HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan; Amending
the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram and Text;
Amending the Eugene Zoning Map, and Adopting a Severability Clause (Oregon West
Management, LLC, MA 07-2, RA 07-1 and Z 07-3)
Meeting Date: February 19, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 1
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Heather O’Donnell
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5488
ISSUE STATEMENT
This public hearing is on a private proposal to amend the Metro Plan, amend the applicable refinement
plan and approve a concurrent zone change. The property subject to this request is located at 2685 River
Road (the former Santa Clara Elementary School site) and 84 Green Lane, on the east side of River
Road, south of Hunsaker Lane. The site includes 7.3 acres located north of Green Lane and 1.3 acres
located south of Green Lane. All of the property is within the Eugene city limits. The applicant
requests approval of Metro Plan and Refinement Plan amendments, and a zone change that will result in
7.3 acres being rezoned to C-2/PD/SR, Community Commercial with Planned Unit Development and
Site Review overlays, and 1.3 acres being rezoned to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with
Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays. This request does not include a specific
development proposal.
BACKGROUND
The City of Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2007, to consider the
requested Metro Plan amendment, refinement plan amendment, and zone change, received public
testimony (Attachment F) and closed the record. On November 5, 2007, the Planning Commission met
for deliberations. The Planning Commission continued deliberations on November 19, 2007, and, on
that date, voted 4 to 2 to recommend conditional approval of the requests to the City Council. The
conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission are set out on pages 33-34 of the
Planning Commission’s findings and recommendations, which is attached to this AIS as Exhibit E of
Attachment A.
The majority of the Planning Commission found that the specifics of the site (the site being a former
school) made this a unique situation and that the proposed refinement plan text amendment contains
restricting language that would ensure any future development proposal will be sufficiently limited (i.e.
by including use and building size limitations). The refinement plan text amendments proposed by the
applicant directly address those components of the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan that
restrict new community commercial development and result in the proposal being a “limited”
community commercial development. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal’s consistency
L:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080219\S0802191.doc
with the policy direction from all applicable plans. The policies generating the most discussion were
those pertaining to the issues of increasing the commercial land supply, whether the proposed amount of
commercial and residential zoned land is appropriate, and whether the property is part of an existing
strip commercial area, and if so, whether expansion of strip commercial is permitted.
The proposed zone change is being reviewed concurrently with the proposed Metro Plan and refinement
plan amendments. Pursuant to EC 9.7305, when the City considers a zone change concurrently with a
Metro Plan or refinement amendment, the City is to use the applicable procedures for the Metro Plan
amendment. Regarding process, the Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments and zone change
requests must follow the quasi-judicial procedures. New evidence will be allowed at the public hearing.
Since the Planning Commission’s public hearing, only one item of testimony has been received, which
is from the applicant and was received on February 5, 2008 (Attachment M).
Approval of a plan amendment requires the City to adopt an ordinance. To comply with the Charter
requirements for ordinances, a draft ordinance approving the requested plan amendments and zone
change has been prepared and is attached for your reference (Attachment A). The Planning
Commission’s findings of conditional approval, which provide a detailed analysis of the proposal’s
compliance with applicable approval criteria, are attached to the draft ordinance as Exhibit E. These are
identified as general findings so that the council can amend or adopt as the council determines
necessary. The Planning Commission’s proposed conditions of approval regarding the refinement plan
text amendments are incorporated into the draft ordinance. This ordinance, with any directed changes,
will be utilized in the event that the City Council makes positive findings that the proposed amendments
and zone change comply with the applicable approval criteria.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Eugene Code requires that a Metro Plan amendment, refinement plan amendment and zone change be
consistent with the Metro Plan, the applicable refinement plans, as well as the Statewide Planning Goals.
The Metro Plan, River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, Eugene Commercial Lands Study,
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study, and TransPlan policies
applicable to this request are addressed in the Planning Commission’s findings and recommendation
(Exhibit E of Attachment A).
COUNCIL OPTIONS
This is scheduled for a public hearing only. Following the public hearing, staff will assist the council in
determining the dates for the closing of the public record prior to council deliberations. City Council
deliberation and action on this item is currently scheduled for March 10, 2008.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
This is scheduled for a public hearing only. Following the City’s receipt of all evidence, prior to council
deliberations, the City Manager will make a recommendation to be included in the council packet for the
March 10, 2008, deliberation.
L:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080219\S0802191.doc
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is suggested as deliberation and action is currently scheduled for March 10, 2008.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance with Exhibits A – E:
Exhibit A: Metro Plan Land Use Diagram
Exhibit B: River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram
Exhibit C: Subarea i. River Road/Division Map and text additions for the River Road-Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan
Exhibit D: Eugene Zoning and Overlay Zone Map
Exhibit E: Findings, dated November 19, 2007
B. Draft Eugene Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated November 19, 2007
C. Eugene Planning Commission Agenda and Agenda Item Summary for November 19, 2007
deliberations
D. Eugene Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated November 5, 2007
E. Staff Memorandum dated November 5, 2007 and table, received at November 5, 2007 deliberations
F. Eugene Planning Commission Agenda and Agenda Item Summary for November 5, 2007
deliberations, with attachments:
1. E-mail from Sue Pritchard
2. Memorandum from Heather O’Donnell
3. Letter from Steve Graves (applicant)
4. Packet from Rick Satre, (applicant’s representative)
5. Letter from Joan Haworth-Liu and Jack Liu
6. Letter from Catherine Lesiak
G. Eugene Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated October 18, 2007
H. Eugene Planning Commission Agenda and Agenda Item Summary for October 18, 2007 public
hearing, with attachments:
1.Preliminary Staff Findings, dated October 8, 2007
2.Vicinity Maps
I. Draft Eugene Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated October 15, 2007
J. Eugene Planning Commission Agenda and Agenda Item Summary for October 15, 2007 study
session
K. Letters of Public Testimony received through October 8, 2007
L. Application materials submitted by Satre & Associates, dated August 29, 2007
M. New testimony received from applicant on February 5, 2008
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Heather O’Donnell
Telephone: 541/682-5488
Staff E-Mail: heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080219\S0802191.doc
ATTACHMBDNif A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METRO
PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM; AMENDING THE RIVER ROAD-SANTA
CLARA URBAN FACILITIES PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM AND TEXT;
AMENDING THE EUGENE ZONING MAP; AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. (OREGON WEST MANAGEMENT, LLC.)
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. The applicant, Oregon West Management, LLC, submitted an application to the
City of Eugene for an amendment to the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram, the River Road-Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram and Text, and the Eugene Zoning Map.
B. The amendments contained in this Ordinance are based on the application
submitted and the recommendation of the Eugene Planning Commission.
C. The Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments
contained in this Ordinance on October 18, 2007, received public testimony, and closed the
record. The Planning Commission met subsequently for deliberations on November 5,2007, and
November 19,2007.
D. Upon conclusion of deliberations on November 19, 2007, the Planning
Commission recommended conditional approval of the application, and has forwarded its
recommendations to the City Council that the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram be amended as
shown on Exhibit A hereto, the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram
be amended as shown on Exhibit B hereto, the text in Chapter 2, River Road/Division Subarea of
the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan be amended by insertion of the text set forth in
Exhibit C hereto at pages 2-32, and the Eugene Zoning Map be amended as shown on Exhibit D
hereto.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Metro Plan Land Use Diagram for the property located at 2685 River
Road, and identified as Tax Lots 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots
200, 300, 400 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44, is amended from a designation of Low Density
Residential to a designation of Commercial; and the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram for the
property located at 84 Green Lane and identified as Tax Lot 1900 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-
44 is amended from a designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density
Residential, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein.
Section 2. Consistent with the provisions of Section 9.7750(4) of the Eugene Code,
1971, the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram located at page 2-3
and the River Road Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan River RoadlDivision Subarea Diagram
located at page 2-32, are automatically amended to redesignate the land referenced in Section 1
Ordinance - 1
above located at 2685 River Road from a designation of Government and Education to a
designation of Commercial; and to redesignate the land located at 84 Green Lane from a
designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential, as shown on the
attached Exhibits B and C, which are incorporated herein.
Section 3. The text of Chapter 2, River Road/Division Subarea of the River Road-Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan is amended by insertion at pages 2-32 of the text set forth in the
attached Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein.
Section 4. The Eugene Zoning Map is amended to rezone Tax Lots 9100, 9200, 9300 of
Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200, 300, 400 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 from
their existing PL, Public Land and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zone to C-2/PD/SR
Community Commercial with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlay zones and to
rezone Tax Lot 1900 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 from its existing R-1 Low Density
Residential Zone to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development
and Site Review overlays, as shown on the attached Exhibit D, which is incorporated herein.
Section 5. The applicant shall record in the Office of the Lane County Clerk restrictive
covenants on the Tax Lots 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200,
300, 400 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, stipulating
that any future development approval for the site shall require, by the time of development, full
and complete construction of an additional westbound approach lane on Hunksaker Lane and an
additional westbound approach lane on Green Lane. The restrictive covenants shall be binding
on any successive owners(s) of the property, are enforceable by the City of Eugene and may be
amended only with the express written consent of the City of Eugene.
Section 6. The findings set forth in the attached Exhibit E are adopted as findings in
support of this Ordinance.
Section 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption by the City
Council and approval of Mayor, as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, or upon the
recording of the restrictive covenants described in Section 5 of this Ordinance, whichever date is
later.
Passed by the City Council this
Approved by the Mayor this
_ day of
, 2008
_ day of
, 2008
City Recorder
Mayor
Ordinance - 2
Attachment A Exhibit A
~ Oregon West Management, LLC (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Susan St
Green Ln
Metro Plan Designations
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41
Tax Lots: 9100, 9200, 9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400,1900
Medium Density Residential
The Metro Plan Designations shown on this
map are only tax lot specific for the subject site.
Please note: the information shown on this map
is based on Geographic Information Systems data N
which could be imprecise and subject to change A
and should be used for reference only. '"
Commercial
City Limits
- - Subject Site
Attachment A Exhibit B
ij! Oregon West Management, LLC (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Green Ln
U
'6
~
ell
o
Susan St
River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
Land Use Diagram
The Refinement Plan Designations shown on this
map are only tax lot specific for the subject site.
Please note: the information shown on this map is N
based on Geographic Information Systems data A
which could be imprecise and subject to change and
should be used for reference only.
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41
Tax Lots: 9100, 9200, 9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400, 1900
Medium Density Residential
Commercial
City Limits
- - Subject Site
Attachment A Exhibit C
e Oregon West Management, LLC (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Susan St
Green Ln
River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
Subarea i: River Road/Division
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41
Tax Lots: 9100, 9200, 9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400,1900
- City Limits
- - Subject Site
~ Low Density Residential
I ..1 Medium Density Residential
Commercial
The Subarea Designations shown on this map
are only tax lot specific for the subject site. N
All other designations shown outide of the subject A
site boundaries are not tax lot specific
and should be used for reference only.
Text Amendment~ to be added to
Rivet" RQad~Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan~
Chapter 2, River Road/Division Suharea:
5. Notwithstanding Rt:commendatiou Nu, 4~ development sites ahutting soutb of
Gt"een Lane and generaUy west of tbe eastern boundary of tbe furmer Santa Clara
El.ementary Schoul Sift' may 1.H;~ designated and zOIlt'd Nlcdhun Dt'usity lksidenthtL
I f tht~ parcels at"e zmH~d lViDR~ tbey must be devdt)pt~d as a Planned Unit
Development in connedifwwith the formerSanta Clara Elementary SdwoI sitt: and
with an emplm~is nn mixed>>use devdopment principles,
6, Upon the sale fJ'Offi public ownership to private tHvnershipt tht~ City shan
recogniz,e tht~ 1:U't'a of the former Santa Chira lrlcmentary School at the suutheast
eurner of tht: intenwcth:m of River Ruad and Hunsaker I~mle, betwct~n Hunsaker
Lane and Green Lane (Tax Luts 9100, 920Ht 9300 (,f AssessortsMap 17>>04~11-41
and Tax Lots 2{Hh 300, 4HO of Assessor!s Map 17~4-11~44) as appropriate for
CummerdaI development and designatt~d Commerchal. Ifzoned cnmnwrdal~ it shaH
be zont:d C-2 and it shaH he develHped as Planned Unit Development in connection
with the property descrihed in Rt~COlmnendaH{m No,S with an emphasis 011 mht>tl-
use tkvdopmt:nt principks, In addition:
a,N{~ individual building fHutprint witbin the c{)mmerdal devek~puwllt may
cxct~ed 19~OOO ~quan~ feet; and
b, l>ermitted OJ' conditional Cnmml.~rdal servict:s shall not include theaters;
lodging; C2 and CJ permitted manufacturin.g; medical, health and
COlTt:ctional stTykes; motor vehide related uses; and
e. Tht) historic character nf tht~ former Santa Clara Elementary SdwoI shaH
be commt:mnrated on sih~ by using arehitectural features and histork
elements typical of the former Smlta Clal'a Elementary SdH)ol (e.g" brick
facades~ easdngs~ etc.),
7, Pursuant to Recommendatinns 5 and 6) a pt:destrian frknoly cfmnecHon subject
to revle'" ~md apprnval hy Ow City Engineer shan b~~ provided tn cross Green Lane
betwet:n the former Santa Clara Sdwnl Site and a pmperty .sHuth of Green Lane
and sban indnde five or more of the following design dements:
a, Curb ramps
k Ctn-b extensions (equal tn the width of OIHltreet parlullg, hut nHt
illterft:ring with. bicycle lane)
c. Raist~d tTosswalks
d. Spt:dal paving tn~atment (t:,g.) brkk, alternative colorst cnbhkstone~
patterned cement~ etc.)
e. Adequate lighting to funy Hluminate the cru.ssing at aU honrs
f. To minimizl.~ conflict with vehicles entering or exiting Ow furmer Santa
Clara Ekmental'Y School ~ite II.wak the crossw~ttk to tbt~ east of the future
Green Lane access tH Ow fonner Santa Clara Ekmt~ntary Scho{}1 site.
8, l~uDlmmt to Recommendations 5 and 6? pedestrian lUucnitles sbaH be inclu.ded
within the comnwrd.al ~omponent of the mixed-use d(~vdopll1ent, Amenitks shan
inclnde twn or n:wre of the design elements from Recommendation No., 7v
Attachment A Exhibit D
C Oregon West Management, LLC (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
U
:a
:iE
III
o
Green Ln
Eugene Zoning Map & Overlay Zone Map
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41
Tax Lots: 9100, 9200, 9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400,1900
Zoning
C-2/SR/PD Community Commercial with
Site Review and Planned Unit Development overlays
Susan St
City Limits
- - Subject Site
R-2 ISR/PD Medium Density Residential
with Site Review and Planned Please note: the information shown on this map N
Unit Development overlays is ~ased on Geographic Informati~n System datA
which could be Imprecise and subject to chang~
and should be used for reference only.
Attachment A Exhibit E
Findings
Oregon West Management,LLC
(MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Metro Plan Dia2ram Amendment (MA 07-2)
The proposed amendments change the current Metro Plan land llse diagram designations 01'7.3
acres of subject propeliy n011h of Green Lane from Low Density Residential to Commercial, and
would change 1.3 acres of the subject property south of Green Lane from Commercial to Medium
Density Residential.
Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold and italics) be
applied to a Metro Plan diagram amendment:
(a) Tlte amendment must be consistent witlt tile relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases oithe planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such
involvement. The action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for
reviewing these amendments complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and surpasses the
requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal I by requiring that notice of
the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of
the amendments begins with a City of Eugene Planning Commission public hearing on October 18,
2007. During completeness review, several iterations of the application were sent to the affected
neighborhood group, the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO) for early involvement. The
also applicant met with the neighborhood group at different times during completeness review.
Subsequent to deeming the applications complete, on August 31, 2007, the City mailed notice of the
proposed plan amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required
by the Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes. Referrals concerning the pending
applications were sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (OnOT), City of Springfield,
Lane County, the affected Neighborhood Association, the sceo, and to City departments. On
September 18, 2007, notice of the Plam1ing Commission public hearing was mailed to the applicant,
O\vners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property and the Santa Clara
Community Organization. On September 18,2007, notice was also posted in accordance \vith EC
Findings- November 19,2007
Page)
9.7415(5). On September 28,2007, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was
published in the Register-Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. The Plmming Commission
public hearing was held on October 18, 2007, with deliberations held on November 5 and 19, 2007
and action take on November 19,2007. An additional public hearing before the Eugene City
Council is scheduled for February 19,2007. Notice to interested and affected parties will also be
provided for that hearing.
In response to the Planning Commission public hearing notice, aside from phone calls, two letters of
'written testimony were received. One letter is regarding concerns for increased traffic and does not
support the proposed zone changes. Traffic, regarding compliance with the Transportation Planning
Rule, is discussed below under Goal 12. The other letter is from the SCCO. The letter states that:
"the applicant's willingness to apprise the SCCO if its intentions and gather feedback has been
greatly appreciated. Although we agree in concept with the idea of a mixed-use development, we
differ with the applicant in the implementation of that idea." They state that there is an imbalance
with too much commercial proposed, there is a lack of a truly public gathering space and adequate
amounts of pervious surface, and a lack of transition bet\veen the proposed C-2 and the existing R-1
to the east. The SCCO letter includes comments regarding several adopted plan policies which are
addressed under the applicable criteria below. The SCCO letter also includes several suggestions to
meet the needs of the Santa Clara community. As noted in the SCCO letter, the applicant met with
the neighborhood group early in the application process. At the Planning Commission public
hearing, aside from the applicant's paliy there were nine people that spoke in favor of the proposal,
and six people that spoke against it.
The process for adopting these amendment,> complies with Statewide Planning Goal 1 since it
complies with the requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policyframework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basefor
such decisions and actions.
The Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that
provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State
in 1982 to be in compliance \-vith statewide planning goals. These findings and record show that
there is an adequate factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed amendments.
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected govemmentaltmits. To comply with
the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of these amendments \vith all
affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the State Department of land
Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), lane County, and
the City of Springfield. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore,
the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural/ands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban grov.rtb
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 2
boundary from the definition of agricultural lands. Since the subject property is entirely \;\'ithin the
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendment') do not affect the
area's compliance with Statev,lde Platming Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any
forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and,
theretore, does not apply to the subject property, which is within Eugene's urban gwwth boundary
(OAR 660-006-0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the
area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic at1d Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open space
and protect natural and scenic resources.
TIle following administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable to this post-acknowledgement
plan amendment (PAPA) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAP A unless the
PAPA ajJects a Goal 5 resource. for pwposes oj this section, a PAP A would affect a Goal 5
resource only if:
(aj The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan
or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a sign?ficant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements oJGoal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be c01iflicting uses with a particular
sign~ficant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amend., an acknowledged UGB andJactual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in
the amended UOB area.
The subject property does not include a GoalS resource site. The proposed amendments do not
create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order
to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow
new uses that could be conflicting uses \',1ith a particular Goal 5 resource site, and do not amend the
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary.
Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply to these amendments.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Oualitv: To maintain and improve the quality o.fthe air,
'water, and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. Nothing in the proposal or the character of the
site or potential uses indicates a future development that would compromise air, water and land
resources. The proposal does not amend the metropolitan area's air, water quality or land resource
policies. The applicant's findings show that the City can reasonably expect that future development
of the site comply with applicable environmental laws. Therefore, the amendments are consistent
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 3
"v1th Statewide Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect l~re and propertyfrom natural
disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis
and wildfires. The subject property is not located within known areas of natural disasters or
hazards. The subject property is outside the flood zone and is not subject to hazards normally
associated \-vith steep slopes, wildfires, or tsunamis. Other hazards, such as earthquakes and severe
winter storms can be mitigated at the time of development based on accepted building codes and
building techniques. Therefore, these amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7.
Goal 8 _ Recreational Needs: To satL~fy the recreational needs of the citizens o.lthe state and
visitors and. where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreationalfacilities
including destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. There are no public or private
recreational facilities on or adjacent to the subject property. Therefore the proposed amendments
will not impact the provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect access to existing
or fllture public recreational facilities.
A phone inquiry questioned whether this site could be considered for a park Written comments
from the SCCO state, in sununary, that this site should include a public plaza/green space.
Communications from Parks and Open Space (POS) staff indicate that the City considered
acquiring the portion of the site that is the former Santa Clara Elementary School site when it was
put up for sale. Based on a variety of factors, POS staff states that the site was not well suited for
park use. The site is now in private ownership.
The amendments are therefore consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 _ Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, yvelfare. and prosperity of Oregon 's citizens.
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660 Division 9) requires that the City
'"[p]rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location, and service
levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies[.]" Among other
things, the rule requires that cities complete an "Economic Opportunities Analysis." OAR 660-009-
0015. Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and
Commercial Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR 660-009-0025 requires that
cities designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and long term needs. OAR
660-009-0010(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Division 9
apply "at the time of each periodic review ofthe plan (ORS 197.712(3))." In addition, OAR 660-
009-0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan designations oflands in excess of two acres
from an industrial use designation to a non-industrial use designation, or an other employment use
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 4
designation to any other use designation, pursuant to a post acknowledgment plan amendment, it
must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) demonstrate that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the
requirements of OAR 660 Division 9; or (b) amend its comprehensive plan to explain the proposed
amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c) adopt a combination of (a) and (b) consistent
with the requirements of Division 9.
The applicant states that OAR 660-009-0010(4) does not apply because the proposed amendment
will remove less than two acres from the commercial land supply. The 1.3 acre portion of the
subject site south of Green Lane is an "other employment use designation" of Commercial in the
context of this requirement; however it is less than 2 acres, therefore subsection (4) is not
applicable. Further analysis of the Eugene Commercial Lands Study (ECLS) is provided under EC
9.7730(b) and is incorporated herein by reference.
Based on these findings, the proposal is consistent \vith Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens (~fthe state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land
for needed housing units. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 10 (OAR 660
Division 8) states that "the mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs
projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy
housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local
buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan
designation." The comprehensive plan map for the City is the Metro Plan land use diagram. The
1999 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study (RLS) is
acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 10 and its Administrative Rule.
There is not sufficient evidence to show that any p01tion of the subject property was included in the
RLS supply analysis. Regarding the portion of the property to the n01th of Green Lane, page 50 of
the RLS states that it was assumed that 32 percent of residential land would be used for all non-
residential uses, and that land used for non-residential uses, such as schools, were subtracted from
the available amount of buildable land. The site north of Green Lane has been up until recently
developed with the Santa Clara Elementary School, so it would have been subtracted from the
available buildable land supply. Regarding the portion of the site south of Green Lane, although
zoned as R-I, it is designated as Commercial and developed with a single-family residence and thus
not part of the inventory. As such, it is determined that the proposed amendments do not am~ct the
residential land supply because the subject property was not included in the RLS and therefore the
proposal is consistent with Goal 10. However, the applicant's responses (pages 13-15) are
incorporated herein by reference as demonstrating compliance with Goal lOin the event that it is
determined that the residential land supply is affected by the amendments because the subject
property was included in the RLS.
Should it be determined that Goal 10 analysis is needed, the following is noted. The portion of the
property north of Green Lane is designated as Low Density Residential on the Metro Plan. The
portion of the subject property south of Green Lane is designated as Commercial on the Metro Plan.
Findings- November 19.2007
Page 5
The applicant proposes to re-designate approximately 7.3 acres from Low Density Residential to
Commercial, and to re-designate 1.3 acres of Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The
applicant provides analysis of the RLS and indicates that the subject property was not individually
considered in the detailed supply and demand analysis; however the site is included within the
supply analysis. The applicant notes the RLS contains a detailed analysis of dwelling units and finds
that the Santa Clara Subarea has the highest percent of single-family dwellings (88%) and the
lowest percentage of multi-family unit" (less than 1 %) (RLS, page 27). With the proposed
amendment, the maximum number of units on the 1.3 acre site is 37.ln the Santa Clara Subarea, the
applicant finds that the proposed amendment will increase the medium density residential dwelling
unit supply by approximately 1.1 % and decrease the low density residential dvvelling unit supply by
approximately 1.7% (page 14 of the written statement). The applicant also incorporates the updated
residential supply analysis provided by the City at the time of the Goal 5 ordinance. The applicant's
findings indicate that there is still an excess of low density zoning and medium density zoning, even
with the proposed amendments, but the applicant asserts that the change in zoning acreage is so
small that no further analysis is necessary. Therefore, based on the findings above the amendments
are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as aframeworkfor urban and rural
development.
The area affected by the amendments is located inside the City limits. The existing level of public
facilities and service is adequate to serve the needs of existing and future development. However,
specific design details related to public improvements such as stonnwater remain to be resolved in
the context of any future development proposaL The provision of these amendments does not
significantly affect the planning or development of future public facilities or services. Therefore,
the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transpoltation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
tramportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. The TPR (OAR 660-012-0060) states that when land use changes,
including amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or
planned transpOltation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards
(level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility.
To address the TPR, the applicant submitted findings and a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA),
dated August 28, 2007, which was prepared by the consulting firnl of Branch Engineering, Inc.
Subsequent to the August 28th submittal, the applicant revised the TIA several times, responding to
comments from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the City and Lane County. The
T1A evaluates the cun-ent performance of impacted transportation facilities~ the performance of
these facilities in 2022 with the proposed amendments (re-designate 7.3 acres from Low Density
Findings-November 19,2007
Page 6 ..
Residential to Commercial and re-designate 1.3 acres of Commercial to Medium Density
Residential), and the performance of the facilities in 2022 without the proposed amendments. The
TIA uses a "reasonable worst-case" scenario for C-2 commercial uses (for the portion of the
property re-designated to commercial) as depicted on Appendix F of the TlA, and a "reasonable
worst-case" scenario for theR-2 uses (for the portion of the property re-designated to Medium
Density Residential) based on the maximum allowable density of dwelling units, and anticipated
trip generation and distribution during the PM peak hour. Based on the TIA, the proposed
commercial and residential uses are anticipated to generate 361 trips in the PM peak hour.
City, Lane County and ODOT staff were consulted in the scoping and development of the TIA and
generally agree that the analysis methods used in the TIA are acceptable. (The TIA determined that
no further examination was needed for any state facilities than as provided in Appendix G). The
TIA included analysis of the following existing transportation facilities:
Transportation. Facilities
Street C lass ificatil:m Jurisdiction
Hunsaker Lane! Site Access Maior Collector Lane County
Hunsaker Lane! River Road Major Collector! Lane County! City of
Malar Arterial Eugene
River Road! Site Access Major Arterial City of Eugene
River Road! Green Lane -
Local City of EUQene
Green Lane!Site. Access Local City of Eugene
In addition to including the above existing transportation facilities, the TIA also included discussion
of planned transportation facilities, as required by OAR 660-012-0060(1). Regarding planned
transportation facilities, the TlA states that the City's Transportation System Plan (TransPlan)
provides for "financially constrained un-programmed" (projects planned for construction but may
not have funding sources identified) improvements to Hunsaker Lane, which include on-street
bicycle lanes and other upgrades to urban standards. The Regional Transportation Program also
identifies those planned improvements for Hunsaker Lane. Referral comments do not indicate any
other planned facilities.
Determination of Significant Eflect
The TPR requires a determination of which existing and planned transportation facilities will
experience a significant effect as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and defines what
constitutes a significant effect. One way in which an amendment will significantly affect an
existing or planned transportation facility is, if at the end of the plmming period, the amendment
will reduce the performance of a transportation facility below the minimum acceptable perfonnance
standard or will worsen the performance of a transportation facility that is otherwise projected to
perform belo\v the minimum acceptable performance standard (OAR 660-0 12-0060( 1)( c )(B) and
(C)).
In determining whether there is a significant effect, different measurements are used to identify and
analyze each facility for the minimum level of performance standard. Level of Service D (LOS D)
is the minimum acceptable performance standard for City of Eugene. As identified in TransPlan,
LOS A represents the least congested conditions and LOS F the most congested. The Lane County
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 7
Transportation System Plan indicates that the volume to capacity (vie) ratio of 0.85 is considered
the minimum acceptable performance standard for Lane County facilities. As found below, the vlc
performance standard is the focus of the proposed mitigation because a Lane County facility is
determined to be significantly affected.
The end of the planning period in the City's adopted transportation system plan (TransPlan) is 2015.
During the TIA scoping process, based on input from technical staff from ODOT, Lane County and
City, the applicant's analysis under OAR 660-012-0060 extends the planning period to 2022, which
provides more conservative estimates by accounting for more background growth as well as a
consistent year for analysis purposes.
As the applicant states, the proposed plan anlendments will not significantly affect existing
transportation facilities under OAR 660-0 I 2-0060(l)(a) or (l)(b). This is because the proposed
amendments \vill not change the functional elassification of an existing or planned transportation
facility under (1 )( a) or the standards implementing a functional classification facility under (1 )(b).
Regarding subsections OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A),(l)(c)(B) and (l)(c)(C), the applicant is correct
that, vvith the exception of the River Road at Hansaker Lane/Irving intersection, the proposed
amendments will not significantly affect existing transportation facilities.
The performance of the River Road at Hunsaker Lane/Irving intersection is significantly affected by
the proposed amendments in the context of subsection (l)(c)(C), with regard to Lane County's
minimum vie performance standard. This is because the proposed anlendments would worsen the
performance of a facility that is otherv.rise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable
perfom1ance standard by the end of the planning period. Specifically, as sho"vn in Table 7 of the
applicant's TIA (page 29), in 2022 the River Road at Hunsaker Lane/Irving is projected to perform
below the minimum standard of 0.85 vlc by performing at 1.41 without the proposed amendments,
and with the proposed amendments. With the proposed anlendments, in 2022 River Road at
HunsakerlIrving intersection is projected to perfonn at 1.43 vie. Therefore, the River Road at
Hunsaker Lane/Irving intersection is significantly affected by the proposed amendmentsl. See
OAR 660-012 -0060( 1 )( e )(C).
Mitigation of Impacts
Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060, a proposed amendment that significantly effects a transpoltation
facility can be allowed, provided the applicant can demonstrate compliance with either OAR 660-
012-0060(2) or (3). Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1), \:\;'hen a local government determines that an
amendment would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local
government must put in place measures as provided in OAR 660-012-0060(2) to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and perfomlance standards
(level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. If there are no measures that will
assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and
perfonnance standards of the facility, the City could still approve the proposed amendment if the
applicant demonstrates compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(3).
I Note that the same intersection is not significantly affected with respect to City of Eugene LOS performance standard
because the intersection is already projected to fail at LOS F and will not worsen by the proposal as it is projected to
stay the same at LOS F with the proposed devClopment.
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 8
To mitigate the significant effect that the proposed amendments will have on the River Road at
Hunsaker LanelIrving intersection, the applicant has proposed the following improvements:
. Construct an additional Hunsaker Lane westbound approach lane.
Jurisdiction: Lane County
. Construct an additional Green Lane westbound approach lane.
Jurisdiction: City of Eugene
The applicant states on pages 17-20 of the written statement that the mitigation is proposed under
OAR 660-012-0060(2)(e), and also under OAR 660-012-0060(3) if the City chooses to invoke
subsection (3). Based on the applicant's TIA and supplemental materials, it is determined that the
proposed mitigation measures will not bring the significantly affected facility (River Road at
Husakerllrving) up to the identified function, capacity and performance standards of the facility by
the end of the planning period. Specifically, in order to demonstrate compliance \-\lith OAR 660-
012-0060(1) (as required by subsection (2)(e)), the applicant must provide enough mitigation to
increase the performance of the intersection up to the minimum standard identified by Lane County..
0.85 v/c. The proposed mitigation, as shown in Table 8 of the TIA (page 33), only improves the
perfonnance of the intersection to 1.19 v/c. Accordingly, the applicant's proposed mitigation
measures do not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1) and OAR 660-012-0060(2)(e).
However, as previously noted, the City may still approve the proposed amendment if the applicant
demonstrates compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(3). This provision states that a local
govermnent may approve an amendment that \vould significantly affect an existing transportation
facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and
performance standards if the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the five requirements of
subsection (3)(a) through (e) below. Findings addressing compliance with these requirements are
provided below.
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(a) The facility is already performing below the minimum acceptable
performance standard identified in the 1'5;P or comprehensive plan on the date the
amendment application is submitted;
Consistent with this subsection, River Road at Hunsaker/Irving is currently performing at 0.91 vlc,
which is below the acceptable performance standard of 0.85 vIe, as demonstrated in the applicant's
TIA in Table 7 (page 29).
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(b) In the absence of the amendment, planned tram]Jortation
facilities. improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be
adequate to achieve consistency yvith the identified function, capacity or performance
standardfor that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP;
As shown in the applicant's analysis in the TIA, in the absence of these amendments, the planned
facilities, etc., would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the performance standard ofthe
facility by the end of the planning period, consistent with this subsection.
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 9
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(c) Development resulting from the amendment lvill, at a minimum,
mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the
performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of
transportation improvements or measures;
Under this subsection, development resulting from the proposed amendment must mitigate the
impacts of the amendments in a manner that avoids further degradation of the transpOltation facility
by the time of development, which is anticipated by the applicant to be 2008. To address this
requirement, the applicant has proposed to construct an additional Hunsaker Lane westbound
approach lane and to construct an additional Green Lane westbound approach lane.
As shown on Table 8 of the TIA (page 33), at the time of development (build year 2008) the River
Road at HunsakerlIrving intersection is projected to further degrade to perform at .98 vie. As a
result of the proposed mitigation, the vie \vould remain at .98 at the time of development (2008)
therefore the proposed amendments would avoid further degradation of the facility, as required by
subsection (3)(c). The TIA indicates that a traffic signal was considered at the Green Lane
intersection; but that due to the proximity to adjacent signalized intersections, it was determined that
a signal at Green Lane \vould likely degrade the capacity of River Road north-south movements.
However, the TIA demonstrates that the proposed mitigation is sufficient to avoid further
degradation; consistent with OAR 660~012-0060(3)(c). In order to ensure that the development
resulting from the proposed an1endments will not cause further degradation of the intersection, any
future development of the site will be conditioned on the construction of these two approach lanes.
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(d) The amendment does not involve property located in an
interchange area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and
Consistent with this subsection, the amendment does not involve property located in an interchange
area, as defined in OAR 660-012~0060(4)(d)(C).
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(e) For affected state highways, ODOTprovides a written statement
that the proposedfimding and timing for the ident~fied mitigation improvements or measures
are, at a minbnum, sufficient to avoidfilrther degradation to the performance of the a/jected
state highway. However, ~f a local government provides the appropriate ODOr regional
office vrith written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT
reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government
proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a writ/en statement, then the local government may
proceed 'with applying subsections (a) through (d) of this section.
Consistent with this subsection, as indicated in the TIA, the amendment does not affect a state
highway. ODOT indicated no concerns with this revised TIA, dated August 28,2007.
Conclusion
Based on the available evidence, the proposal complies with Statewide Planning 00al12 as
implemented through OAR 660-0l2~0060, w'ith the imposition of the following condition of
approval to ensure that the necessary transportation improvements are in place prior to operation of
the commercial and residential uses:
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 10
The applicant shall record in the Office of the Lane County Clerk restrictive covenants on
the real property that is the subject of the proposed amendments, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, stipulating that any future development approval for the site shall require, by
the time of development, full and complete construction of an additional westbound
approach lane on Hunsaker Lane and an additional westbound approach lane on Green Lane.
The restrictive covenants shall be binding on any successive owner(s) of the property, are
enforceable by the City of Eugene any may be amended only with the express written
consent of the City of Eugene.
Based on the above findings and approval condition as imposed, the proposal is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
Statewide Planning Goal 13 calls for land uses to be managed and controlled "so as to maximize the
conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles." Goal 13 is directed at
the development of local energy policies and implementing provisions and does not state
requirements with respect to other types of land use decisions. To the extent that Goal 13 could be
applied to the proposed change in designation, the designation is consistent with Goal 13. The
proposed site is located so that a future development can make efficient use of energy with direct
and efficient access. The proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Ooal13.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transitionfrom rural to urban land
use.
The amendments do not effect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the subject property is
within the City limil'>. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of land" along the rVillamette
River as the Willamefte River Greenway.
The subject property is not within the boundaries of the WiIlamette River Greenway. Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal J 5 does not apply.
Goal 16 through 19 ~ Estuarine Resources. Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property effected
by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the an1endments will not affect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 7.3 acres of land from Low Density Residential
Fil1dings~ November 19,2007
Page 11
to Commercial and 1.3 acres of land from Commercial to Medium Oensitv Residential will create
an internal conflict "\~th the remainder of the Metro Plan. .
The applicant provided detailed findings intending to show how the Metro Plan diagram
amendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan. Those polices are
addressed below.
The following Metro Plan polices are applicable to this request:
Growth Management Goals, Findings, and Policies
The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as an essential
means to achieve compact urban growth. The provision afall urban services shall be
concentrated inside the UGB. (Policy 1)
As detailed in the response to Statewide Goal I! (above) urban services are available to the subject
property and the property is within the Eugene portion of the metropolitan UGB and within the
incorporated City limits. As such, the subject property is providing for compact urban gro\vth and
has the essential services available for development. As defined in the glossary of the Metro Plan
compact urban growth is defined as:
Thefilling in o.lvacant andunderutilized lands in the UGB, as well as redevelopment
inside the UGB.
The anlendments will allow compact urban growth to occur on lands that are currently within the
UGH and un deruti Ii zed for an urban area. The redevelopment of the site will provide needed
commercial employment opportunities and also provide medium density residential development.
As such the proposed amendments support this policy.
To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text
and on the Metro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan. wide density of new residential
construction, but necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dvl'elling units
per gross acre over the planning period. (Policy 24)
The proposed development seeks to increase the amount of medium density residential designated
land within the subject site area and thus increase the supply of land available for higher density
development within the River Road/Santa Clara subarea. The future development of the site,
therefore, will help the region achieve its goal of compact urban growth. As such the proposed
amendments support this policy.
