Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence CST 5/14/2007 GOALONECOALlTlON ~ Goal One IS Citizen Involvement CIty ofSprmgfield Plannmg COmlD1SSIOn Gary Karp, Planner III CIty of Sprmgfield 225 FIfth Street Sprmgfield, OR 97444 May 14,2007 RE: LRP 2006-00027/ZON 2006-00054, Plan Amendment & Zone Change "~[E @[EDIV [E ~I MAY 14 Of .Ii I LJ ,.BY&~ Dear Members of the Comrrusslon The Goal One CoalItIOn (Goal One) IS a nonprofit orgamzatIon whose ID1SSIOn IS to proVIde asSIStance and support to Oregomans m matters affectIng theIr commurutIes Goal One IS appeanng m these proceedmgs at the request of and on behalf of Its memberslup resJ(nng ill Lane County TIns testImony IS presented on behalf of Goal One and Its memberslup, LandWatch Lane County, 642 Charnelton Swte 100, Eugene, OR 97401, and LandWatch's memberslup m Lane County, specIfically to mclude PresIdent Robert Emmons, 40093 LIttle Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, OR 97438, as an mdlVldual I IntroductJon TIns proposal IS for a sIte-specIfic m";'vf-'vhtan plan amendment (pAPA) to amend the Metro Plan DIagram and a concurrent zone change Wlthm the Sprmgfield CIJy lnruts The proposal concerns 56 acres of a 100 3 acre sIte located north of Marcola Road at Its mtersectJon WIth north 28th Street and approxnnately v.. nnle east of north 19th StreetJMarcola Boulevard m Sprmgfield OR The property IS 1003 acres IdentIfied as Tax Lot 1800, Map 17-02-30 and Tax Lot 2300, Map 17-03-25-11 TL 2300 was platted m 1994 as parcel 3 of land partJtJon plat 94-P0491 A f-'>Vf-''''~y !me adjustment was recorded WIth Lane County m 1997 affectIng the common boundary between parcels 2 and 3 ofland partJtIon plat 94-P0491 , completIng the current configuratIon of the subject sIte (CIty of Spnngfield file # 97-02-029) The ComprehensIve Plan proposal IS to change the Campus Industnal portJon of the sIte to CommercJal/Nodal Development Area, Commuruty CommercIal, and MedIum DensIty ResldentIa1/Nodal Development Area The Zone Change proposal IS to change zonmg from Campus Industnal to Commuruty CommercIal, Mlxed Use CommerCIal and MedIum DensIty ReSIdentIal The sIte IS currently planned and zoned a combmatJon of MedImn DensIty ResldentIalINDlMedImn DensIty ReSIdentIal (MDR) (357 acres), CommercJal/Commuruty CommercIal (8 6 acres), and Campus Industnal/Campus Industnal (56 acres) , , I , Eugene office 642 Chamelton SUite 100 Eugene OR 97401 541-431-7059 Fax 541-431-7078 Lebanon office. 39625 Almen Dnve Lebanon OR 97355 541-258-6074 Fax 541-258-6810 wwwgoal1 org GOAL ONE COAUTION The plan amendment and zone change would allow an addJ.tlOnal 19 acres of MDR/ND development, and an addJ.tJ.onal 11 acres of CommercIaIlCommumty Commercial development The plan amendment and zone change would allow an addJ.tJ.onal 26 acres of CommerciallNDlM1xed Use Commercial on the entIrety of the 1003 acre site The proposals would elnnmate all the Campus Industnal plan deSignation and zorung (56 acres) from the 100 3 acre site , The 56 acres of Campus Industnal plan deslgnatJ.on and zorung classrlicatJ.on that IS the subject of tins proposal IS part of a 100 3 acre site that IS currently planned for and zoned Campus Industn8.l, and whIch IS bruit out With campus mdustnal uses IT Cnteria apphcable to the request Local approval cntena are found m the followmg documents Spnngfield Development Code, Metro General Plan as prOVIded by the staff report The proposed plan amendment must also be found to be consistent With apphcable stateWide planrung goals ORS 197 I 75(2)(a) Apphcable goals mclude Goal 2, Land Use Planrung, Goal 9, Economy of the State, Goal 10, Housmg, and Goal 12, TransportatJ.on The proposed plan amendment must also comply With adrrnmstratJ.ve rules nnplementmg apphcable stateWide planrung goals m AnalysIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY AND COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE GOALS All comprehensIVe plan amendments are reVIewable for comphance With the stateWide planrung goals ReSIdents of Rosemont v Metro, 173 Or App 321 (200 I), 1000 Frzends of Oregon v Jackson County, 79 Or App 93, 97, 718 P2d 753 (1986), rev den 301 Or 445 (1987), Opus Development Corp v CIty of Eugene, 141 Or App 249, 254, 918 