HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 7/2/2007
I
GOAL ONE COALITION
~
I
Goal One is Citizen Involvement
, City of Springfield Planning CommiLiOn
David Reesor .
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97444
.
Date Received:
Planner: DR
1 (:Yf07
,
. (~-I f.~z<iJ
July 2, 2007
RE:ZON 2007-00012/LRP 2007-00013, Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Dear Members of the City Council:
The Goal One Coalition (Goal One) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide
assistance and support to Oregoniand in matters affecting their communities. Goal' One is
,
participating in these proceedings at the request of and on behalf of its membership residing in
- ,
Lane County.
This testimony is presented on behalf of Goal One and its membership, including Nancy Falk,
2567 Marcola Road, Springfield, OrJgon 97477, as an individual.
, I .
These comments are also submitted on behalf of LandWatch Lane County, 642 Chamelton
, -
Suite 100, Eugene, OR 97401, specifically including President Robert Emmons, 40093 Little
,
Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, OR 97438, as an individual.
I. Introduction
This proposal is for a site-specific Metro Plan Amendment / Refinement Plan Amendment and
a concurrent Zoning Map Amendmeht from Light Medium Industrial (LM!) to Community
C~mmercial (CC). for a total of 5.25 ~cres within the Springfield city limits. The subject site is
located within the East Main Refinerl-tent Plan area. '.
, I ' '
The subject site is located just east of 44th and Main Streets (Highway 126). The site consists
, '
of two tax lots under separate ownerships, and is located on approximately 5.24 acres
identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 oh Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32-00. TL 400 (5.01 acres)
has several vacant buildings on-site, including portable trailer type structures. According to
County taX records, there are no imptovements on this site, and all the taxable value is
associated with the land only. The srhaller of the tWo subject lots, TL 402 (.24 acres), has an
existing commercial development oJ-site, although the plan designation and zone are LM!.
According to County tax records, thi~ site has all its taxable value in improvements, having no
laild value associated with this tax lot." .'.
- ' I -' .'
Eugene Office: 642 Chamelton Suite 100. Eugene OR 97401 . 541-431-7059' Fax: 541-431-7078
Lebanon Office: 39625 Almen Drivi,. Lebanon OR 97355, 541-258-6074' Fax: 541-258-6810
www.goaI1.org,
o
GOA . ONE COALITION
Properties located to the north (WeyerhaUser) are zoned and designated Heavy Industrial.
Parcels located west of 44th Street and ilie subject site are designated Mixed-Use on the East
,
Main Refinement Plan. r ''-'1'';;::Y located east and adjacent to the subject properties is
designated and zoned LMI and built out !is a business park. Properties located south of the
subject site, across Main Street, are zoned and designated Community Coriunercial.
II. Criteria Applicable to the Request
Local approval criteria are found in tht. following documents; Springfield Development
Code (SDC), Metropolitan General Plk (MP), and East Main Refmement Plan (EMRP).
ill. Analysis
1. Metro Plan 'Plan Review' Element
LA. Introduction
The applicant statement and staff findings provide a cursory review of Metro Plan ,
policies, relying mostly on Metro Plarl approval criteria in Article 7 of the SDC, which
states:
The following criteria shall be applied by the City Council in approving or
denying a Metro Plan amendment application'
(a) The amendment must be coListent with the relevant Statewide planning
- '
. goals adopted by the Land CConservationand Development Commission;
and' . I ' '
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
SDC 7.070(3). Applicant and staff assert that adoption of the proposed amendments will not
make the Metro Plan intemall y inconsi:!tent, and staff finding 19 states, "[ s ]taff has reviewed
the applicant's choice of applicable Me~o Plan Policies and Elements and concur that the
noted Policies and Elements are applica,ble to the proposal." In so stating, staff has failed to
address, or require the applicant to address, the 'Plan Review' policies of the Metro Plan,
and has erred in fmding that the applitant's choice of applicable Metro Plan Policies and
Elements is sufficient. .
Metro Plan amendments are governed by policies ofthe MP found in the Plan Review
, I
element, Plan Amendments and RefIilements, Section IV, 1-5. The proposed Metro Plan
Amendment is a Type II Amendment, meaning that it 'is site specific, and amends the
Plan diagram or Plan text.
Metro Plan Amendment Policy 4, Ini iiation of Metropolitan Plan Amendments,
establishes:
Metro Plan/East" Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007 -D0012 - LRP 2007 -D0013
. " I"
2
GOAL ONE COALITION
A type II amendment may be linitiated at the discretion of any one of the three
governing bodies or by any Jitizen who owns property that is subject of the .
proposed amendments.
PeaceHealth Oregon (PHO) is the applicant, but is not the owner of the property that is
the subject of the proposed amendm~nts, and PHO'provides no evidence that they are
representing the property owners. The initiation of these amendments does not comply
with the plan amendment requiremehts of the Metro Plan, which requires citizens who
initiate Type II amendments to be o~ers of the subject property. As such, the proposed
amendments cannot be approved.
1.B. Springfield Development Code
, The proposed Metro Plan Amenlent is a Type II Amendment, meaning it is site
,
specific and is located within the city limits. Type II Metro Plan amendments are also
evaluated according to the criteria of approval contained within Article 7 of the SDC.