Encourage development of suitable .vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopable land .where
services are available, thus capitalizing on public expenditures already made.for these
services. (Objective 8)
The subject property is currently underdeveloped with access to readily available public facilities
and services. Approval of this proposal will capitalize on the public services and expenditures
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 12
already made and planned for in the immediate area. In short, the underdeveloped subject property
is suitable for commercial and residential uses and has access to public facilities and services. As
such the proposed amendments support this policy.
Metro Plan Specific Elements
A. Residential Lan'd Use and Housing Element
Table 5 shows that the amendment will remove 7.3 acres of land from Low Density Residential
supply and add it to the supply of Commercial land and remove 1.3 acres of land from the
Commercial land supply and add it to the supply of Medium Density Residential land. A net loss of
6.0 acres of residential land occurs, however, the supply of higher density land increases. In
addition, the refinement plan amendment will remove 1.3 acres of land from commercial
designation ?lnd add 1.3 acres to the Medililll Density Residential designation. The proposed zone
change will remove 1.3 acres ofland from Low Density Residential (R-I) and add it to Medium
Density Residential (R-2) supply. The proposed amendments will provide needed Medium Density
Residential land in close proximity to commercial services and does not hinder the ability to provide
for the housing needs of the community which has an adequate supply of low density residential
land as detailed herein \vithin the discussion of Goal 10.
Table 5: Amendment Changes in Acres
lVletrQPlan
LDR to COM
COM to MDR
No Change
Total
aRiSe
GE to C
C toM
No change
Total
Zonil1
PL To C-2
C-1 to C-2
R-1 to R-2
No change
Total
SQl?j~qt
$it~L
7.3
1.3
0.1
8.7
Development
$jte
7.3
1.3
0.6
9.2
1.3
0.6
9.2
5.2
2.1
1.3
o
8.7
5.2
2.2
1.3
0.4
9.2
Source: LCOG data, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Key:
Metro Plan: LDR-Low Density Res.idential, MDR-Medium
Density Residential, COM-Commercial;
RRfSC RP: M-Medium Density Residential, C-Commercial,
GE-Govemment & Education;
Zoning: R-l-Low Density Res.idential, R-2-Medium Density
Residential, C-I-Neighborhood Commercial, C-2-Community
Commercial,PL-Public Land
Provide an adequate supply a/buildable residential land within the UGB for the 20-year
planning period at the time of Periodic Review. (Policy AJ)
The 2004 update of the Metro Plan planned for an adequate supply of residential land based on the
analysis of the 1999 Residential Land Supply. As discussed in more detail under Goal 10, herein,
the applicant is not appreciably affecting the regional supply of residential land and is increasing the
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 13
supply of Medium Density land within an under served area of the community that is also located
close to transit and other services. As such this proposed amendment supports Policy A.3.
Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of extending
public services and infrastructure. The cities shall examine ways to provide subsidies or
incentives for providing infrastructure that support affordable housing a11(.[/or higher density
housing. (Policy A.S)
The applicant shall conform to City of Eugene requirements and pay the fair cost of extending
public services and infrastructure. The proposed amendments within this amendment will allow a
greater diversity of housing types to occur on the subject property than would be possible under the
current designation. As such this proposed amendment supports this policy.
Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure.
improves the efficiency of public services andfacilities, and conserves rural resource land'}
outside the UGH (Policy A.I 0)
Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
service, in proximiZv to major transportation systems or withintramportation-efficient
nodes. (Policy A.II)
Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of adequate
infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities. (Policy A.12)
The proposed PAPA will promote higher density development by increasing the total supply of
medium density designated and zoned land within the metropolitan area. The Santa Clara subarea is
underserved by higher density development and through this amendment the applicant proposes to
increase the overall supply in the subarea to meet the needs ofthe community. The proposed
amendment will locate Commercial land adjacent to Medium Density Residential on the same
development site which allows for the integration of an overall complex, or mixed.-use,
development of commercial and residential. In addition, the proposed amendment is adjacent to
River Road, a major tnmspOliation route which has existing Lane Transit District (LTD) bus service
and is identified to have a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT/eMX) route ending at the current transfer station
located approximately one-half mile to the south of the subject property on River Road. As such,
the proposed PAPA supports the utilization of existing infrastructure while increasing overall
density and providing needed conm1ercial services.
Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities
for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use .while considering impacts (~l
increased residential density on historic, existing andfuture neighborhoods. (Policy A.l3)
The subject area is located within "Potential Nodal Development Area 5C' (TransPlan) and the
applicant is proposing to develop a mix of commercial and residential uses that shall include
employment and commercial opportunities. These uses will benefit both future residents of the
proposed development and existing residents of the River Road! Santa Clara area. The Development
Site is located in the northwest corner of Potential Node 5-C and represents approximately 8.2% of
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 14
the entire area of the proposed node. Table 6 shows the current and proposed Afetro Plan
designations for Potential Node S-C. The proposed changes will increase the supply of commercial
land by 16.2%, decrease the supply of low density residential land by approximately 36.9% and
increase the supply of medium density residential land by 2.5%. See Exhibit H for additional
information.
Table 6: Current and Proposed Metro Plan Designations (Potential Node S-C)
Existing Condition Proposed Change
Total Acres % Total Acres Chan ed % Chan e Total Acres
36.7 33.3% 5.9 16.2% 42.6
19.7 17.9% -7.3 -36.9% 12.4
53.8 48.8% 1.3 2.5% 55.1
110.2 110.2
Desi nation
Commercial
Low Density Residential
Medium Densit Residential
Total
% Total
38.7%
11.3%
50.0%
Source: City of Eugene, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Table 7 shows that zoning ratios within the Potential Node 5-C are similar to existing Metro Plan
designations. The main differences are that the Metro Plan does not include a Public Land category
and the zoning of the Potential Node 5-C area further ditlerentiates commercial into Neighborhood
and Community Commercial categories. From the table, it is evident that the only Neighborhood
Commercial within the nodal area is proposed to be removed with this application seeking to
replace it with an integrated mixed-use center that will function to provide a neighborhood level
connection. In addition, the table shows that the percent of zoned Medium Density Residential land
is significantly less than the area that is designated vV1thin the Metro Plan (it may be interpreted that
the amOlmt of R-lland exceeds the amount that the City has allocated for the nodal area.) The
proposed amendments will ensure that medium density residential land is developed at appropriate
densities in conjunction with the mixed-use center. The proposal satisfies the intent of the Metro
Plan and this policy.
Table 7: Current llnd Pro
Designation
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
C-2, Community Commercial
R-1, Low Density Residential
R.2, Medium Density Residential
PL, Public Land
Total
osed Zooin Potential Node S-C
Existing Condition
Total Acres % Total
2.2 2.0~o
36.7 33.3%
33.5 30.4%
32.5 29.5%
5.2 4.7%
110.2
Proposed Change
Acres Changed % Change Total Acres
-2.2 -100.0% 0.0
7.4 20.3% 44.1
-1.3 -4.0% 32.2
1.3 4.1% 33.8
-5.2 -100.0% 0.0
110.2
% Total
40.1%
29.2%
30.7%
Source: LCOG data, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
The applicant is proposing to develop a horizontal mixed-use center that combines single-use
buildings on distinct parcels in a range of land uses in one planned development project. This
approach achieves the goal of place making that is made possible by bringing together
complimentary uses in one place. In addition, the mixed-use center is within a ten to twenty minute
(1/4 mile to Y2 mile) walking distance of public transit and a range of other uses.
The Metro Plan defines Nodal development (node) thusly (p. II-G-8):
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 15
"Areas ident~fied as nodal development areas in TransPlan are considered to have potential
for this type of land use pattern. Other areas, not proposedfor nodal development in
TransPlan, may be determined to have potentialfor nodal development.
Nodal development is a mixed-use, pedestrianfi-iendly land use pattern that seeks to
increase concentrations of populations and employment in well dejlned areas with good
transit service, a mL'( of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private
improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. Fundamental characteristics
of nodal development require:
· Design elements that support pedestrian environements and encourage transit
use, walking and bicycling;
· A transit stop "l1-hich is within walking distance (generally % mile) of anYH'here
in the node;
· Afixed uses so that services are available Yl'ithin walking distance;
. Public c\paces, such asparks, public and private open space, and public
facilities, that can be reached without driving; and
· A mix (~f housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net
density of at least J 2 units per net acre. '.'
Additional information regarding the various types of commercial development is included on
pages II-G-4 and II-G-5 of the Metro Plan. The information provides clarification on what
constitutes community commercial, neighborhood commercial and strip or street-oriented
commercial and how they differ. The applicant's submittal is for a mixed-use center (community
commercial and residential). Although the existing development along River Road is strip
commercial the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and Refinement Plan ensure that a
community commercial facility is developed that, while scoping beyond the neighborhood, provides
many of the core ingredients of a neighborhood commercial development including:
· Within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support
population. According to the US Census the population of Tract 23 which
includes the proposed development and area to the east of River Road is 6,663
persons2. This area will provide the primary support population for the proposed
development with others coming from the adjacent neighborhoods3. Bicycle
lanes and well designed pedestrian areas are provided and elements of these areas
are further explained with the proposed refinement plan text amendments.
· Adequate area to accommodate off-street parking and loading needs and
landscaping, particularly between the center and cutjacent residential property,
as well as along street frontage next door to outdoor parking areas. The
provisions for landscaping and parking will be addressed at time of Site Review
and Planned Unit Development application that are proposed to be required as
2 Source: US Census, http://www.census.gov
3 The Santa Clara neighborhood is comprised of two primary Tract,> (23 and 24) with a total population of 17,125
people according to the 2000 US Census; it is likely that this area will provide the primary and secondary support for
the proposed development.
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 16
part of the refinement plan text amendments. Adequate parking and off-street
parking and loading areas will be provided and shall pay attention to the need to
screen nearby residential uses.
. Sufficient frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and
bicycle access without conflict with moving traffic at intersections and along
adjacent streets. The site will have frontage along three streets, River Road,
Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. The refinement plan provides text that calls for
primary streets to be internal to the development site and designed as 'Shopping
Streets'. The development does not propose strip style development and will
provide convenient and safe access for automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists
without conflict with moving traffic at intersections or along adjacent streets.
Existing strip commercial development along River Road shall be removed and replaced according
to the design considerations of the refinement plan text to ensure that the proposed mixed-use center
is appropriately scaled to provide for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists while also ensuring
compatibility with surrounding neighborhood development.
Concurrent with this application is an application to amend the River Road! Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan. The proposed map and text amendments provide specific language integrating the
commercial and residential portions of future development integrating and meeting many of the
objectives of a nodal development. The development site currently has L TD stops along its River
Road and Hunsaker Lane frontages and is within one-half mile distance from the River Road! Santa
Clara transfer station Gust south of Beltline Highway). Additionally, the proposed development will
provide a pedestrian friendly connection to adjoining residences, utilize existing infrastructure, and
increase overall density within the potential node 5-C area. Designguidelines are suggested that
will ensure that the residential and commercial portions of the project are integrated and have
sufficient pedestrian friendly amenities to foster the connection that a nodal development area
requires. As such this proposed amendment supports this policy.
Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost, and
location. (Policy AI?)
The applicant's proposed amendment \-vill increase the opportunities for medium density residential
development including options for a variety of housing types including townhomes and apartments.
The potential density of development is compatible with neighboring medium density residential
designated land located to the east of the subject site and is within the desired ranges for medium
density residential. The location of the proposed residential amendments supports a ten to twenty
minute (1/4 mile to Y2 mile) walking distance to public transit and a range of other uses which
supports the nodal and mixed.use concepts.
Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations. (Policy A.22)
The proposed amendment will facilitate a zone change and therefore increase the mix of uses
providing medium density residential and commercial opportunities sited together on one
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 17
development site as a horizontal mixed-use4 center, while also infilling in an area of more typical
single-family suburban development. The increased commercial and employment opportunities will
benefit the existing residents and future residents of the development site. For more information on
the COlUlection \-vith Potential Node 5-C, see Metro Plan Policy A.13 above.
Reduce impacts ofhigher density residential and mixed-use development on surrounding
uses by considering site, landscape, and architectural design standard'} or guidelines in
local zoning and development regu.lations. (Policy A.23)
The proposed amendments include text changes to the River Road/ Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Plan that include the use of the Planned Unit Development process in order to ensure that the
proposed development provides a pedestrian orientation that is scaled appropriately. Provisions
include reducing the maximum allowed are of a single building to no more than 18,000 square feet,
reducing the height limitation to 35-feet and providing a pedestrian friendly connection across
Green Lane to provide a linkage to nearby residential development (see Refinement Plan
application for more information). The procedure of a Planned Unit Development shall provide
ample opportunity for review to assure that impacts of the mixed-use development are appropriately
mitigated within the Development Site. As such these amendments support this policy.
B. Economic Element
A detailed analysis of Economic Element policies is contained in the applicant's response Statewide
Planning Goal 9 - "Economic Development." Those responses are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Increase the amount ofundeveloped land zonedjor light industrial and commercial uses
correlating the effective supply in terms ~lsuitabmty and availability with the pr~jections ~l
demand. (Policy B.6)
The proposal is found to be consistent with this policy B.6 though consistency with the following
policies of the Eugene Commercial Land Study (ECLS) and River Road-Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan (RRSC), Commercial and Industrial Land Use policies. Furthermore, the specifics of
the site (a former school site and dealing with the transition from that use) make this a unique
situation, and ultimately the proposal provides refinement plan text amendments that ensure the
proposal is limited in a way (i.e. by proposing use and building size limitations) that directly
addresses those components of the refinement plan that restrict new community commercial
development and result in the proposal being a limited community commercial development.
Eugene Commercial Land Study (ECLS)
4 The Metro Plan defines Mixed use as: "A building, project or area of development that contains at least two d~Uerent
land uses such as housing, retail, and o.Uice uses. " (Metro Plan, p. IlI-A-9) This proposal allows appropriate planning
and zoning for an integrated horizontal mixed-use project on a "development site" as defined by the Eugene Code as
such it meet.:; the intent of the Metro Plan and Eugene Code definitions for a mixed-use development site.
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 18'
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense grmwh by
encouraging businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. (EeLS
Policy 6.0)
To the extent this policy pertains to the applicant's request, although the proposal
does not revitalize and reuse an existing COl1unercial site, the proposal does promote
redevelopment of an existing commercial area in that the proposal would redevelop
vacated land that is located in an existing commercial area, that is, within the River
Road strip commercial development surrounded on three sides by conullercial uses.
(Implementation Strategies 6.1 and 6.2 do not provide context for this policy in that
the request does not pertain to a large commercial site, i.e., one large enough for a
regional retail or oftlce center, nor does it affect relocation or expansion of business
downtown.)
Recognize the difJering needs of residential areas in the various parts of the
community, and determine the need to create additional commercial sites in light of
opportunitiesfor redevelopment. (EeLS Policy 8.0)
To the extent that this policy pertains to the applicant's request, taken in the context
of Implementation Strategy 8.1, the applicant's proposal for a Community
Commercial designation and C-2 zoning with limitations creates an additional
commercial site in light of an opportunity for redevelopment of an area designated
and zoned for residential purposes, and would provide for small scale commercial
development.
Recognize that the commercial sites designated in the Rfver Road/Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan provide adequate commercial supplyfor the area. Consider
additional commercial land in the vicinity of the Chambers Connector ((needed to
address community commercial needs. (ECLS Policy 22.0)
To the extent this policy pertains to the applicant's request, it must be considered in
the context of the findings and policies found in the ConU11ercial and Industrial Land
Use (CILU) element of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RRSC).
Findings 5, 6, 7, and 8 refer to community commercial allocations. The request is
for a limited conU11Unity c0l1U11ercial designation and zoning, which satisfies the
policies of the RRSC, and therefore ECLS 22.0 (and Metro Policy B.6), as follows;
River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RRSC), Commercial and Industrial
Land Use (CILU) element
Prohibit the linear expansion of existing strip commercial areasfronting on River
Road Existing strip commercial development may expand by infilling,
redevelopment, or expansion onto contiguous property that does notfront on River
Road (RRSC, CILU Policy 3.0)
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 19
The proposal does not expand the existing strip commercial areas fronting River
Road in a linear manner in that the subject site is not located at either the well
defined north or south ends of the strip development, but rather fills a gap within the
area. The proposal expands the existing strip development by infilling and
redevelopment. (Note: This policy is "permissiveff in that development may expand
in various manners including expansion onto contiguous property that does not front
on River Road. This policy is not "restrictive", that is, it is not to be construed as
meaning that infill, redevelopment and expansion is allowed only on contiguous
property that does not front on River Road.)
Minimize impacts of new commercial development intended to consolidate and
improve existing strip commercial areas along River Road by requiring development
standardr;. (RRSC, CILU Policy 5.0)
The proposal consolidates commercial development by filling the gap in the existing
strip commercial area along River Road, and would improve the existing strip
commercial by addressing the. Suggested Actions 5.1 for redevelopment \vithin
existing commercial areas fronting on River Road, i.e., site plan review, landscape
parking, consolidation of access points, and proximity to other commercial uses.
New neighborhood commercial uses shall be located Glvayfrom River Road in
locations that facilitate the provision of commercial facilities scaled to a residential
area and that allow for dispersal of commercial uses throughout River Road-Santa
Clara. (RRSC, CILU Policy 6.0)
To the extent that this policy pertains to the request, the applicant is not proposing
that more neighborhood commercial be located along River Road.
Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercialfacilities in providing services and
good'! to a particular neighborhood. (Policy B. 28)
Encourage the expansion or redel'elopment of existing neighborhood commercial facilities
as surrounding residential densities increase or as the characteristics of the support
population change. (Policy B. 29)
The Santa Clara School stood as a center of neighborhood activity for many years. The proposed
amendments will support redevelopment of the site, thereby continuing and expanding that
tradition. If the former school grounds were developed under the current low-density residential
designation, it would be a retreat from the role this site has played providing vital services to the
neighborhood. The City has identified a potential nodal development area that includes this site.
When implemented, residential densities will increase and require goods and services that can be
provided with approval of the proposed amendments, but 110t with the existing designation.
Concern that reducing the area ofC-1 zoning and increasing C-2 land may result in a more intense
community rather than a neighborhood commercial area is addressed by the refinement plan
amendment. This amendment requires Planned Unit Development or Site Plan review that will
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 20
provide opportunities for the City and the Neighborhood association to scrutinize development
proposals. It also limits the size of commercial buildings on the site and requires buildings oriented
toward internal streets and sidewalks rather than exclusively to the arterial. Although the
Community Commercial zoning district will allow slightly more flexibility of uses, the proposed
refinement plan policies requiring subsequent development reviews and limiting building scale \vill
assure the neighborhood character of future development. For these reasons, the proposed
amendments support and implement Metro Plan policies "B.28" and "B.29."
F. Transportation Element
The project area is currently served by River Road (a Major Arterial), Hunsaker Lane (a Major
Collector) and Green Lane. Hunsaker Lane is a county road that is not improved to urban standards;
development of the subject site will include improvements to Hunsaker, proportionate to the impact
of development that will bring the road to urban standards.
Additional intonnation in this statement's response to Statewide Planning Goal 12 -
"Transportation" is hereby referenced and incorporated.
Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
ldent~fied potential/c)r this type oftransportation.ef/icient land use pattern. (Policy F.I)
The subject site is identified in TransPlan as "Potential Nodal Development Area 5-C". Although
the area is identified as a potential nodal development area the City has not identified the site for
development as a node. Although the applicant is not specifically developing the site under the
nodal standards the applicant's mixed-use center concept is support of the intent of the node
concept. Future development of the site shall take advantage of its proximity to nearby commercial
services and existing and proposed transportation networks that complements the nodal standards
and provides a scale that is compatible with existing and future residential areas. Please see
discussion under Metro Plan. Policy A.I3 tor more information on how this policy is met
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability. (Policy F.B)
Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and
the need,> of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system
improvements. (Policy F.14)
Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets. (Policy
F.23)
Provide for a pedestrian environment that is 'well integrated with adjacent land uses and is
designed to enhance the safety, cOT11;lort, and convenience of walking. (Policy F.26)
The proposed development will be served by the existing streets (River Road, Hunsaker Lane,
Green Lane). Bike lanes currently exist on River Road and the applicant will construct bike lanes on
Hunsaker Lane as required at the time of future development. The development \viIl be easy to get
around, and to do so on foot with an enhanced pedestrian connection at Green Lane that will
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 21
provide a linkage between commercial development to the north and residential development to the
south All streets \vill have wide sidewalks, some ofthem setback from vehicle traffic. It will be
convenient, and safe, to walk within the subject site and to nearby commercial and residential
activity centers. The provisions of the text amendments to the refinement plan provide additional
scrutiny to future design elements and amenities that must entail size limitations appropriate to the
needs of pedestrians and cyclists. As such this policy is supported by the proposed amendments.
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
Extend the minimum level andjldl range (~lkey urban facilities and services in an orderly
and efficient manner consistent l-l'ith the gro}t.th management policies in Chapter II-B.
relevant policies in this chapter, and other l\1etro Plan policies. (Policy G.l)
The parcels affected by this application are currently within the Urban GrO\:vih Boundary and are
annexed into the City of Eugene. The annexation was made in compliance \\'ith an acknowledged
comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the availability of urban
facilities and services. A detailed analysis of the availability of those services is contained in the
applicant's response Statewide Planning Goal 11 - "Public Facilities and Services." Those
responses are hereby incorporated by reference.
Therefore, with regard to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan, the City can
find that the proposed amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
H. Parks and Recreation Element
The changes proposed by this application will have no impact on any recreation area, facility or
opportunity that has been inventoried and designated by the Metro Plan or any relevant facility plan
regarding the City's recreational needs. The recreational needs of the community are adequately
met by the existing and planned facilities enumerated in the City of Eugene Park'l, Recreation and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan, 2006 and other associated documents. A detailed analysis of the
subject site in relation to the various parks and recreation system studies, inventories, refinement
plans, and facilities plans is contained in the applicant's response Statewide Planning Goal 8--
"Recreation." Those responses are hereby incorporated by reference. With regard to the Parks and
Recreation Element of the Metro Plan, the City can find that the proposed amendments will not
make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent
1. Historic Preservation Element
The changes proposed by this application will have no impact on any historic resource that has been
inventoried and designated by the A1etro Plan or any relevant facility plan or inventory regarding
the City's historic resources. With regard to the Historic Preservation Element of the Metro Plan.
the City can find that the proposed PAPA will not make the A1etro Plan internally inconsistent.
J. Energy Element
Maximize the conservation and efficient utilization of all types of energy_ (Goal 1)
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 22
The proposed PAPA and subsequent development of the site will encourage conservation and
efficient utilization of energy by a concentration of employment, services and residences on the site,
and enabling transit services to the site.
Land allocation and development patterns shall permit the highest possible current and
jidure utilization ofsolar energyfor space heating and cooling, in balance lvith the
requirements of other planning policies; and (Policy 13)
The applicant shall design future development according the standards of the Eugene Development
Code includes all standards relevant to solar orientation.
Encourage medium- and high-density residential uses when balanced 11,ith other planning
policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of a!! forms of energy. The greatest
energy savings can be made in the areas of space heating and cooling and transportation.
For example, the highest relative densities of residential development shall be concentrated
to the greatest extentpossible in areas that are or can be well served by mass transit,
paratransit, and foot and bic..Jlcle paths. (Policy J.7)
Approval of this request will encourage and promote horizontally integrated mixed-use on the
development site in direct support of the Metro Plan goals, objectives and policies described above.
In addition, the development site is located Yz mile from the Lane Transit District (L TD) River Road
Station and an L TD stop will be enhanced with future development. Internal circulation is geared
towards pedestrians and integrated with off-site sidewalks, bike lanes and other transportation
facilities to provide easy access between the higher density residential development on the site and
the nearby transit facilities. These findings demonstrate that this request is consistent with both the
Metro Plan Diagram and Text.
Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the greatest
extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel distances. optimize
reuse o.fwaste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy generation. (Policy 1.8)
The requested approval of the PAPA proposed herein, if approved, will enable the subsequent zone
changes and development of a residential and commercial mixed-use development that shall
provide employment, services and residential opportunities. Workers and residents will have the
option to obtain dining, shopping, and other commercial amenities less than a mile from the subject
site consistent with Policy J.8's mandate to balance all planning policies to reduce travel distance.
Existing residential neighborhoods are adjacent to the subject site. Furthermore, the presence of
schools in close proximity and nearby recreational land uses which enables reduced travel distances,
this PAPA is consistent with this policy.
K. Citizen Involvement Element
Continue to develop, maintain, and rejine programs and procedures that maximize the
opportunity for meaningful, ongoing citizen involvement in the community's planning and
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 23
planning implementation processes consistent }I'ith mandatory statewide planning
standards. (Goal)
As noted in applicanCsfindings regarding Statev,ride Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, the
City's acknowledged program for citizen involvement provides citizens the opportunity to review
and make recommendations in written and oral testimony on the proposed amendment, consistent
with Goal 1. The action proposed is consistent with and does not amend the citizen involvement
element ofthe Metro Plan.
Aspects of the Metro Plan that have not been discussed within this application will be dealt with
during future development proposals.
Additionally, below are the findings addressing consistency with relevant policies in the Eugene
Commercial Lands Study (ECLS), which was adopted as a refinement of the Metro Plan.
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by
encouraging businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. (Policy 6.0)
Recognize the d{fJering needs o.fresidential areas in the various parts of the community, and
determine the need to create additional commercial sites in light 0.( opportunitiesfor
redevelopment. (Policy 8.0)
The subject property is also in the River Road/Santa Clara Subarea of the EeLS. The only policy in
this subarea is as follows:
Recognize that the commercial sites designated in the River Roadd5anta Clara Urban
Facilities Plan provide adequate commercial supply for the area. Consider additional
commercial land in the vicinity of the Chambers Connector {lneeded to address community
com11'wrcial needs. (Policy 22.0)
As discllssed under Metro Plan Policy B.6 on pages 18 through 20 above, incorporated herein by
reference, the proposal is found consistent with Policies 6, 8 and 22 of the EeLS.
Based on the findings above, the proposal is consistent with the Metro Plan Amendment criteria.
Refinement Plan Amendments (RA 07.1)
The proposed amendment would amend the RRSC land use diagram to change approximately 7.3
acres of the site north of Green Lane from a designation of Government and Education to a
designation of Commercial; to change 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation
of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential; and to amend the refInement plan
text to include site specific development requirements.
EC 9.8424 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a Refinement Plan
amendment.
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 24
(1)(a) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with tlte Statewide planning goals.
The findings underEC 9.7730(3)(a), above, are incorporated herein by reference.
(l)(b) Tlte refinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro
Plan~
Applicable provisions ofthe Metro Plan are evaluated under EC 9.7730(3)(b), above with respect to
the proposed refinement plan amendments and Metro Plan amendment. The proposed refinement
plan land use diagram amendment from Government and Education to Commercial, and from
Commercial to Medium Density Residential, is consistent with the proposed Metro Plan land use
diagram amendments from Low Density Residential to Commercial, and from Commercial to
Medium Density Residential.
(l)(c) The refinement pllm amendment i~ consistent with the remaining portions oftlte
refinement plan.
The RRSC land use diagram amendment to re...ctesignate approximately 7.3 acres of the site north of
Green Lane from a designation of Government and Education to a designation of CQnmlercial, to
re-designate 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to Medium
Density Residential and text amendments to limit the use of the site for commercial and residential
uses in a (horizontal) "mixed use center" are determined to be consistent with remaining portions of
the refinement plan. Those policies found to be applicable to this request or addressed below.
General Land Use Policies
Afinimize land use conflicts by promoting compatibiliiy between land uses, especially among
residential, commercial-industrial, and commercial-agricultural uses. (Policy 1.0)
The amendment facilitates a commercial development that provides benefits for the city and
regional population and provides varied employment. Economically, the development pays property
taxes and is ajobs provider. The residential component of the proposed amendments will extend the
existing Medium Density Residential designation to the west in a logical manner that and will
enhance the supply of land available for higher density development within the Santa Clara subarea.
The future development of the site will incorporate landscaping and other features to enhance its
compatibility with the residential uses to the east. In addition, the proposed text amendments
provide significant protections that enhance compatibility of future development with the existing
and future residential development including height limitations, area limitations on building size
and the provision for the use of the Plalllled Unit Development procedures. Because of the reasons
stated, it is consistent with this policy.
Adopt zoning that is consistent with the land use diagram and policies contained in the land
use element o/the Urban Facilities Plan. (Policy 2.0)
The proposed amendments contained within this application include map and text changes. Upon
approval of the proposed changes, and as detailed in the responses ~ontained herein, the proposed
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 25
amendments support this policy.
Provide for land uses that conform to jVfetropolitan Plan goals and policies and that
consider the provision of a full range (~lurban services in an efficient and cost-effective
manner. (Policy 3.0)
As detailed in the response to Statewide Goal II (above) urban services are available to the subject
property and the property is within the Eugene portion of the metropolitan UGB and within the
incorporated City limits. As snch, the subject property is providing for compact urban growth and
has the essential services available for development. As defined in the glossaI:Y of the Metro Plan
compact urban grov.1.h is defined as:
The filling in o.lvacant and underutilized lands in the UGB, as ll'ell as redevelopment
inside the UGH
The amendments will allow compact urban grO\vth to occur on lands that are currently within the
UGB and underutilized for an urban area. The redevelopment of the site will provide needed
commercial employment opportunities and also provide medium density residential development.
As such the proposed amendments support this policy. Please see discussion of Metro Plan policies
under EC 9.8424(b) for more information.
Residential Land Use Policies
Recognize and maintain the predominately low-density residential character o.fthe area
consistent lvith the ~Metropolitan Plan. (Policy 1. 0)
As discussed under the Goal 10, the proposed PAPA seeks to remove 7.3 acres ofland from the
Low Density Residential land base and to add approximately 1.3 acres of land to the Medium
Density Resignation land base (see details under Goall 0 for more information). The change is in
compliance with Goal 10 and the amount of change in the supply of low density residential land
amounts to 0.2%, a relatively minor amount of land. The location of the land, near a major arterial
and a major collector and near commercial opportunities, does not make it an efficient location to
develop at low density levels. The applicant proposes to offset the loss of the low density residential
land with additional medium density residential land that is more appropriate, adjacent to
commercial development and supports the goals and policies of the Metro Plan and the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. According to the RLS, there is an abundance of low density
residential land and this proposed PAPA win not significantly ailed the predominance of the low
density character of this area. It will, however, provide much needed medium density residential
development on land better suited for that purpose.
Provide a diversity of housing types in the area. A vailable techniques include encouraging
reinvestment and rehabilitation 0.( existing housing stock and the use 0.( development
standards that provide fiJr clustering or planned unit development. (Policy 2.0)
Provide for innovative residential development through subdivision and other code
provisions, such as planned unit developments and cluster subdivisionsfor new residential
development on large parcels. (Suggested Action 2.1)
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 26
The proposed amendments of this application include text amendments that provide for the
development of a mixed-use center to be developed under the provisions of the Planned Unit
Development procedures. Future redevelopment of the Santa Clara Elementary School Site will
provide significant reinvestment in the area that, combined with residential development, v\~1l
support further reinvestment of the community. As such this policy is supported by the proposed
amendments.
Evaluate trafjic and compatibility impacts lvhen considering nett' residential development on
parcels fronting arterial streets. (Policy 3.0)
Details of the proposed amendments traffic impacts are discussed under Goall2. The proposed
amendments will remove land that is zoned residential from a location fronting an arterial. In place
of residential development fronting an arterial the applicant proposes to locate residential
development along a neighborhood street that is more suitable for such development.
Provide adequate buffering and trqIJic control for existing non-residential development
fronting River Road, (to minimize conflicts with surrounding development). (Policy 4.0)
The applicant is not proposing residential development that fronts River Road. The proposed
amendments will create an area of Commercial designation that has frontage on River Road,
Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane and extends the cunent commercial designated land eastward on
the subject parceL The applicant intends to use shopping streets within the future development and
place the majority of business circulation and store fronts internal to the site. Upon development
sufficient design and landscape standards will ensure that existing residential development is
buffered from new development. Primary access to the commercial portion of the subject site will
be from Hunsaker Lane, with secondary access provided via River Road and Green Lane. The
proposed Medium Density Residential portion of the subject site will receive primary access on
Green Lane.
Permit medium-density housing (10 to 20 dl-Ilelling units/acre) in proximity to existing or
planned urban/acilities. Access to commercial development, transit, and alternative modes
o/transportation, schools and parks, and open space should be considered. A1edium-density
residential development will be considered/or the north Santa Clara area consistent with
the above criteria. (Policy 5.0)
The subject site is located within the north Santa Clara area. The proposed amendments designate
land for Medium Density Residential designation in a location that is in close proximity to existing
urban facilities, with proximal access to existing and proposed commercial facilities, alternative
modes of transportation (L TO's "hub" is located approximately one-half mile south of the subject
site, and the BRT/eMX is proposed to have a line running to that "hub"); elementary, middle and
high schools are located within walking distance of the subject property and parks and open space
opportunities are located nearby. As such, the subject site is appropriately located to apply the
Medium Density Residential designation.
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 27
Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policies
.Maintain and enhance the compatibility of a4facent land uses through the use (~l
appropriate buffering mechanisms, such as landscaping standards. (Policy 1.0)
Require site plan reviews for all nevi' commercial and industrial developments. (Policy 2.0)
As a condition of development approval for the subject site, site review procedures will be applied.
Site review is used "a<:; a means to maintain or improve the character, integrity, and harmonious
development of an area, address potential environmental impacts, and to provide a safe, stable,
efficient, and attractive on-site environment" (EC 9.8425 Purpose of Site Review). In addition, to
assure compatibility between the residential development to the south, and the commercial develop
to the north, of Green Lane Planned Unit Development procedures will also be employed. Because
any development subsequent to adoption oHhe plan amendment must comply with site review and
planned unit development criteria, the amendment is consistent with Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Policies 1.0 and 2.0.
Prohibit the linear expansion of existing strip commercial areas fronting on River Road
lZ.:'(isting strip commercial development ma,}' expand by infilling, redevelopment, or
expansion onto contiguous proper~y that does notfi'ont on River Road (Policy 3.0)
Minimize impacts of new commercial development intended to consolidate and improve
existing strip commercial areas along River Road by requiring development standard.,.
(Policy 5.0)
New neighborhood commercial uses shall be located away.from River Road in locations that
facilitate the provision of commercial facilities scaled to a residential area and that allov.'
for dispersal of commercia I uses throughout River Road-Santa Clara. (Policy 6. OJ
As previously discussed under Metro Plan Policy 8.6 on pages 18 through 20 above, incorporated
herein by reference, the proposal is found consistent with these policies to the extent that they are
applicable.
i. River Road/Division subarea
Recommendations
3. The transition from pYf~fessional (~lfice use to medium-density residential use should occur
in the vicinity of a line projected south from the east boundary of the Santa Clara
Elementary School property.
4. Rezone parcels north of Santa Clara Square and south of Green Lane for professional
office use.
This refinement plan amendment proposes to add a Recommendations 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 that are
specific to the subject site (see discussion below). The amended text provides direction specific to
the subject site to provide Commercial development north of Green Lane and to allow Medium
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 28
Density Residential to abut the "transition" line mentioned in Recommendation 3.0 and proceed
west. The amended text allows expansion of the existing Medium Density Residential area in order
to allow a mix of development that will support commercial development as proposed by the
applicant. Recommendations No.3 and No.4 as described above are not substantially changed by
this application and do not apply to the parcels involved as amended with the proposed
recommendations No.5, ,No.6, No.7 and No.8.
The applicant's refinement plan text amendments are proposed for insertion on page 2-32, River
Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, Chapter 2, River Road/Division Subarea, text to be
included as Recommendations No.5, No.6, NO.7 and No.8. The text amendments are as follows:
5. Nohvithstanding Recommendation No.4, development sites along Green Lane and
adjacent to tbe former Santa Clara Elementary School site may be designated and
zoned Medium Density Residential. If the parcels are zoned MDR, tbey must be
developed as a Planned Unit Development in connection with the former Santa Clara
Elementary School site and witb an empbasis on mixed-use development principles.
6. Upon the sale from public ownersbip to private ownership, the City shall recognize
the area of the former Santa Clara Elementary School at tbe southeast corner of the
intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane, between Hunsaker Lane and Green
Lane (Tax Lots 9100,9200,9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200, 300,
400 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44) as appropriate for Commercial development and
designated Commercial. Ifzoned commercial, it shall be developed as Planned Unit
Development in connection with the property described in Recommendation No.5 with
an emphasis on mixed-use development principles. In addition:
a. No individual building footprint witbinthe commercial development may
exceed 18,000 square feet; and
b. No building mass within 50-feet of Low Density Rcsidentialland may exceed
35 feet in height; and
c. Permitted or conditional Commercial services shall not include theaters;
lodging; C2 and C3 permitted manufacturing; medical, hcaltlt and correctional
services; motor vehicle related uses; and
d. The historic character of the former Santa Clara Elementary School shall be
commemorated on site by using architectunlI features and historic elements
typical of the former Santa Clara Elementary School (e.g., brick facades,
castings, etc.).
7. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, a pedestrian friendly connection subject to
review and approval by tbe City Engineer shall be provided at a tlmidblock" crossing
of Green Lane and shall include five or more of the following design elements:
a. Curb ramps
b. Curb extensions (equal to the width of on-street parking, but not interfering
with bicycle lane)
c. Raised crosswalks
d. Special paving treatment (e.g., brick, alternative colors, cobblestone,
patterned cement, etc.)
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 29
e. Adequate lighting to fully illuminate the crossing at all hours
f. To minimize conflict witb vehicles enteringl or exiting the former Santa Clara
Elementary School site locate the crosswalk to the east of tbe future Green Lane
access to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site.
8. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, pedestrian amenities shall be included
within tbe commercial component of the mixed-use development. Amenities shall
include two or more of the design elements from Recommendation No.7.
To provide further clarification of the text amendment'), as a condition of approval, the proposed
text amendments should be revised as follows.
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.5:
To clarify that abutting properties not included in this application are not subject to this
amendment, revise the first sentence to state: "Not\\r1thstanding Recommendation No.4,
development sites abutting the south side o.lGreen Lane and ge"nerally lyest o.lthe eastern
boundary of the former Santa Clara Elementary School Site..."
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.6:
To clarify which zoning is approved, revise the second sentence to state: "If zoned commercial,
it shall be zoned C-2 and it shall be developed. . ."
Regarding 6.b, the subject site abuts R-l zoning to the northeast and R-2 zoning to the
southeast. EC 9.2171 (2) already requires C-2 development to be limited to 30 feet in height
within 50 feet ofR-l zoning, and to be limited to 35 feet in height within 50 feet of R-2 zoning.
Proposed 6.b only proposes a height restriction where abutting R-I zoning, and fmihermore the
proposed height limitation of 35 feet is actually 5 feet taller than the code already restricts.
Therefore, this height limitation should be stricken.
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.7:
The connection shown on the applicant's Site Concept plan (see applicant's Exhibit 1.2) depict')
a Green Lane crossing between the northern 7.3 acre portion of the site and the southern 1.3 acre
portion of the site. This is not "midblock" as referred to in proposed Recommendation 7.
Therefore, the first sentence should be revised to state: "a pedestrian friendly connection.. . shall
be provided at to cross Green Lane between the former Santa Clara School Site and a property
south o.f'Green Lane and shall include..."
Summary
In summary, the proposal is found consistent 'with the remaining provisions of the RRSC.
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 30
(c) New or amended community policies.
(d) Nel.... or amended provisions in afederallllw or regulation, state Sllltute, state
regulation, statewide planning goal, or state age/Icy land use plan.
(e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the
time the refinement plan was adopted.
The proposed amendments are not based on an error in the publication of the RRSC, new inventory
material relating to a statewide planning goal or new or amended state or federal laws, regulations,
or policies; therefore EC 9.8424(2)(a), (b) and (d), above, are not applicable to this request.
Regarding subsection (c), the proposed amendments have been found to comply with the applicable
Metro Plan and refinement plan approval criteria, therefore the proposed Metro Plan amendments
constitute a new community policy in the context of this criterion.
Regarding subsection (e), two significant changes of circumstance have occurred and the proposed
refinement plan amendment addresses both changes of circumstances.
First Change of Circumstances
The first change of circumstances is the decision by the 4J School District to sell the Santa Clara
Elementary School property. The City and its citizens had no anticipation at time of Refinement
Plan adoption that the school district would seIl its property to a private developer.
A pOliion of the subject site is the former location of the Santa Clara Elementary School, and is
currently zoned Public Land, designated on the refinement plan as Government and Education, and
designated on the Metro Plan. as Low Density Residential. Oregon W est Management, Inc., a
private development group, recently purchased the Santa Clard Elementary School site. Per
EC 9.2681(2) which states, "When public land is soldfor private the development, the property
shall be rezoned according to the procedures for zone changes beginning 'with andfiJllowing
section 9.8850 PumoseolZone Changes" the applicant is seeking a zone change of the subject site.
The refinement plan designation logically shall also be amended to reflect the current private
ownership.
The applicant has a concurrent application under review fur a plan amendment to the school
property to change the designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial. Upon approval of
the Metro Plan change the refinement plan designation will be nonconforming. As such the
applicant proposes to change the refinement plan designation for the school site from Government
and Education to Commercial to reflect the proposed Metro Plan designation.
Second Change of Circumstances
The second significant change of circumstances concerns City Council adoption in 2004 of
Ordinance No. 20319; which amended the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
The background materials for the update are contained in two documents of the Eugene-Springfield
lvfetropolitan Area Residential Lands Study, the 1999 Supply and Technical Analysis and the 1999
Site Inventory Document. The RLS was acknowledged by the state Land Conservation and
Development Commission as being consistent with Goal 10. The purpose of the RLS was to
compare residential land needs with available land supply.
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 3 1
The 2004 update to the Metro Plan includes four relevant policies regarding higher densities and
mixed uses:
Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure,
improves the efficiency o/public services andfacilities, and conserves rural resources lands
outside the UGH Policy A.IO)
GenerafZv locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
services, in proximity to major transportation systems or tvithin transportation ---efficient
nodes. (Policy A.lt)
Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities
jor eflectively designed in:fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of
increased residential density on historic, existing andfuture neighborhoods. (Policy A.13)
Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and eXl~f;ting
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations. (Policy A.22)
The 1999 Residential Land Survey inventoried the developed and vacant land vyithin the
Eugene/Springfield area. The subject site is located within the Santa Clara subarea. As detailed in
the findings under Goal 10 (aboye) the Santa Clara subarea has the lowest percentage of higher
density developed property within the metropolitan region. Multi-family housing uses are allowed
within the Medium Density Residential designation. As such, the applicant proposes to increase the
supply of this needed housing type by changing the designation on the subject site, south of Green
Lane, to accommodate this housing type. The location of the change in designation is appropriate
due to its proximity to existing Medium Density Residential designated property to the east,
commercial development in the surrOlmding area, and alternative transportation modes (the existing
L TD River Road substation is less than one-half mile south of the subject property). As such, the
applicanCs proposed refinement plan designation is consistent with the updates to the Metro Plan
Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
Therefore, the anlendment is consistent with the criteria in EC 9.8424(2).
Zone Chan2e (Z 07 ~J)
The applicant proposes to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the existing zoning
of PL and C-l, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C-2/PD/SR, Conullunity
Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays; and to rezone 1.3
acres of the site south of <]reen Lane from R-I, Low Density Residential zone to R-2/PD/SR,
Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays
EC 9.8865 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a Zone Change.
(1) Tlte proposed change is consistent H.tith applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The
written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where
apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 32
Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram an1endment to
re-designate 7.3 acres of Low Density Residential to Commercial and to re-designated 1.3 acres of
Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The findings under EC 9.7730(3)(b), above, are
incorporated herein by reference. Those findings address the applicant's consistency with the Metro
Plan.
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent witlt applicable adopted refinement plans. In the
event of inconsistencies between these pltl1lS and the Aletro Plan, tlte Metro Plan controls.
Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the refinement plan diagram
amendment to re-designate 7.3 acres of Government and Education to Commercial and to re-
designated 1.3 acres of Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The findings under EC
9.8424( 1)( c), are incorporated herein by reference. Those findings address the application's
consistency with the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan.
(3) The uses and density tltat will be {lllowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the
proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and
services.
The discussion of compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 - '"Public Facilities and Services,"
and Goal 12 - "Transportation" in the findings regarding the State\-vide Planning Goals (see below)
are incorporated herein by reference. With the findings established and referenced herein, the
proposal complies with this criterion.
(4) The proposed zone change is cousistent with the applicable siting requirements set outfor
the specific zone ilt:
(a) EC 9.2150 Commercial ZOIte Siting Requirements.
(/) EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements.
There are no applicable siting requirements for C-2, Community Commercial or R-2, Medium
Density Residential zones; therefore, this criterion does not apply.
(5) lit cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall
enter into a COlttractual arrangement with the city to ensure tlte area is maintained as a
natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years.
The NR zone is not requested. Therefore, the above criterion is not applicable.
Conclusion: Based on the available information and materials in the record, and the above findings,
the proposal is found consistent with the applicable approval criteria subject to the following
conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall record in the Office of the Lane County Clerk restrictive covenants on
the real property that is the subject of the proposed amendments, in a foml acceptable to the
Findings- November 19,2007
Page 33
City Attorney, stipulating that any future development approval for the site shall require, by
the time of development, full and complete construction of an additional westbound
approach lane on Hunsaker Lane and an additional \vestbound approach lane on Green Lane.
The restrictive covenants shall be binding on any successive owner(s) of the property, are
enforceable by the City of Eugene any may be amended only vvith the express \vritten
consent of the City of Eugene.
2. The proposed text amendments shall be revised as follows:
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.5:
To clarify that abutting properties not included in this application are not subject to this
amendment, revise the first sentence to state: "Notwithstanding Recommendation No.4,
development sites abutting south of Green Lane and generally west of the ea.<;tern boundary
ofthe former Santa Clara Elementary School Site..."
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.6:
To clarify which zoning is approved, revise the second sentence to state: "If zoned
commercial, it shall be zoned C-2 and it shall be developed. .."
Regarding 6.b, the subject site abuts R-l zoning to the northeast and R-2 zoning to the
southeast. EC 9.2171(2) already requires C-2 development to be limited to 30 feet in height
within 50 feet of R-l zoning, and to be limited to 35 feet in height within 50 feet of R-2
zoning. Proposed 6.b only proposes a height restriction where abutting R-l zoning, and
furthermore the proposed height limitation of 35 feet is actually 5 feet taller than the code
already restricts. Therefore, tlus height limitation should be stricken.
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.7:
The cOlmection sho\-\'11 on the applicant's Site Concept plan (see applicant's Exhibit 1.2)
depicts a Green Lane crossing between the northern 7.3 acre portion of the site and the
southern 1.3 acre portion of the site. This is not "midblock" as referred to in proposed
Reconmlendation 7. Therefore, the first sentence should be revised to state: "a pedestrian
friendly connection.. . shall be provided at to cross Green Lane between the fonner Santa
Clara School Site and a propeliy south of Green Lane and shall include..."
Findings- November 19, 2007
Page 34
AtL:'lchment B
(D RAFT)
SUMl\1ARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-Atrium Building--99 West lOth A venue
Novcmber 19,2007
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Phillip Carroll,
Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Neil
Bjorklund, Jason Dcdrick, Gabe Flock, Lisa Gardner, Terri Harding, Lydia
McKilmey, Steve Nystrom, Heather O'Donnell, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and
Development Departmcnt; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department;
Michael Howard, Michael Kinnison~ Richard Marks, Rick Satre, Steve
Graves, Larry Ksionzyk, Kate Perle, Terry Connolly, Melanie Shinn, Alan
Zelenka.
ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
])UBLIC COMMENT
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. La\vless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the March 5, 6,
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 1
and 12, 2007 minutes be approved as submitted, and that the
February 26 and march 19, 2007 minutes be approved as corrected.
The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
II. APPROV AL OF OPPORTUNITY SITINGflNFILL TASK TEAMS
8tafT: Terry Harding, 682-5635
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr.McCown, moved to approve the draft
Opportunity Siting task team. The motion passed unanimously,
6:0.
Mr. Lawless, seconded hy Mr. Carroll, moved approve the draft
Infill Compatibility Standards task team. The motion passed
unanimously, 6:0.
III. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: OREGON WEST MANAGEMENT, LLC
Staff: Heather O'Donnell, 682-5488
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mt. McCown, moved to approve the
request for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) amendment, the refinement plan diagram and text
amendment, and the zone change as requested by the applicant. As
part of the approval, the Planning Commission \vould:
. Adopt the staff findings for the statewide goals.
. Adopt the applicant's findings for all other applicable
criteria as supplemented by the Planning Commission's
findings as clarified by Mr. Carroll.
. Include policy text changes as modified as recommended
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 2
by staff, except for item 6.D.
· Include improvements to two streets under Goal 12.
Mr. Carroll's clarification is that the proposal is' limited in a way
that directly addresses those components of the retinement plan
that have limits on community commercial such a.<; by providing
building square foot limits and limits on uses.
Ms. Kneeland offered a friendly amendment to the motion on the
table to limit the precedent., that there would be an addition to the
findings that these interpretations of the findings were specitic to
the application before the Commission and the context the unique
situation transition of a fonner school site to another function.
Ms. Kneeland withdrew her friendly amendmem.
The motion passed 4:2, with Mr. Carroll and Ms. Kneeland in
opposition.
IV. WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER U)>DATE
Staff: Jason Dedrick, 682-5451 and Lydia McKinney, 682-5485
V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND 81' AFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 3
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room~Atrium Building--99 \Vest 10th Avenue
November 19,2007
11 :30 a.m.
PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Phillip Carroll,
Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Neil
Bjorklund, Jason Dedrick, Gabe Flock, Lisa Gardner, Terri Harding, Lydia
McKinney, Steve Nystrom, Heather 0' Donnen, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and
Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department;
Michael I-Inward, Michael Kinnison, Richard Marks, Rick Satre, Steve
Graves, Larry Ksionzyk, Kate Perle, Terry Connolly, Melanie Shinn, Alan
Zelenka.
ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
PlJBLIC COMMENT
There was no one ,vishing to offer public comment.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 26, and March 5, 6, 12, and 19,2007.
MINUTES---nEugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page I
February 26, 2007
Mr. Hledik offered the following conection: Page 1, paragraph 2,: Mr. Duncan
nomhwtca by Mr. H!cdik as Planning Commission President. On a ".'ote of 7:0,-
Mr. Riedl/;.; was elected President a/the Eugene Planning Commission should
read: Mr. Hledik nominated Mr. Duncan as Planning Commission Vice
President. On a vote of 7:0, Mr. Duncan was elected Vice President of the
Eugene ]>Ianning Commission.
March 5, 6, and 12,2007
No conections.
March 19, 2007
Mr. Hledik offered the following correction: Page 7, paragraph 6, sentence 1:
My. Hledik said one of the reports indicated that the failures on Dillard Road were
due to the embankment failure consisting of manmade structural fill that the road
sat on ef-the-rather than based upon the underlying geologic formation.
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the March 5, 6,
and 12, 2007 minutes be approved as submitted, and that the
February 26 and march 19, 2007 minutes be approved as corrected.
The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
II. APPROVAL OF OPPORTUNITY SITING/INFILL TASK TEAMS
Ms. Harding distributed a handout listing the proposed task teams for the Opportunity -
Siting and 1n1ill Compatibility Standards and the meeting schedules for which she was
asking approval of the Commission. Commissioners reviewed the information and
MINUTES----Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 2
briefly discussed the process.
tvIr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to approve the draft
Opportunity Siting task team.
Mr. Duncan recognized a member of the public, Ahlen Ross. Mr. Ross, 2628 Jackson
Street expressed his dissatisfaction with the process in which the task teams'
membership had been identified, particularly noting there was no allowance for an ad hoc
or at-large member. He was concerned that a representative trom his neighborhood was
chosen via a telephone conference following a meeting at which there had been no
quorum.
The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
Mr. Duncan asked Ms. Harding to explain the process for Infill Compatibility Task Team
task team selection. Ms. Harding said the issue of an at-large member had been raised.
A large number of people had submitted applications to serve on the task teams,
including almost 20 neighborhood representatives and almost 25 people from the
community. An at-large member had been decided against in order to help keep the
group from becoming too large to work effectively. She noted there would be other
avenues for public input into the process. The task team would provide a
recommendation to the Planning Commission, which would in turn, forward a
recommendation to the City Council for approval. The Planning Division website would
contain updated information on the process.
Mr. Duncan asked that Mr. Ross be included on the contact list, and suggested a Planning
Commissioner serve as a liaison or member in the Infill Compatibility Task Team.
Ms. Harding noted that Mr. Lawless had agreed to serve as an ex officio member of the
Infill Compatibility Task Team, and that voting would be deternlined by the group.
MINUTES~Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 3
Ms. Kneeland said an at-large position had been discussed by the Commission's Infill
Compatibility Subcommittee, and expressed her concern about the size of the group.
Ms. I-larding noted that the Churchill A.rea Neighbors, the Downtown Neighborhood
Association, and Trainsong Neighbors were not represented on the task team.
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved approve the draft
Infill Compatibility Standards task team. The motion passed
unanimously, 6:0.
III. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: OREGON WEST MANAGEMENT, LLC
Ms. O'Donnell offered the staff presentation. She stated the purpose of today' s
discussion was to finish deliberations and take action on the proposed Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) amendment, refinement plan amendment
and zone change.
On November 5, 2007, the Eugene Planning Commission began deliberations on a
proposal to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram, amend the applicable refinement
plan and approve a concurrent zone change for Oregon West Management, LLC. The
applicant requested approval of Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments and a zone
change that would result in 7.3 acres being rezoned to C-2/PD/SR, community
commercial zone with Platilled Unit Development (PUD) and Site Review (SR) overlays
and 1.3 acres being rezoned to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned
Unit Development and Site Review overlays.
During the November 5, 2007 meeting it appeared that there was some interest in
recommending approval of the application, rather than adopting the staff findings for
denial. In anticipation of this possible outcome, staff provided the Planning Commission
with two options. If the Planning Commission confirmed the staff recommendation for
MINUTES-on-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 4
denial, the Planning Commission could adopt the staff findings. If the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the application, the Commission would need to
include alternative findings supporting this recommendation. Staff recommended the
Planning Commission incorporate the applicant's findings if the PlalU1ing Commission
decided to recommend approval of the application.
If the Planning Commission recommended approval and adopted the applicant's findings,
staff believed there were a few criteria where the applicant's findings were either lacking
or not entirely accurate, including Commercial Lane Study Policies 6, 8 and 22. If
adopted, the Planning Commission would need to address these areas and provide
findings. Prior to the continuation of deliberations, staff would provide the Commission
a summary .ofthe areas in which staff believed the applicant's findings needed to be
amended.
In order for the Planning Commission to take action, it needed to be prepared to
recommend any specific modifications to staff findings, in the event the Commission was
prepared to support this application. She noted Mr. Hledik had sent drafted tindings for
consideration by the Commission to via e-mail to Commissioners.
Mr. Lawless concurred with the findings drafted by Mr. Hledik.
Ms. Kneeland found that the proposal did not comply with applicable policies. noting that
the request fit into neither the Community Commercial nor Neighborhood Commercial,
but rather created a small-scale commercial label that dodged the limitations of
Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial.
Mr. Hledik opined this site would have been ideal for consideration as an OPPoltunity site
and would have leant itself to higher density housing. The amendment for limited
community commercial came about due to an unanticipated event, the closing of a
school, when the applicable refinement plan was developed. Such a situation was not
anticipated in the Metro Plan. The River Road/Santa Clara refinement plan contained
MINUTES---Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 5
provisions that discussed not allowing neighborhood commercial on River Road, but
allowing it in other locations in the neighborhood. He felt the proposed amendment met
the criteria.
Mr. Flock stated that the multi-family standards articulated and quantified many of the
architectural elements identified for the project.
Mr. Lawless agreed with Mr. Hledik that the staff recommendation looked like design
review' with the inclusion of particular architectural criteria.
Ms. O'Donnell averred that if the Planning Commission adopted the findings drafted by
Mr. Hledik, implementation of somewhat vague language would be difficult.
Mr. Flock said in the context of the commercial standards that would apply through the
land use application process, lack of clarity would make it difficult to implement
something above and beyond the commercial standards, leaving it unclear what level of
architectural detail was required. He added the findings would be subject to
interpretation in how staff applied them in a recommendation.
Mr. Lawless opined it may be more appropriate to leave the findings as a text amendment
open to interpretation and rely upon site or PUD review.
Mr. Nystrom reviewed the commission's choices:
. To not consider a text change.
. If a text change was made, how mandatory should it be; should the language be
"encouraging" language rather than firm.
. If the text change language was mandatory, the Commission's intent on how it
should be used in the future needed to be explained.
Mr. Nystrom said ifthere was no text change, and PUDs or other implementation tools
were relied upon, those tools would need to be identified.
MiNUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19, 2007
Page 6
Mr. Duncan said the applicant suggested a general idea of what type of project would be
developed if the application was supported by the Commission, but that was not part of
the application, and asked if that level of detail was desirable in a refinement plan.
Mr. Nystrom responded the applicant's suggestion went deeper than was typically seen in
refinement plan policy text, approaching more the project level and more design specific.
Thus, it was not presented in a manner typically handled in refinement plan text.
Mr. Hledik expressed reluctance to remove the language because the community
cherished the old school, and it was important for something to be preserved or
commemorated at the site. He was less concerned about the details than he was about
removing the entire requirement for preservation or commemoration, and was
comfortable with letting the architects address the issue. There were provisions in the
refinement plan that should be considered, specifically, the commercial and industrial
lands policy 5 .1 (b) and 5 .1 (c), related to landscaped parking lots, River Road frontage,
consolidation and minimization of access points onto River Road.
Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Flock said those points would be
considered in the context of PUD. As a higher order of a Type 3 application, all of the
policy and text ofthe plan would be subject to review. It would need to be codified in
order to apply through the site review application. As a combined proposal it would
address 5.1 provisions.
Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik Ms. O'Donnell said road improvements
mitigations under Goal 12 would be conditions of approval.
Mr. Carroll was concerned with Mr. Hledik's proposed draft findings. He opposed the
application and was concerned about interpretations of the policies. He expressed
concern specifically about the proposed findings for ECLS 6 and 22, Metro Plan B(6),
River Road/Santa Clara refinement plan Policy 3, which were recorded by staff, such as
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 7
regarding EeLS Policy 22 the applicant's findings on page 28 may need to be rectified,
regarding the applicant's findings tor the River Road/Santa Clara refinement plan
policies on strip commercial- what makes it well defined and why is it not linear, it must
be stated how the application overcomes staff's concerns, and address how the proposal
will not impact future applications.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to approve the
request for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) anlendment, the refinement plan diagram and text
anlendment, and the zone change as requested by the applicant. As
part of the approval, the Planning Commission would:
. Adopt the staff findings for the statewide goals.
. Adopt the applicant's findings for an other applicable
criteria as supplemented by the Planning Commission's,
Hledik's, findings and as clarified by Mr. Carroll.
. Include policy text changes as modified as recommended
by staff, except for item 6.D.
. Include improvements to two streets under Goal 12.
Ms. Kneeland suggested language to limit the precedent this may set for creating some
hybrid of limited community commercial as not community commercial and not
neighborhood commercial, asserting this action was specific to this unique situation as a
fornler school site transitioning to something else. The interpretation should be clear that
it "vas applicable only to limited, similar situations so that a new fonn of zoning would
not be opened up for future uses.
Mr. Lawless supported Ms. Kneeland's suggestion, noting this had been difficult due to
the unique circumstance of the large piece of property in a small setting. He agreed that
he would not want to see the unusual precedents used out of context for other purposes.
He suggested using "cautious limitation" in how the decision was reached.
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 8
Mr. Hledik said the Commission was getting requests to "tweak" refinement plans. He
added this did not set a precedent, in that the request was limited to the specific project,
and approvals would be withdrawn if the project did not proceed. He added that the
process did provide a way to bring refinement plans forward to the present. The
Commission regularly dealt with refinement plans adopted many years ago, and
circumstances had changed and there were not sufficient resources to amend refinement
plans. It was hoped that Opportunity Siting and In1111 Compatibility Standards would
help bridge the gap.
Ms. Kneeland said her concern was not limited to the text amendment but also a concern
about the interpretation of the ECLS policy and the River Road/Santa Clara refinement
plan.
Ms. Kneeland offered a friendly amendment to the motion: There
would be an addition to the findings that these interpretations of
the findings \vere specific to the application before the
Commission and in the context that the unique situation was a
transition of a former school site to another function.
Mr. Flock expressed discomfort with moving forward with the motion on the table, and
proposed staff return to the Commission with revised language to ensure that all of the
Commission's concerns had been captured.
Mr. Nystrom said some of the comments made could be captured in findings, while
others needed to be forwarded to the City Council as issues the Commission vwestled
with. He opined it would be beneficial to capture some of the concerns in a narrative
statement to the City Council.
Ms. Kneeland withdrew her friendly amendment.
Following further discussion, Mr. Duncan noted the Commission was confident staff
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 9
could draft ilndings that reflected the concerns of the Commission. Mr. Duncan called
for the vote on the motion.
The motion passed 4:2, with Mr. Carroll and Ms. Kneeland voting
in opposition.
Ms. Kneeland confirmed that the dissenting views would be represented in the findings.
Mr. McCown noted that the 2004 housekeeping issues shifted the site in question to
residential, and it was unclear to him what had occurred. He asked how many additional
properties had been impacted and if there could be some clarification offered about the
process before the issue came to the Commission again.
Mr. Nystrom stated stafT could provide background information on the issue.
IV. W ALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER UPDATE
Mr. Dedrick offered the staff report. He explained he, along with Lydia McKinney and
Neil Bjorkhmd, had assumed staffing on the project.
Mr. Dedrick reviewed the history of the project. Phase One of the Walnut Station Mixed
Use Develop Plan resulted in an "emerging vision" consisting of design elements that had
broad support. Phase One also produced a list of twelve key issues, since condensed to
eleven, that were presented in the form of a "preferred alternative" to the Planning
Commission on March 20 and May 8, 2006. The Commission declined to endorse the
entire staff-recommended "preferred alternative" since several key design elements of the
plan had not been resolved. The Planning Commission suggested that staff work to
resolve each of the key issues, which ,vas the primary focus of Phase Two. While the
Planning Commission had discussed several of those issues, including Franklin
Boulevard and EmX, this report was intended to provide a summary of the staff
MfNUTES-Eugcne Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 10
recommendations for each of the key issues. Through a series of meetings with
stakeholders and a public open house on May 9, 2007, the City received significant input
toward development of a staff recommendation.
The November 19 and December 3, 2007 Plmming Commission meetings would provide
an opportunity for the Commission to review, discuss and take action on the
recommendations and for staff to present an overall vision for the Walnut Station Mixed
Use Center (MUC). Staff recommended that the Planning Commission focus its
November 19 discussion on issues previously discussed as well as the Design Review
Options. Mr. Dedrick added the December 3 meeting would provide an opportunity to
focus discussion on remaining issues as needed in order for the project to move into the
next phase, which would prepare the plan for pre-adoptive public review. Staff included
follow up infom1ation regarding design review options for the fom1-based code as
requested at the May 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Staff reconm1ended the
Plmming Commission also review and discuss design review options to provide direction
to staff as the draft form-based code was developed. Additionally, staff provided a vision
statement for the Walnut Station MUC. The document was intended to characterize the
look and feel of the area and the overall experience if the recommendations put forth
were pursued and development followed the result in plan for the foreseeable future, and
would set the tone and serve as a way to measure success.
The Metro Plan, TransPlan, and Eugene's Growth Management Policies strongly
supported the creation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly MUCs throughout the
region. This 73 acre area was identified a<; a potential nodal development site in
TransPlan and remained a high priority of the City's MUC program. In May 2005, the
City initiated a site-specific planning effort for the Walnut Station MUC in partnership
with the State of Oregon (State) and the University of Oregon (UO). Phase One of the
project focused on the development of a vision and planning framework for the Walnut
Station study area and was completed in June 2006. Phase Two of the process focused
on plan development and implementation. Through the State sponsors, the City
contracted with David Evans & Associates, as the prime consultant on Phase Two of the
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page J 1
project.
Phase Two of the process continued and was pending approval of a scope amendment to
the grant funded by the Oregon Department of Tnmsportation (ODOT). Staff was
prepared to move forward with the preparation of the draft development plan and to work
with the consultant on the fInal technical documents including drafl code amendments, an
illustrative plan and other graphics needed as part of the draft plan.
Ms. McKinney reviewed Attachment C, Design Review Options for the Form-Based
Codefor Walnut Station Mixed Use Station to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and
responded to questions from Commissioners.
Mr. Hledik opined he preferred approvals be through the Planning Director with appeals
heard by the Planning Commission. He wanted to see more Type 2 processes with
significant public input up front.
Mr. Duncan agreed that Planning Commission appeals would provide broader input from
community members and allow for more creative problem solving.
Mr. Dedrick facilitated a review of the eleven outstanding recommendations identifIed in
the AIS under Summary o.fStaff Recommendations, and recorded Commissioners'
comments regarding the discussion topics, as a basis for continuation on December 3,
2007.
V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Gardner stated the City Council would interview two Planning Commission
candidates this evening, and expected to appoint one Commissioner on December 3,
MJNUTES--Eugene Planning Commission
November 19,2007
Page 12
2007. She encouraged Commissioners to attend Boards and Commissions training
oftered in November and December.
B. Other Items from Commission
Mr. Duncan reported he was working on a "retirement" event for former Planning
Commissioner Jon Belcher.
Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Gardner agreed to electronically send
the staff responses to City Council questions from the joint meeting. A City Council
work session was scheduled for November 28,2007, and a work session specific to H.B.
3337 was scheduled for January 2008.
Mr. Duncan adjourned the meeting at 1 :35 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
c:\documenls and settings\cemnllh\desktop\/inda\2007\1/ novemberlpc071119.doc
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 19.2007
Page 13
Attachment C
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
Phone: (541) 682-5481
Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 West loth Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
lYeb site: www.eugene-or.gov
The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go
as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing
impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be prov'ided \vith 48 hours notice
prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To
arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf
assistance are available at 682-5119.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2007 - REGULAR MEETING
(11 :30 a.m.)
11 :30 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for
public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items
scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has
already dosed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes;
however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed
each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak.
11 :40 a.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of Febmary 26 and March 5, 6,12,19,2007
11 :50 a.m. II. APPROVAL OF OPPORTUNITY SITING/INFILL TASK TEAMS
Staff: Terri Harding, 682-5635
12:00 p.m. III. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: OREGON WEST MANAGEMENT, LLC
Staff: Heather O'Donnell, 682-5488
12:30 p.m. IV. WALNUT STATION MIXED USE CENTER UPDATE
Staff: Jason Dedrick, 682.5451 and Lydia McKinney, 682-5485
1:15 p.m. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
Commissioners: Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, President, Randy Hledik, Vice President,
Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown
Ex officio member: Mike Sullivan, Division Manager, Community Development
I
I
I
L_
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Noyember 8, 2007
TO:
Eugene Planning Commission
FROM:
Heatl!er O'Donnell, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
ITEl\1 TITLE:
Continuation of Deliberations for the Public Hearing on the Oregon West
Management, LLC Metro Plan Amendment, Refinement Plan Amendment and
Zone Change (MA 07-2, RA 07-1 and Z 07-3)
ACTION REQUESTED: Finish deliberations and take action on the proposed .Metro Plan amendment,
refinement plan amendment and zone change.
BRIEFING STATEMENT & BACKGROlJND: On November 5, 2007, the Eugene Planning
Commission began deliberations on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram, amend the
applicable refinement plan and approve a concurrent zone change for Oregon West Management, LLC.
To sunmlarize, the applicant requests approval of Metro Plan and refinement plan amendment') and a zone
change that will result in 7.3 acres being rezoned to C-2/PD/SR, Community Commercial zone with
Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays and 1.3 acres being rezoned to R-2/PD/SR, Medium
Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays.
At deliberations, it appeared that there was some interest in recommending approval of the application,
rather than adopting staff's findings for denial. In anticipation of this potential outcome, staifwould like
to provide the Planning Commission with two potential options. If the Planning Commission confirms
staff recommendation for denial, the Planning Commission could adopt staff's findings. If the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the application, the Planning Commission \vitI need to include
alternative findings supporting this recommendation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission
incorporate the applicant's findings if the Planning Commission decides to recommend approval of the
application.
If the Plmming Commission recommends approval and adopts the applicant's findings, staff believes that
that there are a few criteria where the applicant's findings are either lacking or are not entirely accurate.
For instance, there are no findings regarding the Commercial Land Study, Policies 6,8 and 22. Therefore,
if adopted, the Plalilling Conmlission will need to address these areas and provide findings. Prior to the
continuation of deliberations, staff will provide the Planning Commission a summary of the areas where
staff believes that the applicant's findings would need to be amended.
In order to take action on November 1911\ the Planning Conmlission will need to be prepared to
recommend any specific modifications to staff's findings, in the event the Planning Commission is
prepared to SUPPOtt this application. Staff would ask the Planning Commission to come prepared with
specific motions, including any alterative findings, to ensure action on November 19th.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please contact Heather O'Donnell, Associate Plmmer, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. loth
Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541-682-5488 or via email at
heather .m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-Atrium Building-99 West 10th Avenue
November 5, 2007
11 :00 a.m.
PRESENT:
Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President Phillip Carroll, Ann
Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Steve
Nystrom, Heather O'Donnell, Planning and Development Department; Julie
Lenninger, Steve Graves, Rick Satre, Rob DeAmerit, Mike Howard, Richard
Maris, Jim Spickerman.
ABSENT:
Mike Sullivan, ex ojjicio.
PUBLIC COMMENT
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 6, 13, 14, and September 17 and 24,2007.
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that the August 6, 13,
and September 24, 2007 minutes be approved as submitted, and that the
August 14 and September 17,2007 minutes be approved as amended.
The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: OREGON WEST
MANAGEMENT LLC PLAN AMENDMENTSIZONE CHANGE
Staff: Heather O'Donnell, 682-5488
Ill. DEBRIEF OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL
Staff: Lisa Gardner, 682-5208
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 5, 2007
Page I
Attachment D
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-Atrium Building-99 West loth Avenue
November 5, 2007
11:00 a.m.
PRESENT:
Rick Duncan; President; Randy Hledik, Vice President Phillip Carroll, Ann
Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Steve
Nystrom, Heather O'Donnell, Planning and Development Department; Julie
Lenninger, Steve Graves, Rick Satre, Rob DeAmerit, Mike Howard, Richard
Maris, Jim Spickemlan.
ABSENT:
Mike Sullivan, ex 0.fjicio.
Mr. Duncan convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. There was consensus to
change the order of the published agenda, swapping agenda items n and Ill.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no one wishing to offer public comment.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 6, 13, September 24, 2007-no corrections.
August 14, 2007
Page 5, paragraph 7, Mr. Carroll offered the following correction:
Mr. Carroll said he ,vas in agreement and generally support of the proposal. He
understood staffs position on the TPR issue, but because stated he felt the application
was consistent with so many other criteria and supportive of the City's mixed use
development plans and looking at the compatible with surrounding UGes, it uses. It was
difficult to see how the proposal would reduce the level of service in the future.
Page 5, paragraph 3, Mr. Lawless offered the following correction:
Ms. Dishow asked that the record remain open to allow the applicant to provide
additional information if the commission was considering denying the application on the
ground of insufficient findings.
September 17,2007
Page 5 paragraph 6, sentence 1, Mr. Hledik offered the following correction:
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 5,2007
Page I
He opined there were two choices: Either the applicant cold move forward with the
existing PUD with some unidentified traffic impact at the end of the planning period; or,
if the Planning Commission recommended approval based on the reduced t1'aftic cap, i.e.,
ifthe traffic impact was reduced today, it would carry forward to reducing a tramc
impact in the future.
Page 7, paragraph 4, Mr. McCown offered the following correction:
Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission
recommend approval ofthe applications based on:
1) as Exhibit A to the September 17,2007, Agenda Item Sunimary,
except for the Goal 12 findings on pages 4-6 of Exhibit A;
2) the alternate Goal 12 findings attached as Exhibit A.l to the
September 17,2007 Agenda Item Summary;
3) conditions of approval imposing a Floor Area Ratio of .70 and a trip
cap of 213 PM peak hour trips for any future uses on the site; and,
4) with changes to staff findings on page 1-24, paragraph 2, sentence 4:
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude the net effect of the
proposed plan amendment and zone change with the trip cap will
result in_an overall reduction in the total number of trips on the
surrounding transportation facilities thus, with the trip cap, the
allowed land uses would be consistent with the identified function,
capacity and performance standards of the impacted transportation
facilities.
Mr. Belcher offered a friendly amendment, to add the following: Additionally
the findings would reflect the date of the TIA that was completed.
Following a brief discussion, Mr. McCown withdrew his second.
Mr. Carroll further moved:
5) with changes to staff findings on page 1-23, paragraph 4, first
sentence to reference the specific date of the original TIA applying to
the subject property.
Mr. McCown seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Belcher voting in opposition.
Page 5, paragraph 3, Ms. Kneeland offered the following correction:
Ms. Kneeland acknowledged there was a need to reconcile how to measure traffic
impacts to 2015, the end of the planning period, but she questioned how the Planning
Commission felt about getting there by accepting the evidence before the commission as
opposed to asking for an extensive report.
Mr. Dun<;an noted although Jon Bekher had been a member of the Planning Commission and in
attendance at the meetings for which the minutes were approved, he was no longer a member of
the Commission.
MINUTES---Eugcnc Plalming Commission
November 5, 2007
Page 2
Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Hledik moved that the August 6, 13,
and September 24,2007 minutes be approved as submitted, and that the
August 14 and September 17,2007 minutes be approved as amended.
The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
H. . DEBRIEFOFOCTOBER2if; 2007.JOINTMEETINGWITHCITYCOUNCIL
Mr. Duncan stated he had received an email from Mayor Kitty Piercy who expressed her
appreciation for the Commission's input and work, adding she found the presentation very
professional.
Ms. Gardner thanked Commissioners for an excellent presentation.
Ms. Gardner stated that staff would return to the City Council for a follow~up work session
requested by the Council on November 28, 2007. She had requested via e-mail that Councilors
submit questions in writing for staff to respond to. She added the Council would hold a joint
meeting with other local elected officials after January 1,2008.
Mr. Hledik commended staff for their preparatory work for the joint meeting. Contrary to a
comment by one City Councilor, Mr. Hledik had been approached after the meeting by another
Councilor who averred the format used for the 2007 presentation was better than that previously
used.
Mr. Duncan stated Mayor Piercy had indicated support for broad lands study opposed to a land
inventory, and other Councilors had asked for more detail.