P2d 116 (1996) Goal 2 - Land Use Plannmg IS "To estabhsh a land use planrung process and pohcy framework as a basiS for all deciSIOns and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for deCISIOns and actJ.ons" Specrlically, local land use actJ.Ons "shall be consistent With the comprehensive plans" Goal 2, Part I Further, the mformatJ.on upon whIch land use deciSIOns are made "shall be conlamed m the plan docwnent or supportmg docwnents" Goal 1, Part I A planrung deciSIOn based on a study not mcorporated mto the comprehensive plan, such as the SCLS, IS not a planrung deciSion that IS made on the basiS of the comprehensive plan and acknowledged planrung docwnents, as reqwred by Goal 2 D S Parklane Development, Inc v Metro, 165 Or App I, 22, 994 P2d 1205 (2000) Also, the City cannot rely on an unacknowledged mventory over one that IS part of an acknowledged plan 1000 Frzends of Oregon v CIty of Dundee, 203 Or App 207, 216, 124 P3d 1249 (2005) In tins case, there appears to be rehance on the Spnngfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS) whIch, although acknowledged, does not address the entIre Metro UGB area, and IS not t:f~fiHeF~nt rl~n of . the Metro Plan The 1992 Metropohtan Industnal Lands Study, howev rD ~&~~s \Je~ 'II' entrre Metro UGB area, and IS part of the Metro Plan 'i 0' 'Ul MAY 1 4 ol -'; Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 By _ 2' GOAL ONE COAUTION The suggested findmgs m the Staff Report rely on reports and other docwnents contammg mventones, asswnptIons, and data that have not been estabhshed for the entIre Metro UGB area or mcorporated mto the comprehensive plan TIus matenal mcludes data used to JuslifY findmgs of comphance WIth goal 9 Any deCISion relymg on such findmgs would not comply WIth Goal 2 GoalS Respondmg to ImtJal comments from Goal One CoaltlOn concennng apphcabillty of land mventones pursuant to Ordmance #6150, adoptmg the Spnngfield Natural Resource Study, staffs posItIon IS that mventones established pursuant to Goal 5 are relevant consideratIOns m consldenng aVallabllity of commercial and mdustnalland WhIle It may be true that these mventones are relevant to the Marcola Meadows Plan Amendment and Zone Change proposal, the 'relevant' analyses (tables 11-2 and 11- 3) actually show little rmpact on the commerCial lands mventory from Goal 5 protectIOn measures, and provide no httle If any analyses of land aVallabllity WIthm the entue Metro UGB area, rather than Just the Spnngfield UGB area Table 11-2, AnalYSIS of Maxlmwn Possible Impact on Supply of Commercial Lands WItlnn the Spnngfield Urban Growth Boundary shows an rmpact of II 56 acres on Spnngfield's (not the urban growth boundary area m It'S entJrety) commercial land supply AdditIonally, the analYSIS pursuant to Ordmance #6150 falls to account for lands ADDED TO the commercial mventory smce 2000, mcludmg but not lumted to the Gateway MDR site's 100 acres, proVldmg a skewed picture of the actual commercial land mventory To skew the picture even further, the analysIs of maxunwn possible rmpact from Goal 5 protectIon measures on supply of mdustnal lands (Ordinance #6150, table 11-1) considers ALL mdustnallands WIthm the entrre Metro UGB area, rather than Jus! the Spnngfield portIOn of the UGB, and does not proVide a breakdown of number of mdustnally wned acres m Spnngfield vs Eugene The 2000 SCLS, however (Table 3-2) shows that the nwnber of campus mdustnal acres by plan deSignatIOn (I e - hght mediwn mdustnal acres) m the Spnngfield UGB area IS 198 77 Goal 6 - AIr, Water, and Land Resources Quality IS "To mamtam and rmprove the quality of the au, water and land resources of the state" Goal 6 prOVides that discharges from future development, combmed WIth discharges from eXlstmg development, shall not "(1) exceed the carrymg capacity of such resources, consldenng long range needs, (2) degrade such resources, or (3) threaten the aVailability of such resources" The Staff Report concludes that additIOnal traffic from development allowed by the plan amendment WIll be no more slgmficant than that allowed WIth the current plan deSignatIOn However, the proposed plan amendment and zone change would allow for and encourage more of the automobile-dependent, fossil-fuel dependent, and