'I ' , . ' '
SDC at 7.010, METRO PLAN ANIENDMENT-PURPOSE, provides that Metro J>lan
amendments shall be made ill accordance with the standards contained in Chapter'IV of
the Metro Plan and the. provision~ of this Code. As noted above, the proposal is
. inconsistent with the plan review p6licies found.in Chapter IV of the MP, and thus does
,not comply with SDC 7.010.
SDC at 7.030 METRO PLAN AMENDMENT-DEFINITIONS, establishes, in relevant
, .,
part: "METRO PLAN AMENDMENT-INITIATION. . . . Any of the three governing
bodies or a citizen who owns prop~rty that is the, subject of the proposed amendment
may. initiate a T~pe II Metro Plan lamendment at any t~e." (e~phasis added). The
applIcant, PHO, IS not the owner of the property that IS the subject of the proposed
amendment, and as such has not coniplied with SDC 7.030 provisions for initiating metro
plan amendments. PHO is not a legJl applicant.' ,
Initiation of the proposed amenJents is inconsistent with the Metro Plan initiation
,
provisions found in Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code because the applicant
is not, and does not represent, the oker. As such, the proposed amendments cannot be
approved. '
2. Compliance with Statewide, Planning Goals
2.A. Introduction
SDC 7.070(3)(atrequires that the proposal be consistent with therelevanl Statewide planning
goals adopted by the Land Conservatidn and Development Commission. ORS 197.175(2)(a).
SDC 7.070 (3) states: I
The following criteria shall be ~plied by the City Council in approving or denying a
Metro Plan amendment applichtion: '
(a) The amendment must ~e consistent with the relevant Statewide planning'goals
adopted by the, Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Metre Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, Z0N 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013
, ,I,
3
G0AL ONE COALITION
All comprehensive plan amendments are reviewable for compliance with the statewide
planning goals. Residents ofRosemon(v. Metro, 173 Or. App~ 321 (2001); 1000 Friends of
Oregon v. Jackson County, 79 Or. App. 93, 97, 718 P.2d. 753 (1986), rev. den. 301 Or. 445
(1987); Opus Development Corp. v. City of Eugene, 141 Or. App: 249, 254, 918 P.2d. 116
(1996).
Applicable goals include Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Goal 9
,
(Economy of the State), and Goal 12 (fransportation). The proposed plan amendment must
also comply with administrative rules implementing applicable statewide planning goals.
2.A.a.
Goall
Goall-Citizen Involvement is: "To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opgortunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process."
Staff relies on the city's acknowledged citizen involvement program to justify compliance
with Goal 1. Goal 1 findings note .that hearings are held, notice is sent out and published
pursuant"to SDC 14.030 (I) & (2), bht there is no meaningful involvement by citizens, and
there is no effort on behalf of the Jity to encourage citizen involvement. Neighborhood
organizations have all been rescindJd in recent years due to what the city refers to as
inactivity. There has been no effort b~ the city to reinvigorate neighborhood organizations~
The findings in the Staff Report r~ly on assumptions and information provided. by the
applicant and found in the 2000 SCLS. While the SCLS is adopted by the City and
acknowledged by DLCD, it is not iricorporated into the comprehensive plan (Metro Plan).
Although adoption of the SCLS included a citizen involvement element, including public
hearings before the Planning Commis~ionand City Council, the fact remains that it is not part
of the comprehensive plan. Relying oh data in a proceeding that does not and cannot lead to a
conforming amendment to the comprehensive plan to incorporate that data into the plan, .
denies the public the opportunity to ptovide input, as required by Goal 1. Lengkeek v. City of
I
Tangent, 50 Or. LUBA 367 (2005). I J
Goal I also establishes that the commi~ee for citizen involvement (in this case, the Springfield
Planning Cornrni<<;,on) "shall be reSponsible for assisting the governing body with the
,
development of a program that proplOtes and enhances citizen involvement in land-use
planning, assisting in the implementation of the citizen involvement program, and '
evaluating the process being used I for citizen involvement." Citizen involvement in
Springfield is a cursory opportunity for citizens to comment in writing or in person at hearings
or during general public comment periods held concurrent with city council meetings or
hearings. There has been no effort by the City to enhance citizen involvement, to evaluate
their processes for citizen involver'lent, or even to encourage more effective citizen
involvement.
The minutes of the June 5 PC public hearing should in fact reflect a comment from one
Commissioner directed at one citizen'J request to hold the written record open for 7 days. The
Commissioner wanted to know why I the citizen wanted the record held open, imposing a
certain level of intimidation on the citizen making'the request. This behavior by a planning
i
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013 4
, . I .
GOAL ONE COALITION
cn~m;o~ioner, a member of the city's ackllowledged citizen involvement, Goal 1 compliance
element, is at best a violation of the spirit of Goal 1, and at worst a misuse of the citizen
involvement responsibility of the planning commission. ' Another Commissioner was heard
criticizing the written comments from Goal One Coalition during deliberations on this
planning action, and making assumptions about the intent of Goal One Coalition's
involvement. Neither of these examples is consistent with the intent of the citizen
involvement element of Goal 1 to promote and enhance citizen involvement in land use
planning. . '
2.A.b.
