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