HI. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: OREGON WEST
MANAGEMENT LLC PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE
Ms. O'Donnell offered the staff report. On October 18,2007, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on a proposal to amend the Eugene.Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) land use diagram, amend the applicable refinement plan and approve a concurrent
zone change for Oregon West Management, LLC. The applicant requested approval of Metro
Plan and Refinement Plan amendments and a zone change that "vould result in 7.3 acres being
rezoned to C-2/PD/SR, Community Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development (PUD)
and Site Review overlays and 1.3 acres being rezoned to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density
Residential with PUD and Site Review overlays. The record was closed following the public
hearing. Subsequently, the Planning Commission asked several questions, responses to which
were provided in the Agenda Item Summary (AtS) for this agenda. Additionally, Ms. O'Donnell
distributed a memorandum to the Eugene Planning Commission dated November 5, 2007, subject
Additional Deliberation Questions/or Oregon West 11.fanagement, LLC, (MA 07-2, RA 07-J~
and Z 07-3) that contained two questions not included in the October 29, 2007 AlS.
Mr. Carroll and Mr. McCown stated they had not been at the October 18, 2007 public hearing but
had listened to a recording of the meeting.
Ms. O'Donnell said there were two main policy questions to resolve. Staff found that the
proposal was inconsistent with the following:
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 5. 2007
Page 3
· Mctt'oPlan l>olicies A.l 0, A.Il, A.12, A. 1 3, A. 22 and A.23 because those policies
supported a higher residential density on this site and less commercial; and, Policy 8.6
because the adopted refinements plans indicated no demand for more commercial land in
this area.
· River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RRSC) Policies 1.0,2.0,3.0 and 5.0
because the policies and plan text did not support new commercial in the area, and if
anything, supported Low Density Residential or a higher density residential.
Ms. O'Donnell said if the Planning Commission did find the proposal consistent with the
applicable policies, it would need to review the proposed refinement plan for compliance.
Ms. O'Donnell distributed copies of a spreadsheet listing Store/Location and Approximate Square
Feet of sixteen Big Box grocery and retail business after there was consensus by the Commission
to acknowledge inclusion of the document in the public record.
Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. O'Donnell said there was no definition of strip
commercial, however the code does contain a description of the location of those areas in II~G~5
of the Metro Plan.
Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom explained that as the Metro Plan
diagranls evolved, the "blob" diagrams had been used for guidance and not as lot specific. Over
time, changes in technology caused the blob diagrams to appear to be more site specific than they
actually were. He said the recent housekeeping measures recognized the appropriate designations
based upon the refinement plan policies and diagrams.
Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, regarding how the subject site changed from a
commercial and government/education designation to low density, Ms. O'Donnell said through
the housekeeping measures the properties were designated low density residential, noting the
intent of the housekeeping measures was to make the Metro Plan better reflect the policies from
the refinement plan. The refinement plan clearly showed the property as government and
education, and included a number of policies that limited commercial.
Mr. Duncan opined that the original Metro Plan diagram intended that at least some portion of the
site would be zoned commercial, and moving away from that was a fairly major shift.
Mr. Y citer added there were a variety of factors considered when looking at all of the properties
through the housekeeping process.
Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Nystrom said older versions of the
acknowledged and adopted plans helped to guide any potential changes to the current plans.
Mr. Duncan facilitated a review of the applicable statewide goals. He noted consensus with
statewide goals.
Mr. Duncan facilitated a discussion of the Metro Plan.
Ms. Kneeland expressed discomfOlt with finding holes in the existing policies, and emphasized
the need to stick to policies as written and maps as adopted. She was uncomfortable with trying
to tind ways around existing policies.
Mr. McCown said the problem was created for the property through an unvetted process in 2004
MINUTES..........Eugene Planning Commission
November 5, 2007
Page 4
by shifting the zoning from C~ 1 to R-l. It was fair to consider long tenn impacts to the property
owner by changes in the policy through the action of the City.
Mr. Hledik said other policies in the commercial and industrial lands section of the RRSC Plan
that offered support for the applicant's request and justit1ed approval.
. Policy 5 anticipated there would be additional commercial development and discussed
the minimizing the impacts of new commercial development, in that it was intended to
consolidate and improve existing strip commercial areas.
. Policy 5 discussed actions that anticipated improving the sites, including landscaped
parking lots on River Road frontage, consolidate and minimize access points on River
Road and locating new development in proximity to other commercial uses. Policy 6
said new neighborhood commercial uses should be located away from River Road, which
would prohibit C-J in the area, while new commercial development other than C-l would
be allowed. The applicant's were attempting to find the small scale commercial
development between C~ 1 and C-2 that would fit in the area.
Mr. Carroll said the applicant did a lot of work in light of the market demand and the City's
goals. While the proposed site plan was intriguing, he was in agreement with the staff findings,
noting the policy direction was in favor of more housing, and a variety of housing forms. He said
this was not an existing strip site. He could not support the application.
Ms. Kneeland agreed with Mr. Carroll, that as crafted, the proposal did not meet the applicable
policies.
Mr. Lawless said there was not enough information to enable him to make a decision.
Mr. Duncan said overall the applicant had supported their requests, but he was not comfortable
with how changes occurred to the Metro Plan maps, and unfortunately, placed dift1cult
requirements upon the applicant, since there was no text history of how the map changes
occurred. While the refinement plansuppOlted a portion of the site being commercial, he
concurred with Mr. Lawless that there was insufficient information to make a decision at the
present time.
Mr. McCown said although he was leaning towards supporting the direction of the application,
but he wanted time to more thoroughly consider the issues raised at today's meeting.
Mr. Duncan noted an even split in the support by Commissioners of the project as proposed.
Ms. Gardner said the issue was scheduled to go to the City Council after January 1,2008. The
Commission's discussion and split view would focus light on the issues the Council would
consider and would provide the applicant with suggestions of what additional materials would be
necessary to enable the Conncil to make a decision in their favor. The applicant could submit
additional information when the City Council reopened the record. Staff would get back to the
Planning Commission with possible dates to continue the discussion.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Gardner reported that four Planning Commission applications had been submitted. City
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
November 5, 2007
Page 5
Council interviews were scheduled on November 19, if needed, and City Council action for board
and commission appointments would take place 011 November 26,2007.
Ms. Gardner said the Portland State University planning commission training \vas being webcast
and archived for future viewing.
B. Other Items from Commission
There were 110 items from Commission.
Mr. Duncan adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry) .
m: \2007\planning a/ld development departmemiplanning divislon\plalllllllg commission\pc0711 05.doc
MINUTES---Eugene Planning Commission
November 5, 2007
Page 6
Attachment E
c.-.----.---.
..~_..
_n___ U
--_._~ ".
Planning & Development
Planning
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date:
November 5, 2007
To:
Eugene Planning Commission
From:
Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner
Subject:
Additional Deliberation Questions for Oregon West Management, LLC,
(MA 07-2, RA 07-1, and Z 07-3)
After the close of the record, two clarification questions were asked by Planning Commissioner Randy
Hledik that were not answered in the October 29, 2007 AIS for deliberations. The questions and staff
responses are as follows:
Status of the node in tbe vicinity of tbe proposaL
Assuming that this question is about the references to the subject property being located in a node,
TransPlan identifies the subject property within Potential Node 5-C. Node 5-C was not identified as a
high priority node at the time that the nodal areas were mapped. Therefore, no measure& to protect the
node were developed for Node 5-C (for instance, no IND Nodal Development Overlay, no special area
zone such as S-CN Chase Node) and the potential nodal designation is not of any force for development.
The staff report also cites the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RRSC) findings which
describes a commercial node in the vicinity of the subject property. Specifically, the description of the
subarea adjacent to the subject property (subarea h. River RoadlIrving) states that there is a fully-
developed commercial node at the intersection ofIrving and River Road (page 2-31). Again, there are no
specific develDpment requirements associated with this area being described as a commercial node. The
staff report cited the RRSC description afan existing commercial node as part of the staff findings that
there is adequate commercial land in this area.
Location(s) of access points to the proposed development.
Current access points to the entire subject development site are two on River Road, 1'.vo on Green Lane
(one north and one south) and one on Hunsaker Drive. The "site concept" plan conceptually provides
access to the entire subject development site with one access on River Road, two on Green Lane (one
north and one south) and 1\\10 on Hunsaker Drive.
Store/Location Approx. Sqft.
Market of Choice - 29thIWillamette 42,000
Market of Choice - Delta Oaks 40,000
Market of Choice - Wilfakenzie 26,500
Market of Choice - Franklin 20,000
Capella's Market - Willamette 8,500
Albertson's - Royal 57,500
Trader Joe's 30,100
Rav's - River Road 55,000
Safeway - Bailey Hill (c1osina) 54,000
Safewav - River Road (closinQ) 24,000
REI - tVoical size 26-30,000
Rite Aid - 29th & Willamette 20,910
Hiron's - 18th 19,600
Barnes & Noble 31,500
Bi-Mart - Roval 37,700
Bed Bath & Beyond 31,000
Attachment F
/
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
c
Phone: (541) 682-5481
Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 West loth Avenne, Eugene, OR 97401
Web site: 1-i-ww.eugene-or.gov
The Eugene Planning Commission \ve1comes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go
as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing
impaired, FM assistive-listeningdevices are available or an interpreter can be provided \\rith 48 hours notice
prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation \vi11 also be provided with 48 hours notice. To
arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf
assistance are available at 682-5119.
MONDAY, NOVRMBER 5,2007 - REGULAR MEETING
(11 :00 a.m.)
Notice of Change ofl\1eeting Start Time: The meeting will start at 11 :00 a.m.
11 ~OO a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for
public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items
scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has
already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes;
however, the Plmming Conunission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed
each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak.
11 :10 a.m.
1. AFPROV AL OF MINUTES
Minutes of August 6, 13, 14, and September 17 & 24,2007.
11 :20 a.m. n. PLANNING CO~MISSION DELIBERATION/A~: OREGON WEST
MANAGEMENT LLC PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE
Staff: Heather O'Donnell, 682-5488
12:50 p.m. III. DEBRIEF OF OCTOBER 24,2007 JOINT MEETING WITH CITY
COUNCIL
Staff: Lisa Gardner, 682-5208
1:15 p.m. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
Commissioners: Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, President, Randy Hledik, Vice President,
Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown
~<> VU.."'N Ui'-'lUV\;i1. IYl1KI;; ;:'>UlUvan, DIVISIon Manager, Community Development
..
i
1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
October 29, 2007
TO:
Eugene Planning Commission
FROM:
Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
ITEM TITLE:
Deliberations for the Public Hearing on the Oregon West Management, LLC Metro
Plan Amendment, Refinement Plan Amendment and Zone Change (MA 07-2, RA
07-1 and Z 07-3)
ACTION REQUESTED: Deliberate and take action on the proposed Metro Plan amendment, refinement
plan amendment and zone change.
BRIEFING STATEMENT: On October 18,2007, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public
hearing on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram, amend the applicable refinement plan
and approve a concurrent zone change for Oregon West Management, LLC. To summarize, the applicant
requests approval of Metro Plan and Refinement Plan amendments and a zone change that will result in
7.3 acres being rezoned to C-2/PD/SR, Community Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development
and Site Review overlays and 1.3 acres being rezoned to R-2!PDISR, Medium Density Residential with
Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays.
At the public hearing, aside from the applicant's party there were nine people that spoke in favor of the
proposal, and six people spoke against it. Some common themes staff heard from those in favor were that
the proposal could provide the types of businesses and services that are lacking in this area, that there is a
need for new commercial sites in this area, that elements of the concept proposal are good, and that the
proposal addresses both commercial and residential needs. Common themes heard from the opposition
were that a mixed use concept is generally supported, C-l zoning is preferred over C-2, and that the
refinement plan policies limit strip commercial.
Based on the evidence to date, staff still does not believe that the proposal is consistent with the approval
criteria. Specifically, staff finds that the proposal is inconsistent with the following: Metro Plan Policies
A.I 0, A.ll, A12, AI3, A22 and A.23 because these policies support a higher residential density on this
site and less commercial; Policy B.6 because the adopted refinement plans indicate no demand for more
commercial land in this area, and; the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RRSC) Policies 1.0,
2.0,5.0, and 3.0 because the policies and plan text do not support new commercial in this area, and if
anything, support Low Density Residential or a higher density residential.
BACKGROUND:
Please refer to the materials provided with the Planning Commission packet for the October 18, 2007
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS:
Before the close of the record, and after the close of the record, the Planning Commission asked several
clarifying questions of staff. Responses to these questions are provided below.
Is there any other information (from the 2004 Metro Plan "housekeeping'~ update process) about
Public Land (zoned sites) and Low Density Residential being the "default" designation? Possibly a
spreadsheet?
The lead City staff on the Metro Plan update indicates that there was a spreadsheet that was developed
early in the Metro Plan update process that represents a first look at possibly affected properties. The
spreadsheet indicates some changes to Government & Education Lands, but on a site by site approach, not
through a blanket policy. A blanket policy was not considered with the Metro Plan "housekeepingH update
amendments and staff believes that that type of amendment would have been too large of a policy change
for that process. The spreadsheet shows the former Santa Clara Elementary School as a current
designation of Low Density Residential (based on RUD 1987 Metro Plan data) with a proposed
designation of Government and Education (based on the RRSC). At the October 18, 2007 public hearing
for the Oregon West Management applications, the applicant provided the PlaIU1ing Commission with a
copy of the February 10,2004 Agenda Item Summary for the Metro Plan "housekeeping" proposal
(Exhibit 4, item 8). The AIS includes an attachment which summari:zes staff's iinalrecommendation for
the former Santa Clara Elementary School. Staff s recommendation indicates that based on the evidence,
the designation of the entire school property as commercial could be contrary to adopted policies.
Therefore staffs recol1U11endation was for the property to remain designated as Low Density Residential
(consistent \-vith the 1987 Metro Plan data).
Regarding other instances oftrus type of blanket policy, the concept may have been discussed informally,
potentially even during other Planning Commission hearings. A blanket policy has not been
implemented, however; the Planning Commission may remember an example of a similar policy that was
implemented for a specific site (an EWEB property) rather than a blanket policy for all public land, which
was reviewed by the Planning Commission when a policy was inserted in the WiUakenzie Area Plan to
implement the Chase Node project.
Dates that the Metro Plan "Blob" Diagram, the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, and
the latest version of the Metro Plan Diagram were adopted.
Metro Plan "Blob'~ Diagram was adopted in 1982.
The River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan was adopted in 1987.
The current version of the Metro Plan Diagram was adopted April 21,2004
Typical square footages of "big boxtt stores in Eugene. (Also, please include the square footage of
Ray's Market if available.)
The public record is closed and there is no evidence in the public record regarding the square footage of
"big box" stores. However, in response to a similar question, staff provided the West Broadway Advisory
Committee with a spreadsheet of several "big box" stores and their approximate square footage, include
Ray's Market. Per EC 9.7095 Quasi-Judicial Hearings - Official Notice and Record of Proceedings,
subsection (1)(a)2, the Planning Commission may take official notice of all public records of the City. Per
subsection (1)(b), matters officially noticed need not be established by evidence andmay be considered
by the hearings body in the determination of the proposal. Therefore, the Planning Commission can
choose to take official notice of this document that was provided to the West Broadway Advisory
Committee. If the Planning Commission chooses to take official notice of the spreadsheet, staff will
provide the spreadsheet to the Planning Commission during deliberations.
A reevaluation of the amount of dwelling units that can be built under existing zoning~ and that
which could be built under the proposal. (1 know you addressed this in the staff report, but based
on testimony provided by both the applicant and opponents at the hearing, there was discussion
about gross VS. net acres that I think deserves are-look.)
Regarding the applicant's testimony mentioned above, to summarize, the applicant stated that there is a
certain amount of acreage that would be extracted from the total buildable acreage and would thus reduce
the potential density available on the property, significantly lower than the potential density stated in the
staff report.
On page 20 of the staff report, staff found that the 7.3 acre portion of the site could provide a maximum of
approximately 102 units under R-l zoning (consistent with existing LDR designation) and the 1.3 acres
could provide a maximum of approximately 37 units under the R-2 zoning (proposed zoning). This
calculation is the gross density based solely on the maximum density allowed in the zone and the acreage.
Net density was not calculated because the applicant has not proposed a specific development plan (nor is
one generally required at this land use approval level) which would otherwise enable the net density to be
calculated by excluding streets, parks and other public facilities (EC 9.2751(1)(c)).
Therefore, in order to provide a general potential net density of the site in response to this question, staff
will assume that 32 percent of the site will be utilized for auxiliary purposes. The 32 percent is based on
the Metro Plan findings that approximately 32 percent of the residentially designated land will be utilized
for auxiliary uses such as streets, parks, and other public facilities (page II-G-3). Based on this
assumption, the following indicates the potential maximum net density for each portion of the site
comparing the potential density of the 7.3 acres if it was rezoned to R -1 consistent with the existing LDR
designation, with the potential density of the 1.3 acres now proposed for re-zoning to R-2 (and re-
designated to MDR):
(7.3 acres):
(1.3 acres):
7.3 - 32% = 4.9 acres
1.3 - 32% = .88 acres
4.9 acres x 14 max units::::::: 68.6 = 69 potential units
.88 acres x 28 max units = 24.6 = 25 potential units
In response to the applicant's testimony sited above, this exercise deinonstrates that the 7.3 acres has the
potential for significantly more units than the applicant testified to, even considering the potential net
density. Staff notes that the staff report analyzed gross density because there is no development plan
under review to determine net density and because there are other tools, such as a planned unit
development, that can provide more flexibility regarding development standards (which could affect
density).
Help us understand staff's reasoning behind the conclusion that the property is not part of existing
strip development.
RRSC Policy 3 (discussed on pages 21-22 of the staff report) states:
Prohibit the linear expansion of existing strip commercial areas fronting on River Road. Existing
strip commercial development may expand by infilling, redevelopment; or expansion onto
contiguous property that does not front on River Road. (Policy 3.0)
Staff does not believe that the 7.3 acres of the subject property is part of an "existing strip commercial
area." The subject property is adjacent to commercial uses to the north, south and west. However, staff
believes that the subject property breaks up the surrounding commercial area. The property is of a
significant size at 7.3 acres and staff believes that the size of the property, coupled with the RRSC
designation of the property as Government and Education (not commercial), provides enough interruption
along this section of River Road to break up any strip commercial in that area.
However, even if the Planning Commission determines the subject property is considered part of an
"existing strip commercial area", the proposal is still not consistent with this policy. The remainder of
Policy 3 limits expansion of strip commercial onto contiguous properties that do not front on River Road.
Because part of this site fronts on River Road, the proposed new commercial designation would not be
consistent with this policy.
Does the applicants suggested "development scheme" have any bearing on, or does it imply an
encumbrance on the eventual development that would be allowed as a result of the land-use
amendments being requested? My understanding is that the process of granting the amendments
has no direct tie to any development proposal that may emerge later, except any voluntary or
additionally mandated conditions of approval. So, within those conditions and the basic underlying
allowances of the Metro Plan, Refinement Plan and Zoning, the developer could build something
quite different than what is being "Suggested" in the application. Is that correct?
The applicant's "site concept" plan (Exhibit 1.2 of the applicant's Metro Plan Amendment application),
was not proposed to be adopted as part of the relinement plan amendments so it would be of no force. It
was provided for illustrative purposes only, to demonstrate an example of a layout that could occur. As
part ofthe proposed PUD and Site Review land use applications, any proposed development would be
subject to the limitations in the Eugene Code, the applicable policies in the RRSC, and the additional
limitations the applicant has proposed as text amendments to the RRSC (see applicant's Exhibit L 1 or as
restated on page 24 of the staff report). The developer could build within those parameters and is not held
to any part of the "site concept" plan Exhibit 1.2, excepting those elements in the "site concept" plan as
stated in the proposed refinement plan text amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibits from October 18, 2007 Public Hearing:
Exhibit I: E-mail from Sue Pritchard**
Exhibit 2: Memorandum from Heather 0' Donnell * *
Exhibit 3: Letter from Steve Graves (applicant)
Exhibit 4: Packet from Rick Satre, (applicant's representative)**
Exhibit 5: Letter from Joan Haworth-Liu and Jack Liu
Exhibit 6: Letter from Catherine Lesiak
** These items are only attached to the packets for Plamling Commissioners that were not at the public
hearing. The Planning Commissions at the hearing received copies of these exhibits at the hearing.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please contact Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. loth
Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541-682-5488 or via email at
heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us.
O.DQNNELL Heather M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sue Prichard [sue@prichardpartners.com]
Wednesday, October 17,20071:17 PM
O'DONNELL Heather M
Santa Clara Testimony
~ ~~~ no;';; ;'; p
c"," \ol\B}O\
~/~ :.~....._.....~,,,-,..,...,...w.......,.,... ".._,'
ftlu \bn ~
"'8~ ~~:"~ <':~'.~:~';~
'..;.q
.W\ttJn~^1.,....
1t-A b1 - ,
"1-- ol-3
Hello Heather,
I am a commercial real estate broker, and worked on the sale of the Santa Clara school
property that was previously owned by the school district and is now being considered for
a zone change by the new owner. I am on vacation on the east coast and am therefore,
unable to testify at the public hearing before the planning commission tomorrow. However,
I would like to submit testimony, and assume that by sending this e-mail my comments ,,,ill
be included in the record.
I have been a broker in Eugene for 30 years, and have worked in commercial real estate
exclusively for the past 20+ years. Having been the listing broker for the Santa Clara
School site, I am well aware of the interest in a site that size, and almost painfully
aware of the high demand, and low supply, of well located, larger sized parcels anywhere
in the community, but specifically in the Santa Clara area.
Because I don't have my files with me, I cannot say the exact number of calls that I had
from Santa Clara residents, but my recollection is that I had approximately 40-50 calls
from nearby residents who expressed a strong desire to see good quality retail development
on that site. It was the single largest number of calls I have ever received on a
commercial property from pE~ople who were curious about I-Jhat might be developed there, and
who were definitely hoping to see a retail center that would cater to their neighborhood
commercial needs for things such as groceries, pharmaceuticals, coffee shops, dry
cleaners, etc. There ,vas also a strong desire to see the old school commemorated in some
way, and I know that the current aI-mer is syrnpathetic to that concept and has plans to
acknoltJledge that in some way.
In addition to neighborhood residents, I had unprecedented interest from potential
commercial developers, both local and out of area. The primary reasons were related to
the excellent location, the demographic studies they conducted showing the need for
quality retail development in the area, and the size of the parcel. Without exception,
those developers felt that the viability of a project on that site rested in
conunen::ia I /retail development.
I will be back in Eugene very late tomorrow night, and available for any questions you
might have anytime after that. I appreciate your willingness to accept my testimony in
this format.
Sue Prichard
Prichard Partners, Inc.
(541) 687-5662
sue@p:cichardpartners.com
1
c
Planning & Development
Planning
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
99 West 10lh Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
To:
Eugene Planning Commission
O~f\Il{:""P' r""tl t 91;;
ni:.~~~~i~ t;~ ~~w
ON' . 1\'\ \ lBj 01_,_...""....
"~<:".~-""-
6lw\,.+...~.2- ~." 0' ".....1!A ~n- ..,
\ ":1;01.__" To~.. "._.'''~ V t:-
.. tAll:;. ~ .v"" ..~w."".._.._..------
~A 01- ,
7- 0"1-'3
~
;.
Date:
October 18, 2007
From:
Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner
Subject: Revised Findings for Statewide Planning Goal 9; Oregon West Management, LLC,
(MA 07-2, RA 07-1, and Z 07-3)
After issuance of the preliminary staff recommendation, staff was made aware that the Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) regarding Statewide Planning Goal 9, which was cited under EC
9.7730(3)(a), is the previous OAR language that was revised prior to submittal of these applications. To
summarize further, analysis under OAR 660-009-001 0(4) used to be triggered if the proposed amendment
would add or remove more than 2 aces of the commercial land supply, as stated on page 4 of the staff
recommendation (page 7 of the agenda packet). Now, OAR 660-009-0010(4) has been revised so that the
analysis required under subsection (4) is only triggered if the proposed amendment will fe-designate land
in excess of two acres "from an industrial use designation to a non-industrial use designation, or an other
employment use designation to any other use designation" (emphasis added). The 1.3 acres of the subject
property south of Green Lane is currently designated as an "other employment use. designation" of
Commercial. However, 1.3 acres is less than 2 acres, therefore OAR 660-009-00 I 0(4) is not applicable.
The findings for Goal 9 include analysis of the Eugene Commercial Lands Study (ECLS). Due to revision
of OAR 660-009-0010(4), as stated above, analysis of the ECLS is not required to address Goal 9.
However, the EeLS was adopted as a refinement of the Metro Plan (Ordinance No. 19852) and is
therefore still relevant in the context oftheapproval criteria. Spedfically, the analysis of the ECLS is
relevant under the Metro Plan approval criteria EC 9.7730(3)(b), regarding whether the proposed
amendments will make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Therefore, the following represents
relocation of the ECLS findings from EC 9.7730(3Xa) regarding Goal 9 to EC 9.7730(3)(b), and as a
result, a revised recommendation:
EC 9.7730(3)(a) Regarding Statewide Planning Goal 9:
Replace the findings beginning on page 4 of the staff recommendation (page 7 of the agenda packet). The
following text replaces the findings for Goal 9 in their entirety:
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660 Division 9) requires that the
City "[p]rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location, and
service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies[.]"
Among other things, the rule requires that cities complete an "Economic Opportunities Analysis."
OAR 660-009-0015. Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare
Industrial and Commercial Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR 660-009-
0025 requires that cities designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and
long term needs. OAR 660-009-0010(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements
imposed by OAR 660 Division 9 apply "at the time of each periodic review of the plan (ORS
197.712(3))." In addition, OAR 660-009-0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan
designations of lands in excess of two acres from an industrial use designation to a non-industrial
use designation, or an other employment use designation to any other use designation, pursuant to
a post acknowledgment plan amendment, it must address all applicable planning requirements
and (a) demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with the parts of its acknowledged
comprehensive plan which address the requirements of OAR 660 Division 9; or (b) amend its
comprehensive plan to explain the proposed amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c)
adopt a combination of (a) and (b) consistent with the requirements of Division 9.
The applicant states that OAR 660-009-0010(4) does not apply because the proposed amendment
will remove less than two acres from the commercial land supply. Staff concurs \",ith the
applicant in that the 1.3 acres of the subject site south of Green Lane is an "other employment use
designation" of Commercial in the context of this requirement. However it is less than 2 acres,
therefore subsection (4) is not applicable. Further analysis of the Eugene Commercial Lands
Study (ECLS) is provided under EC 9.773O(b) and is incorporated herein by reference.
Based on these findings, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
EC 9.7730(3)(b) Regarding Internal Consistency in the Metro Plan:
Relocate the analysis of the EeLS. to be located at the end ofEC 9.7730(3)(b) beginning on page 17 of
the staff recommendation (page 20 of the agenda packet). The following text is in addition to the existing
findings ofEC 9.7730(3)(b):
Below, the findings address consistency with relevant policies in the ECLS.
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by
encow'aging businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. (Policy 6.0)
By its express terms, this policy does not constitute a mandatory approval criterion. However, as
addressed in context of Policies 8 and 22, the proposal would add new comn'lercial on a vacant
site in an area that has already been determined to have adequate commercial land supply, rather
than redevelopment of an existing commercial site as encouraged.
Recognize the differing needs of residential areas in the various parts of the community,
and determine the need to create additional commercial sites in.light of opportunities for
redevelopment. (Policy 8.0)
This policy does constitute a mandatory approval criterion to be addressed by an applicant. As
discussed below, the River-Road Santa Clara Subarea Policy 22 specifically states: "Recognize
that the commercial sites designated in the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan provide
adequate commercial supply for the area."
Concentrate development in existing commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on the
rest of the city. (Policy 12.0)
Reduce congestion on commercially developed streets (strip commercial arew,). (Policy
13.0)
Regarding Policy 12, the Planning Commission recently found (McKenzie/Willamette) that under
one interpretation of this policy, it applies when considering the designation of new commercial
lands, requiring that such designations occur in areas of existing commercial development.
However, given the implementation strategy accompanying this policy, the Planning Commission
found that a different interpretation of the policy is more reasonable. This second interpretation is
that, within existing commercially zoned areas, new development should be concentrated to allow
for internal traffic circulation, and thus reduce traffic impacts on adjacent streets. The subject
property is less than one mile from commercial areas, including the Santa Clara Square,
commercial areas on River Road and directly abutting commercially zoned property. The 7.3
acres is also of sufficient size to permit adequate internal circulation. Regarding Policy 13, the
findings on pages 19-22 of the applicant's Refinement Plan Amendment written statement
regarding Goal 12 and required mitigation of traffic impacts, are incorporated herein by this
reference as ,further evidence of compliance with both of these policies. It is noted that at the time
of the ECLS. the area of the subject property was not specifically identified as a "strip
commercial" area.
The subject property is also in the River Road/Santa Clara Subarea of the ECLS. The only policy
in this subarea is as tollows:
Recognize that the commercial sites designated in the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan provide adequate commercial supply for the area. Consider additional
commercial land in the vicinity of the Chambers Connector if needed to address
community commercial need<;. (Polk-y 22.0) .
This policy provides direction that new commercial sites are not needed in this subarea. 'Dlis
policy's geographic specificity and its subject-matter focus on limiting additional commercial
land make the policy significant. The policy appears to express a preference that the only
additional commercial land be located in the vicinity of the Chambers Connector (near the south
end of River Road). While that preference is not absolute, and can be overcome by sufficient
reasons and/or competing policy considerations, read in context the policy clearly requires the
City to at least consider whether the applicant has established a basis to overcome that policy
preference. It does not appear that the applicant has done so. As further addressed with regard to
the Metro Plan and the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan below, the applicant has not
demonstrated a need for additional commercial land area and the policy direction calls for
providing higher density residential land rather than commercial.
As discussed under EC 9.8424(l)(c) (Refinement Plan Amendment approval criteria), the subject
property is also located in the River RoadlDivision Subarea of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan (RRSC). The RRSC subarea land use diagram identifies the portion of the subject
property north of Green Lane (with the exception of a portion of Tax Lot 400) as Government
and Education, and the portion of the subject property south of Green Lane as Commercial. The
proposed amendments would result in a net increase of approximately 6 acres of commercially
designated land, inconsistent with this policy. Furthermore, the only exception to this policy is the
Chambers Connector area. The subject property is not within the vicinity of the Chambers
Connector and therefore, in the context of this policy, is not available for consideration for a new
commercial site. Based on these fmdings, the proposed re-designation is inconsistent with this
policy.
In summary, regarding EC 9.7730(3)(b), the proposed amendments do not comply with all of the
Metro Plan policies, specifically the policies regarding the Residential Land Use and Housing
Element (A.IO, All, A12, A.IJ, A.22, A23) and the Economic Element (B.6), and the ECLS
(6.8,22) as a refinement of the Metro Plan, and therefore would make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
Regarding the Recommendation:
Revise the recommendation to omit the reference to non~compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals
on page 30 of the staff recommendation (page 33 of the agenda packet). The following shows the revised
language with the omission struck out:
Recommendation: Based on the available information and materials in the record, and the above
preliminary findings, stafffinds that the proposal does not comply with the applicable approval
criteria, specifically with regard to Statewide Planning Goals, the Metro Plan; and the River
Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. lfno further evidence is provided to the Planning
Commission that demonstrates consistency with these criteria, the Planning Commission should
recommend denial of the applicant's proposal to City Council
Steve Graves
1310 Coburg Road - Suite 1 B
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 687-5653
Fax - (541) 687-2397
Eugene Planning Commission
Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
RECEIVED Ul PU ,_- ~\E;~~hj~~[;
ON: to/161Q_3____w~_nu___Nu,----~--"" .._..n___
ex,^,~\o'\+3 fiLE NO: ~~~~.
1- 61- '3
October 18, 2007
Re: Oregon West Management, LLC (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
My name is Steve Graves, I'm a Santa Clara resident and the applicant.
I have been driving by the Santa Clara school almost daily for the past 19
years, go to or come home, from work. My interest in the site peeked
sometime after the gym building caught fire and the school district put up
the "for sale sign" and it started me thinking of all of the things lacking in the
Santa Clara area that the property could be used for.
I spend time visiting with my neighbors in the Santa Clara area, local
residents wanting to save the school site for a park or for community use,
the local community organization and residents living around the site. I
have heard a lot of ideas and thoughts for the property; I have even been
given a few history lessons about the school and the Santa Clara area.
The out shot of this is:
It is my plan to develop the site into a mixed-use development with
community shopping center with a 50 unit residential housing element.
);- Include in our refinement plan application before you, we have
voluntarilv restricted the size and height of any building to be built
within the community center to insure no "Big Box" stores can be
placed here or have building heights out of scale with the abutting
neighbors.
);- We have incorporated within our development, a gathering area for
visitors to the center that will memorialize the history of the school
and surrounding area. The school district salvaged various
architectural elements off the old school and has made them
available to us to include in this area.
>- We are incorporation pedestrian friendly shopping streets within our
development to create a sense of community with our buildings and
to get away from a "Strip Mall" look with a sea of asphalt before it.
)- In conjunction with our designers, we have developed an attractive
landscape design the will create tree lined shopping streets,
landscape zones within the parking areas to soften and shade these
areas and design features to hide some of the "behind the scene"
elements common to retail centers.
);- Our housing element is part and parcel to our application. We plan to
construct these units to add to the existing higher density housing on
Green Lane that will benefit by its close proximity to this shopping
area.
y The city staff was very up front about the traffic concerns in and
around this site. Prior to acquiring the site, we knew the City would
require us to dedicate land along Hunsaker Lane, require us to do
improvements to Hansaker Lane and improve the signalization at
River Road and Hunsaker. We were also told that access to River
Road would be restricted; minimize any traffic impact there. Although
the City had no requirements concerning improvements to Green
Lane, we see a benefit to improving our portions of this street into the
same shopping street design, if allowed.
y The type of commercial clients proposed for the site will be dictated
by the market place. To date, we have already been approached by
numerous restaurants, which include family dinning, casual dining,
coffee shops and delis; variety stores, pharmacy stores, banks, credit
unions, personal service stores like hair salons, barber shop, fitness
related, etc.
~ Based on our responses from the citizens of Santa Clara, the
commercial real estate brokers that have called on us and retail
clients that have approach us, the need for additional retail sites in
Santa Clara is overwhelming. I have heard complaints from Santa
Clara residents like:
o I have to drive to Gateway or Valley River to take my family out
to dinner.
o I have to drive to Delta Oaks, West 11 th or other community
shopping areas for my basic shopping needs.
o I want a Starbucks in Santa Clara! !
My wife Janet is still questioning my sanity as to why I got involved in this
property. And I guess my answer is still the same. I want to build
sometime on this site that I can be proud of and the community will use and
enjoy. For this to work, I need the help of this group, the city and its staff,
and the community to make this a financial viable development.
Thanks for hearing me.
Sincerely,
#~r-
Steve Graves
___u..uE.YG~NE CITY CQ~CILu.__..uuu_________._.u...um..
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
11 E i; -t~ ~ \} ~:.~. r~: ;~ ~:- ~
'..',~). f nI te/01" ...... w'
;"\.-~ s- ~-''''''''''"'''_.'"'......_-:-...1>.- ..
6 LMb't- t. .... ,. . ,". ,I A..rf'1~ 1-
>....~~ >-" "'.,', .' JVl1'\ VI
iI{ li ,....~. l~t..._v,..~.^._.. ..w' ..
e...A: en - \
~~u
Joint Public Hearing: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review
n......nmn""Metro-Plan.Housek-eeping 'Revisions;---a-New"M'etro"Phm--Chapter-lH...~m...uun...u.u.~
Environmental Resources Element; a New 11etro Plan Diagram.; Adopting Savings
nn.and.Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date
Meeting Date: February 10, 2004
Department: Planning and Development
WIVW. d. eugene. or. u.s
Agenda Item Number: A
Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter
Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
A joint public hearing is scheduled for Febmary 10, 2004, \villi the Springfield City Council and Lane
County Board of Commissioners to review the following proposed amendments that are part of the
Metropolitan area's periodic review tasks:
I. M:eff6"'Plan TeXt "HouseKee{5ing 'RevIsIons; , ~.....m'........m..__.........um..n_.". um....u...m........__u..........m....._.........
2. Updated Metro Plan Diagram that is based on the Regional Land Information Data.base (RLID); and
3. Revised Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element.
In addition, the County Board will use this meeting to conduct a hearing for a County-only Riparian
Protection Code Amendment that affects properties outside the UGB (no Eugene action).
These actions are more fully described in the memorandum from LCOG dated January 8, 2004. No
action is expected at this meeting. Subsequent separate work sessions will be held with each body of
elected officials.
BACKGROUND
These amendments will conclude the local requirements on several significant State-mandated periodic
review tasks. As with all Metro Plan amendments, all three jurisdictions must agree on the final
products. The three planning commissions recommend approval.
Council Action History
The City Council approved the periodic re:view work program in 1995. These proposed actions are
consistent with that work program. In 2001, the elected officials reviewed a study of Metro Urban
Reserve areas in light of new state rules and directed staff to remove the Urban Reserve areas from the
Metro Plan Diagram because they no longer complied with the new state rule. The proposed actions
will remove all the Urban Reserve designations.
L:\CM0\2004 Council Agendas\M04021O\S04021 GA.doc
@
Policy Issues
m----------------l\1-o-st-t)-f-th-e-pmpe>soo-wnenclments---are---%01J:S-elreepin-g:...m--natur-e.-fu'1d-nave--littk-pB-liBY--Hnpclication. T-l~m--- ---------
amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C, pertaining to natural resource protection, are more
substantive.
Council Goal Action Priority
Updating the Metro Plan through periodic review is consistent Virith all City Council goals, but is
especially pertinent to the following goal:
Sustainable Community Development
A eommunit)Ul1aLl~t.airJs__ a high qU_Cllity of lifecmd a healthy economy, e./feeth'e!y links land use and
transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
None.