greenhouse- gas spewmg development patterns that are degradmg the au quality of Earth's atmosphere and threaterung humaruty's very eXIstence The adverse rmpacts on C02 errussions resuitmg from development allowed by the pia I amendment .llli 7nnp "hange have ~~t been e'valuated or conSidered ] [E @ [E 0 ill [E ~ I U~Jl MAY 1 4 01 , Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 3 " -, GOAL ONE COAUTION Goal 9 - Economic Development IS: "To proVlde adequate opporturubes throughout the state for a vanety of econormc acbVlbes Vltal to the health, welfare, and prospenty of Oregon's crtIzens " The Staff Report's dJ.scusslOn of Goal 9 IS based upon a 2000 Spnngfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS) The Staff Report does mdJ.cate that the SCLS has not been adopted as part of the Metro Plan Goal 2 reqwres that mformabon upon winch land use deciSIOns are made be contamed m the plan document or supportmg documents If the SCLS has not been adopted as part of the Metro Plan, any rehance on that study alone for JustIficabon of the proposed plan amendments IS lllapp,vpuate and unjustified Oregon Adrmmstrabve Rule OAR 660 009 0000 , DIVlslon 9 estabhshes the apphcability of Goal 9 rules to Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (pAPA's) and specifies certam procedures and reqwrements for local govemments to follow m the adopbon or amendment of all plan or land use regulabons pertammg to Goal 9 In OAR 660 009 0010 4 the rule dJ.scusses procedures relevant to tins apphcabon Staff has mcorrectly dlsrmssed the apphcablhty of the new proVlSIOns of the Goal 9 adrrurustrabve rule that became effecbve January 1,2007 In staffs "'''''pvuses to wntten and oral testunony", staff msmuates that because "the apphcabon was sublTIltted m September 2006, pnor to the effecbve date of changes made to Goal 9 by DLCD", the new Rules don't apply That IS mcorrect ORS 227 178 [Fmal acbon on certam apphcabons reqUITed Wlthm 120 days, procedure, excepbons, refund of fees] at subsecbon (1) estabhshes "Except as proVlded m subsecbons (3) and (5) of tins secbon, the govenung body ofa City Ortts deSignee shall take final acbon on an apphcabon for a permit, lunlted land use declSwn or zone change (emphasiS added), mcludmg resolubon of all appeals under ORS 227 180, Wlthm 120 days after the applIcabon IS deemed complete" The current proposal mcludes a plan amendment, winch IS not a pernut, Inmted land use deciSIOn, or zone change ORS 197 175 [Clbes' and counbes' planrnng responslbilibes, rules on mcorporabons, comphance With goals] at subsecbon (2), states "Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197, each City and county m tins state shall (a) Prepare, adopt, amend and reVlse comprehensive plans (emphasis added) m comphance Y'lth goals approved by the comrmsslOn," TIns proVlslOn estabhshes that plan amendments must comply With the Goals, m the case of tins proposal, that means the new Goal 9 rules are apphcable to the proposed plan amendments The recently amended Goal 9 Adrmmstrabve Rille (OAR 660-009-0010 at subsecbon (4) IS NOT the proVlslon that the apphcant has addressed m therr March 17 reVlsed Goal 9 findmgs TIns proVlslon estabhshes that for a PAP A that proposes to change the plan deslgnabon of land m excess of 2 acres Wlthm an eXIstIng urban growth boundary from an mdustnal use deslgnabon to a non-mdustnal use deslgnabon, or an other employment use deSignatIOn to any other use deSignaTIon, a City or county must address all apphcable planrnng reqwrements, and (emphasis added) Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 ~~ @ ~ 0 ill ~ ] W MAY 1 4 C)l 4 By GOAL ONE COAUTION (a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment IS consistent WIth Its most recent econonuc opporturutIes analYSIS and (emphasis added) the parts of Its acknowledged comprehensive plan winch addresses the requrrements of tins dIVIsIOn, The applIcant appears to rely heaVIly on rnventory and polIcy statements establIshed by the 2000 SCLS rn establIslung that the proposal IS consistent WIth the Goal 9 rule However, the applIcant's analYSIS of the proposals' consistency WIth comprehensive plan Econonuc Element polICies found rn the MetropolItan General Plan, Chapter ill, B- I - B-7 