Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 6/13/2007 '-. . ,~ II Pe~ceHealth June 13, 2007 Springfield Planning Commission Attn: David Reesor, Planner City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: ZON 2007-00012, LRP 2007-00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change Dear Chairrrian Cross and Commissioners, The Commission considered the above-referenced applications on June 5 at a duly noticed work session and public hearing. The following rebuts written testimony submitted by Lauri Segel of the Goal One Coalition at the close of the extended record yesterday. ' Ms. Segel suggests that the applications do not comply with statewide planning Goal 9 (Economic Development) - and by extension with Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) - because the 2000 Springfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS) "does not address the entire Metro UGB area, and is not a refinement plan of the Metro Plan." (pg. 2; June 12,2007 Segel letter) She further states that "Eugene and Springfield have a shared and adopted UGB, Comprehensive Plan, and Industrial Lands study. The, jurisdictionally focused SCLS does not analyze supply and demand for the entire Metro UGB area and cannot be relied upon on it's [sic] own to establish consistency with the requirements of OAR 660-009-0010 (4), which establishes that the proposed PAPA [Plan amendment] be consistent with both (emphasis added) the most recent economic opportunities analysis (i.e., the 2000 SCLS) and the comprehensive plan." (pg. 4, Segel letter) . ~ Annlicant's Resnonse: The SCLS was developed by the City and adopted by the Springfield City Council (Resolution No. 00-13 and included in the end pages of the SCLS) to comply with Goal 9 and applicable OARs pursuant to periodic review requirements established by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. Prior to the SCLS, the City of Eugene had an acknowledged plan for complying with Goal 9, the 1992 Eugene Commercial Lands Study (ECLS). The ECLS states: "The study includes solely the Eugene portion of the metropolitan urban growth boundary." (pg. 1-3, ECLS) Phone: .Date Receiveci: ( 11-7 J AI Dedicared ro Exceptional Medicine (541)686-3660 Planner' DR ~ and Compassionate Care F,,, (541)686-3699 . ('1::) PO Box 1479 Eugene OR 97440-1479 L e,-1-b,;)/ www.peacehealth.org - , . Re: ZON 2007"00012, LRP 2007-00013 -Plan AmendmentlZone Change Applicant's Rebuttal' June 13. 2007 Page 2 Although there is in fact an acknowledged study covering both communities' industrial lands (the 1993 Metropolitan Industrial Lands Policy Report, and companion Inventory Report), the cities of Eugene and Springfield have separately adopted and acknowledged commercial lands studies fulfilling the requirements of Goal 9. As such, the SCLS serves as the City of$pringfield's'''most recent economic opportunities analysis," as Ms. Segel notes above by her own admission. The SCLS also complies with Metro Plan Policy 3 I which called for the City to conduct a commercial lands study, and fulfills the City's Goal 9 requirements pursuant to the periodic review work order, now accepted as complete by DLCD. There is no requirement that the Applicant or the City perform a metro-wide analysis of commercial lands in order to adopt findings satisfying compliance with Metro Plan policies and Goal 9. Ms. Segel states that the analysis provided does not account for additions to the inventory of commercial lands, notably "the Gateway MDR site's ,100 acres." (pg. 4, Segel'letter) Aoolicant's Resoonse: The City previously adopted amendments to the Gateway Refinement Plan (10. No. 2002-08-244), including GRP Implementation Action 12.1, which limited redesignation and rezoning of up to 99 acres ofresidentialland within the Gateway MDR site. 'Subsequent Plan diagram amendments and zone changes of 96.2 acres and 3.5 acres resulted in redesignation/rezoning of96.2 acres to Mixed Use Commercial or Medical Services of the possible 99 acres available under the GRP. Considering that the SCLS identified a deficit of 158 acres in the supply of commercial land over demand, accounting for this additional redesignated/rezoned land, this would still result in a deficit of more than 61 acres of needed' commercial land. Approving the requested Plan amendment/zone change would still leave a deficit of approximately 55 acres of needed commercial land. . The supplemental information submitted into the record by the Applicant included the ,City's analysis of impacts to the commercial lands inventory pursuant to the City's acknowledged compliance with GoalS periodic review requirements. Table 1 1-2 ofthis analysis (see pg. 3-25 in the Commission's June 4, 2007 hearing packet) identifies that as a consequence of the City's GoalS protection measures that approximately 11.5 acres would be removed from the inventory of needed commercial lands, thus further adding to the commercial lands deficit established in the SCLS. . Therefore, even considering'impacts to commercial lands inventories from other adopted ,and acknowledged plans (i.e., the City's plan for GoalS compliance) and acknowledged Plan amendments/zone changes, approval of the proposal will not result in there being an excess of needed commercially zoned and designated land. To the contrary, this analysis demonstrates that there will remain a deficit of approximately 66 acres after approval of the requested redesignation/rezoning. Re: ZON 2007-00012, LRP 2007-00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change Applicant's Rebuttal June 13.2007 Page 3 Ms. Segel states that the application relies "heavily on inventory and policy statements established by the 2000 SCLS in establishing that the proposal is consistent with the