Issue: "GRP Residential Implementation Actions 14.1 and 14.2 should remain with "Master
Plan" substituted for "DAP".
.
Those Raising the Issue: Bonnie Ullmann.
Staff Response: The master plan will replace the Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) which as
the cun-ent GRP requires, must be approved before the Development Area Plan (DAP) submittal.
The DAP is a refined, more specific review of a section of the approved CDP. The proposed plan
amendments mirror this approach by replacing the CDP with the master plan, then taking a
refined, specific look at a section or phase of the approved master plan at the site plan review
level. The site plan review is a forn1al Type II application. Staff feel as though this change will
provide a more rigorous review process than the CDPIDAP process.
28) Issue: '~GRP Commercial Element policy 5.0 should be amended to read: "Provide for
future appropriately planned mixed use commercial and nodal development areas east ofPPE as
identified in TransPlan as potential nodal development sites."
Those Raising the Issue: Bonnie Ullmaru1
Staff Response: As explained elsewhere, the MUC will not be affixed until master plan
approval. The City Council will review evidence, which will include testimony from the
neighbors from the Game Fann Road neighborhood before reaching a decision on the exact
location of the MUC. Staff recommends that the facts contained within the master plan be
reviewed before assigning parameters around where the MUC should or should not be located.
29) Issue: "The tax exempt status of the non-profit hospital will cause a financial burden onto
the public."
.
ExhibitB
Pagel23 of 128
4/21/03
.
Those Raising the Issue: Tom Bowerman, A1me Heinsoo
Staff Response: As part of a recorded mmexation agreement, PeaceHealth agreed to conlpensate
the City on an ongoing basis an estimate of what the tax revenue the City would receive if the site
developed as Medium Density Residential until such a time that the actual tax revenues of the
portions ofthe site that are not tax-exempt (medical office buildings, residences, commercial
node, etc.) exceed the projected MDR tax-revenue.
30) Issue: "Seismic Considerations in locating hospitals."
Those Raising the Issue: Tom Bowelman, Jan Nelson
Staff Response: The applicant has submitted infonnation into the record showing that the area
affected by these plan amendments is subject to low probability of ground liquefaction and a low
to moderate amplification hazard. The concern of those raising the issue also concerns the
provision of service if vehicle connections are severed by an earthquake. There was no testimony
regarding seismic hazards and their relation to the criteria submitted into the record. Please also
refer to the Goal 7 portion of the Application of the Criteria section of this report.
.
.
Exhibit B
Page124 of 128
,
f"...'
~
1-
-
r-'~\ I
'\'\ -
\n
Belt Line Rd
IT
M
J
_ " '" JLL
1111111-'
A"IIII'
~~~
~~
~~
~~
~~~
tm1~ s::l
. illll:: tLJ
I I I II I I '
1111Il'(
11111 ULL
, II II .(
IIIII'T
II , I I U( -
w.J.JJJ 0' -
~\ I
run I
~
~~
.~-
--
'\~
1
'\
LU ~
~
'L<{ ~
\
?\
It \
\ ~~t\\ . \ .
I l~~~"m~
tjrt'Y~~ r-~I{J\Jt~
, \,V,\111 r- :~'CN~ U;:;
~t-.lV~ r- c:- -~\l~~'lt:j ~
..oJ--,'1 _ ~_
I LII - r-_.-\. _ _
jr ----r-"') ..../-1-
- ~'::: I = : r- f:f1') ~ - ::1
_ , r- I - --I- ~ J J _--I m
I"" - I - - _ILJJ
~ r- - , -.l - I I 'n --I- W
~ \' t:'L'1 - I I Tn ~..... n-r
~ -~.
~~, "
,
I
& t
.~
~
.~
rY
:;:
~
Exhibit C
Annexed Property
4/21/03
500
I
N
A
o 500 Feet