Goal 2
Goal2-Land Use PlanniIig is: "To establish a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decisions and actiolls related to use ofland and to assure an
adequate factual base for decisions and actions." Specifically, Goal 2 establishes that local
land use actions "shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans." Goal 2, Part I. Further,
the information upon which land use decisions are made "shall be contained in the plan
document or supporting documents.'~ Goal I, Part I.
In this case, the applicant relies heavily on the acknowledged 2000 Springfield Commercial
Lands Study (SCLS), which does not address the entire Metro UGB area; and is not
incorporated into the Metro Plan. A planning decision based on a study not 4J,cV'l-'vwted into
the comprehensive plan is not a planning decision that is made on the basis of the
comprehensive plan and acknowledged planning documents, as required by Goal 2. D. S
Parklane Development, Inc. v. Metro, 165 Or. App. 1,22,994 P.2d. 1205 (2000). The city
carmot rely on an inventory that is not part of the plan over one that is part of an acknowledged
plan. 1000 Friends of Oregon "V. City of Dundee , 203 Or. App. 207, 216, 124 P.3d. 1249
(2005).
Goal 2 and GoiU 1 (Citizen Involvement) require an opportunity for the public to review
information contained in the comprehensive plan. As stated in D.S Parldafie, the intent of
Goal 2 is to require that the comprehensive plan provide the basis for land use actions. D.S
Parldane, 165 Or. App. at 22. Specifically, Goal 2 provides that land use plans shall include
"inventories and factual information for each applicable statewide planning goal."
Goal 2 and Goal I require that certain necessary information appear in the comprehensive
plan. Without that information in the plan, a land use decision that implicates Goal 9 (as
in this case) is not based on the comprehensive plan. Further, to allow an applicant to
base a proposal on data that does not and cannot lead to a conforming amendment to the
, comprehensive plan denies the public the opportunity to provide input that is required by
Goal 1. Mondalee Lengkeek, Mervin "Bill" Lengkeek, James M Long, Stephen P.
Nofziger, Joanne Mclennan, Arlen Samard, and Eileen Samard v. City Of Tangent,
LUBA No. 2004-164 (2005).
The proposed findings rely on reports and other documents _containing inventories,
assumptions, and data that have not been incorporated into the comprehensive plan. This
material includes data used to justifY findings of compliance with Goal 9. Any decision
relying on such findings would not comply with Goal 2.
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-{)0012 - LRP 2007-{)0013
5
GOAL ONE COALITION
2.A.c.
Goal 9
Goal9-Economic Development is: "To provide,adequate opportunities throughout the state
for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's
citizens." .
Staff's Goal 9 findings are based upon the 1992 Industrial Land Study and the 2000
Commercial Land Study. Goal 2 requires that information upon which land use decisions are
made be contained in the plan document.
OAR 660-015-0000(2), Part I Planning, establishes that city, county, state, and federal
agency and special district plmis and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the
comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter
.268.
Goal 9--{j60-009-00 10(4) establishes that:
[fJor a post-acknowledgement plan amendment under OAR chapter 660,
division 18, that changes the plan designation of land in excess of two
acres within an existing urban growth boundary from an industrial use
designation to a non-industrial use designation, or an other employment
use designation. to any other use designati?n, a city or county must
address iIll applicable planning requirements, and:
(a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most
recent economic opportunities analysis and the parts of its acknowledged'
comprehensive plan which address the requirements of this division.
(emphasis added). The applicant appears to rely heavily oninvei1tory 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 of the proposals' consistency with the comprehensive
plan Economic Element policies found in the Metropolitan General Plan, Chapter ill, (B-l}-
(E-7), is insufficient and does not address significant policies that must be considered. Staff
findings are based on applicant's statements, and as such do not reflect the need, pursuant"to
the Goal 9 rules, for,the proposal to be consistent with the 2000 SCLS and the economic
element of the comprehensive plan. . .
While the Goal 9 rule establishes that the proposal be consistent with .the most recent EOA
and the parts of the acknowledged comprehensive plan which address requirements of the
Goal 9 rule, Goal 2 establishe~ that decisions city, county, state and federal agency and special
district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans
of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268. Specifically, Goal
2 establishes that local land use actions "shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans."
Goal 2, Part I. Furthermore, the information upon which land use decisions' are made "shall
be contained in the plan document or supporting documents." Goal 1, Part I. 'It appears that
the Goal 9 rule is inconsistent with the Goal 2 provision that establishes that local land use
MetroPlanlEast Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013
6
GOAL ONE COALITION
. actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and that information upon which land
use decisions are made shall be in the plan document or supporting documents. .
Staff findings cite OAR 660-009-0010 as "stating that a reviewing authority can find that the
proposal complies with relevant local plan policies by converting one form or (sic)
employment-generating land use to another, without negatively impacting the supply of
buildable lands for either category of uses." OAR 660-009-0010 says no such thing. As
stated previously, the relevant provisions of OAR 660-009-0010 establish a city or county
must address "all applicable planning requirements," (emphasis added), and:
(a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most
recent economic opportunities analysis and the parts of its acknowledged
comprehensive plan which address the requirements of this division.