IS rnsufficlent and does not address the most slgruficant polICies that must be considered The proposal would decrease the City'S campus rndustnalland rnventory by 56 acres The applIcant has not JustIfied the conversIOn of scarce, shovel ready rndustnal land, especially land deSignated and zoned campus rndustnal rnslde the Metro UGB, even though Metro Plan (comprehensive plan) Econonuc Element polIcy # 12 establIshes that the cItIes are to "dIscourage future MetropolItan Area General Plan amendments that would change development ready rndustnal lands (sites defined as short - term rn the metropolItan Industnal Lands Special Study, 1991) to non-rndustnal designatIons" In addressrng applIcability of the Spnngfield Commercial Lands Study 2000 SCLS, the applIcant also appears to try to separate the Metro Area by jUTIsdlctIonal boundary However, Eugene and Spnngfield have a shared and adopted UGB, Comprehensive Plan, and Industnal Lands study The jUTIsdIctIona1Iy focused SCLS does not analyze supply and demand for the entIre Metro UGB area and cannot be relIed upon to establIsh consistency WIth the reqwrements of OAR 660-009-0010 (4), winch establIshes that the proposed PAPA be consistent WIth both (emphasIs added) the most recent econonuc opporturutIes analYSIS (I e the 2000 SCLS) and the comprehensIVe plan A related problem WIth placrng such heavy relIance on the 2000 SCLS to establIsh Goal 9 complIance IS that rn analyzrng supply and demand, the study falls to consIder or othefWlse account for lands added to the commercIal rnventory Via applIcant uutIated and City approved zone changes and plan amendments One very obVIOUS example of an additIon to the Spnngfield commercial lands rnventory was the 2003 plan amendment and zone change at the 100-acre Gateway Medium Density ReSidentIal site that had the effect of rewrung and redeslgnatrng 100 acres of reSidentIal land to commercial The applIcant and staff have faIled to account for or othefWlse address the addItIon of any commercial land to the SCLS, even though It IS clear that more than 100 acres of commercial land has been added to the rnventory srnce the year 2000 " The applIcant also relIes rn part on rnventones establIshed rn conjunctIon WIth adoptIon of Spnngfield's Natural Resource (NR) Study, by Ordmance #6150 on November 28, 2005 Wlnle those rnventones may be relevant to tins proposal rn that poSSible 'unpacts' resultrng , from Goal 5 protectIon measures were considered for all wrung classIficatIons, the analysIs of maxnnum poSSible unpact on supply of commercial lands pursuant to the study IS Imnted to the area Wltlun the Spnngfield portIon of the Metro UGB (table 11-2) Agam, because Eugene and Spnngfield share a UGB and a comprehensive plan, an analysIs of the entIre UGB area IS necessary to establIsh an accurate picture of the supply of commercial lands \~~ ~.~ G ~ ~]\ \Jlj MAY 14 01 ~ Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 5 8\/ GOAL ONE COAUTlON In any case, the NR Study found that the maxrmum possIble unpact of Goal 5 protectIOn measures on the Spnngfield CommercIal Lands Inventory would be the loss of 11 56 "commercIal acres" LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL LAND The proposed plan amendments and zone changes would remove 56 acres of shovel ready campus mdustnalland from the Metro UGB area mdustnallands mventory The apphcant IS proposmg to sIte a Lowe's home unprovement center on 11 acres of commumty commercIal zorung Wlthm the subject parcel The apphcant has saId nothmg about the eXIstence of another home unprovement store located Wlthm Yo rrule or less of the subject property GIven that there already IS a home unprovement store Wlthm the eXlstmg neIghborhood, the apphcant has not justrlied convertmg the scarce, shovel ready campus mdustnalland for commercIal uses that already eXIst Wlthm the neIghborhood The apphcant has cIted only two comprehensIVe plan (Metro Plan) pohcles from the 'Econo1llic Element' (Chapter ill, SectIon B) of the Plan as "dIrectly relevant" to the proposed PAPA The two Plan pohcles consIdered by the apphcant as relevant to the supply of mdustnalland are pohcles 6 and 12 Pohcy 6 merely states "Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned (emphasIs added) for