Goal 9 rule. However, the applicant's analysis ofthe proposals' consistency with comprehensive plan Economic Element policies found in the Metropolitan General Plan, Chapter III, B-1 - B-7 is insufficient and does not address the most significant policies that must be considered." (pg. 3, Segel letter) She further alleges that the application hasn't 'Justified the conversion of ' scarce, shovel ready industrial land, espedally lan~ designated and zoned light medium industrial inside the Metro UGB, even though the Metro' Plan (comprehensive plan) Economic Element policy #12 establishes that the cities are to 'discourage future Metropolitan Area General Plan amendments that would change development ready industrial lands (sites defined as short-term in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, 1991) to non-industrial designations.' The applicant and staff findings do not address how the loss of these 5.24 acres impacts the short-term supply ofLMI designated land." Aoolicant's Resoonse: The Applicant's original March 15,2007 submittal included findings addressing relevant Metro Plan policies (see pg. 5 of the submittal, pg. 4-5 of the Commission's June 4,2007 hearing packet). Clearly not all of the 32 Metro Plan Economic Element policies are relevant to the proposal. Manyare aspirational in nature and not directive to a specific quasi-judicial application, for example Policy 28: "Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commerciai facilities in providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood." (pg. III-B"6, Metro Plan) Others are directed to actions that the public sector'jurisdictions are to undertake, such as Policy 31, which Springfield did in conducting in the SCLS: "Conduct a Commercial Lands Study prior to the next major plan update." (pg. III-B-7,-ibid) Nonetheless, to demonstrate that all policies were considered irrespective of their applicability, the Applicant will provide supplemental findings and enter them into the record prior to the City Council hearing on these applications. However, this does not suggest that the Applicant's findings are presently inadequate or that the Metro Plan policies cited are not on point. . Ms. Segel's citation of Economic Element Policy 12 ignores the fact that the subject site was not included among the sites "defined as short-term in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, 1991)." The adopted and acknowledged Metropolitan Industrial Lands Policy and Inventory Reports identify the subject site as being included in "Subregion #8 - East Springfield." Maps and tabular information in these reports (pp. 42"44, tables pp. 18-26; 1993 MIL Policy Report) do not identify the subject site among the "short-term sites" in the industrial lands study, presumably because both were considered developed. The abutting property now developed with the Hyland Business . Park was, however,identified in the study as site #7 in this subregion. While the Hyland property was included in the matrix of ' 'short-term sites," it was also identified as being a "developed" site. The MIL Policy Report states that "sites developed during the study Re: ZON2007-00012, LRP2007-00013 -Plan ArnendmentlZone Change Applicant's Rebuttal June 13, 2007 Page 4 . were not included in the short-term supply of sites. Staff projected a five year need for industrial site~ based on development trends in Eugene-Springfield during the previous two year period, a time of economic growth. This short term demand was compared to the existing supply of sites, excluding those already developed. [emphasis in original report]" (pp. 15, 16) Therefore, the subject site was not included in the inventory of short-term industrial sites in the industrial lands study casting doubt on the applicability of Metro Plan Economic Element Policy 12. Even if Policy 12 were relevant, its language is clearly not prohibitive to approval of an application for redesignation/rezoning of an industrial site, particularly when considering it in the context of industrial and commercial land inventories. As stated above and established in the record, there is a demonstrated need for additional commercial land, which the proposal helps address. The record also includes evidence demonstrating that there is a surplus of needed industrial land. The acknowledged metro industrial lands study identified a surplus of buildable light medium industrial acreage, and overall industrial acreage, in Eugene, . Springfield, and combined in the metro UGB. Table 5 in the MIL Inventory Report (pg. 47) identifies supplies of buildable industrial land as follows: Eugene Springfield Metro UGB LMI Acres 1,230.78 198.77 1,429.55 Total Industrial Acres 2,895.49 708.80 3,604.29 The report further states that the study "identifies about 1,688 constraint-free industrial acres.... This supply exceeds the projected demand over the next twenty years, which is between 650 to 1,172 acres." (pg. 73, MIL Inventory Report) As noted in the City's Goal5'analysis entered into the record, the maximum impact of industrial acreage from GoalS, protection measures in Springfield is 54.43 acres (Table 11.3, pg, 3-25 ofthe Commission's June 4 hearing packet). The analysis also found that there were 90.80 acres removed from the industrial designation by prior Plan amendments in Springfield. Therefore, even if all of the industrial acreage impacted by Go"al5 and all of the acreage redesignated in Springfield were from the LMI designation - which is no doubt not the case - there would still be a surplus, of nearly 50 acres ofLMI designated land even after approval of the requested Plan amendment. This does not account for the 11.5 acres of land added to the inventory of LMI zoned and designated land referenced in my