(emphasis added). According to staff findings, the aPplicant notes "there are existing
commercial uses located on TL 400 which are part of the subject property." This statement is
in error. In fact, current tax records show that there are no improvements on TL 400, and that
the only value associated with TL 400 is the land value itself. It is also the case that the future
Community Commercial uses the applicant seeks to develop on the subject properties
(whether outpatient medical facilities and services, or medical offices) are not allowed uses
pursuant to the EMRP. .
The proposal would decrease the City's Campus Industrial land invent<,>ry by 5.24 acres. The
applicant has not justified the conversion of scarce, shovel-ready industrial land, especially
land designated and zoned light medium industrial iriside the Metro UGR
The applicant makes the argument that thel-'<vl-'voed plan amendment and zone change would
have the effect of correcting existing non-conforming uses on TL 402. Map & Tax Lot 17-
02-32-00-00402. However, it appears that the existing unpermitted nonconforming uses are
tolerated by the City even with the knowledge that these uses are inconsistent with the plan '
. and zone.
In addressing applicability of the Springfield Commercial Lands Study (2000 SCLS), there is
no ,discussion by applicant or staff regarding the fact that Eugene and Springfield have a
shared and adopted UGB, Comprehensive Plan, and Industrial Lands study. The
jurisdictionally focused SCLS is not part of the Plan, does not analyze supply and demand for
the entire Metro UGB area and cannot be relied upon on its own to establish consistency with
the requirements of OAR 660_009-0010(4), which establishes that the proposed PAPA be
consistent with both the most recent economic opportunities analysis (i.e. the 2000 SCLS) and
the comprehensive plan.
A related problem with placing such heavy reliance on the 2000 SCLS to establish Goal 9
compliance is that in analyzing supply and demand, the study does not consider or otherwise
account for lands added to the commercial inventory via applicant-initiated and city-approved
zone changes and plan amendments since the year 2000. One very obvious example of an
addition to the Springfield commercial lands inventory is the 2003 plan amendment and zone
change (LRP 2003-0013 and ZON 2003-0019) at the 100-acre Gateway Medium Density
Residential site that had the effect of rezoning and redesignating 100 acres of residential land
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013
7
GOAL ONE COALITION .
to commercial for a regional medical campus. The applicant provides a spreadsheet (their
Attachment B) which is said to account for all Metro Plan diagram changes affecting the
. supply of residential, commercial, and industrial Lands in the city of Springfield between 1991
and the present. This spreadsheet fails to account for or otherwise address the'addition of
commercial land through the conversion of both residential and industrial land, even though
that the spreadsheet is being presented by the same parties who initiated and have benefited
from' that 100 acre plan amendment that had the effect of adding 100 acres of commercial land
to the inventory. This omission raises doubt as to the validity of applicant's Attachment B as
accounting for additions to and subtractions from the various land inventories.
The applicant also relies in part on inventories established in conjunction with adoption of
Springfield's Natural Resource (NR) Study, by Ordinance 6150 on November 28,2005.
Those inventories are only relevant to this proposal as anecdotal information because they are,
not incorporated as part of the Comprehensive Plan (Metro Plan).
2.A.c.t.
Loss ofIndustrial Land.
The proposed plan amendments and zone changes would remove 5.24 acres of shovel-ready
LM! land from the Metro UGB Area Industrial Lands Inventory. This is in addition to an
another 56-acre plan amendment converting shovel ready Campus Industrial land to
Community Commercial at 28th Street and Marcola Road, less than 2 miles away from the
site subject to his proposal (which was approved by the Springfield City Council on June 18,
2007). The applicant is vague about the outright purpose of the proposed plan amendment
and zone change, noting that, with approval of the plan amendment and zone change, the uses
could include a possible fiiture medical clinic or medical offices, and the provision of family,
wage jobs. The applicant is silent concerning their 100-acre medical campus approximately 5
'miles away from the subject properties proposed for medical facilities and services. Given
this information, the applicant has not justified the removal of shovel-ready LM! land for
commercial uses which are likely to be more medical facilities and services. This area within
the Springfield city limits is already over-commercialized, and approval of this. proposal is
inconsistent with the 1992 Industrial Lands Study policies that direct preservation of Light-
Medium Industrial land, especially where vacant Light-Medium Industrial land is adjoining or
in close jlroximity to existing LM! land and uses.
2.A.c.2.
Comprehensive Plan Economic Element Policies
The.applicant cites 4 of the 32 Economic Element policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Metro
Plan, Chapter Ill, Section B of the Plan, as relevant to the proposed PAPA. The four Plan
policies considered by the applicant as relevant to the supply of industrial land are policies 1,
2,6, and 11.
Policy J is to demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those
providing above wage job and salary levels, and increased variety of job opportunities, a rise
in the standard of living, and utilization of our existing comparative advantage in the level of.
education and skill of the resident labor force. However, there is no way to know if in fact
above wage jobs ahd salaries will be made available.