hght mdustnal and commercIal uses correlatIng the effectIve supply m telTIlS of swtability and aVaIlability WIth the projectIons of demand" The apphcant states that tlns pohcy IS "unperatIve and prOVIdes clearer gwdance than Pohcy 12" nus IS mcorrect nus pohcy addresses zorung only, not plan deSIgnatIon, and concerns the necessIty of havmg adequate supphes of land of both commercIal and mdustnal deSIgnatIons It says nothmg concermng the apphcability of favonng one plan deSIgnatIon over the other Pohcy 12 IS stronger than Pohcy 6 on the Issue of the supply of campus mdustnalland nus pohcy states "DIscourage future Metro Plan amendments (emphasIs added) that would change development-ready mdustnallands (sItes defined as short-term m the metropohtan Industnal Lands SpeCIal Study, 1991) to non-mdustnal designations (emphasIS added) The subject property,ldentrlied m the Industnal Lands Pohcy Report (1993) as bemg m RegIon 7, sIte #5, IS noted m the Report (on page 50) as "ppwp<<ate for a campus mdustnal Plan category The sIte IS also noted m the same document as a "short term sIte" (page 20) Although the apphcant states that these two pohcles "will often be m confuct" because "mcreasmg the amount of undeveloped commercIal land will frequently be at the expense of the mventory of mdustnalland", tlns opunon IS not substantIated by eVIdence m the record estabhshmg how much mdustnalland (desIgnated, not zoned) has been converted to commercIal land In fact, 100 acres ofland deSIgnated reSIdentIal was approved for ( conversIOn to commercIal by Spnngfield CIty Council m 2003 Both staff and the apphcant ~ are silent on the Issue of conversIOns to commercIal from other deSIgnatIons Wlthm the Met. 8 S UGB area Apphcant's assumptIon that mcreasmg the supply of commercIal land will = ~ "frequently" be at the expense of the mdustnal mventory IS clearly unsubstantIated ~ - @~ . - The P AI' A proposal must be consIstent WIth the Econo1llic Element of the ComprehensIve ~ ::;;; plan m It'S entIrety A major 01lliSSlon found m the apphcatIon and staff report IS an analysu [= '~ , of all the Metro Plan Econo1llic Element pohcles other than the two addressed by the apph"" ,- >. fll Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 6 GOAL ONE COAUTION (pohcles 6 and 12) The remammg 30 pohcles should be addressed m some manner More specllcally, the followmg pohcles are directly relevant to the mventory of mdustnallands throughout the Eugene-Spnngfield Metro UGB area 5 - ProVlde eXlstmg mdustnal acuVlues suffiCient adjacent land for future expansIOn TIns Plan proVlslOn IS drrectly apphcable because the 100 3 acre site IS currently zoned, deSignated, and bu1lt out to take advantage of campus mdustnal deslgnatJon and zorung TIns l"Vl'V,a} to ehmmate 56 acres of campus mdustnal zorung adjacent to eXlstmg and developed campus mdustnal zorung, plan deslgnauon, and uses IS clearly mconslstent With the Metro Plan Econonuc element, and 1f approved would have the effect of hnutlng future growth and expansIOn of the eXlstmg campus mdustnal uses 7 - Encourage rndustnal park development, rncludrng areas for warehousrng and chstnbutJve rndustnes and research and development aCUVlues The apphcant and staff state that there IS httle or no rnterest rn rndustnal development these days, and pamt a picture of rndustry that IS other than what campus rndustnal zorung and plan deslgnatJons expect However, the Econonuc Element of the Metro Plan, Frndrng # 17 estabhshes "Special hght rndustnal firms" (I e campus rndustnal) "have vaned site locauon reqwrements, prefer alternauve sites to choose from, and usually benefit from locauon of other special hght rndustnal firms Wlthrn the commuruty and Wlthrn the same rndustnal development" The subject site IS located Wlthrn an eXlstlng campus rndustnal (s II) site The proposal faJ.!s to address the unpacts on the eXlstmg campus rndustnal uses from the potenual loss of 56 acres of adjacent campus rndustnalland 9 - Encourage the expansIOn of eXIstmg and the locauon of new manufactunng acuVlues which are charactenzed by low levels of polluuon and effiCient energy use Staffhas not chscussed efforts to attract and/or encourage expansIOn of manufactunng acuVlues that could be Sited on campus