Other Background Information
Updating the Metro Plan Diagram was especially cumbersome in Eugene because ofthe high number of
refinement plans that had been approved since 1982, and the large number of new land use districts
created in those refinement plans that did not match exactly with the Metro Diagram designations. To
create tbe new diagram~ many interpretations were made by staff, potentially affecting thousands of
=.~.~_"..prQP-erties-;;..hutstaff..bel.ie:v.eS-J-haLthe.p-f.Oposed-diagrarrLClosely reflects.-Pre_viously_.approve.d_rdinemenL.-
plan designations, much more so than previous diagra..lls. Early notice to thousands of affected property
oVvners resulted in few comments, all ofwmch were processed through the planning commissions and
included in their recommendations. The new diagram will not replace the use of refinement plans
during development review processes, because the refinement plans contain detailed descriptions of
preferred development scenarios.
Timing
Periodic review is already running late. Approval of these amendments will be processed as quickly as
feasible. A follow-up work session is scheduled for March.
OPTIONS
Options are limited because the same amendments must be approved by Springfield and Lane County.
The council may consider additional land use diagram or text amendments that reflect new information
or recent events. Generally, staff discourages changes outside of Chapter ITI-C (Natural Resources) that
are not \vithin the minor '.housekeeping" intent of package of an1endments. One example of a possible
amendment may be the folloViring:
Remove the proposed Government and Education land use designation proposed for the Santa Clara
School property. (The designation is proposed for refinement plan consistency, but the 4J School
District has decided to discontinue use of the property as a school. Ifnot amended, the property
would remain designated as Low Density Residential on the MetTo Plan Diagram. )
L\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\'\104021 0\S04021 i) A.doc
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None~iQllj~ested at this m~~ng~----llie-p.r0pGsed-.aGtiG-n&-that-ar-e-theusl:lbject-0f-tlllsupl:lbli-c-______m________"__
hearing are recommended by the Planning Commissions of all three Metro jurisdictions.
SUGGESTED MOTION
None.
ATTACHMENTS
A. _ Memorandum ~ft~m!:QQG, dated January 8, 2004, including:
Adopting Ordinanc.e
Exhibit A: Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions
Exhibit B: Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element
Exhibit C: Metro Plan Diagram
Exhibit D: Findings
NOTE: Two copies of the record compiled by the Planning Commission YI.'ill be provided in the Council
Office.
FOR l\10.RE,"JNE'Ql~MATION _,_______m_U___m_'m_Un______m_
Staff Contact: Kurt Yetter, Principal Planner
Telephone: 682-8379
Staff E-Mail: kurt.ill.yeiter@ci.eugene.or.us
L\CMO\2004 Council A_gendas'v'vi0402l 0\504011 OA-doc
__JO-.--------Des-ienatimrm:-4J-Sehools~----Santa~ent_arv-__Seh_ooI
Issue: What is appropriate Land Use Designatian af school sites that will no. longer be
lised far "Government and Education" purposes? School District 4J requests COITh."Uercial
designation for the Santa Clara Elementary School.
Staff---AnaJysis:--Bne--ofthe-purpo-se-s-ofihe-M-etro-Plmn:liagranrupdate is to. ill::!. yc;-tb-em----------m---------n--
diagram better reflect land use designatians shavm in appraved refinement plans. Many
Eugene neighborhood refinement plan designations reflect current use of public
properties, such as scho.als and fairgrounds, as '"Gavernment and Educatian." \Vhen the
refinement plans were prepared (often aver 15 years aga), it was not forecast that schaal
districts may discontinue schaal activities and sell these properties. The timing of w.1is
Metro Plan diagram update corresponds with District 4J's dispasitian af t\VO school sites,
Santa Clara and Westmoreland Elementary Scho.ols. It would be efficient if the land use
designation were determined at this time, sa as to. inform the zane change application, if
possible. On the ather hand, more public discaurse about the future use af these
praperties could be required, at 4J's expense, if the sites were designated Government
and Education and refinement plan amendt--nents required prior to or concurrent with any
zone changes. Amendments to the Metra Pla.l1 diagram will not automatically change the
refine;meJ!t pl~'1s, ?utco.u1~ ~nforrn future interpretations. T~e 'written testimony provides
.- -~--aaiaregardlniilie-intenm--nailife"of -tbe~',:Govemment. and Institutional"des-ign-ation,
current Metra Plan designations, and zaning of these sites.
The old 11etro Plan "blob" diagram shows co.mmercial designation extending along bou~
sides of River Road, to. just narth of Hunsaker Lane. The rest of this area is designated
Low Density Residential. The Metro Plan diagram cauld suggest that some Commercial
is on the Santa Clara School site. Narrow commercial zaping patterns suggest that the
Commercial designatian is not so wide as to encompass the entire school property.
The River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (a non-site specific refinement plan)
appears to designate the entire Santa Clara School site as Education. The plan narrative
recognizes problems created by tbe strip commercial development patterns along River
Road and encaurage buffering between commercial and residential uses. Palicies in.the
plan discaurage linear expansian of the strip commercial development patterns, but allow
expansian "by infilling, redevelopment. or eJ..pansion onto contiguous property that does
not front on River Road" t'Policy 3.0, page 2-18) and to locate new neighborhood
commercial uses "mvay from Rilla Road in locations that facilitate the provision of
commercial facilities scaled to a residential area and that al101v f..'w dispersal of uses
throughout River Road-Santa Clara" (policy 6.0, page 2.19). Palicy 22.0 in the Eugene
Commercial Lands Study (1992, adopted as a refinement af the Metro Plan) states, in
part, <'Recognize that the commercial sites design.ated in the RivelRoad/Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan provide adequate commercial supply for the area. . ." (the Santa
Clara school site is not designated Commercial in the RRlSC Urban Facilities Plan].
Policy 11.0 states, <'Promote neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities and community
commercial areas rather than additional major retail centers,"
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and DiagnuIl Amendments Staff Notes
City Council Agenda page 328
Page 26 of 28
James. W. Spickerman
From: YEITER Kurt M [Kurt,M.YEITER@ci,eugene.or.us}
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 20046:47 PM
...--......To:-m..........................................--~_t:;Al:;!_eH..;:JDnathani4J)
Cc: James W. Spickerman; RUSSELL George (4J)
Subject: RE: School land use designations
Jon,
I understand your concerns, The recommendation is one of some convenience and it is certainly conservative.
'Convenient' because this is a rare opportunity to affect a land Use designation without the process and fees normally
'---""'""assDciated'with-an'amendmentm'Since.thenCif1s"plans.t1id'not'accommodate'foture're.:-use' of'the.propertY;.fhis..seemed.tonn.........
be a convenient opportunity worth exploring. 'Conservative' because this process also by.passes much of the public
review and participation of the normal apolication process. That issue was raised bv at least one City Councilor at the
~b~h~ri~.' -
Kurt
P,S, At least I guessed correctly for Westmoreland! Congratulations on that approval.
--un-Original Message-----
From: Jon Lauch [mailto:lauch@4j.lane,edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03,200411:11 AM
To: YETTER Kurt M
Cc: James W, spickerman; russeILg@4j.lane,edu
Subject: Re: School land use designations
Kurt:
I appreciate you sharing the draft language with us. My initial view is that the recommendation to
designate the property as R-1 is an ultra-conservative approach from a planning perspective.
Whlle this leaves the "door open" for future action, it also requires it. I recognize that action is
required for zone change and plan amendment regardless, however, change from R-1 to a more
appropriate designation seems like a "set-up" for significantly increased opposition than from the
current Pl designation, The property borders significantly more intensive uses in both
1
cb~mercial and R-~ de~i~nati~ns than it, does in R-1, I am puzzled by the proposed approach to
designate as R-1 since It IS unllkely that It would ever be developed in this way. It seems more a
matter of convenience than practicality and an approach that could harm the district.
--~-----_..
At 06:25 PM 3/1/2004 -0800, YEITER Kurt M wrote:
.....We.are.putting JogetheLtbe.stafLreportto.atlthe CityJCounty. electedoffidalsin response to Metro Plan .periodic
review. I'm forwarding the draft of the language pertaining to the Santa Clara school site -- mainly because I know
it is not all what you wanted. We admittedly took a conservative approach because this process doesn't allow the
public participation that an individual application would bring,
For Westmoreland, we recommended Medium density Residential, but if the Hearings Official rulesdifferent!y
before this goes to the elected officials, we may need to reconsider.
Designation of 4J Schools: Santa Clara Elementary School
Issue: What is appropriate Land Use Designation of school sites that will no longer be used for
"Govel1U11ent and Education" pUl})OSes? School District 4.1 requests Commercial designation for
the Santa Clara Elementary SchooL Staff Analysis: One ofthe purposes of the Metro Plan
diagram update is to have the diagram better reflect land use designations shown in approved
refInement plans. Many Eugene neighborhood refinement plan designations reflect current use
of public propelties, such as schools and fairgrounds, as "Government and Education." Vv'hen the
refinement plans were prepared (often over 15 years ago), it w'as not forecast that school districts
m.{ljl-disGGutinU(}..sch{)GJ-a-Gti::v.iti~fl4-s~J-t.a.oo~p.rBpMieth,o..o:r:he....tirrrifl.g...Gf....fu.4%1-We..p4fll'}..'........,w.......oo.~.~....~~
diagram update corresponded with District 4rs disposition oftwo school sites, Santa Clard and
Westmoreland Elementary Schools. It would be efficient ifthe land use designation were
determined at this time, so as to illfonn the zone change application, if possible. On the other
hand, more public discourse about the future use of these properties could be required, at 4J's
expeu.se, if the sites were designated Government and Education and refinement plan
amendments required prior to or concurrent to any zone changes. Amendments to the Ivfetro
Plan diagranl will not automatically cha.nge the refinement plans, but could infonn future
interpretations. The \vritten testimony provides d.ata regarding the interim nature of the
"Government and. Instit11tionalH designation, current Metro Plan designations, and zoning of
these sites, The old Metro Plan "blob" diagram shows commercial designation extending along
both sides of River Road, to just nOlih of Hunsaker Lane. The rest of this area is designated Low
Density Residential. The lvletro Plan diagram could suggest that some Conmlercial is on the
Santa Clara School site. NaiTO'\' commercial zoning patterns suggest that the Commercial
designation is not so wide as to encompass the entire school property, The River Road-Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan (3 non-site specifIc refinement plan) appears to designate the entire
Santa Clara School site as Education. The plan narrative recognizes problems created by the
strip commercial development patterns along River Road and enc.ourage buffering between
commercial and residential uses, Policies in the plan discourage linear expansion ofthe strip
conllilercial development patterns, but allow expansion fI by infilling, redevelopment. or
expansion onto contiguous property that does not front on River Road" (policy 3.0, page 2-18)
and to locate new neighborhood commercial uses "ay,;ay from River Road in locations thm
facilitate the provision of commercial facilities scaled to a residential area and that allo-w for
dispersal ofu".<;es throughout River Road-Santa Clara" (policy 6.0, pa.ge 2.19), Policy 22.0 in the
Eugene Commercial Lands Study (1992, adopted as a refinement of the Metro Plan) states, in
part, "Recognize that the commercial sites designated in the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan provide adequate commercial suppzv for the area. . ." [the Santa Clara school site
is not designated Commercial in the RRlSC Urban Facilities Plan]. Policy 11.0 states, tlPromote
neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities and community commercial areas rather than
additional major retail centers," Current zoning of the school property is a combination of
Public Land and Neighborhood Commercial. Neighborhood ConU11ercjal is not a 11etro land use
designation and maybe compatible withi\esidentialland use designations (determined at time of
zone change). TIns site is located v\"itlnn potential Nodal Development Area 5C as identified in
TransPlan. Based on this evidence, staff feels that designation of the entire school property as
Commercial could be contrary to adopted policies. Some Neighborhood Commercial
development, as current zoning allows, is compatible. Commercial land use designation is not
_m___~~_m__h_h_h___h~lec~~t:!gg:Y.JQ__L~_min thy Nei ghhorhoQ~LCQn1ID~rcigJ__zQ]].ing. Recolllm~J.:HlatioJ.l_:___HaY:eih.e.Metm
Plan Land Use Diagram designate the entire Santa Clara Elementary School site as Low Density
Residential (Tax lot #s: 17-04-11-44-00200; 00300; 00400; and 17-04-11-41-09100; 09200; and
093(0). TIns designation should not be interpreted to prejudice future land use amendments to
support nodal development.
We tried the leave the door open for future action, should you stit! feel the need, witll that fast sentence.
Kurt
Kurt Yeiter
Principal Planner
City of Eugene
Planning and Development Department
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
(541)582-8379
(541 )682-5572 fax
f5!-lrt. fill: Ye. i!~[@.ci: eug?!:le;:()r. us
3
('
Existing General
e Patterns
L:=J Low Density Residential
IIlII Multi-Family
~ Commercial
_ Industrial
_ Education
c=J Government/Utilities
_ Parks/Open Space
Community Services
River Road -Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan
t
r
('
Sept. 1984
~..
1.
f"
Land Use Diagram
r
-
o
.
.
.
D
.
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Urban Reserve
Commercial
Industrial
Government & Education
Parks & Opcn Space
I
" --I
, __I
'. :J
River Road -Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan
t
r
December 1984
~
2.
r
C"')
]
~ .
= .
i:l . . '<1
Q, 1 =
" "' a 1 . ~ ~
= . ~ ~
~ ~ ~ . 'll
e ; ..
r e '" c 3 8 " ~ ~ ~
Q < ~ ! .i~ ~ III .. " ~ '" S 1::
. ~ " . -; ] '<1 ~ ~ =
... "
~~..:l M ~ Iii ~ 0 a " 'il
c .. '" "' .. '" '" '" :> '"
f::l ~ t:lli' O.IO.IOIIBl%JI. Q ;,-....
~ ~ ~ s HI "\.
E-C ~~ I t,\
~ ::3 ril ~ lit :5 \~
3)OZp.Ji :3 "5 '<1 .. . .. ~ \
., i f.
~ ril "4 "5 ~ Iii " " 'll \
rzlOc.'J . a = ~ .0 ;
" '" " . ] ~ ~
'" .. ] .
z=': ii ~ ~ ~ ] : '" 'l,,~
'" tl I . i ~
g~ ~ Iii ~ ~ ~ ; ~ <:.
= :a "
Q :s ~ 0 3
= = ~ Q
~ ,!; '" ~ '5 ~
,!; g ~ ~ :5 Iii
~ 11 .0 ~ .d . Iii
ril oS !J!> 0 .. .. Q, 1! ...
:s = " :i :: "' :l "' :> :; ii:
ODDlIIIID8GJ I
I
.
r
"is - "Jl ~
lft-x .i.ji~.c
!_ j {il~1 it
0:; ~I..i!.~t~,
~itm!;la:~
~.. die Ei.tit-.:. -5 Ji
~l1P1iH!Jiii!~
'InI'~ldI5:a
.,.. 'l~h-"~'~
li!iZ~ ::i!.l.n
~ _h !~..~U'
. Hi i. ;~, ,- -j~
Ii ""io.1,.~ U,'
rl'5~~ i; II ~ lis.!
~miri!~Uljt
~m~ htn1.H
r
~
o
o
J:
g
1i
:'i
"
i!
~
>-
~
~ w;;
~~ ~ N
1: ::;
~ffiffi~ ~
c..:::~z
~~~~ ~
~~~~ ~
~
g
"
o
~
!I~I
:;
w
~ ~
>-~ ., !Zi= w ~
~< < i~ ~
~~ ~ u
o~ ~ wW ~ ~
CliO >0
il ~~ " g~ iil 0
0 I ~a
('
z
q
--l
lL
--l
q
II
ill
Z
ill
~
q
ill
II
q
z
q
I-
--l
0
lL I:
0 q
II It'
I- \.')
ill q
I:
Q Q
--l Z
ill q
1L --l
~ lL
z --l
~ q
lL II
<l) ill
, Z
ill llJ
Z \J
ill
~ r
{' :::J (J:l
ill ~
J:
2
(@
'<;f"
"j
.,
\l
S'
o
z
....
z z LO
n ~~ w ~ >-
0 ~
u;
w ~ '" !!! ....
~ .. ""8 ~ II~"
~~ 8~N
p",rl 0 H ~~
www ~ ~~ffi ....
r "13 o~~a ~ ~ ~@ ~
;!a: f:~ffici zg~ ii' Q
~~ ~......
~~H :i o..i?8 ~ I.. II r/.:l~
r
('
c
o
..
l'Cl
C
Cl
'iij
Q)
c
Q)
Ul
:J
"
C
l'Cl
...J
>-
.c
lJ1
C)
:J
Q)
J:
....
Q)
"
"iij
.E
....
::::l
o
::E
'S
lJ1
,
~
0
'<t
I'- Q.)
..t "C ~ ~
1 0 0
N '<t
* co I'-
U M ..t
N
co
M
co
~ rn
:: (3
co
<' C * ~
0
co c.o (")
(/) 0 c.o
~ "C ..t M
0
c.o 0::
0 '-
..t Q.)
>
i:i:
~ 0
0 .0
(")
co Q.)
.0 c: ~ ~
co 0 0
0 0 (")
~ c.o co
:; <ii M .0
.c
<ii
<' []J
~
~ Q.)
'N ~ ~
c: 0
" Q.) ~ 0
co
* :.!. ~ N
Jg .0 cri
... s: ...
...
.0
...
'"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '#.. ~ E
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :J
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :a
cD ..t N 0 cx:) cD ..t N 0 Q.)
... ... ... ~ ~
ro
ro '0
~ (j;
Q.) E
"C
'0; E
Q.) 0
0:: <..)
..Q ..Q
eaJ'V' !o aJellS
r--
I
C')
Q)
::0
co
l-
e
co
0::
Q;
Cii
co
:2:
c: Q;
"iii ro
co ~
OJ
li; E
1li 0
;: en
E c
0 Q)
en E
t
co
c..
Q)
0
rIl
..><:
(;
s:
.2
::0
:J
c...
Q)
c: Q)
Q)=
OJU-
:J -
w~
- .....
o co
>.c...
:t:::co
UOl
Q)0l
.r:"-
+-"(9
Eo
eu
--I
"0
Q) Q)
> 0
.~ ::;
"00
rIlC/J
co co
~ro
to
co OJ
.r:c:
0.-
rIl c:
._ r:::
.r:m
~a:
.~ .!:
+-"rIl
co co
OlD
'.J);i'~
0- <.0
~ ffi
0 "
0 0 W
J: Z
" ~ " llgj~
'" :l
~ z !zo
:s ~ wW
" "z ~@
r ;! 0 00
go z"
:l wo
w :z:l I" II (/J<
'" "
('
r
tJ)
a:::
w
I-
Z
W
(,)
...J
<C
(3
a:::
w
::E
::E
o
(,)
w
tJ)
:J
o
W
><
:i
I Ql
I Cl ::R ::R
~ 0 0
I Ql r-- 10
> ~ '<t
<t:
..., ::R ::R
0
L <0 0 00
10 10
::R
I ::R 0
0 0
..., <0 0 0
~
I u. ::R ::R
0 0
I <0 M 0
'<t M
0 ::R ::R
0 0
I <0 M ~
N
>'
I u ::R ::R
0 0
I 10 00 M
N M
I w '* ::R
0
I '<t '<t <0
~ '<t
I ::R ::R
0
M '<t 0
I N 0>
I u. ::R ::R
0
L M 0 M
r-- M
I al ::R ::R
0 0
I N N ~
N M
I I ::R ::R
0
~ 0 00
0 r--
I u. ::R ::R
0 0
I L- ~ N M
~ 00
::R ::R '* ::R ::R ::R '* +
0 0 0 0 0 0:: :2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 0 00 <0 '<t N :2 u
~ ~
J:L&
0::
w
I-
Z
W
U
....I
<(
U
0:::
w
:z:
:z:
o
u
't3~'t :10 3~'tHS
9"'I:1099Y~f'9~r~
r
r
('
"'C ca c E ~_ :! ~ ]. ~
7:: Q) ca Cllg~ ] E - .
\IIJ ~ __ ~ Q.- ; II ... I! ::J ill
"- <t c. C) .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · I ;
lED --.~ ~6 } j l ] l I
cccaC".s
"t: f! G; c: n . rlHJ ~ ~ ~
0.= C ~ c~ .
en 0 Q) a..l~ ~ .~ .!
cb c.~ H] ~ 1 ] .. 8
C e ~~ s i ~ ~ ! ~ l
~ ~ ~ 1 ::J ~ ~ 1 ~ ]
C) Q) ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ .: ~ ~
~~HD~&D~DD
~] '"
"u "
.:! ~ j ~ ~
EO j i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ 1 ] i ] I
& 5 <3 E '" ..
~ ~ f 3 ! J 1
DDrnIHiflD~
"
'il
- 81l1l
~15. .!I {'g I!~ ~.~.'fJ
~~6~~ g~1'l 5 !1g~~ I
~. ... ~ 1i~.~'E .!f;e II!!'..
'" I s. ~~.d'7 eP- .ll
~ ~ ~ i:>" ~..,,?:' 8.oj ~=
.~ ~ 6'="'-6.] ll!! q ~
-ll ~u 1S.".5 "~--5 ag e
~~~.~i~h~H~1i
~".~] ~~u a~ i:>~'a~
.~ ~.= >t;\i-l3~ ~ 0 h.s"S
~8oe i; "''''u~~=
gUjl ~_ ~.!!!!!S"~g
8" 8~ ~l~~~j] ~~
'''~~''S '5 6~~ ~ ~"i! ~;<
~ou=s ~"c:..;~.c
~ ~'=2 8 n 1; "Ol "'c Ii
~l! U8~.Jl~r~~ ~ ~
~~ ~Jj:l8 ~ h!-6.~~
I
>-
-'
z
o
UJ
-'
<(
o
(/)
"-
X
~
~
+~c
f-
<(
o
::::;
<(
>
~
i ~
. ~ .
.. dI ~ <(
.; ~ i. 1 :;
j,g i 1
~2JlZ~~
~. ..,
,f (
~ "
.
.;:
"
~
1
!
'"
~ ~
~~rnD
<<
r
~
V)
:::>
I
-0
~
~
~
~
.......,
c
~
U
co
:p
c
~
<5
a..
- \
-
,
"t .
t~~
..
r
r
00
l!!
~
"
"
()
'E
"
E
>-
Q.
E
w
..,
"
IV
fti
f f .~ f!!
!! !! E E
a; ;; E Ct
() () 0 ()
C "Ii ~ ~
E .~ :g ;
~E:C~
Q. E E "
E 0 0 ~
w () <; "
Q) Q) II) II)
en ~ =- =-
::;) ..,..,
-g~~.~~~
Q)~:::;::::;: .-.
~IIID:.:
.
en
~
:E
.,
,
.
~
l
<~
I-
~t
~.
~%
H
~"
n
~.~~
1;:1
r~:~
~Jj~
\.
8 w
oC\l J: "
Ll
'" ~
wW ~ Ll
en a: :'i w
(' -::> Ll z
[jjg ;0 2
z "
a:u. "' :1
'"
'"
I-
Z
~
ill
..J
ill
I!!
iii
~
~~i
19j-
~f~
ol-3
r1~
a! ~
.us~ ~.
1H _ j
'811 ..
~tsE u Iii
......~ ...
;; i... ~ r
H~ ! g
~l~ e-!
~H ~..~
2 ~~~ ~~~
i i~~ ~z~
u jHj iri,
~ ~HjJ~~':
~ 2':~~iH~
~ ig!H~3. ::t..~
~ ~=~.ba-i~ ~
~ ~filHil ~
ililGh'~';'l
* ..~i~ ~
e
&
~..
f~
it l~
"!jj
"~.
~ ~fu -11
~n If
HI I H~
!!f: ~1
g H ]~
~~... i5
!t-~H-! ;
,'~"-.l
i!l~ri~
~t~~tlJ
l~iH;H
lliii~l~~
. ! &.~ i - . ~ ~
~ III ~ . b 2ls' i ~
;;"'-~i-t~ a
;q~.J!i~ a
IH~~~~~ i
~H ili
e
.!!
t
j
f
~
~
I
<
I~
.i
.0.
i ~ Q
11 ~:
~ fa if
.. ~~ h>
! ;.1 ~1
11 m'::' _Ill
~jH ii
HJllJ!- ;~
"."~ ~f
iunn ~
tw!D....]\J It
:~i~H~ i:
;5~....;;;a; -l
~I"'"
II
e
~
o~
h~
H-
;} ~
.! Q- .
~1l; g
i~li 3
;;~1l~ S
g..~ t
H~J~t ~t
.~~ . li~
t!i;i 1 i!
!~.Hi I ~"
!)l~ ",Qo
.!!! .. j ~ f~ I
-g 'DILl) . z1
&.~;t~ ~ ~~i
HHU i;iiz
=~;h~ ~]nr
....:;) ~j! 1ii 0... . D..
lijl~i:i!ln" ~
~~HnI1~IH 2
~~li~~l~!.E~~ E
~~.l ' , , , . " ~
~Uu g
El
;u-u----uLu
,
I ~~ I
:!ifi I
~~-,-,
Ie
('
I
I
I !
'..J
i~
, 'll
I !l
I~
,
>-
~I
tw
~!-
r
I
1
1
..J
--
--
1'<1'&0
~v~
--
,
__ 1
II
1
1
i!
8'
.]
llli
. ;
.!\Jb
:E!l
'~1
H.
~~~
~: ~
~1~i
~ ~~ ~
-::li.!=
11.. ~
h~.
~=~s
Ilo"t
~ .. x.
~fh
1i ~'1l
"'1l.6"
i~i~ 2
!--- a
~Hi ~
~ih ~
]~"I ~
hL
_Hl~.!
~. ... !
Ii:' u3 f
!!. ~~~ ~
_~~H= "
'P~i~u !.
l,li~;l d
H_HH~ U
~_ H < R 0 X.
~.~...!;'j 19
ttHt!i f~
!~HH~ d
= . i"1l ~n 1 ~
i;~~~i" .1
~i~i>;!J~ -.
G_" 0 _~.i
~~g~g]' u
;!fH~~ !i-:
B 2'& ~ b l ~ · i
;~:~!.1l i Z
i~hi~i .. t!r
~H:h~ Il :=~
.'~~o-- g ~li
UiItB ~ hi
~~M"~~ :. ~,,!
@
@
e
d
~irl
;;;>
III~
@ '1'
q)
c
..
..J
~
q)
~
@
I
I
1
1
I
,,--
, "
( )@
\.......-" 2
E __
~:'\ -- --
Illi! __ --
......-
--
--
--
II~~
~@
I" II C/)<
~o
if
n
F.
IH
~9!
.5~
~t~
at
f.i
li;b
i!~
. 0 i
ii>.
~ . Ol
~U
~ li{
&I ~b ~
II h. -l
~ 'i~t Q!.
- oh \:I
~ ~11J ~
~ ':~! ~
~ ~.2 :f.
e e
~
~~
ili...
~~
ilia
@
~
~
ii1
~
a
f
~
~ ~
~~ t
a~ ~3
B[Drn
Q
ill
t1
..J
~
~
i: ~i!!
&I~
~:I ~:I ~ ~~
!=~ 0" " 0>:1
U n ~ n
DD~~
~~ I
j
l
9
Ii
;
.
i~~
8-!:
- R 0
iUb
!H
ni
"!-
!-=
"'j
~ 9],
r l~fu
:;; .H
! ~...
~ Hf
" !" ~
i ~ ,a'
n ; ~!1
!~ ~ ~;J
"It o~-fu
:I. <I. _ ~.
h ii 'rJ;
~i ~ h~
II. &I ....'0
...
11
.
:.2
~J
t",
"'i
i~
51
o.
H
.'l,
.~
~~
!
1
i
8-
~
!
i~
j~
:j
h
'ii~
-3~ w
"1 ~
h ~
." III
Id"
@
@
!
(@
t-
Z
ill
I:
lL
o
-1
ill
>
ill
(}
-1
-<l:
lj
(}'.
ill
I:
I:
o
lj
ill
<l)
:J
(}
ill
~
I:
ill
!::
<l)
-1
o
o
:r
lj
<l)
-<l: t-
(}'. lL
-<l: ill
-1 lj
lj 5
-<l: lj
t-
Z ill
-<l: !::
<l) <l)
At the Public hearing of the Eugene Planning Commission
held on Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
~~PfZ~\3H"n >!~. .. ,,', .
~ho""? fi;h~ ;{;~J fU'iC !f');)?~ ~ M.~.... U r;. !\ It'll...' t1 ~'; ~..
"q, ^ "." ':"':". c..: ;:....:.. < ,~,;:" ..~~.~~ ~:.(~:.. ;",:'i;:::' (:1
: ON:---_..J01K}b] . ......"....::>>n.
~~l,~+itS .lli.._Iii2^'
Submitted Testimony flA-b1- )-.
'Lo1 - 3
By Joan Haworth-Liu and Jack Liu
100 Green Lane
Eugene, Oregon 97404
Re: Metro Plan Amendment (City file l'vlA 07-2)
Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 07-1)
Applicant: Steve Graves, Oregon West Management, LLC
I am Joan Haworth-Liu and I am the third generation in my family to own
the 100 Green Lane property that borders the subject site being considered
here tonight for Metro Plan and Refinement Plan Amendments.
My husband, Jack Liu and I have been aware of the Metro Plan and
Refinement Plan as it related to our Green Lane Property for many years.
Having lived through the dramatic changes that have occurred on our Lane
we made the decision to request a zone change of our property to GO
(General Office Use)! Commercial as ref1ected in the Metro and Refinement
Plans.
OUf application has been deemed complete and our public hearing is
scheduled for November 28, 2007.
I ask that you refer to Exhibit E.2 submitted here tonight by Oregon West
Management, LLC a copy of which I have provided for you. You will note
that the encircled area is our 100 Green Lane property. Our property has
therefore been included in the arguments heard here tonight for Metro and
Refinement Plan Amendment. It has therefore put us in the position of
raising issue in order to allow for any appeals to the Lane Use Board of
Appeals depending on your decisions and how they affect our property.
The boxed arrow pointing to our property says "Per recommendation No.3
this area to transition to MDR".
This reference is gleaned from the written text recommendations found on 2-
32 of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, a copy of which I
have provided for you.
Please note the actual text refers to a line projected south from the east
boundary of the Santa Clara Elementary School Property and as seen clearly
on the black and white version of the map the line is not a straight line south
but one that stair steps southward including our property in the
GO/Commercial designation. The colored map on page 2-32 also reflects
this.
We ask that you refer to written text recOlnmendation #4 left out of Oregon
West Management's application materials that states:
"Rezone parcels nOlih of Santa Clara Square and south of Green Lane for
professional office use." This text includes our propeliy and the subject site
property being considered here tonight.
We are not opposed to development however, we wish to insure that Oregon
West Management's requests will not impede, set a precedence for, or
prevent us from zoning our 100 Green Lane land in alignment with the
Metro and Refinement Plans as they stand now to GO (General Office Use)
ICommercial.
Thank you for your time and for giving us the opportunity to be heard.
~v~~tt);1 ~~
Joan Haworth-Lm
Jack Liu
100 Green Lane
Eugene, OR 97404
(541) 689-8915
\
~
\
EXHIBIT E.2
r--
~~,J
IRVING RD
East boundary of former
Santa Clara Elementary
S.chool property
SANTA ClARA AV
Legend
Niver Road - Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
Sub-Area i: River Road/Division
Land Use Diagram
L - Low Density Residential
M - Medium Density Residential
i G - Government & Education
'T~:~ C - Commercial
Job # 0637 Existi n9 EZJ Subject Site II
Date: 5131/07 Refinement Plan Diagram and Text ;--1 Development Site
Drawn: MH 1.............---"""
Checked: RS River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan D Eugene City limits SATRE
Revised: MH Subarea i: River Road/Division ASSOCIATES
Source: River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (p. 2-32)
i. River Road/Division
pesc.ripJJon
A large percentage of this
:.ub<lrea i 5. W j thi rl the city
iim1Ls of El.lgene. IrHzse
propert ies were rezoned for
commercial use upon annexation
to Eugene" The area cont<drs
the largest tH~\OIJ!1t of community
commercial lJ$<l' in Santa Clara.
It is zon~d for (omm~rcial ap.d
low-def!s ity use~ thel'!? e~:i st
few flQt1-c(mformll"tg pare!? 1>..
The re is ii lack 0 t ~;p:ce:;, '$ to
interior parcels. The subar€~
conUins a mobiie home park.
Recommendations
1. Develop. an integrated plan. iflcludinq transp(}.rlation access. and
~rban 5~rvices, fot the subarea.
Z. Desfgnate ffif>dium-den$tty de\'elopment for undeveloped and iJnd~t'-
dev~1oped property west of Ross Lane and west of Leels Trailer Park.
3. fh.e t.rUt'1SHiOtl frOll'! professional office use to medium-dal1slty
re$1dentiai u~e should occur in the vicinity nf a line proj~ctl?d
south from the et'3st bouodary of the Santa Clara Element.n'y School
prOPH.ty.
4. Rezone parcels north of $.wta Cla.l"3 Square and south of Green LaM
for prafess10nal office use.
2-32
RE[itHlt~ rl\j F ..,'C ~P<~~"!; l:HfM~ I :.~
oN:-_.JP.lIBj~J.. ';c""";'(~~illtl !
J;:V\,.Jb~ I .,-__u....~_____
V]t IT ~ FiLE iW:_MA t/l- t.' ,
...
M 01- t
'Z..t>1-3
~~ usiaK
((PCO ~ ~
~~
ote.. q~ ~
Od- 'It c ,,7
{1~ 0 (~
cd;~
f{~D:f1- ,
t<€, J)~~ 15~ ~ Setw6t
'5L1.i.,. r11 R 07-7- '
x ~,.u ~~ v:>dt- 5,c,C~,
-k.-e. ' 4<V~ fft,.'5 S'W;: , ~ ~..ScDl
, . c FfL'".s f\b ~ ~h Ie
d'k.r ,v~~~of. Cz 3<M~ S~ M.Ct-
bL ~ ie' 3~ :J~ b4... teh~
~ ,~k.v f{.t>i~ ~"'3'o~ ~
~e,"":l ~f~ i- Sa...v.::fa... ~) $~ ~
~.
. cz 3~ i" aJ:,~ ~ ~
~{.Jo~c( . W<. cJ..e, VlCl- l\Re.ot ~
p~ I~SW,ffV-r.suy~ ~ (~u-
~~ ~ ~~..... "'~ J- ~
C4e.s~ t:M- ~ ~ ·
"fl...c, ~t1St-14 ~~ i.s Ab~SI~S.5
i\S 14 gua.( Crrf'q{'al;; ~llt.... ~ is
,,~ 5L-iS~ t cW-'+- '/k - ~ ~~ ~
~ ft~ f7"~ ~ td.fN,s aJ<A I q\.c
-h'tw. M~ uSL ~ i:&,rni.ii:> ,.e.s;~
~Cut1 s:uv; (.L 'It ~~. 1.1- c~ K.o
~ I .
+V-ttA~~ foe ~ ~~ f,.., ~ G4?1-.
. fk;s is a.A..- ',~~~ s~ ~_
S~A. ~. ~ ~ w~s ,J- is ~
CM.W 1 ow- · ,..\.1. -ro ~ c. 2... .
~ ~ L w-<. <1J< -h:,:> huwt) wr.K.
c 2 5 t.J:Zo I C O\-'\~ S ,~I), h> C\. ~ as
II~ ~ vf~~' S~ ~s'.
~~ IS f\cl-aJI ~flZ-.~, 5u$J.~~~ or
oles~ ViSIOh -r- ~ ~ l' S~ ~.
..
~
11 ' 0s1aJC- -
...,
Attachment G
SUMMARY MINUTES
Public Hearing
Eugene Planning Commission
Council Chamber, Eugene City Hall, 777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon
October 18, 2007
6 p.m.
PRESENT:
Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Anne Kneeland, John
Lawless, members; Heather O'Donnell, Gabe Flock, Steve Nystrom, Planning and
Development Department; Gary McNeel, Transportation Analyst for the Public Works
Department.
ABSENT:
Phillip Carroll, Anthony McCown, members~ Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AMENDMENTSrLONE CHANGE:
Ore1!:on West Manaeement (!\fA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07.3)
Assessor's Map:
Assessor's Map:
17-04-11-41
17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 9100,9200,9300
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400, 1900
Location:
East side of River Road, south of Hunsaker Lane; 7.3 acres north of Green Lane and 1.3 acres SI
of Green Lane at 2685 River Road & 84 Green Lane
Applicant:
Steve Graves, Oregon West Management LLC
Property Owner:
Santa Clara Properties, LLC
Representative:
Michael Howard, Satre Associates, P.C.
Lead City Staff:
Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner
(541) 682-5488
Nature of the Requests
Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram to change 7.3 acres
of site nOlth of Green Lane from a designation of Low Density Residential to a designation of Commercial,
and to change 1 J acrs ot the site south of Gfreen Lane from a desigilation of Commercial to a designation of
Medium Density Residential.
Refinement Plan Change: (City file RA 07-1) to amend the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
land use diagram to change approximately 7 J acres of the site north of Green Lane from a designation of
Govememnt and Education to a designation of Commercial; to change I J acres of the site south of Green
Lane from a designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential; and to amend the
refinement plan text to include site specific development requirements.
Zone Change: (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the existing zoning
SUMMARY MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18, 2007
Page 1
ofPL and C-l, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C-2/PD/SR, Community
Commercial zone 'vvith Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays; and to rezone 1.3 acres of the
site south of Green Lane from R-l, Low Density Residential zone to R.2lPD/SR, Medium Density
Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays.
SUMMARY MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18, 2007
Page 2
Public Hearing
Eugene Planning Commission
Council Chamber - Eugene City Hall - 777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon
October 18,2007
6 p.m.
PRESENT:
Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Anne
Kneeland, John Lawless, members; Heather O'Donnell, Gabe Flock, Steve
Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Transportation
Analyst for the Public Works Department.
ABSENT:
Phillip Carroll, Anthony McCov>'ll, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
Mr. Duncan called the meeting to order. He indicated the purpose of the hearing was to accept
public testimony on a plan amendment and zone change.