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013
8
GOAL ONE COALITION
Policy 2 is to encourage economic development which utilizes local and imported
capital, entrepreneurial skills, and the resident labor force. Again, there is no way to
establish whether the applicant will in fact utilize local and imported capital, skills etc.
Policy 6 is to "[i]ncrease the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and
commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and availability with
the projections of demand." (emphasis added). This policy addresses zoning only, not plan
designation, and concems the necessity of having adequate supplies ofland of both
commercial and industrial designations. It says nothing concerning the applicability of
favoring one plan designation over the other.
Policy 11 is to encourage economic activities which strengthen the metropolitan area's
position as a regional distribution; trade, health, and service center. The applicant
asserts that the amendment (sic) will facilitate the development of medical uses that
will serve the needs of the growing residential areas in east, south, and southeast
Springfield, and strengthen the metropolitan area's position as a premier locale for
healthcare services, consistent with this policy objective. Considering that the PHO
2003 zone change and plan amendments were based on the assertions that provision of
medical care pursuant to campuS style medical facility development is the wave of the
future, and that the applicant already has established their dorninance in the healthcare
market within the city limits, it has hard to fathom why they think another 5.24 acres
will somehow strengthen Springfield's position as a premier locale for healthcare
, serYIces.
2.A.c.3.'
Consistency with the Economic Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
. The PAPA proposal must be consistent with the Economic Element of the Comprehensive
plan. There are no staff findings that establish the facts that show the proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. A major omission found in the application and staff report is
an analysis of the Metro Plan Economic Element policies and their relationship to the SCLS.
The remaining 28 policies have not been addressed in any way. More specifically, the
following comprehensive plan policies are directly relevant to the inventory of industrial lands
throughout the Eugene-Springfield Metro UGB area but are not reflected in s~ fmdings.
Policy 5 is to provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion.
This Plan provision is directly applicable because the subject properties are adjacent to LMI
zoned and designated properties to the east. This proposal to eliniinate more industrial zoning
adjacent to existing and developed industrial zoning, plan designation, and uses is clearly
inconsistent with the Metro Plan Economic element, and if approved would have the effect of
limiting future growth and expansion of the adjacent existing Light-Medium Industrial uses.
Policy 7 is to encourage industrial park development, including areas for warehousing and
distributive industries and research and development activities. Economic Element of the
Metro Plan, Finding 17 establishes that "[ s ]pecial light industrial firms" have "varied site
location requirements, prefer alternative sites to choose from, and usually benefit from
location of other special light industrial firms within the community and within the same
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013
9
GOAL ONE COALITION
indlistrial development." The subject site is located adjacent to an existing light medium .
industrial site that is built out as a business park. . .
Policy 9 is to encourage the expansion of existing and the location of new manufacturing
activities which are characterized by low levels of pollution and efficient energy use. Staffhas
not discussed efforts to attract and/or encourage expansion of manufacturing activities that
could be sited on Campus Industrial zoned and designated lands. The only reference to this
issue from staff is that there has not been much interest in ,the site from the industrial
development sector.
Policy 15 is to encourage compatibility between industrially zoned lands and adjacent areas in
local planning program. Neighbors have expressed no concern about their quality oflife from
existing industrial uses. The applicant has, not addressed why or how the existing Light~
Medium Industrial zoning and plan designation is incompatible with the adjacent
neighborhood zoning and plan designation. The EMRP expects that buffering will protect
neighborhood areas from existing industrial uses.
Policy 16 is to utilize processes and local controls which encourage retention oflarge parcels
or consolidation of small parcels of industrially or commercially zoned land to facilitate their
use or reuse in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion. The subject properties are
adjacent to a large parcel which is zoned and designated LMI. Staff is directed by this policy
to encourage retention of this parcel of industrially zoned and designated land, which is one of
the few remaining undeveloped parcels of LM! land within the Springfield city limits. .
Policy 21 is to reserve several areas within the UGB for large scale, campus type, light,
manufacturing uses. Staff has failed to address the impact that this proposa.! will have on the
dwindling supply of shovel-ready industrial land inside the Springfield city limits, including
prior actions approving land use code amendments to the Campus Industrial zone that
established more 'flexibility' for what uses are allowed in the city's Campus Industrial zones.
With less and less Campus Industrial land available as a result of allowing commercial-type
uses within Campus-Industrially zoned areas of the city, there may be an even a greater need
for Light-Medium Industrial lands in the future.
Policy 28 is to recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing
services and goods to a particular neighborhood. This PAPA proposal requests community
commercial plan designation and zoning, even though that zone and plan designation does not
allow medical uses. However, there has been no consideration of the applicability' of
Neighborhood Commercial zoning versus the requested Community Commercial zoning if in
fact there is an overabundance of industrial land. The EMRP has already established in which
areas to expect Mixed-Use/Community Commercial uses, and the subject properties are not
included in these identified areas.
3. Compliance ~ith Citywide Planning Criteria
3.A. Applicant's Proposal is Inconsistent with the East Main Refinement
Plan
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON'2007 -00012 - LRP 2007-00013
10
GOAL ONE COALITION
3.A.a.