rndustnal zoned and deSignated lands The only reference to tlns Issue from staff IS that there hasn't been much rnterest rn the site from the rndustnal development sector 15 - Encourage compaublhty between rndustnally zoned lands and adjacent areas rn local planrung program Neighbors have "'Al'"",Sed no concern about theu qualIty ofhfe from eXlstmg campus rndustnal uses The concern IS With the conversIOn to commercial and resldentJal uses The apphcant has not addressed why or how the eXlstlng campus rndustnal zorung and plan deslgnatJon IS rncompauble With the adjacent neighborhood zorung and plan deslgnatJon 16 - Ul1hze processes and local controls which encourage retenuon oflarge parcels or consohdatJon of small parcels of rndustnally or commercially zoned land to facilitate theu use or reuse rn a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion The subject property (56 acres) IS part ofa large parcel (100 3 acres), all of which IS zoned and deSignated campus rndustnal StafflS directed by tlns pohcy to encourage retentJon oftlns large parcel of rndustnally zoned and deSignated land, which IS the last remamrng large parcel of campus rnd~al}and Wlthrn the Spnngfield City hnutslD) ~ @ ~ Q \!J ~ 1 """'1. M~_ LRP W06-OOO27 & ZON 2006-00054 IJ1l MAY 1 4 0 1 ~\ .By GOAL ONE COAUTION 21 - Reserve several areas Wlthm the UGB for large scale, campus type, lIght manufuctunng uses Staffhas failed to address the nnpact that tins proposal WIll have on the dwmdlmg supply of shovel ready campus mdustnalland lDSlde the Spnngfield CIty lumts, mcludmg pnor actIons "Pp."llIlg land use code amendments to the campus mdustnal zone that estabhshed more 'fleXIbility' for what uses are allowed m the CIty'S campus mdustnal zones These amendments contrIbuted to the consumptIon of most of the remammg campus mdustnalland m the Gateway area, leaVIng the 100 3-acre campus mdustnal sIte at 28111 Street and Marcola Road (winch mcludes the 56 acre subject 1""1'".;j) as the last remammg large parcel zoned and deSIgnated for campus mdustrIal use lDSlde the Spnngfield CIty lumts 28 - Recogmze the VItal role of neIghborhood commercIal facilitIes m proVldmg SerVIceS and goods to a parlIcular neIghborhood TIns PAPA proposal requests nodal deslgnalIons and zonmg yet has not consIdered or othelWlse addressed the applIcabIlIty of neIghborhood commercIal zonmg vs the requested commuruty commercIal zorung CommercIal scale development IS mcompatIble WIth true nodal development elements mcludmg proVIsIOn of seTVlceS for neIghborhood access rather than regIOnal scale access, pedestrIan and altemalIve mode accessIbility, a IIllX ofhousmg types and affordability throughout the nodal area AddItIonally, applIcant states that the commercIal zonmg 'would not be part of the node' However, the 10calIon of the proposed addItIonal 11 acres of commuruty commercIal zonmg and commercIal plan deslgnalIon IS clearly part of the subject parcel and the 'draft master plan' that the applIcant IS promolIng concurrently WIth the plan amendment and zone change proposal Staff and applIcant have not addressed the applIcability of commuruty commercIal zorung Wlthm a node, or explamed why neIghborhood commercIal zonmg IS bemg IgnOred for Ingher mtenslty uses m tins eXlstmg neIghborhood All the Metro Plan Econo1ll1c Element polICIes are applIcable to tins applIcatIon, and should have been addressed by the applIcant Goal 10 - Housmg IS "To proVIde for the housmg needs of cItIzens of the state Goal 10 reqUlIes that cItIes mamtaIn an mventory ofbmldable land for reSIdentIal uses OAR 660 DIVISIOn 8 mterprets and Implements Goal 10 OAR 660-008-0010 reqUITes that "[s]ufficlent bUIldable land * * * be deSIgnated on the Cvm1'."henslve plan map to satIsfy housmg needs by type and densIty range as detenruned m the housmg needs projectIon The local bUIldable lands mventory must document the amount of bUIldable land m each reSIdentIal plan desIgnatIon" The Staff Report dIscusses the availability of land for housmg Wlthm the Metro UGB area, and relIes on any acknowledged BLI m reachmg Its conclusIOns that there IS a surplus of bUIldable land through the 2015 planrung honzon Approval of the proposed plan amendment to add an addItIonal 19 acres of reSIdentIal land IS not justrlied on a need for addItIOnal reSIdentIal deSIgnatIon and zonmg Fmdmgs must show that mcreasmg the CIty'S a.ire<tdy adequate ,supply of bUIldable resIdentIal lands at the expe~ ~f @.