Members of the commission introduced themselves.
Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AMENDl\-fENTS/ZONE CHANGE:
Orceon West Manal!ement (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Assessor's Map:
AssessoJ"s Map:
17-04-11-41
17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 9100, 9200,9300
Tax Lot: 200,300,400, 1900
Location:
East side of River Road, south of Hunsaker Lane; 7.3 acres north of Green Lane and 1.3
acres south of Green Lane at 2685 River Road & 84 Green Lane
Allplicant:
Steve Graves, Oregon West Management LtC
Property Owner:
Santa Clara Properties, LLC
Representative:
Michael Howard, Satre Associates, P.C.
Lead City Staff:
Heather O'Doilllell, Associate Planner
(541) 682-5488
Nature of the Requests
Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram to
change 7.3 acres of site north of Green Lane from a designation of Low Density Residential to a
designation of Commercial, and to change 1.3 acre on the site south of Green Lane from a
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18, 2007
Page 1
designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential.
Refinement Plan Change: (City file RA 07-1) to amend the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan land use diagram to change approximately 7.3 acres of the site north of Green
Lane from a designation of Government and Education to a designation of Commercial; to
change 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to a
designation of Medium Density Residential; and to amend the refinement plan text to include site
specific development requirements.
Zone Change: (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the
existing zoning of PL and C-l, Public Land 7Dne and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C-
2/PDISR, Community Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review
overlays; and to rezone 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from R-l, Low Density
Residential zone to R-2/PDfSR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development
and Site Review overlays.
Mr. Duncan asked the commissioners to indicate any ex parte contacts and/or conflicts of interest,
as per Eugene Code (EC) 9.7065. No commissioners had any disclosures to make. Mr. Duncan
stated that his firm had been involved in an app~aisal of one of the properties. He stressed that he
had not been directly involved in it and that it had not biased him in anyway.
Ms. O'Donnell provided the staff repmi. She explained that the only item in the hearing was a
request for approval of a Metro Plan amendment, a Refinement Plan amendment, and a zone
change. She reviewed the changes in detail. She stated that public notice of the proposal was
mailed and posted consistent with Eugene Code requirements. She noted that two letters had
been received and were attached to the agenda packet on page 315, received from Patricia Gilbert
and from Kate Perle who wrote on behalf of the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO).
She said stafI had received one additional letter of testimony from Sue Prichard, 2671 Emerald
Street, that had been in general support of the proposal.
Ms. O'Donnell wished to recognize efforts by the applicant, the applicant's representatives, and
the neighborhood group who had met several times on the proposal. She noted that the applicant
had revised the application in response to both staff and neighborhood comments.
Ms. O'Donnell reiterated that staff was not able to recommend approval based on the available
information. Staff had found that the proposal met quantitative requirements such as compliance
with statewide planning Goal 12 and the transportation planning goal. She noted that the
applicant had brought to staff s attention that the staff report cited previous Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) for Goal 9 and after further review staff believed that Goal 9 had
been met by the application. She said based on the revised OAR the commercial land study
analysis was more relevant as a refinement of the Metro Plan. She entered into the record a
memorandum from staff that explained the revised OAR and relocated the commercial land study
analysis to the analysis of consistency with the Metro Plan.
Ms. O'Donnell stated, regarding the overall policy direction, particularly the policies and findings
of tile refinement plans, that it was staff's opinion that the policies provide direction to build less
commercial development and a higher density residential development in this particular location.
She said the land in this area was recognized as having adequate commercial land supply but
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18. 2007
Page 2
lacking in higher density residential land. She reiterated that the policy direction seemed to
support more residential development and less commercial development. She indicated that if the
Planning Commission found the proposal did meet the criteria, staff had included conditions of
approval in the statf report.
Steve Graves, 4135 Torrey Lane, thanked the commissioners for serving their community. He
stated that his plan was to develop the former Santa Clara Elementary School site into a Mixed
Use development. He said the plan voluntarily restricted the size and height of any buildings and
that he had incorporated a gathering area into it. He added that some architectural elements from
the former school would be retained. The design incorporated pedestrian~fTiendly shopping
streets in order to create a sense of community with the buildings and to avoid a "strip mall" look.
He related that in conjunction with designers they had created tree-lined shopping streets with
landscaping zones. He underscored that the housing element was "part and parcel" of the
application. He averred that the residential units would benefit from the close proximity to the
shopping center. He intended to dedicate land along Hunsaker Lane in order to improve the road,
as per the City's requirements, and also to improve signalization at the intersection of Hunsaker
Lane and River Road. He predicted that the type of commercial enterprises that would become
part of the development would be dictated by the community. He believed the need for additional
retail space in the Santa Clara area was great.
Rick Satre, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, applicant's representative, reiterated that the
applicant was seeking approval to build a Mixed Use Residential/Commercial development. He
averred that the development would result in a "quality addition to the fabric of the Santa Clara
neighborhood." He said Mr. Graves had reached out to the neighborhood and had tried to find
common ground with residents.
Mr. Satre underscored that 50 dwelling units were planned between the properties, including a
newly purchased property.
Mr. Satre acknowledged that staffhad found 13 Metro Plan policies that were applicable to the
requests, within the four plan elements of residential and housing, economic, transportation, and
public facilities and services. He said the record showed that the application was consistent with
the latter two. He stated that of the 13 policies staff analyzed they had found consistencies with
six of them.
Mr. Satre discussed the seven inconsistencies with policies, six of them related to the residential
element and one with the economic. He believed the proposal promoted higher residential
density and that it used existing resources. He averred that the proposal was in line with the
policy regarding the location of higher density residential development to transportation as it
could not be "any closer" to transportation facilities. He acknovdedged that a common theme in
the policies was that density should be increased via infill development and redevelopment and
another theme was to expand opportunities through mixed lIse. He noted that staff did agree that
the proposal met the Metro Plan definition of mixed use, but felt the issue lay in the amount of
commercial development in the proposaL
Mr. Satre declared that the proposed development was located in a commercial area. He stressed
that the school had been surrounded on three sides by commercial uses. He said the refinement
plan identit1ed the school property as being located in an existing commercial area though the
MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18,2007
Page 3
school itself had not been so zoned. He pointed out that the refinement plan was 20 years old and
asked the commissioners to think about when the statement had been made to the effect that there
was suffiCient commercial supply. He reviewed several different area plans and the storm basin
plan. He a';;serted that the supply of residential lands in the River Road/Santa Clara area in 1998
had been 4.06 percent, while the city average had been 3.8 percent. He said the share of
commercially designated land had been 4.64 percent citywide, but it had been 3.63 percent in the
River RoadiSanta Clara area. He felt the effectiveness of the statement was questionable given
the length oftime that had transpired.
Continuing, Mr. Satre delineated with a graph the proportionate share of commercial area within
all of the mixed use commercial centers in the Trans Plan map as well as the proportionate share
of residential lands. He believed if one looked at the average for Medium Density Residential it
appeared that it was 17 percent and that for the Santa Clara area the average was 28 percent. He
said one might conclude that there was enough Medium Density ResidentiaL He averred that the
average of commercial lands in the potential mixed use centers was 45 percent but for the Santa
Clara it was at 33 percent. He asserted that one could rethink the statement that there was
"plenty" of commercial land in that area.
Mr. Satre reviewed an email from City staff to the School District 4J that indicated the feeling
that the land use designations should not be interpreted to prejudice future land use amendments
to support nodal development. He noted that it also indicated that staff would not oppose any
other land use designation that the City Council might agree upon.
Mr. Satre reiterated that the applicant had been listening to staff and to the neighborhood. He
said the applicant would continue to listen in order to balance the need for increased residential
units and the demands for increased commercial lands. He stated that a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) would require site reviews and further modifications could be made to the
proposal.
Mr. Duncan called for testimony from others in support of the plan amendments and zoning
change.
Will Isham, 4064 Meredith Court, supported the applicant. He said he had reviewed Mr. Graves'
plans and was pleased to see that it did not appear like just another strip mall or large grocery. He
felt Mr. Graves '.vas listening to residents' input. He averred that the plans he had seen
represented a quality development for the neighborhood.
Candy McAndrews, 4159 V ictoria Lane, spoke in support of the applicant. She said she had
been excited by Me. Graves' plans. She felt that Santa Clara lacked certain services, noting that
she wanted a franchised barista ill the area. She thought the development \vould allow' area
residents to drive less and would be good for the air and environment as a result.
Lindsey Eichner, 2860 Federal Place, supported the application. She said there were not very
many amenities within walking distance of the Santa Clara area. She liked the layout that Mr.
Graves had provided. She believed it would increase the quality of life of area residents and
would make Santa Clara more "beautiful."
Goldwin Eichner, 2827 Calla Street, related that six large housing developments had been built
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18. 2007
Page 4
in the area in which he lived. He felt the applicant's proposed development would add health to
the area and the application should be approved.
Michael Chalmers, 4005 Shenstone Drive, supported the applicant's position. He noted that on
the top of page 30 in Attachment A it had been suggested that the site could be publicly owned
and a green space. This had caused him concern as he did not wish to bring his children to play
in a place adjacent to such a heavily trafficked road. He said a park would also require some
onsite parking and he believed parking "would eat up" area fTom a park. He hoped that a larger
site near Madison Middle School would be utilized for park land.
Greg Herbert, 2005 Law Lane, supported the commercial zone change for the Santa Clara
school site. He said he represented a client that was seeking a commercial site in the River
Road/North Eugene area. He thought his client would make "positive" use of the proposed
development. He noted that he had grown up in the River Road area.
Curt Mem, 3561 Merryvale, spoke in favor of Oregon West Management's application for
zoning changes to the old Santa Clara school site. He averred that the applicant's plans met many
of the City of Eugene's goals for infill and redevelopment. He felt the application addressed both
the commercial and residential needs of the area. He believed the development would add needed
commercial development and would also put less pressure on the commercial sprawl, which
would help preserve existing farm lands to the north.
Clayton Walker, 1225 Lawrence Street, asked the commissioners to consider the demand for
commercial properties and the lack of supply. He understood that the 20~year old study was the
"law of the land" but he felt that anyone who drove around would understand that there were very
few commercial properties left to develop in the area. He said the subject property was
surrounded by commercial uses. He thought the dimensions and size of the property as well as its
depth and configllration supported its use fur commercial purposes. He underscored that good
commercial sites were significant for three qualities: visibility, access, and proximity to market.
He supported the application for the Santa Clara school site as it had an three of those qualities.
Daniel Cooper gave testimony unrelated to the plan anlendmcnts and zoning change.
Mr. Duncan called for testimony from interested people who were neither proponents nor
opponents. Seeing none, he called for testimony in opposition to the item before the Planning
Commission.
Ellen Hyman, 3863 Dorchester Lane, wanted a "true" community center. She \vas not "that
opposed" to the proposal but she wanted the commercial property to be restricted to C-l and not
C-2. She feared that allowing it to be zolled C~2 would bring "big box" stores. She felt the area
had enough larger developments. She opined that the recent development of a large grocery store
had not panned out to be as it had been proposed, but had become a big box store. She said the
loss of the school had been hard on the community. She averred that the developers were not
thinking of what was impOltant to area residents.
Kate Perle, 4740 Wendover Street, disagreed that the area was a commercial area. She believed
that it was predominantly a residential area. She said there were policies in the River Road/Santa
Clara Facilities Plan that specifically discouraged commercial rezoning along River Road. She
MfNUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18,2007
Page 5
felt River Road \vas being "turned into" another West 11th Avenue. She viewed the proposal as
segregated land use and 110t a mixed land use as one parcel would be residential and the other was
being requested to be changed to C-2, commercial. She averred that the plan did 110t supply
adequate dwellings. She asserted that there \V'ere several pieces of C-2 land that were vacant and
available and underscored the request to keep the land zoned C-l.
Catherine Lesiak, 1600 East Beacon Drive, said it was the City's responsibility to answer to the
present and future needs of its citizens and to consider the environment. She opined that the
citizens of Santa Clara did not need more C-2 developments; rather it needed more restaurants
and smaller retail stores. She did not think the area needed more traffic or more impervious
parking lots. She declared that Santa Clara needed a community center, a "place with souL" She
believed the future would not be based on automobile travel as the petroleum industry would not
last forever. She underscored her feeling that C-2 zoning was not the best use for former public
lands.
Dawn Lesley, 4495 River Road, echoed the comments of Ms. Perle. She said the Planning
Commission had the opportunity to "draw a line in the sand" against big box stores and parking
lots.
Joan Haworth-Lin, 100 Green Lane, said she was a member of the third generation to own
Green Lane property next to one of the subject properties. She related that having lived through
changes she and her family had decided to rezone their property to GO, General Office. She
pointed out that the circled property on Exhibit &2 submitted by Oregon West Management was
her property. She asked the commission to refer to Recommendation #4 out of the Oregon West
Management application materials which stated that rezoned parcels north of Santa Clara Square
and south of Green Lane were for professional office use and to understand that this text included
her property. She submitted her testimony in writing.
Keith Walton, 1640 Beacon Drive, echoed the comments of Ms. Perle and Ms. Lesiak.
Mr. Duncan called for staff response to the testimony.
Ms. O'Donnell clarified that when they had gone through the 2004 plan cleanup it was intended
to better reflect the refinement sub-plans. She said Attachment 8 and the memorandum from
Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter delineated evidence of why staff had struggled with the proposal
and, based on the evidence, had arrived at the conclusion that designating the entire property as
commercial could be contrary to the adopted policies. She also related that staff did not feel that
the Government and Education designation in the refinement plan \vas inconsistent with the Low
Density Residential designation in the Metro Plall. She stated that there was a requirement in the
land use code that the Metro Plan would overrule the refinement plan only where inconsistencies
applied.
Mr. Duncan called for questions for staff.
Mr. Duncan seemed to remember, regarding the "blob diagram," that a change had occurred in it.
He recalled a discussion on the properties that were public lands at the time and that it had been
detem1ined that those lands would default to residential. He asked for some clarity on why this
change in the procedure had occurred when they had gone through the "housekeeping process"
MfNUTES--Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18, 2007
Page 6
with regard to the diagram. He asked what had occurred with the public lands at the time that had
not been looked at as available for future development.
Ms. O'Donnell responded that the information she had was similar to what the applicant had just
submitted in Attachment 8, wherein the site in question had been reviewed and it had been
determined that it should not be designated as commercial at that time because ofthe same River
Road retlnement plan policies that staff is struggling \-vith now as discussed on the last page of the
submitted email from Kurt Yeiter.
Mr, Duncan called for rebuttal from the applicant.
Mr. Satre said he would like an explanation for why public land would default to Low Density
Residential zoning in the River Road/Santa Clara plan. He averred that the projected need in the
1987 refinement plan for commercial property in the area was 174 acres and in 1989 there \vere
only 161 acres potentially available. He noted that this was a combination of the commercial
property in use and the available vacant lands.
Mr. Satre noted that it had been mentioned in testimony that there was a lot of vacant C-2
property in the area. He disputed this. He noted that one of the properties cited was under
construction. He asserted that if demand was not exceeding the supply of commerdalland it was
"at least giving it a mn for the money." He reminded the commission that the existing property
was not completely zoned Low Density Residential as a portion of it was zoned C-l. He noted
that it had been asserted in testimony that over 100 homes could be built on the property. He felt
this did not take into consideration the existing C-I zoning nor did it consider the land needed for
public rights of way and infrastructure.
Mr. Satre reiterated the applicant's intention to develop 50 dwelling tmits. He asserted that this
would not diminish capacity on the site. He reiterated that the utilization of this property as the
applicant proposed would have an impact on the miles driven by neighborhood residents by
bringing commercial services closer to home.
Ms. Kneeland wondered ifthe plans as the applicant conceived of them were not consistent with
C-l zoning. Mr. Satre replied that C-llimited commercial enterprises to 5,000 square teet. He
stated that the applicant indicated that he would voluntarily limit the size of commercial
enterprises to 18,000 square feet, which was substantially less than the size permitted by C-2
zoning. He averred that this would not allow a "big box" store to be established there. He
commented that if there was such a zoning as a "C-l.5" this would be the zoning change that the
applicant would seek.
Mr. Hledik asked if a map was available that indicated the build out of commerdallands along
River Road and showed which were vacant and which were occupied. Mr. Flock replied that he
did not think such a map was readily available. He added that the map staffhad was the one
adopted in the Refinement Plan.
Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing and closed the record.
Ms. O'Donnell said deliberation was tentatively scheduled for November 5.
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18,2007
Page 7
Mr. Belcher asked if a public hearing before the City Council had been scheduled. Ms.
O'Donnell replied that it had not been scheduled at this point.
In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the commissioners could
email questions to staff. He cautioned them against any sort of deliberation prior to the public
meeting for that purpose.
Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission at 7:47 p.m.
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES~ElIgene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
October 18, 2007
Page 8
Attactunent H
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
Phone: (541) 682-5481
Council Chamber, Eugene City Hall, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, OR 97401
fVeb site: WWlv.eugene-or.gov
The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel fTee to come and go
as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing
impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice
prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To
arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-548 I. Telecommunications devices for deaf
assistance are available at 682-5119.
__ n_______._____~___
THURSDAY. OCTOBER 18, 2007- PUBLIC HEARING
(6:00 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AMENDMENTSIZONECHANGE:
Orel!on 'Vest l\lana1!ement. Ll,C (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41. Tax Lots: 9100,9200,9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44 Tax Lots: 200,300,400, 1900
Location:
East side of River Road, south of Hunsaker Lane; 7.3 acres north of Green Lane
and 1.3 acres south of Green Lane at 2685 River Road & 84 Green Lane.
Applicant:
Steve Graves, Oregon West Management, LLC
Property Owner: Santa Clara Properties, LLC
Representative: Michael Howard, Satre Associates, P.c.
Lead City Staff: Heather O'Dolmell, Principal Planner
(541) 682-5488
Nature of the Requests
The Eugene Planning Commission will consider the following requests and make a recommendation
to the Eugene City CounciL The requests will be heard before the Eugene City Council in a separate
public hearing, following action by the Eugene Plmming Connnission. Approval of the applicant's
requested Metro Plan and Refinement Plan an1endments are necessary to accommodate the proposed
zone changes.
.Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan Im1d use diagram to change
7.3 acres of site north of Green Lane from a designation of Low Density Residential to a designation
of Commercial, and to change 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation of
Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential.
Refinement PIau Amendment (City file R,A 07 -1) to amend the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan land use diagram to change approximately 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane
from.a designation of Govemment and Education to a designation of Commercial; to chan e 13
(1~11;:S V1 Ult;. :Slle SUUUl or \Jfeen Lane ITom a o.eslgnanon ot commercull to a designation QfMedium
Density Residential; and to amend the refinement plan text to include site specific development
requirements.
Zone Change (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the existing
zoning of PL and C-l, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C-2/PD/SR,
Community ConU11ercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays; and to
rezone 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from R-1, Low Density Residential zone to
R-2fPD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays.
Public Hearinf! Format:
The order of procedure for quasi-judicial hearings is:
1. Planning Commission chair will commence public hearing.
2. Planning Commission chair will ask conU11issioners to disclose any conflicts of interest, ex parte
contacts, and biases, abstentions or challenges to impartiality submitted pursuant to EC 9.7065.
3. Planning Commission will receive a City staff report and Commissioners will share any
infonnation learned from site visits.
I 4. Public testimony from the appellant and others in support of the appeal.
5. Comments or questions from interested people who are neither proponents nor opponents.
6. Public testimony from those in opposition.
7. Staff response to testimony.
8. Questions from the Planning Commissioners.
9. Rebuttal by the appellant.
10. Planning Commission Chair will announce whether the record is closed; record will be held open;
or the public hearing will he continued.
The Planning Commission will make a decision within 15 days of the close of the record. The
Planning Commission's action is finaL _______________
AGEN])A ITEM SUMMARY
October 18,2007
TO:
Eugene Planning Commission
}i'ROM:
I-leather O'Donnell, Associate Planner. Eugene Planning Division
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing for Oregon West l'vlanagement, LLC Metro Plan Amendment,
Refinement Plan Amendment and Zone Change (MA 07-2, RA 07-1 and Z 07-3)
ACTION REQUESTED: Hold a public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan amendment, retinement
plan amendment and zone change.
BRIEFING STATEMENT: On October 18, 2007, the Eugene Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan, amend the applicable refinement plan and approve a
concurrent zone change for Oregon West Management LLC, (Steve Graves) for property owned by Santa
Clara Properties, LLC. The property subject to this request, identified as Tax Lots 9100,9200 & 9300 of
Assessor's Map ]7-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200,300,400 & 1900 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44, is
located at 2685 River Road & 84 Green Lane, on the east side of River Road, south of Hunsaker Lane,
with 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane and 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane, and is within
the Eugene City limits. The following plan amendments and zone change applications were submitted by
the applicant:
Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram to change 7.3
acres of site north of Green Lane from a designation of Low Density Residential to a designation of
Commercial, and to change].3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to
a designation of Medium Density Residential.
Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 07-1) to amend the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Ehm land use diagram to change approximately 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from a
designation of Government and Education to a designation of Commercial; to change 1.3 acres of the site
south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential;
and to amend the refinement plan text to include site specific development requirements.
Zone Change (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the existing
zoning of PL and C-l, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercicl zone, to C-2/PD/SR, Community
Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays; and to rezone 1.3 acres of
the site south of Green Lune from R-I, Low Density Residential zone to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density
Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays.
BACKGROUNO:
j>urpose of Staff Report
The Eugene Code requires City statJto prepare a \vritten report, prior to the public hearing, for the
Planning Commission's consideration concerning any Metro Plan amendment, refinement plan
amendment and zone change request. The staff report provides only preliminary infonnation and
recommendations (see Attachment A). The Eugene Planning Commission will also consider additional
public testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision. Following
the close of the public hearing record, the Planning Commission volill make a recommendation, based on
the required approval criteria, to the City Council to approve, approve with modifications or deny the
applications. The requests \Nil! be heard before the City Council in a separate public hearing, following
action by the Planning Commission. New evidence will be accepted by the City CounciL The quasi-
judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095.
Application, Referrals and Public Hearing Notice
On February 26, 2007, Oregon West Management LLC (Steve Graves) submitted applications to the City
of Eugene for amendments to the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plan, as well as a concurrent
rezoning. In response to the City's completeness review comments, the applicant provided supplemental
application materials on .hme 1,2007 and on August 2, 2007. On August 24,2007, the applicant
requested that the City deem the applications complete and then provided additional supplemental
application materials on August 29, 2007. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled
for October 18, 2007. Referrals were provided to the appropriate agencies, and notice of the October 18,
2007 public hearing was mailed and posted consistent with Eugene Code requirements.
In response to the public notice, the Planning Division has received two letters of public testimony as of
the date of the staff report (October 8, 2007), including one letter from the affected neighborhood group
the Santa Clara Community Organization. To the extent possible, public testimony relevant to the
applicable approval criteria is addressed in the staff report. Any additional written comments received
afler the preparation of this staff report \vill be provided to the PImming Conu11ission at the public hearing
for inclusion into the public record.
Applicable Criteria
The Eugene Plalming Commission shall address the relevant approval criteria from Eugene Code (Fe)
sections 9.773{}(3), 9.8424 and 9.8865 in making recommendations to the Eugene City Council on the
proposals, as listed below. Preliminary findings addressing the required approval criteria have been
prepared by staff and are attached.
EC 9.7730(3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment.
The following criteria shall be applied b)' the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan
amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
EC 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria.
The planning commission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the
criteria set forth below~ and forward a recommendation to tbe city council. The city council shall
decide whether to act on the application. If the city council decides to act, it shall approvc~ approve
with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval, or approval with
modifications shall be based on compliance with the following criteria:
(1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following:
(a) Statewide planning goals.
(b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan.
(c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan.
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(c) New or amended community policies.
(d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation,
statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan.
(e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time
the refinement plan was adopted.
EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria.
Approval of a zone cbange application, including tbe designation of an overlay zone, shall not be
approved unless it meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of tbe Metro Plan. The written
text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent
conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the
event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls.
(3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the
proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and
services.
(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for
the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements; (f) EC 9.2735
Residential Zone Siting Requirements.
(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter
into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural
resource area for a minimum of 50 years.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the available information and materials in the record, and the
attached preliminary findings, staff finds that the proposal does not comply with the applicable approval
criteria. However if, the Planning Commission can make positive findings that the proposal complies \vith
the applicable approval criteria, staff recommends imposition of the conditions of approval identified in
the staff findings,
A TTACHMENTS: It was not feasible to reprint all of the written materials, attachments, and other
items included in the file record for this application as part of the attachments to the Preliminary Staff
Findings. The other materials listed below are only available for review at the Planning Division, Copies
of the materials found in the file record for this application can be provided upon request for a fee. The
Planning Commission will be provided a full set of the applicant's materials and all public testimony for
revte\v,
AttaclU11ent A. Preliminary StafT Findings
Attachment B. Vicinity Maps
The following items are included in the file record for this application, and are available for review
at the Planning Division (The Planning Commission will be provided a copy of these materials):
Applicant's Metro Plan Amendment Application Materials, dated August 29, 2007
Applicant's Refinement Plan Amendment Application Materials, dated August 29, 2007
Applicant's Zone Change Application Materials, dated August 29, 2007
Applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis, dated August 28, 2007
Letters of Public Testimony received through October 8, 2007
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please contact Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. 10th
Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541-682-5488 or via email at
heather .m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us.
Attachment A
Preliminary Staff Findings
Oregon West Management, LLC
(MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Metro Plan Diagram Amendment (MA 07-2)
The proposed amendment would change the current ]'vletro Plan land use diagram designations of
7.3 acres of subject property north of Green Lane from Low Density Residential to Commercial.
and would change 1.3 acres of the subject property south of Green Lane from Commercial to
Medium Density Residential.
Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold and italics) be
applied to a Metro Plan diagram amendment:
(a) Tlte amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by tlte
Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program thm insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such
involvement. The action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for
reviewing these amendments complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and surpasses the
requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal I by requiring that notice of
the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of
the amendments begins with a City of Eugene Planning Commission public hearing on October 18,
2007. During completeness review, several iterations of the application were sent to the affected
neighborhood group, the Santa Clara Community Organization (SeCO) for early involvement. The
< also applicant met with the neighborhood group at different times during completeness review.
Subsequent to deeming the applications complete, on August 31, 2007, the City mailed notice of the
proposed plan amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required
by the Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes. Referrals concerning the pending
applications were sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of Springfield,
Lane County, the affected Neighborhood Association, the sceo, and to City departments. On
September 18, 2007, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing \vas mailed to the applicant,
owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property and the Santa Clara
Community Organization. On September 18,2007, notice was also posted in accordance with Be
Staff Findings ~ October 8, 2007
rage 1
9.7415(5). On September 28, 2007, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was
published in the Register-Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. An additional public
hearing before the Eugene City Council will be scheduled following Planning Commission action.
Notice to interested and affected parties will also be provided for that hearing.
In response to the public notice, aside from phone calls, two letters of v.'riUen testimony have been
received. One letter is regarding concerns for increased traffic and does not support the proposed
zone changes. Traffic, regarding compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule, is discussed
below under Goal 12. The other letter is from the SCCO. The letter states that: "the applicant's
willingness to apprise the SCCO if its intentions and gather feedback has been greatly appreciated.
Although we agree in concept with the idea of a mixed-use development, we difter with the
applicant in the implementation of that idea." They state that there is an imbalance \cvith too much
commercial proposed, there is a lack of a truly public gathering space and adequate amounts of
pervious surface, and a lack of transition between the proposed C-2 and the existing R-l to the east.
The SCCO letter includes comments regarding severa) adopted plan policies which are addressed
under the applicable criteria below. The SCCO letter also includes several suggestions to meet the
needs of the Santa Clara community. As noted in the SCCO letter, the applicant met with the
neighborhood group early in the application process.
The process for adopting these amendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal I since it
complies with the requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and polity framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for
such decisions and actions.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that
provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State
in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and record shov-l that
there is an adequate factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed amendments.
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected govenunentalunits. To comply with
the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of these amendments with all
atIected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the State Department of Land
Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Lane County, and
the City of Springfield. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore,
the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agriculturallandr;.
Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban growth
boundary from the definition of agricultural lands. Since the subject property is entirely within the
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the
area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Staff Findings -- October 8, 2007
Page 2
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest land.,.
Goal 4 is not applicable to these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any
forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and,
therefore, does not apply to the subject propeliy, which is within Eugene's urban growth boundary
(OAR 660-006-0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the
area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces. Scenic and Historic Are~<;, and__Natural Resources; To conserve open space
and protect natural and scenic resources.
The loHo\ving administrative rule (OAR660-023-0250) is applicable to this post-acknowledgement
plan amendment (PAPA) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration ofa PAPA unless the
PAPA aflect:.; a Goal 5 resource. Forpurposes oj'this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5
resource only (l"
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan
or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a sign{ficant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements a/Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows ne"w uses that could be conflicting uses lvi/II a particular
significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list: or
(c) The PAPA amend., an acknowledged UGS andfactual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas o/such a site. is included in
the amended UGS area.
The subject property does not include a Goal 5 resource site. The proposed amendments do not
create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order
to protect a significant GoalS resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow
new uses that could be conflicting uses with a patiicular Goal 5 resource site, and do not amend the
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary.
Therefore, Statewide Planning GoalS does not apply to these amendments.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Qualitv: To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water, and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development.. and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. Nothing in the proposal or the character of the
site or potential uses indicates a future development that would compromise air, water and land
resources. The proposal does not amend the metropolitan area's air, water quality or land resource
policies. The applicant's findings show that the City can reasonably expect that future development
of the site comply with applicable environmental laws. Therefore, the amendments are consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from natural
disasters and hazards.
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 3
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related haz.ards, tsunamis
and wildfires, The subject property is not located within known areas of natural disasters or
hazards. The subject property is outside the flood zone and is not subject to hazards nonnallv
associated with steep slopes, wildfires, or tsunamis. Other hazards, s~ch as earthquakes and ~<;evere
winter storms can be mitigated at the time of development based on accepted building codes and
building techniques. Therefore, these amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7.
~Joal 8 - Recr~ational Needs: To satisfj; the recreational needs of the citizens (1"the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to providefor the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. There are no public or private
recreational facilities on or adjacent to the subject property. Therefore the proposed amendments
will not impact the provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect access to existing
or future public recreational facilities.
A phone inquiry questioned whether this site could be considered for a park. Written comments
from the seco state, in summary, that this site should include a public plaza/green space.
Communications from Parks and Open Space (POS) staff indicate that the City considered
acquiring the portion of the site that is the former Santa Clara Elementary School site when it was
put up for sale. Based on a variety of factors, POS staff states that the site was not well suited tor
park use. The site is now in private ownership.
The an1endments are therefore consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the statefor a
variety (~f economic activities vital to the health lvelfare, and prosperity ~l()regon 's citizens.
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660 Division 9) requires that the City
"[p]rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location, and service
levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies[.]" Among other
things, the rule requires that cities complete an "Economic Opportunities Analysis." OAR 660-009-
0015. Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and
Commercial Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR 660-009-0025 requires that
cities designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and long term needs. OAR
660-009-00 1 0(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Division 9
apply "at the time of each periodic review of the plan (ORS 197.712(3))." In addition, OAR 660-
009-00 1 0(4) provides that, \\i'hen a city changes its plan designations of lands in excess of two acres
to or from commercial or industrial use, pursuant to a post acknowledgment plan amendment, it
must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) demonstrate that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the
requirements of OAR 660 Division 9~ or (b) amend its comprehensive plan to explain the proposed
amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c) adopt a combination of (a) and (b) consistent
Staff Findings -- October 8, 2007
Page 4
with the requirements of Division 9.
The applicant states that OAR 660-009-0010(4) does not apply because the proposed amendment
will remove less than two acres trom the commercial land supply. As stated above, subsection (4)
applies to removal or adding two or more acres and the proposed change in commercial designation
is in excess of two acres. Specifically, the amendment will re-designate approximately 7.3 acres to
Commercial and re-designate 1.3 acres of land from Commercial to Medium Density Residential.
Thereh)fe, the net amendments will increase the supply of available commercial land by 6.0 acres
for the purpose of facilitating the development ofa "mixed use center," therefore subsection (4) is
applicable.
In the context of OAR 660-009-001 0(4), the proposed change is not consistent with all parts of the
Metro Plan that address the requirements of OAR 660 Division 9 (option (a), above) as discussed
below. The Eugene Commercial Lands Study (ECLS) is acknowledged for compliance \-vith the
requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule. The EeLS constitutes the City's obligation
under OAR 660 Division 9. Currently, the City of Eugene has a surplus of commercial land. The
portion of the subject site south of Green Lane was part of the ECLS because it is designated
Commercial. Approximately 2 acres of the portion ofthe site north of Green Lane were also
included in the ECLS because those tax lots (300 and 400) \vere zoned for commercial use. The
remainder of the subject property (5.3 acres) was not included in the ECLS because it was neither
zoned nor designated as commercial. Below, the findings address consistency w-ith relevant policies
in the fCLS.
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by
encouraging businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. (Policy 6.0)
By its express terms, this policy does not constitute a mandatory approval criterion. However, as
addressed in context of Policies 8 and 22, the proposal would add new commercial on a vacant site
in an area that has already been determined to have adequate commercial land supply, rather than
redevelopment of an existing commercial site as encouraged.
Recognize the dtflering needs of residential areas in the various parts of the community. and
determine the need to create additional commercial sites in light ofopportunities/or
redevelopment. (Policy 8.0)
This policy does constitute a mandatory approval criterion to be addressed by an applicant. As
discussed below, the River-Road Santa Clara Subarea Policy 22 specifically states: "Recognize that
the commercial sites designated in the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan provide
adequate commercial supply for the area."
Concentrate development in existing commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on the
rest of the city. (Policy 12.0)
Reduce congestion on commercially developed streets (strip commercial areas). (Po/i",y
13.0)
Staff Findings - O<::tober 8. 2007
Page 5
Regarding Policy 12, the Planning Commission recently found (McKenzie/Willamette) that under
one interpretation of this policy, it applies when considering the designation of new commercial
lands, requiring that such designations occur in areas of existing commercial development.
However, given the implementation strategy accompanying this policy, the Planning Commission
found that a different interpretation of the policy is more reasonable. This second interpretation is
that, within existing commercially zoned areas, ne\v development should be concentrated to allow
for internal traffic circulation, and thus reduce traffic impacts on acUacent streets. The subject
property is less than one mile from commercial areas, including the Santa Clara Square, commercial
areas on River Road and directly abutting commercially zoned property. The 7.3 acres is also of
sufficient size to permit adequate internal circulation. Regarding Policy 13, the findings on pages
19-22 of the applicant's Refinement Plan Amendment written statement regarding Goal 12 and
required mitigation of traffic impacts, are incorporated herein by this reference as further evidence
of compliance with both of these policies. It is noted that at the time of the ECLS, the area of the
subject property was not specifically identified as a "strip conmlercial" area.
The subject property is also in the River Road/Santa Clara Subarea of the ECLS. The only policy in
this subarea is as follows:
Recognize that the commercial sites designated in the River }?oadlS'anta Clara Urban
facilities Plan provide adequate commercial suppzyfor the area. Consider additional
commercial land in the vicinity olthe Chambers Connector ([needed to address community
commercial needs. (Policy 22.0)
This policy provides direction that new commercial sites are not needed in t.his subarea. This
policy's geographic specificity and its subject-matter focus on limiting additional commercial land
make the policy significant. The policy appears to express a preference that the only additional
commercial land be in the vicinity of the Chambers Connector (near the south end of River Road).
White that preference is not absolute, and can be overcome by sufficient reasons and/or competing
policy considerations, read in context the policy clearly requires the City to at least consider
whether the applicant has established a basis to overcome that policy preference. It does not appear
that the applicant has done so. As further addressed with regard to the Metro Plan and the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan below the applicant has not demonstrated a need fbr
additional commercial (and area and the policy direction calls for providing more higher density
residential land rather than conm1ercial.
As discussed under EC 9.8424(1 )(c) (Refinement Plan Amendment approval criteria), the subject
property is also located in the River Road/Division Subarea of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan (RRSC). The RRSC subarea land llse diagram identifies the portion of the subject
property north of Green Lane (with the exception of a portion of Tax Lot 400) as Government and
Education, and the portion of the subject property south of Green Lane as Commercial. The
proposed amendments would result in a net increase of approximately 6 acres of commercially
designated land, inconsistent with this policy. Furthermore, the only exception to this policy is the
Chambers Connector area. The subject property is not within the vicinity of the Chambers
Connector and therefore, in the context of this policy, is not available for consideration for a new
commercial site. Based on these findings, the proposed re-designation is inconsistent with this
policy.
Staff Findings -- October &, 2007
Page 6
To the extent that the proposal is inconsistent with the City's acknowledged Goal 9 plan provisions,
specifically including the adopted policies of the ECLS, the amendments do not comply with
Statewide Planning Goal 9. 'N'l1en considered in combination, the direction of the ECLS policies,
specifically Policies 6,8 and 22, do not support the addition of the proposed 7.3 acres of
. Commercial.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide/or the housing needs olthe citizens a/the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land
for needed housing units. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 10 (OAR 660
Division 8) states that "the mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs
projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy
housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local
buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan
designation." The comprehensive plan map for the City is the Metro Plan land use diagram. The
1999 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study (RLS) is
acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 10 and its Administrative Rule.