Applicant Incorrectly Refers to the Subject Properties as Being'
Subject to Mixed-Use, Area 2 Policies.
The subject properties are zoned as Light-Medium Industrial, not as a Mixed-Use Area.
See EMRP, Plan Diagram, 23. Mixed-Use Area land is located south of Main Street, .
west of 44th Street, east of 48th Street, and a small rectangle of Mixed-Use 'Area land is
located east of the proposed development from 48th Street to approximately one-third of
the way between South 47th Street and South 46th Street. Since the proposed
development lot is not within a Mixed-Use Area, no Mixed-Use Area arguments, policy
or otherwise, are applicable.
The proposed development lot is not in Area 2 and is not subject to EMRP Mixed-Use
Element Policy 2, which is specific to Area 2. See EMRP, Plan Diagram, 23; EMRP 17.
Applicant's statement that this policy "allows, redesignating the subject properties to
Community Commercial, and concurrently rezoning the properties to Community
Commercial" is unfounded. The policy establishes what uses are allowed under
Community Commercial zoning in Area 2 only.' The policy does not say anything about
criteria for rezoning or redesignations, and is applicable oi1ly to properties in Area 2.
3.A.b.
Applicant is Requesting a Use That is not Allowed in an EMRP
Community Commercial Zone
The EMRP defmitionof Community Commercial neither allows nor encapsulates
medical facilities, offices, clinics, or hospitals. See EMRP; Glossary, 21. The EMRP
establishes that the Community Commercial "plan designation category contains such '
general activities as retail stores; personal services; fmancial, insurance, and real estate
offices; private recreational facilities, such as movie theatres; and tourist-related facilities,
such as motels." EMRP, Glossary, 21. Therefore, pursuant to the EMRP definition of
Community Commercial (outside of Areas 2 or 3), neither medical facilities, offices,
clinics, nor hospitals are allowed in areas with Community Commercial zoning and
designation. '
3.A.c.
Applicant's Proposal and: Arguments are Inconsistent with the
EMRP's Commercial Element
The EMRP's Commercial Element, under Criteria for Commercial Refmement Plan
Designation at 1(0), specifies that "the Community Commercial refinement plan
designation shall be applied under the following circumstances: . . . where legally created
commercial uses exist." 12. The tax records for Tax Lot 402 (17-02-32-00-00402) list
the owner as Andrew Head, and the following businesses as associated with Tax Lot 402:
Barber Services I General (Land Use Code 6232, 4434 Main Street), Sporting Goods I
Retail (Land Use Code 5951, 4436 Main Street), Other Retail Trade-Autotrailers, Mobile
I Retail (Land Use Code 5599, 4440 Main Street). The businesses actually located on
TaX Lot 402 are the following: H.J. Moto Company: Motorcycle and ATV Ac~essories,
Apparel (4434, Main Street); Shear Magic Tanning & Spa (4436 Main Street); All About
You: Full Service Salon (4440 Main Street). The tax records for Tax Lot 402 do not
reflect the three existing businesses actually conducting business on Tax Lot 402. The
City staff has not been able to locate any recent permits for the three existing businesses
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013
11
GOAL ONE COALITION .
actually conducting business on Tax Lot 402. Therefore, the three existing businesses.
actually conducting business on Tax Lot 402 do not appear to be. legal, and so are not
"legally created commercial uses." EMRP, Criteria for Commercial Refinement Plan
Designation leD), 12. The EMRP does not authorize plan designation amendments for
the purpose of legalizing illegal uses. .
The EMRP's Commercial Element, under Criteria for Commercial Refmement Plan
'Designation at 1 (F), specifies that "the Community Commercial refinement plan
designation shall be applied under the following circumstances: . . . where designated
Commercial on the Metro Plan Diagram." 12. The subject properties are not desigIiated
Commercial on the Metro Plan, thus there is no justification based on the EMRP criteria
for Community Commercial zoning of the subject properties.
3.A.d.
Applicant's Proposal and Arguments are Inconsistent with the
EMRP's Industrial Element '
The EMRP's Industrial Element's goal is to "[e]ncourage the location of new and
expanding industrial development in the East Main area which is compatible with
surrounding uses." Eliminating LMI land to create commercial land runs counter to this
goal. Furthermore, the EMRP recognizes that "commercial ventures covet the industrial
land that. fronts on Main Street. . . [and] [a]s these pressures build it becomes
increasingly important to assure the availability of land for the expansion of industrial
uses." EMRP 13 (emphasis added). The EMRP recognizes ,that commercialization
threatens industrial lands. Additionally, to be viable, industrial lots must be reasonably-
sized and contiguous, and not broken-up or placed next to other zones where conflicts
would be created.
The commercial uses already present on the lot are inconsistent with the lot's LMI zoning
. .
and plan designation. These commercial uses do not appear to be permitted or otherwise
approved. In addition; the subject properties were in commercial use during Periodic
, ,
Review in 2004 when existing uSes, plan designations, and zoning inconsistencies were
reviewed and comicted where appropriate. The city has had many opportunities to
rectify the nonconforniing use problem, but the current PHO proposal is not the
appropriate mechanism for addressing a nonconforming use issue. It is improper to
, circumv~nt the rules by allowing an inconsistent or illegal use, and then acting on a third-
party proposal that would have the effect of making an inconsistent arid possibly illegal
use, legaL
3.B.