~~~"'~rlis....?r Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 W MAY 1 4 {f1 --' : By GOAL ONE COALITION scarce shovel ready campus mdustnal land IS consIstent WIth the Housmg and EconoIllic polIcIes of the Metro Plan Goal 12 - TransportatIon IS "To provIde and encourage a safe, converuent and econOIlliC transportatIOn system" OAR 660 DIVIsIOn 12 1lllplements Goal 12 OAR 660-012-0060 (the TPR) reqUIres a companson of traffic Impacts allowed under pre- and post-amendment plan and zorung by companng the most traffic mtensIve use allowed m each zone However, the proper pomt of companson IS "allowed land uses," not uses allowed under a specIfic development plan, partIcularly development plans that can be modIfied at any tIme WIthout a plan amendment or zone change Griffiths v CIty of Corvallis, 50 Or LUBA 588 (2005) To adequately address the requuements of the TPR, the TIA must assume the most mtense traffic-generatmg use allowed under the proposed zorung and must assume that use IS developed at the maxImum allowed mtensIty The proposal to apply the IND desIgnatIOn to the entue 54 7 acres of proposed MDR desIgnatIOn and zorung would be appropnate If thrs were to be a truly nodal development However, the mclusIOn of a Lowe's Home Improvement store adjacent to proposed reSIdentIal development raIses concerns about traffic and congestIOn and safety that would not otherWIse be an Issue m a pedestnan, tranSIt onented area In applIcant's dIscussIOn of why a home Improvement center IS appropnate m a Nodal Development Area, applIcant states that the "applIcatIOn does not seek to apply the Nodal Development Area deSIgnatIon to the land on winch the home Improvement store WIll be proposed by the Master Plan applIcatIOn" Wlule stalIng that the PAPA would have the effect of establIslnng a node on 80 acres of MedIum DensIty ReSIdentIal and CommercIal land that do not mclude the pOSSIble sIte of the home Improvement center, the applIcant does not dISCUSS or JustIfy the appropnateness of sItmg a home Improvement center WIthrn the boundanes of a Nodal area Accordmg to the applIcant "a home Improvement center affilIated WIth the proposed Nodal Development Area WIll augment the neIghborhood retaIl traffic of the stores WIthm the Nodal Development deSIgnatIon thereby mcreasmg theu chances for commercIal success" However, as a result of the level of traffic expected from thrs kInd of development, the applIcant has suggested establIslnng 'tnp caps' that WIll lIrrut the number of dwellIng UIllts allowed m the 54 7 acres of proposed MDRIND deSIgnated land TIus mternal mconslstency (/ND to allow more denSIty to support a walkmg, transIt onented area IS lost m the shuffle to deal WIth extra traffic actually generated by Lowes' more so than by addItIOnal reSIdentIal denSIty winch IS not just allowed but expected pursuant to the IND deSIgnatIOn) IS an mdIcatIOn that a commercIal deSIgnatIOn for Lowe's and a nodal desIgnatIOn IS mconslstent WIth the TransportatIOn element of the Metro Plan An adequate transportatIOn Impacts analysIs must assume the most mtense traffic- generatmg use allowed under the proposed zorung and plan deSlgnatIV"~~ltt~" ~] MAY 1 4 01 J Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 9 By_ GOAL ONE COAUTION that use IS developed at the maxrmum allowed mtenslty ThIs proposal has faded to do so and cannot be rehed upon to adequately evaluate potentIal transportatlOn system rmpacts as reqUITed by the TPR The subject property IS actually located WIthm Y, rmle of an "mterstate mterchange area "I The close proX1IIllty of the 1-105/126 Eugene-Spnngfield HIgway and 19th Street mtersectIon to the subject 'nodal site' IS hkely to allow and encourage a large amount of reglOnal shupp"''' travelmg by automoblle to easily access thts site ConslderatlOn of thts SltuatlOn as mconslstent WIth the pohcles supportmg Nodal Development m the Metro Plan (TransportatlOn element) has not been addressed by the apphcant or staff The proposal states only that the suggested rmtIgatIon at thts mtersectlOn WIll help aVOld