There is not sufficient evidence to show that any portion of the subject property \vas included in the
RLS supply analysis. Regarding the portion of the property to the north of Green Lane, page 50 of
the RLS states that it was assumed that 32 percent of residential land would be used for all non-
residential uses, and that land used for non-residential uses, such as schools, were subtracted from
the available amount of buildable land. The site north of Green Lane has been up until recently
developed vv'ith the Santa Clara Elementary School, so it would have been subtracted from the
available buildable land supply. Regarding the portion of the site south of Green Lane, although
zoned as R-l, it is designated as Commercial and developed with a single-fan1ily residence and thus
not part ofthe inventory. As such, staff finds thatthe proposed amendments do not affect the
residential land supply because the subject property was not included in theRLS and therefore the
proposal is consistent with Goal 10. However, the applicant's responses (pages 13-15) are
incorporated herein by reference as demonstrating compliance with Goal lOin the event that the
Planning Commission finds othef\vise, that the residential land supply is affected by the
amendments because the subject property was included in the RLS.
Should the Planning Commission determine that Goal 10 analysis is needed, staff notes the
following. The portion of the property north of Green Lane is designated as Low Density
Residential on the Metro Plan. The portion of the subject property south of Green Lane is
designated as Commercial on the Metro Plan. The applicant proposes to re-designate approximately
7.3 acres fTom Low Density Residential to Commercial, and to re-designate 1.3 acres of
Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The applicant provides analysis of the RLS and
indicates that the subject property was not individually considered in the detailed supply and
demand analysis; however the site is included within the supply analysis. The applicant notes the
RLS contains a detailed analysis of dwelling units and finds that the Santa Clara Subarea has the
highest percent of single-family dwellings (88%) and the lowest percentage of multi-family units
(less than 1%) (RLS, page 27). With the proposed amendment, the maximum number of units on
the 1.3 acre site is 37. In the Santa Clara Subarea, the applicant finds that the proposed amendment
Stafr Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 7
will increase the medium density residential dwelling unit supply by approximately 1.1 % and
decrease the low density residential dwelling unit supply by approximately 1.70/'0 (page 14 of the
written statement). The applicant also incorporates the updated residential supply analysis provided
by the City at the time of the Goal 5 ordinance. The applicant's findings indicate that there is still an
excess of low density zoning and medium density zoning, even with the proposed amendments, but
the applicant asserts that the change in zoning acreage is so small that no thrther analysis is
necessary. Therefore, based on the findings above the amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 10.
Goal 11 ~ Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement o/publicfacilities and services to serve as aframeworkfor urban and rural
development.
The area affected by the amendments is located inside the City limits. The existing level of public
tacilities and service is adequate to serve the needs of existing and future development. Ho\vever,
specific design details related to public improvements such as stonnwater remain to be resolved in
the context of any future development proposal. The provision of these amendments does not
significantly affect the planning or development of fhturepublic facilities or services. Therefore,
the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 . Transportation: To provide and encourage a sq(e, conveniem and economic
transportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. The TPR (OAR 660~012-0060) states that when land use changes,
including amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards
(level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility.
To address the TPR, the applicant submitted findings and a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA),
dated August 28, 2007, which was prepared by the consulting firm of Branch Engineering, Inc.
Subsequent to the August 28th submittal, the applicant revised the TlA several times, responding to
comments from the Oregon Department of Transportation (0001'), the City and Lane County. The
1'lA evaluates the current perfoffilance of impacted transportation facilities, the performance of
these facilities in 2022 with the proposed amendments (re-designate 7.3 acres from Low Density
Residential to Commercial and re.designate 1.3 acres of Commercial to Medium Density
Residential), and the performance of the facilities in 2022 without the proposed amendments. The
TIA uses a "reasonable worst-case" scenario for C~2 commercial uses (for the portion of the
property re-designated to commercial) as depicted on Appendix F of the TIA, and a "reasonable
worst.case" scenario for the R-2 uses (for the portion of the property re-designated to Medium
Density Residential) based on the maximum allowable density of dwelling units, and anticipated
trip generation and distribution during the Pfvl peak hour. Based on the TIA, the proposed
commercial and residential uses are anticipated to generate 361 trips in the PM peak hour.
Staff Findings - October 8. 2007
Page 8
City, Lane County and 0001' statTwere consulted in the scoping and development of the TIA and
generally agree that the analysis methods used in the TIA are acceptable. (The TIA determined that
no further examination was needed for any state facilities than as provided in Appendix G). The
TIA included analysis of the following existing transportation facilities:
~ _. __ 'm.. .._._
I! Transportation Facilities
II Street Classification Jurisdiction
1-_-- '''__mm'''__
I }:!~~?aker Lane! Site Access Major Cgllector -.._..1.. Lane C_9J:l.DJY.
Hunsaker Lane! River Road Major Collector! I Lane County! City of
__.......m.m_..._________...__m Ma'or Arterial ! Eu ene
River Road! Site Access __.._..._.._. ...~ajor Ar:t~rjal ! Cit of Eu ene
River Road! Green Lane Local ! _City of Eugene_
l0.!~~~_!:_a0-~!Si~~mAc~~~~_._._...____m L2Q~. ' Cit of Eu ene
In addition to including the abovc existing transportation tacilities, the TIA also included discussion
of planned transportation facilities, as required by OAR 660-0 12-0060( I). Regarding planned
transportation facilities, the TIA states that the City's Transportation System Plan (TransPlan)
provides for "financially constrained un-programmed" (projects planned for construction but may
not have funding sources identified) improvements to Hunsaker Lane, which include on-street
bicycle lancs and other upgrades to urban standards. The Regional Transportation Program also
identifies those planned improvements for Hunsaker Lane. Relerral comments do not indicate any
other planned facilities.
Determination ofSign~ficant ~Jfect
The TPR requires a determination of which existing and planned transportation facilities will
experience a significant effect as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and defines what
constitutes a significant effect. One way in which an amendment will significantly affect an
existing or planned transportation facility is, if at the end of the planning period, the amendment
will reduce the performance of a transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance
standard or will worsen the performance of a transportation facility that is othenvise projected to
perform belo\v the minimum acceptable performance standard (OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B) and
(C)),
In determining whether there is a significant ef1ect, different measurements are used to identify and
analyze each facility for the minimum level of performance standard. Level of Service 0 (LOS D)
is the minimum acceptable performance standard for City of Eugene. As identified in TransPlan,
LOS A represents the least congested conditions and LOS F the most congested. The Lane Countv
Transportation System Plan indicates that the volume to capacity (vie) ratio of 0.85 is considered
the minimum acceptable performance standard for Lane County facilities. As found below, the vie
performance standard is the focus of the proposed mitigation because a Lane County facility is
determined to be significantly affected.
The end of the planning period in the City's adopted transportation system plan (TransPlan) is 2015,
During the TIA scoping process, based on input from teclmical staff from ODOr, Lane County and
City, the applicant's analysis under OAR 660-012-0060 extends the planning period to 2022, \vhich
Staff Findings ... October 8,2007
Page 9
provides more conservative estimates by accounting for more background growth as well as a
consistent year for analysis purposes.
Staff concurs with the applicant that the proposed plan amendments \vill not significantly affect
existing transpOliation facilities under OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a) or (1)(b). This is because the
proposed amendments will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility under (l )(a) or the standards implementing a functional classification facility
under (I )(b). Regarding subsections OAR 660-0 12-0060( 1 )(c )(A),( 1)( c )(B) and (1 )( c )(C), staff also
concurs with the applicant that, except for River Road at Hansaker Lane/Irving intersection, the
proposed amendments \vill not significantly affect existing transportation facilities.
The performance ofthe River Road at Hunsaker Lane/Irving intersection is significantly affected by
the proposed amendments in the context of subsection (l )(c)(C), with regard to Lane County's
minimum vie performance standard. This is because the proposed amendments would worsen the
performance of a facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable
perfonnance standard by the end of the planning period. Specifically, as shmvn in Table 7 of the
applicant's TIA (page 29), in 2022 the River Road at Hunsaker Lane/Irving is projected to per!()rm
below the minimum standard of 0.85 vie by perfom1ing at 1.41 without the proposed amendments,
and with the proposed amendments. With the proposed amendments, in 2022 River Road at
HunsakerlIrving intersection is projected to pertorm at 1.43 vie. Therefore, the River Road at
Hunsaker Lane/Irving intersection is significantly alTected by the proposed amendments I. See
OAR 660-0 12.0060( 1 )(c )(C).
Atiligation of Impacts
Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060, a proposed amendment that significantly effects a transportation
facility can be allowed, provided the applicant can demonstrate compliance with either OAR 660-
012-0060(2) or (3). Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1), when a local government determines that an
amendment would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local
government must put in place measures as provided in OAR 660-012-0060(2) to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and perfbrmance standards
(level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. If there are no measures that will
assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and
performance standards of the facility, the City could still approve the proposed amendment if the
applicant demonstrates compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(3).
To mitigate the significant effect that the proposed amendments will have on the River Road at
Hunsaker Lane/Irving intersection, the applicant has proposed the following improvements:
. Construct an additional Hlillsaker Lane westbound approach lane.
Jurisdiction: Lane County
. Construct an additional Green Lane westbound approach lane.
Jurisdiction: City of Eugene
1 Note that the same intersection is not significantly affected with respect to City of Eugene LOS perfonnance standard
because the Intersection is already projected to fail at LOS F and will not worsen by the proposal as it IS projected to
stay the same at LOS F with the proposed development.
Staff Findings... October 8, 2007
Page 10
The applicant states on pages 17-20 of the written statement that the mitigation is proposed under
OAR 660-0l2-0060(2)(e), and also under OAR 660-012-0060(3) if the City chooses to invoke
subsection (3). Based on the applicant's '1'IA and supplemental materials, statT finds that the
proposed mitigation measures will not bring the signitkantly affected facility (River Road at
Husaker/Irving) up to the identified function, capacity and perfonnance standards of the facility by
the end of the planning period. Specifically, in order to demonstrate compliance vvith OAR 660-
012-0060(1) (as required by subsection (2)(e)), the applicant mllst provide enough mitigation to
increase the performance of the intersection up to the minimum standard identified by Lane County,
0.85 vie. The proposed mitigation, as shown in Table 8 of the TIA (page 33), only improves the
performance of the intersection to 1.19 vie. Accordingly, the applicant's proposed mitigation
measures do not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1) and OAR 660-012-0060(2)(e).
However, as previously noted, the City may still approve the proposed amendment if the applicant
demonstrates compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(3). This provision states that a local
government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation
facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and
perfonnance standards if the applicant can demonstrate compliance v,rith the five requirements of
subsection (3)(a) through (e) below. Findings addressing compliance with these requirements are
provided belm\'.
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(a) Thejacility is already performing below the minimum acceptable
performance standard ident{fied in the TSP or comprehensive plan on the date the
amendment application is submitted;
Consistent with this subsection, River Road at HunsakerlIrving is currently performing at 0.91 vlc,
which is below the acceptable performance standard of 0.85 vie, as demonstrated in the applicant's
TIA in Table 7 (page 29).
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(b) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation
facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be
adequate to achieve consistency 'with the identifiedfunction, capacity or pel:!'ormance
standard/or thatfcleilify by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted r:)p:
As shown in the applicant's analysis in the TIA, in the absence of these amendments, the planned
facilities, etc., would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the perfonnance standard of the
facility by the end of the planning period, consistent with this subsection.
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(c) Development resultingfrom the amendment will, at a minimum,
mitigate the impacts o.fthe amendment in a manner that a1'oidsjurther degradation to the
performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of
transportation improvements or mea.'>Ures;
Under this subsection, development resulting from the proposed amendment must mitigate the
impacts of the amendments in a manner that avoids further degradation of the transportation facility
by the time of development, which is anticipated by the applicant to be 2008. To address this
Staff Findings ~ October 8, 2007
Page II
requirement, the applicant has proposed to construct an additional Hunsaker Lane westbound
approach lane and to construct an additional Green Lane westbound approach lane,
As shown on Table 8 of the TIA (page 33), at the time of development (build year 2(08) the River
Road at Hunsaker/Irving intersection is projected to further degrade to perform at ,98 vie, As a
result of the proposed mitigation, the vie would remain at ,98 at the time of development (2008)
therefore the proposed amendments would avoid further degradation of the facility, as required by
subsection (3)(c). The TIA indicates that a tratlic signal \vas considered at the Green Lane
intersection, but that due to the proximity to adjacent signalized intersections, it was determined that
a signal at Green Lane would likely degrade the capacity of River Road north-south movements,
However, the TIA demonstrates that the proposed mitigation is sutJicient to avoid further
degradation, consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(3)(c). In order to ensure that the development
resulting from the proposed amendments will not cause further degradation of the intersection, any
future development of the site will be conditioned on the construction of these two approach lanes.
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(d) The amendment does not involve property located in an
interchange area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C),' and
Consistent with this subsection. the amendment does not involve property located in an interchange
area, as defined in OAR 660-012-0060(4)(d)(C).
OAR 660-012-0060(3)(e) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement
that the proposedfunding and timingfor the identified mitigation improvements or measu.res
are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoidjurther degradation to theperformance of the affected
state highway. Hm.vever, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional
office with lvritten notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT
reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government
proceeding, and GDOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may
proceed with applying subsections (a) through (d) of this section.
Consistent with this subsection, as indicated in the TIA, the amendment does not atTect a state
highway. ODOT indicated no concerns with this revised TIA. dated August 28, 2007.
Conclusion
Based on the available evidence, the proposal complies with Statewide Plmming Goal 12 as
implemented through OAR 660-012-0060, with the imposition of the following conditions of
approval to ensure that the necessary transportation improvements are in place prior to operation of
the commercial and residential uses:
The applicant shall record in the Office of the Lane County Clerk restrictive covenants on
the real property that is the subject of the proposed amendments, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, stipulating that any future development approval for the site shall require, by
the time of development, full and complete construction of an additional westbound
approach lane on Hunsaker Lane and an additional westbound approach lane on Green Lane.
The restrictive covenants shall be binding 011 any successive owner( s) of the property, are
enforceable by the City of Eugene any may be amended only with the express written
Staff Findings -- October 8,2007
Page 12
consent of the City of Eugene.
Based on the above findings and approval condition as imposed, the proposal is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 ~ Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
Statewide Planning Goal 13 calls for land uses to be managed and controlled "so as to maximize the
conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles." Goal 13 is directed at
the development of local energy policies and implementing provisions and does not state
requirements with respect to other types of land use decisions. To the extent that Goal 13 could be
applied to the proposed change in designation, the designation is consistent with Goal 13. The
proposed site is located so that a future development can make et11cient use of energy with direct
and efficient access. The proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 ~ Urbanization: To provide for an orderZv and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use.
The amendments do not efIect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the subject property is
within the City limits. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and nwintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette
River as the W"illamette River Greenway.
The subject property is not within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore,
Statevvide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related t.o the property effected
by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the an1cndments will not affect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must ltot make tlte Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 7.3 acres of land from Low Density Residential
to Commercial and 1.3 acres of land from Commercial to Medium Density Residential will create
an internal conflict with the remainder of the Metro Plan.
The applicant provided detailed findings intending to show how the Metro Plan diagram
amendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan. Those policies
found to be applicable to this request are addressed below. Although the applicant addressed
additional Metro Plan policies (Policies 1,24, A.S, A.17, F.l, F.13, F.23, 1.3, and 1.8) which have
been considered, they do not provide further relevant guidance or mandatory approval criteria with
Staff Findings ~ October 8, 2007
Page 13
respect to the proposal. To the extent that they may be applicable, the applicant's findings are
incorporated herein by reference.
The f()llowing Metro Plan polices are applicable to this request:
Residential Land Use and Housinp. ElemeJ:1!
Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure,
improves the efftciemy of public services andfacilities, and conserves rural resource
lands outside the UGE. (Policy A.1 0)
Genera/~v locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within tran!:>]Jortation-ef(lcient
nodes. (Policy A.II)
Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of adequate
infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities. (Po/iGyA.12)
As noted under Goal 10 above, the Santa Clara area has the lowest percentage of multi-family units
in the City. The applicant's proposed addition of 1.3 acres of Medium Density Residential is
consistent with these policies in that the applicant is adding a higher density designation than a
portion of the property is currently designated. However, as the applicant notes under the
Refinement Plan Amendment approval criteria, EC 9.8424(2)(e), the City Council amended the
Metro Plan to include these policies relatively recently (2004). These policies (and on-going
programs to identify higher density sites) in conjunction with the low amount of multi-family sites
in Santa Clara, and the amount of density that could be provided on the site even under the current
Low Density Residential designation, support more residential density and less commercial than as
proposed by the applicant. Although a commercial designation could satisfy the later portion of
Policy A.I 0 in that it "utilizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and
facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the VOB," and the later portion of Policy A.l1
by being located "near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation
systems or within transportation-efficient nodes", the policy direction indicates a preference
towards higher density residential for these locations rather than commercial. While the expressed
language of these policies may not be mandatory, they indicate a policy direction that supports a
high density residential rather than commercial on the 7.3 acre portion of the site.
Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more
opportunities for e.ffectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while
considering impacts (~f increased residential density on historic, existing andfuture
neighborhoods. (Policy A.i3)
Etpand opportunities for a mix o/uses in new~v developing areas and existing
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations. (Policy ,1.22)
Reduce impacts a/higher density residential and mixed-use development on surrounding
uses by considering site, landscape, and architectural design standards or guidelines in
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 14
local zoning and development regulations. (Policy.4.23)
If the City approves the applications before it, the applicant proposes steps to ensure that the site is
developed as a (horizontal) mixed use center in that the residential portion of the site separated from
the commercial portion of the site by Green Lane, will develop along with the commercial area. The
applicant proposes refinement plan text amendments for an enhanced pedestrian crossing of Green
Lane to unite the t,vo portions of the site as one "mixed use center."
Mixed use is supported by the above mentioned policies. Per the Metro Plan, the definition of
mixed use is: "A building, project or area of development that contains at least two different land
uses such as housing, retail, and office uses" (page lll-A-9). The proposed development, as a
"project or area of development" meets this definition as the project would have both a residential
use and a commercial use component. The issue staff finds is not necessarily that this is not a mixed
use development per the above definition; rather the issue is that the amount of commercial
proposed is disproportionate to the amount of residential, especially considering the existing
commercial uses in the surrounding area. Although none of the policies state a specific ratio for
each use, Policy A 13 supports mixed use as an opportunity to obtain greater density. As previously
stated, the proposal would actually reduce the amount of potential density for the site. Staff
encouraged the applicant to incorporate a residential component on the commercial portion of the
site not only to increase the mixed use function of the project by better integrating the two uses but
also to increase density. Adding a residential component to the commercial area, along \vith the
proposed IPO and ISR overlays, would also temper the commercial impacts bet\veen the project and
existing ofT-site residences by reducing the dominance (and possibly the location) of the
commercial development, consistent with Policy A.l3 and A.23. Staff notes that while the
Commercial designation does not preclude residential use, nothing in the proposal requires
residential use on the commercial portion. Regarding Policy A22, the policy direction is to
"expand opportunities" for a mix of uses and the proposal provides a very limited mix of uses.
While the applicant finds these policies to support their proposal, staff finds that the proposal is
inconsistent with these policies that direct more residential density and less commercial uses than
proposed.
Comments from the SCCO specitIcally state concerns with the proposed commercial development
abutting the R -1 zoned property to the east, citing the lack of transi tion shovvn on the more detailed
site plan provided in the TIA. The applicant has not proposed a specific site plan as part of the
amendment application, as is typical not to include at this policy level of planning action. However,
stafT notes that in the event that the Planning Commission approves the proposed amendments, the
refinement plan text may be the appropriate location to provide any specific conditions of approval
regarding transition between the commercial and residential uses that is not already provided in the
Eugene Code or by the applicant's proposed text amendments.
Regarding Policy A.I3, the applicant also specifically discusses that the subject property is located
within Potential Nodal Development Area 5-C in TransPlan. Although 5-C is not oftlcially
recognized as a nodal development area on the Metro Plan land use diagram and is not required to
develop in accordance with the nodal concept, the applicant's proposal is generally consistent with
certain elements of nodal developments by including more than one use in the project area (a
residential and a commercial component) and including pedestrian friendly designs.
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 15
One key component of nodal development, however, is increased densities, which would support
the commercial component of the node and utilize the pedestrian friendly features. Even though this
is not an adopted node, based on policies discussed further below, it appears that a larger residential
component would better suit the potential node area rather than adding to the existing supply of
community commercial.
In summary, the proposal is inconsistent with Policies A.13, A.22 and A.23 to the extent that those
policies provide direction to achieve higher residential densities than those proposed as part of
through the apphcant's "mixed use center."
Economic Element
Increase the amount o.lundeveloped land zonedfor light industrial and commercial uses
correlating the effective supply in terms ofsuitability and availabilitJ' with the projections of
demand (Policy B.6)
The amendments (in conjunction with the related zone change application) will increase the supply
of undeveloped land planned and zoned for commercial use. The approval of these amendments
would facilitate the rezoning of the property to community commercial. However, as found under
Statewide Planning Goal 9 above, the ECLS specifically states the River Road-Santa Clara area is
not projected to need any more commercial land (other than potentially near the Chambers
Connector). This is further substantiated below, under EC 9.8424(l)(c) incorporated herein by
reference, regarding the commercial land use policies of the B.RSC. Additionally, other policies
support the addition of Neighborhood Commercial land rather than the proposed Community
Commercial. Therefore, the proposed re-designation of7.3 acres to Commercial and 1.3 acres from
Commercial to Medium Density Residential, for a net gain of 6.0 acres of Commercial.. is not
consistent with this policy.
Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing services and
goods to a particular neighborhood. (Policy B.28)
Encourage the expansion or redevelopment 0/ existing neighborhood commercial
.fClcilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the characteristics of the
support population change. (Policy B.29)
Although these policies use the terms "recognize" and "encourage", and thus do not serve as
mandatory approval criteria, these policies are relevant in that they are specifically cited by the
SCCO and are relevant to the extent that a,dditional C-2 zoning might impact existing neighborhood
commercial sites. The proposed re-designation would remove 2 acres of Low Density Residential
designated property that is currently zoned C-I Neighborhood Commercial and rezone it to (>2
Community Commercial (there is no Neighborhood Commercial designation on the Metro Plan
land use diagram). As commented on by the SCCO, it is notable that the proposal increases the
community commercial supply in an area with adequate community commercial land, as discussed
further below. Additionally, in the context of recognizing the vital role of neighborhood
commercial facilities, the applicant's findings (page 25) indicate that the proposed an1endments
Staff Findings m October 8,2007
Page 16
would remove all of the c~ 1 zoning for the area identified as Potential Node 5-C in TransPlan.
Transportation Element
Require improvements that encourage transit. bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed use, and multi-unit residential development. (Policy F 4)
This policy directs the City to require improvements of new development. The City has adopted
land use regulations to implement this policy. Those regulations wi 11 apply at the time of the site's
development. As such, the policy is not applicable to this request.
Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians and
the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system
improvements, (Policy F. ] 4)
As described in TransPlan, the intent ofthis policy is to support the design and construction of
systems and facilities that accommodate multiple modes, It also supports consideration of the needs
of emergency vehicles in the design and construction of system improvements, The applicant is
proposing an enhanced pedestrian cOlmection across Green Lane which would facilitate safe
pedestrian traffic to and from the site at Green Lane. Tbe findings and approval condition trom EC
9.7730(3)(a), specifkally those under Statewide Planning Goal 12 are incorporated herein by
reference as demonstration of consistency with this policy.
Provide for a pedestrian environment that is lfeU integrated with aC/jacent land uses and is
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of\l'(.dking. (Policy F.26)
Again, the applicant is proposing an enhanced pedestrian connection across Green Lane which
would facilitate safe pedestrian traffic to and from the site at Green Lane, The applicant is also
proposing enhanced pedestrian amenities (in conjunction with the required pedestrian circulation)
throughout the site,
Public Facilities and Services Element
Extend the minimum level andfull range (~fkey urbanfacilities and services in an orderly
and efjicient manner consistent with the growth management policies in Chapter II-C,
relevant policies in this chapter, and other Met!J) Plan policies (Policy Gl)
At the time of annexation the proposal for almexation was found to be consistent with the
acknowledged comprehensive plan and established that key urban facilities were either available to
the subject property or could be provided in a timely manner, consistent '.vith this policy.
In summary, regarding EC 9.7730(3)(b), the proposed amendments do not comply with all of the
Metro Plan policies, specifically the policies regarding the Residential Land Use and Housing
Element (AIO, A.ll, A12, A13, A22, A.23) and the Economic Element (B.6), and therefore
would make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 17
Refinement Plan Amendments (RA 07-1)
The proposed amendment would amend the RRSC land use diagram to change approximately 7.3
acres of the site north of Green Lane from a designation of Government and Education to a
designation of Commercial; to change 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation
of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential; and to amend the refi.nement plan
text to include site specific development requirements.
EC 9.8424 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a Refinement Plan
amendment.
(l)(a) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with tlte Statewide planning goal~.
The findings under EC 9.7730(3)( a), above. are incorporated herein by reference.
(l)(b) Tlte refinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the ~Metro
Plan.
Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan are evaluated under EC 9.7730(3)(b), above with respect to
the proposed refinement plan amendments and Metro Plan amendment. The proposed refinement
plan amendments are not consistent with all applicable policies contained in the Residential Land
Use and Housing Element and Economic Element of the Metro Plan. .
In the event that the Planning Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Metro Plan
policies, the proposed refinement plan land use diagram amendment from Government and
Education to Commercial, and from Commercial to Medium Density Residential, is consistent with
the proposed Metro Plan land use diagram amendments from Low Density Residential to
Commercial, and from Commercial to Medium Density Residential.
(l)(c) Tlte refinement plan amendment is consistent with tlte remailting portions of the
refinement plan.
The (RRSC) land use diagram amendment to re-designate approximately 7.3 acres of the site north
of Green Lane from a designation of Government and Education to a designation of Commercial, to
re-designate 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to Medium
Density Residential and text amendments to limit the use of the site for commercial and residential
uses in a (horizontal) "mixed use center" are determined to be inconsistent \\lith remaining portions
of the refinement plan.
The applicant provided detailed findings regarding how the RRSC text and diagram amendments
are consistent with the policy direction contained in the RRSC. Those policies found to be
applicable to this request are addressed below, along with other policies specifically raised by
participants. Although the applicant addressed additional RRSC policies and text than those listed
below, they are not directly relevant to the amendments or do not constitute mandatory approval
criteria with respect to the proposal.
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 18
General Land Use Policies
lllfinimize land use conflicts by promoting compatibility between land uses. especially among
residential, commercial-industrial, and commercial-agricultural uses. (Policy 1. 0)
The applicant proposes the fPD Planned Dnit Development and ISR Site Review overlay zones and
proposed refinement plan text amendments, with limits on building size and heights and uses (such
as no theaters, medical uses, lodging), to regulate any potential connicts between the proposed
Commercial and Medium Residential designations and the adjacent residentially zoned properties to
the east. The building size and use limitations would assist \vith reducing potential conflicts
between the commercial uses and the existing off-site residentialllses. Regarding the proposed
height limitation, the subject site abuts R-I zoning to the northeast and R-2 zoning to the southeast.
EC 9,2171 (2) already requires C-2 development to be limited to 30 feet in height within 50 feet of
R-I zoning, and to be limited to 35 feet in height \vithin 50 feet of R-2 zoning. The proposed height
limitation only proposes a height restriction where abutting R-l zoning, and fllrthennore the
proposed height limitation of 3 5 feet is actually 5 feet taller than the code already restricts.
The applicant is also proposing a fSR Site Review overlay zone. The Planning Commission decision
for Shin (City file Z 06-3) recently acknowledged past acceptance ofthe fSR Site Review overlay
zone as sufficient to ameliorate the impacts generated by C-2 uses, c111e applicant also notes that the
proposed Medium Density Residential designation will be adjacent to property to the west that
should transition into Medium Density Residential as designated in the River Road/Division
Subarea recommendations of the RRSC plan. StafJ concurs v'lith the applicant's findings that the
!PD and ISR overlays and the refinement plan text amendments will assist with promoting
compatibility, consistent \-vith this policy.
However, as discussed with the applicant and discussed previously above, staff finds that the
proposal would be significantly more compatible with the Low Density Residential designation
(and R-l zoning) to the east if the proposal included residential uses between the proposed
commercial uses and the off-site single-family residences. Staff acknowledges that although a
different proposal would better ensure compatibility among uses, it does not mean that the City's
approval of this proposal would amount to the City's failure to promote compatibility,
Adopt zoning that is consistent with the land use diagram and policies contained in the land
use element of the Urban Facilities Plan (Policy 2.0)
The applicant is proposing a refinement plan amendment to the land use diagram which would
ensure that the proposed zoning is consistent with the land use diagram. However, as found further
below, statT finds that the proposed land use diagram amendment and associated zone changes are
not consistent with the policies of the RRSC and are therefore not consistent with this policy.
Residential Land Use Policies
Recognize and maintain the predominately low-density residential character of the area
consistent with the Aletropo!itan Plan. (Policy f.()j
Staff Findings - October 8,2007
Page 19
Provide a diversity of housing types in the area. A vai/able techniques include encouraging
reinvestment and rehabilitation of existing housing stock and the use (~ldevelopmenl
standard'} that provide for clustering or planned unit development. (Policy 2.0)
Permit medium-density housing (lO to 20 d"Felling units/acre) in proximity to existing or
planned urban facilities. Access to commercial development, transit, and alternative modes
of transportation. schools and parks, and open space should be considered. Afedium-density
residential development will he consideredfor the north Santa Clara area consistent ).j.'ith
the above criteria. (Policy 5.0)
Policy 1.0 does not support the re-designation of 7.3 acres of Low Density Residential to
Commercial. Rather, this policy would support re-designating the property consistent \\'ith the
existing Metro Plan designation, Low Density Residential. However, in the context of Policies 2.0
and 5.0 discussed further below, re-designation to a higher density residential use would be more
consistent with the direction of these policies than re-designation to commercial.
These three policies (pages 2-14 and 2-15), may seem in conflict because one encourages
maintaining low-density residential character (Policy 1.0) and the other two encourage a diversity of
housing types induding multi-family. However, examination of the Residential Land Use findings
provides a context for these policies. The findings indicate that the Santa Clara area, in comparison
to the rest of Eugene and the River Road area, contains a small amount of multi-family dwellings
and designated multi-family land and a large amount of single-family dwellings and low density
designated land (pages 2-11 and 2-12). The findings also state that the Metro Plan land use
designations in the River Road-Santa Clara area reinforce the low-density residential character of
the area, and encourage medium-density residential development near commercial centers and
transportation facilities which is where existing multi-family development is generally located in
this area.
In the context of these findings and policies, specifically Policy 5, the subject property is ideally
situated to provide more multi-family or higher density residential development than is currently
proposed. The property is located adjacent to River Road and Hunsaker Lane, a major arterial and
collector respectively, near a Lane Transit District bus stop, and near an existing commercial
facility, the Santa Clara Square. Providing higher densities near commercial centers and transit
facilities can reinforce low-density character elsewhere, consistent with the RRSC findings. The
applicant contends that because of the site's proximity to major transit streets and existing
commercial facilities, the site is not suited for low-density residential development and the applicant
proposes to offset the loss by adding medium-density residential land. Staff agrees that higher
densities would be more appropriate given the location ofthe site and the findings and policies sited
above. However, it is also noteworthy that if the 7.3 acres were to be rezoned to R-l consistent with
the existing Low Density Residential designation, based only on the acreage and the maximum
density allowed, the 7.3 acres ofR-l zoning could provide more density (102 units) than the
proposed 1.3 acres ofR-2 zoning (37 units). The applicant asserts based on average Metro densities
that the density offset will be a decrease of 32 Low Density Residential units and an increase of 30
Medium Density Residential units). As a result, the proposed offset does provide more density per
acre considering only the 1.3 acre site, but actually provides a lesser number of units than the
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 20
existing designation would provide on the 7.3 acre site. It is also noted that a commercial
designation (and C-2 zoning) would not preclude the development of residential units, however
nothing in the proposal indicates that residential units are proposed or would be required on the 7.3
acres of commercial property. In previous discussions with the applicant, the applicant has indicated
that market conditions hamper the ability to add residential units to the 7.3 acre commercial site and
that there is no intent currently to add residences to that area.
Staff has had several discussions with the applicant about increasing the amount of residential
density proposed under the amendments. The applicant has been responsive by revising the original
application to include the portion of the site south of Green Lane, proposing re-designation of the
1.3 acres to Medium Density Residential, and proposing pedestrian an1enities across Green Lane to
unite the two portions of the site together as one horizontal mixed use center. However, consistent
with the direction of these policies and others discussed below, staff further encouraged the
applicant to provide more density on the portion of the site north of Green Lane, possibly reducing
the commercial uses, including between the single-family residences to the east and the proposed
commercial development. No further density has been added. Based on the findings above and
belo\v, the proposed amendments, specifically re-designating the 7.3 acres north of Green Lane to
Commercial, are found to be inconsistent with the overall policy direction provided by Policies 1, 2
and 5.
~~munercial and Industrial Land Use Policies
Require site plan reviews for all nel1' commercial and industrial developments. (Policy 2.0)
The applicant is proposing the fSR Site Revie\v and fPD overlays, consistent with this policy.
Prohibit the linear expansion ~rexisting strip commercial areasfronting on River Road.
Existing strip commercial development may expand by infilling, redevelopment, or
expansion onto contiguous property that does not ji-ont on River Road. (Policy 3.0)
Regarding whether this property is located within an existing strip commercial area, the applicant
contends that the RRSC map entitled Existing General Land Use Patterns depicts the existing strip
commercial areas. The applicant has altered this map in their Exhibit E.4 to demonstrate that the
areas where commercial land is concentrated as "strips" along River Road are the strip commercial
areas, and that the subject property is in one of those areas. The applicant states that the strip
commercial area around the subject site is further defined by the northern and southern boundaries
of Federal Lane and Corliss Lane, respectively. Furthermore, the applicant states that the proposed
re.designation to Commercial is not expanding the fringes of strip commercial in the context of
Suggested Action 3.1, but is rather "expanding by infilling, redevelopment or expansion onto
contiguous property that does not front on River Road" as pern1itted in Policy 3.0.
Staff finds that the RRSC generally describes strip commercial uses as "located along River Road
and include neighborhood and community commercial types of business; for example, the existing
strip development along south River Road" (page 2-l6). There is no other text or map that further
specifies the strip commercial areas (although the Metro Plan states that they are "portions of River
Road"). Even the Existing General Land Use Pattern map relied on by the applicant, although
Staff Findings - October 8. 2007
Page 21
showing commercial land uses to the north, south and west of the site, depicts the 7.3 acre former
Santa Clara Elementary School site as GovenunenUUtilities. Because the commercial uses are
interrupted by the 7.3 acre former school site, staff does not believe that the proposed use is in an
existing strip commercial area. Therefore, statT finds that this policy is inapplicable.
However, even if the Planning Commission determines that the 7.3 acre portion of the site is within
an existing strip commercial area, the majority of the site proposed fbr re-designation to commercial
does not comply with Policy 3.0. Specifically, Policy 3.0 only allows expansion of existing strip
commercial development "by infilling, redevelopment, or expansion onto contiguous property that
does not front on River Road' (emphasis added). The applicant states that buildings ,viII be oriented
away from River Road and towards an "internal circulation system", therefore the proposal does not
front on River Road. Staff finds that the specific refinement plan text states expansion cannot occur
onto contiguous property and does not discuss building orientation. In the context of tIus specific
language, Tax Lot 9100 fronts on River Road and therefore can not be re-designated. If Tax Lot
1900 cannot be re-designated, then neither can Tax Lots 9200 and 9300 because they are no longer
contiguous with existing strip commercial development. It appears then, that only Tax Lots 400,
300 and 200 could be re-designated to commercial since they are contiguous with existing
commercial development (store, auto facility) and they do not front on River Road.
The applicant also states that the existing RRSC and Metro Plan designations were appropriate
when the site operated as a school, but that the sale of the school (and requirement to rezone upon
sale per EC 9.2681(2)) was not forecasted by the writers of the plan, and that a commercial use is
more appropriate for a strip commercial area. The applicant states that the Government and
Education RRSC designation reflects the commitment for the land for non-residential purposes and
that although the Metro Plan designates the property as Low Density Residential, this designation
preceded the refinement plan designation and does not provide for eflicient development of the site
as a center of activity for the community. The applicant contends that the proposed mixed use center
\vill allow an integrated development that ",,,ill benefit the neighborhood. If the applicant is
implying that a commercial designation is acceptable because the site was already committed to
non-residential uses, staff disagrees. The Metro Plan states that "approximately 32 percent of the
area is available for auxiliary uses, such as streets, elementary and junior high schools,
neighborhood parks, other public facilities, neighborhood commercial services, and churches not
actually shown on the Metro Plan Diagram. Such auxiliary uses shall be allowed within residential
designations if compatible with refinement plans, zoning ordinances, and other local controls for
allowed uses in residential neighborhoods" (page II-G-3). Staff agrees that the Government and
Education designation docs reflect a commitment to the non-residential purpose that existed at the
time, the school, but that the underlying Low Density Residential designation reflects the
commitment to uses consistent in that category. These uses include residential uses, non-residential
uses such as government, schools, parks, and even some, limited commercial uses, subject to special
standards or a PUD (EC 9.2741).
Jv1inimize impacts of new commercial development intended to consolidate and improve
existing strip commercial areas along River Road by requiring development standards.
(Policy 5.0)
Regarding Policy 5.0, as found under Policy 3.0 above, staff does not believe that the subject site is
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 22
within an existing strip commercial area. Even ifthe Planning Commission determines that the site
is within an existing strip commercial area, the proposal does not consolidate strip commercial, but
rather expands commercial uses onto a portion of property that is currently vacant. Hmvever, it is
also noted that the applicant is proposing fPO and ISR overlays which would require adherence to
applicable development standards, consistent with this policy.