Failure to Comply with EMRP, ODOT, and OAR 660-012-0060
Requirements, in Regard to Access Issues
3.B.a.
The Proposed Development Does Not Comply with the EMRP
Commercial Element's Criteria' or Policies
The EMRP's Commercial Element recognizes that "[t]raffic generated by individual
commercial activities along Main Street creates hazardous driving situations." 12. The
EMRP's Commercial Element, under Criteria. for Commercial Refinement Plan
Designation at 1 (E), specifies that "the Community Commercial refmement plan
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2q07 -00012 - LRP 2007-00013
12
GOAL ONE COALITION
designation shall be applied under the following circumstances: . . . where adequate
customer and service access to an arterial street can be provided; however, access to a
collector street may suffice if safe and efficient access can be provided and if the access
. point (on the collector street) is within one quarter mile of an arterial street." 12. The
subject properties' parking lot dumps directly into Main Street, a classified Principal
Arterial. See Revised Draft Transplan, the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System
Plan (Transplan) Appendix A, Federally Designated Roadway Functional Classification
Map (l999) The subject properties' parking lot does not abut 44th Street. Already,
customers turning left into and out ofthe parking lot have deficient and dangerous access
to Main Street. Should PHO build a larger complex on the site, the problem will only be
magnified.
The EMRP's Commercial Element, under Policies S I, states that its policy is to "[w]here
safe and efficient vehicular access can be provided, encourage the development of
neighborhood or small commercial shopping centers at the intersections of collector
streets and Main Street." 12.' Given the requirement for safety and efficiency in a less-
'in~ense commercial setting, in a less-dangerous traffic environment, the ' same requirement
for safety and efficiency should be required for proposals affecting the subject properties.
As previously stated, the parking lot access to Main Street available. to the subject
properties is dangerous to those .turning left into and out of it, and dangerous and
inefficient because of the volume of business PHO would do ina medical facility as
opposed to uses allowed with the current plan designation and zone (LM!). Furthermore,
addition of a much larger parking lot area would substantially increase the volume of
traffic dumping into Main Street, causing traffic to slow and substantially increasing the
likelihood of accidents. There is no traffic light nearby to alleviate these problems.
Additionally, the EMRP's Commercial Element, under Policies S 3, states that its policy
is to "[r]educe the number of vehicular access points. . . along Main Street." 12. This
proposal is contrary to this policy, and also magnifies the danger surrounding an 'existing
vehicular access point.
,3.B.b.
Because the Proposed Development Does Not Adequately
Address ODOT's Comments, No Adequate OAR660-012-0060
Analysis Was Undertaken
ODOT made 15 comments in regard to the East Springfield Rezone Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by JRH Transportation Engineers (JRH). After reviewing ODOT's
position, the City decided thatthe most appropriate way to address Goal 12 compliance
on this proposal was by conditioning a trip cap to what the worst case scenario would be
under existing zoning (LMI). This measure alone does not suffiCiently address all of
ODOT's original comments.
We have read ODOT's comments and JRH's reply. JRH did not adequately respond to
ODOT's comments. The development may significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility under OAR 660-012-0060, the Transportation Planning Rule, but
because JRH leaves significant issues raised by ODOT unresolved and unaddressed, it is
not presently possible to formulate a response. For example, ODOT's comment 9 (which
JRH lists as comment 8) states that "the trip generation study for the proposed zoning
must be for the maximum allowable develooment on that site." (emphasis in original).
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007:00013
13
GOAL ONE COALITION
Under JRH's response to ODOT's comment 7, JRH uses "the most feasible building
, solutions" for the subject lot, admitting that "the land uses may not be the highest trip
generators [but] they were established as the most likely development scenario."
Response Letter from Jjffi Hanks PE, 4, May 21, 2007. JRH does not comply with the
. "maximum 'aliowable development" criteria, but merely substitutes its own standard,
"most likely development scenario." There are serious issues with the methodology used
to calculate trips to and from the proposed development site, which in turn casts doubt on
the trip caps later imposed based on this data.
c
In regard to imposing a trip cap, we have additional concerns as to the method of
enforcement associated with this limitation. If the subject property is open to all
Commercial uses, trips will be generated from those uses regardless of the trip cap'
imposed. Therefore, some viable kind of enforcement mechanism, like a deed restriction,
should be imposed to ensure compliance with the trip cap.
III. Conclusion .
The proposed plan amendment is not logical and harmonious with the land use pattern for
the greater area. The proposed change is not "logical and hannonious" because it is not'
consistent with the development pattern envisioned in the Metro Plan.
As explained above, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the intent of the Economic
Element of the Metro Plan, and does not comply with Metro Plan policies. Therefore it cannot
be found to be compatible with these Plans.
PeaceHealth Oregon should not be allowed to propose the subject Plan Amendment or
Zone Change because, since PHO is not the owner of the subject properties, such a
proposal is inconsistenlwith the proper initiation of proposed Metro Plan amendments
explained in SS 7.010 and 7.030 of the Springfield Development Code.