further degradatlOn of the system m the plan year 2025" "A vOlds further degradatlOn" IS not the apphcable standard the mltIgatlOn must meet the City standard and mamtam LOS D or better The rmtlgatlOn must meet the state standard and "assur[ e] that the allowed land uses are consistent WIth the functlOn, capacity and performance standards of the faclhty As has been prevlOusly discussed, m determl1llllg whether the apphcable standards are met the TIA must assume the most mtense traffic-generatmg use allowed under the proposed CR zorung and must assume that use IS developed at the maxtmum allowed mtenslty Goal 13 - Energy IS "To conserve energy" Goal 13 reqUITes "Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maxrmlZe the conservatlOn of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic pnnclples " The Staff Report makes conclusory findmgs regardmg Goal 13 However, the proposed fmdmgs are not supported by any eVidence whatsoever The type of development that would be enabled by the plan amendment and zone change IS nothmg else than more of the auto-dependent development that has led to the energy and clrmate cnses we face Truly energy-effiCient development would be smaller m scale so that the market area drawn upon by the faclhtIes would truly hmlted to surroundmg neighborhoods, and so the faclhtIes would be acceSSible not by cars but by people - by foot, bicycle, and pubhc transportatlOn No studies have been done demonstratmg that customers of development allowed by the amendments would m fact come from the market area defined by the surroundmg neighborhoods No studies have been done evaluatmg the energy consequences of alternative development patterns - of relymg on more, smaller, and well-dlstnbuted commercial and office areas rather than larger and fewer areas I OAR 660-012-0060(4XeXc) defines "mterchange area" "Interstate mterchange area means "(I) Property wlthm one-half mIle of an eXlstmg or planned mterchange on an Interstate Highway as measured from the center pomt of the mterchange, or . ~ "(n) The mterchange area as defmed m the Interchange Area Management Plan al r~ a@t ~ ~ III ~ J amendment to the Oregon Htghway Plan " , MAY 1 4 01 J Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 By 10 GOAl ONE COAUTION In the absence of any analysIs of the energy consequences of the proposed amendments, findmgs of compliance With Goal 13 cannot be made or Justified ID. ConclusIOn The proposed amendments would create a 56-acre resldentJal and commercial site WltIun an eXIstIng 100 3 acre campus mdus1nal site The proposed plan amendment IS not logical and harmoruous With the land use pattern for the greater area The proposed change IS not "lOgical and harmoruous" because It IS not consistent With the development pattern envlSloned m the Metro Plan The plan amendment would allow for "big box" or other lugh-mtenslty retail development, development could not be ll1mted m scope so as to be appropnate to the surroundmg neighborhoods and commuruty Development allowed by the proposed amendment would disrupt and be mcompatIble With the surroundmg residentIal and campus mdustnal environments and IS not consistent With the Metro Plan As explamed above, the proposed amendment IS mCOllSIstent With the mtent of the EconOlIDc Element of the Metro Plan, and does not comply With Metro Plan polICies Therefore It cannot be found to be compatIble With these Plans Compliance With stateWide plannmg goals, mcIudmg goals 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13, has not been established In partIcular, It has not been established that the Eugene-SpnngfieId Metro UGB area's supply of campus mdus1nal land will be protected pursuant to the PAPA and zone change proposal The requested plan amendment does not comply With polICies of the Metro Plan and MetropolItan Indus1nal Lands Special Study The requested plan amendment and zone change does not benefit the publIc and are not app.lvj-'....Late Goal One and other partIes whose addresses appear m the first paragraph of tlns letter request notIce and a copy of any deciSion and findmgs regardmg tlns matter Respectfully subrrutted, Laun Segel Commuruty Planner ~~@~Dm~\ ill MAY 1 4 07 U By . ~ Marcola Meadows, LRP 2006-00027 & ZON 2006-00054 1\