March 28, 2007 supplemental information. Therefore, the removal of5.24 acres ofLMI zoned and designated limd will not result in a deficit of needed land in that industrial designation. Moreover, although Economic Eleinent Policy 12 "discourages" Plan amendments for certain industrial lands, there are countervailing policies in the Metro Plan (i.e., v Re: ZON 2007-00012, LRP 2007-00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change Applicant's Rebuttal June 13.2007 Page 5 Economic Element Policy 6) and SCLS (i.e., Policies I-A and I-C) that are directive to providing an adequate supply of needed commercial lands. The Metro Plan recognizes such conflicts: "The respective jurisdictions recognize that there are apparent conflicts and inconsistencies between and among some goals, objectives, and policies. When making decisions based on the Plan, not all the goals, objectives, and policies can be met to the same degree in every instance. Use ofthe Plan requires a 'balancing' of its various components on a case-by_case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies most pertinent to the issue at hand." (pg. 1-4, Metro Plan) The Applicant contends that findings and evidence in the record from adopted and acknowledged sources demonstrate that approval of the requested'redesignation/rezoning is consistent with applicable policies and fulfills the City's employment-generating objectives and requirements under Goal 9. Ms. Segel's letter states that "t1i.e applicant is not specific about what uses will be cited should the proposal be approved, and there is no way to know if in fact [sic] above wage jobs ~d salaries." (pg. 5, Segel letter) She also states that while "the applicant argues that the proposal would have the effect of correcting existing non-conforming uses on TL #402" that the property is not included in the "Sites with Plan/Zone Conflicts" in the SCLS. She goes on to state that "it appears that the existing nonconforming uses were actually established AFTER adoption ofthe 2000 SCLS, indicating that the existing uses were actually permitted by the City with the knowledge that these uses would create plan/zone conflicts." (pg. 4, Segel letter) Annlicant's Resnonse: The Applicant does not allege that there is a Plan/zone conflict on Tax Lot 402; clearly the existing Plan designations and zoning are LMl. Rather, the point made in our application narrative is that commercial uses have existed for decades, pre-existing the establishment ofthe Metro Plan and the application of the LM1 designation on the subject properties. Ms. Segel provides no evidence to back up her accusation that the City wittingly allowed commercial uses on Tax Lot 402 after adoption of the SCLS. The Applicant and owner of Tax Lot 402 will provide additional evidence and testimony at the City Council hearing on July 2 which will further demonstrate factually that commercial uses and employment have been in the building on Tax Lot 402 for nearly 50 years. Ms. Segel's assertion that the application was unspecific as to the future uses on Tax Lot 400 is inaccurate. The application narrative clearly states the intended purpose of the redesignation/rezoriing is to allow for a future medical clinic on Tax Lot 400 and to allow the long-standing commercial operations on Tax Lot 402 to continue (pg. 2, pg. 4-2 in the Commission's June 4 hearing packet). Such clinical uses are not permitted in any industrial zoning district, thus prompting the need to rezone (and redesignate) Tax Lot 400 to allow a medical clinic. Average wages and benefits for medical workers tends to Re: ZON 2007-00012, LRP 2007-00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change Applicant's Rebuttal June 13, 2007 Page 6 be higher than average local wages, and further substantiating data can be entered into the record at the <;;ity Council level. Ms. Segel contends that the proposal is not "logical and harmonious" with land use patterns in the greater area, inconsistent with the intent of the Economic Element of the Metro Plan, doesn't comply with Metro Plan policies, and hasn't demonstrated compliance with statewide planning goals 2, 6, 9,10,12, and.13. "In particular, it has not been established that the Eugene-Springfield metro area's supply of campus industrial land will be protec'ted pursuant to the PAPA and zone change proposal." Aoolicant's Resoonse: It should first be noted that the application does not involve or in any way affect the "metro area's supply of campus industrial land." Moreover, the application has no effect upon Goal 10 (Housing), and has elsewhere demonstrated compliance with Goal 12 and other applicable statewide planning goals. My guess is that Ms. Segel and Nancy Falk, who appeared at.the June 4 hearing and requested the written record be left open for a week, both vigorously oppose the Plan amendment/zone change proposed for the Marcola Meadows project, and are borrowing'arguments to also object to this modest request before the City. The contention that the proposal would not result in a "logical and harmonious" land use pattern is without substance or basis in fact, and is not an approval criterion. As noted above and elsewhere in the record, this proposal is consistent with policies and provisions in the Metro Plan, its Economic Element, supporting refinement plans (i.e., the SCLS and MILS) to the Metro Plan, and Goal 9 and other applicable statewide planning goals. On the basis ofthe record and arguments before you, we urge you to support the Staff recommendation and forward to the City Council your recommendation approving the pending applications. ' .~ 1-, Pnilip Farringt n, _,ICP Director, Land Use Planning & Development PeaceHealth Oregon Region cc: Jim Werfelmann Andrew Head Shaun Hyland