Compliance with statewide planning goals, including Goals 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13, has not
been established. In particular, it has not been established that the Eugene-Springfield Metro
UGB area's supply of Campus Industrial 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 Industrial Lands Special Study.
The requested plan amendment and zone change do not benefit the public and are not
appropriate. .
The applicant incorrectly refers to subject 1'.Vl'".:.ies as being subject to Mixed-Use, Area 2
Policies. The subject properties are zoned Light-Medium Industrial.
, The applicant is requesting a use, medical facilities, offices, or clinic, not allowed in an EMRP
Community Commercial zone. Furthermore, the applicant's proposal and arguments are
inconsistent with the EMRP's Commercial and Industrial elements.
, Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007--00012 - LRP 2007--00013
14
GOAL ONE COALITION
The proposed development does not comply with the EMRP Commercial Element's criteria
or policies, since it increases and creates, rather than decreases, removes, or alleviates, traffic
problems.
Simply imposing the condition of a trip cap to what the worst-case scenario would be
under existing zoning does not sufficiently address all ofODOT's comments. Because
ODOT's comments are not adequately addressed, there is no way to form a response, or
to determine compliance with OAR 660-012-0060. Additionally, unless a compliance
mechanism is imposed, the trip cap provides only illusory regulation of the proposed
development site.
Goal One and other parties whose addresses appear in the first paragraph of this letter request
notice and a copy of any decision and findings regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Lauri Segel,
Community Planner
Geoffrey Aguirre,
Goal One Coalition Legal Intern, Summer 2007 '
Attachments:
Attachment 1: East Main Refinement Plan Diagrnm
Attachment 2: Lane County Regional Land Information
Attachment 3: Google Map of Proposed Development Site
Attachment 4: Photographs of Current Site
Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012 - LRP 2007-00013
15
(
,
..........
----., . .,,,,-----.....
. ......... --~ ,.
..........."",
o'
1000' .::O!)()""
SCALE' ,
~'1 0. I.....
I. ,
,r.
I"
.
I.
f~
I ifl;l~
I,
I . _ . . C" ~
: I I I, ~t I :::::: ~
~\ III " ,., j .' I
~ ~---'--'--''''~, """ ,.., < :~,i-I I~I:
'-1 I~_~I~IW___..._' t_j~r--
'~
N
,..
../
, "<i('.',',".'...'..'. ,
. .<-....'''.,.
'.' ,,';Z'
:"'.
. .
,'\ / .
"
P Li\N
DIAC~ RAlVi
Low Density hc,:identiadlllllllll
Medinrn DensiLy H"~:idcnLial ~,::"
Mixcd~ Use An;'" ff2&.3lID1nlm11J
" r:B~0~
Mixed-Use. An'" #2A&B ~:bi:4'f?il
r
C0J11fnuriity Conl rnercial
Lighl/Medium Industrial ~~
" Heavy 'Industrial ~
Public find Semi-Public 1:::::::::1
Rerel' to lexL rilr l~)()licies specific
La .el\ch der.lgnnlloll.
.,
~V-A~-\ . J
"
\e'inelTWl1J. Jan ::.
{ l ('irl
~IAI)_
8Decial Interest Cod~
i>.'^,'.
!Zonlng n
",,";o,.".~-:,";;;.",;,,__";::,;,,,_,,'U'
, Attachment 2B
LANE COUNTY REGIONAL LAND INFORMATION DATABA__
Site Address: 4436 MAIN ST
. 'ap & Tax Lot #: 17-02-32-00-00402
SOf'ciallnterest C:ode:
1a;-%"~-~-"""~-"~a!11
'~"V..~V,T'''~<'.<lM-'' JA'" ,
f~,,;;., leWc":,ax<8 " ':!;-,
;~L?,~.";.."~"..,~jf, ,'J;C">>"":,,,,:.,,,R,fliit';:;-l\'
,..._.'__'___" . _...,,' "..,...,~.~",.;0;0,"~"".
---- ~_.
';IRI1Cltosl
~
.~'I:~'il;rl<"ll:I~~~~
,,,.';Il?;j~ :.:"i.;I.i-:i~'Jr VJ.-:lild.i'l://. "I/.',.~.~ '
'1~~111~~~1~1:fill~~]ffJ~E~;~~(q~;~1~3~~:t~'~iif~iJrl\~~11f~1~1~11~!ii~~:'Ji~tlll~
'1~' ".<N" ,.., .~'~:{'::'''~:' "..dft]~:~~'~ }w.~"'~'f ~:. J: : !:~ i ~">/ii,~-;'~.!{{.l.1(;::' ':J\), , !
Attachment 2C
LANE COUNTY REGIONAL LAND INFORMATION DATA8A~_
Site Address: 4440 MAIN ST
'~ap & Tax Lot #: 17-02-32-00-00402
Soeciallnterest "ode:
Attachment 3
-.;-
<:i
"
]
u
oj
j:j
-<
4436 Main Street
',.
?' f .l1~
4434 Main Street
-
"
~
CI)
<::
'iil
:::2
C>
-.;-
,.
-.;-