Nerv neighborhood commercial uses shall be located awayfrom River Road in locations that
facilitate the provision o/commercialfacilities scaled to a residential area and that allow
for dispersal {~,f commercial uses throughout River Road-S'anta Clara (Poli"J1 6.0)
The commercial uses planned in the Metropolitan Plan for the north Santa Clara/loating
node are no longer needed and should be eliminated ji'om jllrther consideration at this time.
(Policy 8.0)
The applicant is not proposing a ne\v neighborhood commercial use (but is proposing to rezone 2
acres trom C-I Neighborhood Commercial to C-2 Community Commercial), and the subject site is
not in the north Santa Clara area, therefore these policies are not applicable as mandatory approval
criteria. However, examination of the Commercial and Industrial Land Use findings provides a
context for these policies and for Policy 3, limiting expansion of strip commercial areas. The
findings state when the RRSC was being developed, the Metro Plan allocated 23 acres of
community commercial to the Santa Clara area and 5 acres of a community commercial floating
node to the north Santa Clara area. After Metro Plan acknowledgement, an additional 21 acres of
community commercial zoning was added north of Division Avenue and east of River Road (south
of the subject site). The RRSCJinds that the 21 additional acres of commercial-zoned land plus 8
acres north of Wilkes Drive "is large enough to meet virtually all of Santa Clara's commercial land
needs that were anticipated by the Metropolitan Plan, including the commercial portion of the
tloming node" (page 2-17). Additionally, the description of the subarea adjacent to the subject
property (h. River Road/Irving) states that there is a fully-developed commercial node at the
intersection of Irving and River Road (page 2-31). These findings in addition to the policies provide
that the direction of the RRSC plan is to limit the amount o[additional community commercial in
Santa Clara, limit the amount of new commercial on River Road, and disperse commercial uses
(especially neighborhood commercial) throughout River Road-Santa Clara. Re-designation of7.3
acres to Commercial adjacent an existing community commercial tacility, Santa Clara Square, is not
consistent with the adopted plan text. And although the plan text is not applicable as mandatory
approval criteria, the text provides useful context for other plan policies which are applicable.
i. River Road/Division subarea
Recommendations
3. The transition from professional office use to medium-density residential use should occur
in the vicinity q,f a line projected southfrom the east boundary {~,fthe Santa Clara
Elementary School property.
4. Rezone parcels north qj'Santa Clara Square and south of Green Lane for professional
office use.
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 23
The River Road/Division subarea land use diagram (page 2-32) generally depicts the 7.3 acre
portion of the site north of Green Lane as Government & Education (with the possible exception of
a portion of Tax Lot 400 which may be Commercial), and the 1.3 acre portion of the site south of
Green Lane as Commercial. Recommendations 3 and 4 are both applicable to the 1.3 acre portion of
the site south of Green Lane.
The applicant's refinement plan text amendments arc proposed for insertion on page 2-32, Riy.~
Road~~,:mta Clara Urban Facilities Plan, Chapter 2, River Road/1Jivision Subarea, text to be
included as Recommendations No.5, No.6, No.7 and No.8. The text amendments are as follo'vvs:
5. Notwithstanding Recommendation No.4, development sites along Green Lane and
adjacent to the forn1er Santa Clara Elementary School site may be designated and zoned
Medium Density Residential. If the parcels are zoned MDR, they must be developed as a
Planned Unit Development in connection \vith the former Santa Clara Elementary School
site and with an emphasis on mixed-use development principles.
6. Upon the sale from public ownership to private ownership, the City shall recognize the
area of the former Santa Clara Elementary School at the southeast corner of the intersection
of River Road and Hunsaker Lane, between Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane (Tax Lots 9100,
9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200, 300, 400 of Assessor's Map
17-04-11-44) as appropriate for Commercial development and designated Commercial. If
zoned commercial, it shall be developed as Planned Unit Development in connection with
the property described in Recommendation NO.5 with an emphasis on mixed-use
development principles. In addition:
a. No individual building footprint within the commercial development may exceed
18,000 square feet; and
b. No building mass within 50-feet of Low Density Residential land may exceed 35
feet in height; and
c. Permitted or conditional Commercial services shall not include theaters; lodging:
C2 and C3 permitted manufacturing; medical, health and correctional services; motor
vehicle related uses: and
d. The historic character of the former Santa Clara Elementary School shall be
commemorated on site by using architectural features and historic elements typical
of the forn1er Santa Clara Elementary School (e.g., brick facades, castings, etc.).
7. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, a pedestrian friendly connection subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer shall be provided at a "midblock" crossing of Green Lane
and shall include five or more of the following design elements:
a. Curb ramps
b. Curb extensions (equal to the width of on-street parking, but not interfering with
bicycle lane)
c. Raised crosswalks
d. Special paving treatment (e.g., brick, alternative colors, cobblestone, patterned
cement, etc.)
e. Adequate lighting to fully illuminate the crossing at all hours
f. To minimize conflict with vehicles entering 1 or exiting the former Santa Clara
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 24
Elementary School site locate the crosswalk to the east of the future Green Lane
access to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site.
8. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, pedestrian amenities shall be included within the
commercial component of the mixed-use development. Amenities shall include two or more
of the design elements from Reconmlendation No.7.
Regarding the proposed text amendments, proposed Recommendation No.5 specifies that sites
"along Green Lane and adjacent to the fonner Santa Clara Elementary School site may be
designated and zoned Medium Density Residential", thereby alleviating any conflict with
Recommendations 3 and 4 and the proposed re-designation of the 1.3 acres site to Commercial.
Proposed Recommendation No.5 and No.6 both specify that if either the 1.3 or the 7.3 portions of
the site are re-designated as proposed, they shall be developed together as a PUD with an emphasis
on mixed-use principles. Proposed Reconmlendations 6, 7, and 8 also include specific design and
use requirements, a pedestrian friendly connection between the two sites across Green Lane, and
pedestrian amenities within the development site.
As previously discussed, staff finds the proposed re-designation, specifically the re-designation of
7.3 acres to Commercial, is inconsistent with the RRSC. However, if the Planning Commission
finds that the proposed re-designations are consistent and approve the proposal, to provide more
clarity staff recommends that the proposed text amendments should be revised as follows. To ensure
implementation of these elements as mandatory policies, the Planning Commission may also want
to require these text amendments as subarea policies rather than recommendations:
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.5:
To clarify that abutting properties not included in this application are not subject to this
amendment, revise the first sentence to state: "Notlnvithstanding Recommendation No.4,
development sites abutting the south side of Green Lane and generally ti'est of the eastern
boundary of the former Santa Clara Elementary School Site..."
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.6:
To clarify which zoning is approved, revise the second sentence to state: "If zoned commercial,
if shall be zoned C-2 and it shall be developed..."
Regarding 6.b, the subject site abuts R-I zoning to the northeast and R-2 zoning to the
southeast. EC 9.2'171 (2) already requires C-2 development to be limited to 30 feet in height
within 50 feet of R- I zoning, and to be limited to 35 feet in height within 50 feet of R-2 zoning.
Proposed 6.b only proposes a height restriction where abutting R-l zoning, and furthermore the
proposed height limitation of 35 feet is actually 5 feet taller than the code already restricts.
Therefore, this height limitation should be stricken.
To ensure proper implementation, 6.d. should be clarified to specify the quality and quantity of
architectural features and historic buildings (such as on each building, as a predominate theme
throughout the site, etcetera) as determined by the Planning Commission.
Staff Findings - October 8. 2007
Page 25
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.7:
The connection shown on the applicant's Site Concept plan (see applicant's Exhibit 1.2) depicts
a Green Lane crossing between the northern 7.3 acre portion of the site and the southern 1.3 acre
portion of the site. This is not "midblock" as referred to in proposed Recommendation 7.
Therefore, the first sentence should be revised to state: "a pedestrian friendly connection... shall
be provided at to cross Green Lane between the former Santa Clara School S'ite and a properly
south olGreen Lane and shall include..."
Staff also notes that the proposed text amendments direct the subject properties to be development
with an emphasis on mixed-use principles. It is assumed that the specific requirements for enhanced
pedestrian connections and uniting the site as one horizontal "mixed use center" is all that is meant
by this statement. If further principles are required, they should be inserted into the text amendment.
Regarding the fonner Santa Clara School site, none of the existing Recommendations I through 4
directly apply to the 7.3 acre site north of Green Lane. However, it is noted that the description of
the subarea states, in part, that "the area contains the largest amount of community commercial use
in Santa Clara." Again, as previously discussed under the commercial land policies, the RRSC does
not appear to support re-designation of this 7.3 acre portion of the site to Commercial and C-2
Community Commercial zoning.
Summary
In summary, the findings in conjunction with the policies of the RRSC as discussed above, provide
that the direction of the RRSC plan was to limit the amount of additional community commercial in
Santa Clara (except where specifically identified), to limit the amount of new commercial on River
Road, and to disperse commercial uses (especially neighborhood commercial) throughout River
Road-Santa Clara. This direction, in conjunction with the Residential Land Policies above
encouraging diverse housing and multi-family housing near existing commercial and transit
facilities, provide the reasons staff does not find the amendments consistent with the RRSC as
proposed. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide more mixing of uses throughout the site (such
as more residential on the northern portion of the site), in order to obtain higher densities, to provide
a better transition between new commercial uses and off-site residents, and to temper the amount of
commercial dominance of the development. As previously stated, the applicant has revised their
application several times in response to City and neighborhood comments. In comparison to the
original application, the applicant's current proposal does provide more of a mixed use type
development by including a residential component and providing the pedestrian amenities to unite
the two portions of the site together. The proposal also includes specific measures to reduce
potential C-2 impacts such as the fPD and fSR overlays, building height and size restrictions, and a
reduced use list (such as no theatres, lodging, medical). However, for the reasons stated in response
to the RRSC residential and commercial land use policies, staff does not find the proposed
amendments, in their current form, consistent with the remaining applicable portions of the
refinement plan.
As previously mentioned, the Santa Clara Community Organization testimony included several
suggestions which they believe would bring the project closer to the needs of the Santa Clara
Staff Findings ~ October 8, 2007
Page 26
community. The suggestions are as follows:
· Incorporating a publicly owned plaza/green space. This could function as part of the
necessary stormwater infiltration solution while providing the public with a necessary social,
cultural nexus in the heart of our commercial area and making best public use of land zoned
for that purpose.
· Increasing the amount of pervious surface throughout the site to accommodate stonnv,later
runolT in an appropriate manner.
· An R2 transition area at the East side of the proposed C2 area which had dwellings fronting
Eastward on a pedestrian thoroughfare, lower levels projecting farther eastward and upper
levels stepped back from the eastem boundary to provide adequate privacy to adjacent Rl
development to the East. Such an area should have pedestrian access at a few points
westward through the N/S axis of the area.
· Smaller scale commercial spaces in the commercially zoned area to provide the community
with neighborhood commercial scaled businesses.
· Increase the percentage of residential usage on the site.
Several of these comments correspond to staff findings tor RRSC policies above. Staff notes that
the applicant has not proposed a specitJc site plan, as is generally the practice to not include a
specific site plan at this policy level of planning actions.
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(e) New or amentled community policies.
(d) New or amended provisions in afederal law or regulation, state statute, state
regulation, statewide planning goal, or state age/Icy land use plan.
(e) A change of circumstances in a .'iubstantial manner that was not anticipated III the
time the refinement plan was adopted.
The proposed amendments are not based on an error in the publication of the RRSC, new inventory
material relating to a statewide planning goal or new or amended state or federal laws, regulations,
or policies; therefore Be 9.8424(2)(a), (b) and (d), above, are not applicable to this request.
Regarding EC 9.8424(2)(c), staff does not tind that the proposed amendments are consistent with
Metro Plan and relJnement plan policies and therefore no new or amended community policy would
be relevant. However, in the event that the Planning Commission is able to recommend approval of
the amendments, the proposed refinement plan amendments are consistent with the related Metro
Plan amendments to re-designate 7.3 acres from Low Density Residential to Commercial and to re-
designate 1.3 acres from Commercial to Medium Density Residential. If the proposed amendments
are found to comply with the applicable approval criteria, the Metro Plan amendments would
constitute a new community policy in the context of this criterion.
The applicant provided detailed tJndings addressing how the amendments are consistent with EC
9.8424(2)(c) and (e), as they address amended RRSC policies and a substantial change in
circumstances not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted.
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 27
According to the applicant, consistent with EC 9.8424(2)(e), a substantial change in circumstances
is the decision by 4J School District to sell the Santa Clara Elementary School propeliy. The portion
of the site that is zoned PL Public Land (approximately 5.2 acres of the 7.3 acres north of Green
Lane) is subject to the PL provisions which state: "\Vhen public land is sold for private
development, the property shall be rezoned according to the procedures for zone changes beginning
with and following section 9.8850 Purpose of Zone Changes" (EC 9.2682). Staff concurs with the
applicant's findings that logically, the refinement plan designation should also be amended to
reflect the current private ownership.
The applicant posits that the second significant change of circumstance is that the City Council
amended the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and I-lousing Element (Ordinance No. 20319) to
include four relevant policies regarding higher densities and mixed uses:
Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure,
improves the efftciency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resource
lands outside the VGB. (Policy ..1.10)
Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
services, in proximity to major transportation ,I,:vstems or within transportalion-efficient
nodes. (Polh:y A. 11)
Coordinate higher density residential development \vith the provision o.(adequate
infrastructure and services, open 5pace. and other urban amenities. (Policy A.12)
Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more
opportunities for e.Uectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and ml~xed use 'while
considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing andjilture
neighborhoods. (Polic..:v A.13)
Expand opportunities for a mix o.luses in ne"vly developing areas and existing
neighborhood~ through local zoning and development regulations. (Policy A. 22)
Staff concurs with the applicant that these policies are directly relevant to the proposed amendments
and are a change in circumstance. Vv'hile some of these policies are not expressly mandatory, staff
agrees that these policies support elements of the proposal, such as the addition of more Medium
Density Residential land in the Santa Clara area near commercial and transit facilities, and creating
a mixed use site. However, as a change in circumstance, these newer policies support a re-
designation towards higher residential densities than the proposed re-designation of 7.3 acres to
Commercial and 1.3 acres to Medium Density Residential.
Zone Chan2e (Z 07-3)
The applicant proposes to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the existing zoning
of PL and C-l, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Conm1ercial zone, to C-2/PD/SR, Community
Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays; and to rezone 1.3
acres of the site south of Green Lane from R- L Low Density Residential zone to R-2/PD/SR,
Staff Findings -- October 8, 2007
Page 28
Medium Density Residential with Plmmed Unit Development and Site Review' overlays
Ee 9.8865 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a Zone Change.
(1) The proposed change is consistent 'witlt applicable provisions of the j1.fetro Plan. The
written text of the Atetro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where
apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram amendment to
re-designate 7 J acres of Low Density Residential to Commercial and to re-designated 1J acres of
Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The findings under EC 9.7730(3)(b), above, are
incorporated herein by reference.
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the
event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the 'Metro Plan controls.
Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the refinement plan diagram
amendment to re-designate 7 J acres of Government and Education to Commercial and to re-
designated IJ acres of Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The findings under EC
9.8424(l)(c), above, are incorporated herein by reference. Those findings address the application's
consistency with the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Fa~ilities Plan.
In addition, the findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a), Statewide Planning Goal 9, addressing policies
from the Eugene Commercial Lands Study, and Statewide Planning Goal 10, addressing the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Studv, are applicable to this
request and are incorporated herein by this reference.
(3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location o/tlte
proposed change calt be served through the order(v extension of key urban facilities mId
services.
The following key urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, are currently available
to the subject property, or can be extended in an orderly and efficient manner to serve future
development: wastewater service, stonnwater service, transportation, water service, fire and
emergency medical services, police protection, city-wide parks and recreation programs, electric
service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis. As
an informational item, Public Works staff comments that there may not be adequate storm water
collection/conveyance systems to serve full buildout of the site without some type of
detention/retention and that a stormwater analysis will be required to determine the feasibility of
using the existing pipe systems in Hunsaker Lane and River Road lor additional storm water. Public
Works notes that the proposed north-south shopping street between Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane
must demonstrate an exception during the development process to be private rather than public.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing traffic mitigation as discussed further under the Statewide
Planning Goal 12 analysis, EC 9.7730(3)(a) above.
(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set outfor
Staff Findings -- October 8, 2007
Page 29
tlte specific zone in:
(a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements.
(/) EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements.
For this proposed zone change, there are no applicable siting requirements as referenced in the
above criterion. Specifically, the commercial zone siting requirements at EC 9.2150 only affect
properties proposed for C-l Neighborhood Commercial or C-4 Commercial/Industrial zoning. The
residential zone siting requirements of EC 9.2735 only affect properties proposed for R 1.5
Rowhouse zoning.
(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner sltall
enter into a contractual arrangement H-'itlt the city to ensure tlte af(!a is maintained as a
natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years.
The above criterion is not applicable in this instance, as the proposed zone change does not include
application of the NR Natural Resource zone.
Recommendation: Based on the available information and materials in the record, and the above
preliminary findings, staff finds that the proposal does not comply with the applicable approval
criteria, specifically with regard to Statewide Planning Goals. the Metro Plan, and the River Road~
Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. If no further evidence is provided to the Planning Commission
that demonstrates consistency with these criteria, the Planning Commission should recommend
denial of the applicant's proposal to City Council.
In the event that the Planning Commission makes positive findings that the proposed amendments
and zone change comply with the applicable approval criteria, statT recommends imposition of the
following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall record in the Oftice of the Lane County Clerk restrictive covenants on
the real property that is the subject of the proposed amendments, in a forn1 acceptable to the
City Attorney, stipulating that any future development approval for the site shall require. by
the time of development, full and complete construction of an additional westbound
approach lane on Hunsaker Lane and an additional westbound approach lane on Green Lane.
The restrictive covenants shall be binding on any successive owner(s) of the property, are
enforceable by the City of Eugene any may be amended only with the express "'Titten
consent of the City of Eugene.
2. The proposed text amendments shall be revised as follows:
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.5:
To clarify that abutting properties not included in this application are not subject to this
amendment, revise the first sentence to state: "Nothwithstanding Recommendation No.4,
development sites abutting south of Green Lane and generally west of the eastern boundary
of the former Santa Clara Elementary School Site..."
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.6:
Staff Findings - October 8, 2007
Page 30
To clarify which zoning is approved, revise the second sentence to state: "If zoned
commercial, it shall be zoned C-2 and it shall be developed. . ."
Regarding 6.b, the subject site abuts R-l zoning to the northeast and R-2 zoning to the
southeast. EC 9.2171 (2) already requires C-2 development to be limited to 30 feet in height
within 50 feet of R-t zoning, and to be limited to 35 feet in height within 50 feet of R-2
zoning. Proposed 6. b only proposes a height restriction where abutting R-I zoning, and
furthennore the proposed height limitation of 3 5 feet is actually 5 feet taller than the code
already restricts. Therefore, this height limitation should be stricken.
To ensure proper implementation, 6.d. should be clarified to specify the quality and quantity
of architectural featmes and historic buildings (such as on each building, as a predominate
theme throughout the site, etcetera) as determined by the Planning Commission.
. Regarding proposed Recommendation No.7:
The connection shown on the applicant's Site Concept plan (see applicant's Exhibit 1.2)
depicts a Green Lane crossing between the northern 7.3 acre portion of the site and the
southern 1.3 acre portion of the site. This is not "midblock" as re1-erred to in proposed
Recommendation 7. Therefore, the first sentence should be revised to state: "a pedestrian
friendly connection.. . shall be provided at to cross Green Lane between the former Santa
Clara School Site and a property south of Green Lane and shall include..."
Staff Findings - October 8,2007
Page 3 I
~ Oregon West Management, LLC (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Proposed Metro Plan Designations
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41
Tax Lots: 9100, 9200, 9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400, 1900
~ Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Commercial
The Metro Plan Designations shown on this
map are only tax lot specific for the subject site. N
All other designations shown outside of the subject A
site boundaries are not tax lot specific and ~
should be used for reference only.
City Limits
- - Subject Site
~ Oregon West Management, LLC (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Proposed River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
Land Use Diagram
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41
Tax Lots: 9100, 9200, 9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400,1900
~ Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Commercial
OJ]] Government & Education
The Refinement Plan Designations shown on this
map are only tax lot specific for the subject site.
All other designations shown outside of the sUbjijct
site boundaries are not tax lot specific and A
should be used for reference only. t-'
City Limits
- - Subject Site
~ Oregon West Management, LLC (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3)
Proposed River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
Subarea i: River Road/Division
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41
Tax Lots: 9100, 9200, 9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400, 1900
~ Low Density Residential
- City Limits
- - Subject Site
~.".....".
-
Medium Density Residential The Subarea Designations shown on this map
. are only tax lot specific for the subject site. N
Commercial All other designations shown outide of the subject A
site boundaries are not tax lot specific
and should be used for reference only.
Proposed Zoning
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-41
Tax Lots: 9100, 9200, 9300
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44
Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400, 1900
Zoning
f~~~}~}~l AG Agricultural Proposed change from:
VI/A C-1 Neighborhood Commercial PL Public Land and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
to C-2\SR\PD Community Commercial with
.. C-2 Community Commercial Site Review and Planned Unit Development overlays;
~ R-1 Low Density Residential and from R-1 Low Densit~ Resid~ntial to .
R-2\SR\PD Medium Density Residential WIth N
R-2 Medium Density Residential Site Review and Planned Unit Development overlays. A
City Limits
- - Subject Site
Attachment I
(DRAFT)
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Atrium Building, Sloat Room
99 West 10th Avenue
October 1 5, 2007
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Rick Duncan, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless,
members; Terri Harding, Steve Nystrom, Heather O'Donnell, Gabe Flock, Kurt Yeiler, Ken
Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Peggy Keppler, Public
Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Steve Graves, Mike Howard, Kate Kelly,
Carleen Reilly, Rick Satre, Lauri Segel, Rob Zako, guests.
ABSENT:
Randy HIedik, Anthony McCown, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
PUBLIC COMMENT
I. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 16,2007
Staff: Steve Nystrom, 682-8385
n. STlJDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 18,2007
Staff: Heather O'DonnelL 682-5488
UI. FINAL DRAFT REVIEW OF PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGR-\M
Statf: Terri Harding, 682-5635
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ANn S'fAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 15,2007
Page I,
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Atrium Building, Sloat Room
99 West 1 ot!> Avenue
October 15,2007
I I :30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Rick Duncan, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless,
members; TelTi Harding, Steve Nystrom, Heather 0 'Donnell, Gabe Flock, Km1 Yeiter, Ken
Guzowski, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Peggy Keppler, Public
Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Steve Graves, Rob I-landy, Mike Howard,
Kate Kelly, Carleen Reilly, Rick Satre, Laud Segel, Rob Zako, guests.
ABSENT:
Randy Hledik, Anthony McCown, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
Mr. Duncan convened the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Carleen Reilly, a recent member of the River Road Community Organization, said she was
overwhelmed by the land use regulations and activities that needed attention, citing several
examples (she provided the text of her remarks). She felt that development in the River
Road/Santa Clara area was out of control, leaving no time for the community to assimilate
new people. She did not want taxes used on short-term infrastructure, and said help from the
Planning Commission was needed to "slow the chaos" so the area could "find a vision of a
livable community that we can be guided by." She thanked the commissioners for their help.
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 15, 2007
Page 2
Rob Zako handed out written testimony, then summarized his thoughts about the Planning
Commission's 2008 work program: See the forest for the trees. He noted the effects of
global warming and increased use of oil, then cited the increase in housing being built in
areas near Eugene, even as the majority of jobs continue to be in Eugene. He said this greatly
increased commuter traffic.
Mr. lako said there was no effective f()fum for regional planning, noting that the Region
2050 project was nm\' dead and that the Metropolitan Policy Committee dealt with only part
ofthe region, and foclIsed on transportation planning, not land use planning. He listed
several other things that would affect land use planning, including recent legislation and
upcoming ballot measures. Mr. lako concluded by saying that there was no shared vision for
Eugene's downtown, and that the City's land use code was "broken."
At Mr. Duncan's request, Mr. lako said he would provide copies of his testimony to the City
Council.
Rob Handy agreed with Mr. lako that recent legislation caused the Metro Plan to be
inconsistent with what was happening "on the ground." He said it \vould be helpful if draft
ordinances would refer to the statutes they \vere meant to modify, to save a lot of research
effort by concerned citizens. Me Handy spoke highly of the public participation around the
infill compatibility standards process, and commended the Planning Commission and staJ'f
members for engaging the community. This contrasted, he said, with the Metropolitan Policy
Committee (MPC), which he felt did not appear to take public participation seriously. He
provided the example of a poorly-attended MPC hearing about the Regional Transportation
Plan.
Mr. Handy said that making transpOlt.ation decisions before land use planning was in place
was putting the cart before the horse. He thought it was important to integrate transportation
and land use, and urged the Planning Commission to make that a key component of their
work plan. He thanked the commissioners and staff for their work in the metro community
and wished the other partners "had half the energy that you atl do."
Mr. Belcher remarked on last week's session on opportunity siting, saying he was discour-
aged by the lack of public engagement in that topic. He encouraged Mr. Handy to try to have
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 15, 2007
Page 3
both sides of the issue surface in the public so matters could move forward.
Lauri Segel, appearing on behalf of Goal One Coalition, said the Planning Commission .\vas
their last hope, as the current situation was dismal. She agreed with the previous speakers
about the need for coordinated land use and transportation planning, and felt the Regional
Transportation Plan was being pushed forward ahead of Transplan and ahead of the
metropolitan planning that was required. She said most transportation projects were looking
for federal funding, and the authority that came with such funds "railroaded" local planning
oppOJ1lmities.
Ms. Segel asked the commissioners to please tind a way to incorporate the necessary
transpoliation planning into their discussions about land use.
I. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 16, 2007
Mr. Nystrom said there would be a public hearing about an ordinance dealing with the
transition of annexation procedures, given the legislated demise of the Boundary
Commission. A process needed to be put in place by January 1, 2008. Mr. Nystrom said he
would review key features of the process of shifting annexation responsibility to the City and
other key jurisdictions. As the shift involved state law, Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's
Oftlce was present to comment on legal issues. The City Attorney was pulling together
affected statutes to craft an ordinance that worked for Eugene and was consistent with state
law. Mr. Nystrom noted that annexation policies and resolutions adopted by the Council
would remain in effect, except for small changes required by state law.
Mr. Nystrom reported that he had not received any written testimony for the following night's
meeting, so did not know how extensive the discussion would be. He said it was important to
get the new procedures adopted and in effect prior to January 1. and that council hearing
dates had been scheduled accordingly. He hoped the commissioners could deliberate at the
October 16 meeting, but noted that they were scheduled for the foHowing Monday to further
deliberate and put forth a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Nystrom pointed out that
while the Planning Commission would be involved in developing the ordinance, they would
have no role in dealing with annexation requests.
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commi$sion
October 15,2007
Page 4
Mr. Duncan asked what effect annexation requests would have on staffing requirements. Mr.
Nystrom said there were 35 - 40 annexation requests per year, and administration was
looking at the time and effort involved in processing these, along with a new fee structure.
(The fees would not be a part of the subject ordinance, but were under a separate mechan-
ism.) He added that funding previously received from the state for this process would be
disappearing, thus creating an added burden for the City. The ordinance, at the discretion of
the Council, would likely parallel the existing process, with a two-track process of expedited
review as well as public hearings.
Mr. Duncan asked why the Planning Commission would not be involved in annexation
requests, as they involved land use. Mr. Nystrom replied that the annexation criteria were
more cut and dried, as the Metro Plan was in place, so there was usually no question of
whether an annexation could take place, but rather a question of could it be served.
Ms. Kneeland asked that citations of relevant statutes be added to future reports, as Mr.
Handy had requested. Mr. Nystrom said some issues involved a large number of statutes, but
they would comply, to the degree possible. Emily Jerome said Chapter 199 governed the
Boundary Commission activities, but with its being abolished, the new ordinance would fall
into Chapter 222. She noted that there were numerous references in 222 to other statutes as
well.
Mr. Lawless asked for clarification about the impact of annexation procedures on City policy.
Mr. Nystrom said the current effort involved getting the procedural steps in place, but that the
Council could decide later that it wanted to review overall policies. He said the latter task
would require significant resources.
Ms. Jerome said that because the Council had always been a recommending body to the
Boundary Commission, they had, over time, developed criteria for deciding to recommend or
not recommend annexation or extraterritorial extensions. Some of those policies would be
incorporated into the ordinance, but could be added to or changed.
Mr. Belcher asked if Oregon cities with a population over 50,000 typically had planning
commission involvement. Ms. Jerome said that smaller cities nearly always had their
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 15, 2007
Page 5
planning commissions involved; larger jurisdictions tended not to, as the statute said the final
action had to be council action.
In response to questions fromMr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom and Ms. Jerome said that approval
of annexation requests for non-contiguous property would depend on a variety of factors, and
that they may be doing more annexation agreements that would take effect if the property
became contiguous to the City. It was further clarified that the City would continue to do
building inspections using the County-adopted version of the Eugene code.
Mr. Carroll asked a number of questions that elicited the following information:
.
The majority of parcels for which annexation was requested ''''erc under single
ownership.
.
The provision calling for a majority of the electors in an area to concur with the
annexation came from state law.
.
In order to expand the urban growth boundary (15GB) into or around another
jurisdiction, an amcndment to the Metro Plan would come to the Planning
Commission, subject to prescriptive state laws and criteria around Goal 14. The
ordinance under discussion applied only to land in the UGB.
Ms. Kneeland noted that the ordinances reflccted 222, but that the Metro Plan contained
BoundalY Commission language; she asked how the inconsistency would be rectified. Ms.
Jerome said that while some of the language would be changed, the majority of references to
"Boundary Commission" could be changed to "City." Regardless, the Metro Plan would
have to be updated. Mr. Nystrom said the principal effort was to ensure that policy decisions
and direction were kept in place, and that references to the Boundary Commission would be
cleaned up over time.
Ms. Jerome noted that the Metro Plan did not set out prescriptive policies, so the need for
updating would not be problematic in the short term. She added that they had not had any
proposals from Springfield or Lane County regarding conforming language changes to the
Metro Plan.
Ms. Kneeland asked what provisions would be made for an appeal of a City Council decision
MrNUTES---Eugene Planning Commission
October 15, 2007
Page 6
regarding annexation. Ms. Jerome said any appeals would go directly to the Oregon Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
Other questions produced the following information:
II.
.
If a private entity requests annexation, the City can consider street annexations as
part of that application, within limits.
.
Under the Boundary Commission, annexation could be requested for a non-
contiguous territory; that wiH no longer be the case.
.
There was recent legislation about "island annexations;" the City Council has
indicated that it does not intend to do involuntary island annexations.
.
A process exists to "un-annex" a property: a withdrawal of territory. It is very rarely
requested.
.
Requests for extratelTitorial extensions were also rare, but need to be accounted for in
the code, as they were previously handled by the Boundary Commission.
.
The property owner was almost ahvays the one to initiate a request; however,
requests could also come from EWER (Eugene Water & Electric Board).
STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 18,2007
Heather O'Donnell of Planning & Development provided a brief summary of the agenda
packet and approval criteria. She noted that the property in question was located on the east
side of River Road and south of Hunsaker Lane. The site includes 7.3 acres north of Green
Lane, which is the former Santa Clara Elementaty School site, and 1.3 acres south of Green
Lane. Ms. O'Donnell drew members' attention to color maps provided by the applicant that
shO\.ved general zoning, metro plan, and refinement plan, both existing and proposed.
Ms. O'Donnell said the applicant was requesting the follO\ving:
A Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use
diagram to re~designate approximately 7.3 acres of site north of Green Lane from
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 15,2007
Page 7
Low Density Residential to Commercial, and to re-designate 1.3 acres of the site
south of Grecn Lane from Commercial to Medium Density Residential.
A Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 07-1) to amend the River Road-Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan land use diagram to re-designate approximately 7.3 acres
from Government and Education to Commercial; to re-designate 1.3 acres from
Commercial to Medium Density Residential; and to amend the refinement plan
subarea text to include site specific development requirements.
A Zone Change (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres from the existing zoning ofPL
and C-l, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C-2/PDiSR,
Community Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review
overlays; and to rezone 1.3 acres from R-l, Low Density Residential zone to R-
2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site
Review overlays.
Site review and planned unit development applications would be required later to actually
develop the site \vith the proposed mixed use center. Ms. O'Donnell said the applicant
included a conceptual sitc plan but noted that it was for reference only and was not part of the
refinement plan amendments.
Ms. O'Donnell reported that staff f{)und the proposal met the quantitative requirements, such
as compliance with the Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule for appropriate traffic
mitigation. However, it was staff's opinion that the policy dircction did not support the
proposed amendments. Ms. O'Donnell fmther noted that the applicant had called attention to
the staff report's citing of previous Oregon Administrative Rules for compliance with Goal 9,
the Economic goal. Since the commercial land study analysis was still relevant, Ms.
O'Donnell said it would be moved to the section regarding analysis ofrefinement plans and
would be brought to the public hearing.
Ms. O'Donnell pointed out that the approval criteria for all the proposed applications were
listed in full beginning on page 2 of the public hearing AIS. She reminded the members that
their role was to provide the City Council with a recommendation to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny.
MrNUTESmuEugene Planning Commission
October 15, 2007
Page 8
Mr. Belcher recalled a Hearings Official decision in July regarding an application in the
Jefferson West Side neighborhood that involved a conceptual drawing that staff had said was
not applicable. However, the Hearings Official said it was, as what was planned should be
part of the approval process. Mr. Belcher asked for an explanation. Gabe Flock said that it
was a different situation in that it was a Type 2 application for a partition and that the criteria
were very specific as to existing development He said a proposal \\'ith a conceptual plan was
typical of a policy-level planning action and would provide context to help inform the
decision-making.
Mr. Lawless asked for more detail about the purpose, intent and context of a conceptual site
plan that was not a part of the land use action being requested. He wanted to know how it did
or did not fit in, why it was there, and what they should be looking for. and why. Ms.
O'Donnell said the applicant was trying to provide a graphic representation of the intent of
their proposed text amendments. Mr. Belcher received clarification that an approval of the
land use actions would not mandate adherence to a conceptual plan. Mr. Flock said the text
\vas the important pal1 for members to look at. If they wanted to add more specificity to the
text, that would have to be part of the deliberation.
III. FINAL DRAFT REVIEW o.F PLANNING DIVISION WOHK })ROGRAM
Terri Harding referenced charts and survey reports in the packet materials and handouts. She
and Mr. Nystrom noted that the priorities shown on the first chart reflected priorities that had
been identified by Planning Commission members, as well as some resource information.
They noted that the chart reflected a near-final plan.
There was some discussion of terminology, priorities, and the content and structure of the
plan. Mr. Carroll wanted to include monitoring of the Willamette United Act legislation on
the plan as a separate item, not under the "legislative tracking" section. Mr. Duncan thought
that they had previously discussed developing a property inventory or data collection for City
property pursuant to HB 3337 requirements. Mr. Nystrom said staff wanted to clarify the
intent of the discussion. He understood that the suggestion was to have something beyond a
full buildable lands analysis, to include commercial, industrial and residential properties, plus
MfNUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 15.2007
Page 9
a comprehensive land inventory. Mr. Duncan preferred the term "property inventory;' with
the idea of identifying older, decaying areas that could use assistance with redevelopment.
He observed that they currently had no mechanism for determining where there was potential
for redevelopment or mixed centers. Mr. Duncan also felt that natural resource lands should
be included in the property inventury, resulting in a full land resource study. He provided
some examples of the utility of such a study.
Mr. Nystrom confirmed \vith the members that they supported such a comprehensive property
inventol)' and analysis. Ms. I-larding noted that there was existing propelty data; .Mr. Duncan
agreed, but said it \vas in several different places and thus was not useful for many types of
analysis. He thought that gathering all the existing data into one place would be a good start
at a useful database. Discussion ensued regarding compliance \vith HB 3337, the extent and
timing of the proposed inventory, and how it should be presented to the City Council.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Stan
There were no other items from staff.
n. Other Items from Commission
There were no other items from commissioners.
Mr. Duncan adjourned the meeting at 1: 17 p.m.
(Recorded by Bernie Burson)
Ill: \2007\planning and development departmeni\ptallntng division \planning commisslOn\pc071 0 i5.doc
MINUTES-----Eugene Planning Commission
October 15, 2007
Page 10
Attachment J
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNINGCbMMISSION
Phone: (541) 682-5481
Atrium Building, Sloat Roonl, 99 West lOti] Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Web site: WW11-'.eugene-or.gov
The Eugene Plalilling .commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go
as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing
impaired, PM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice
prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To
arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf
~<;sistance are available at 682-5119.
MONDAY. OCTOBER 15. 2007 - REGULAR MEETING
(11:30 a.m.)
_mmmMm-l
I
The City of Eugene's Planning Commission and City Council are in the process
of updating the Planning Division's FY08 Work Plan. They are currently
soliciting feedback on the work program that you feel should receive the
Planning Division's greatest attention. To learn more about the work the
Planning Division does and to till out a quick on-line survey, please go to:
w\vw.eugeneplannimz.org and click all the link in the box entitled "WE WANT
YOUR INPUT'
'.
11 :30 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning ofthis meeting for public
comment The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled fol' public
hearing 01' public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the;
time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission
reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people
requesting to speak.
11 :40 a.m.
1. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 16, 2007
Transition of Annexations Procedures (CA 07-2)
Staff: Steve Nystrom, 682-8385
12: 10 p.m.
H. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 18, 2007
Oregon West Management. LtC Plan Amendments/Zone Change
(MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07~3)
Staff: Heather O'Donnell, 682-5488
This time has been set aside for Planning Commission members to become familiar
with the items under consideration. The public is welcome to attend study sessions;
however, public testimony and official action will be taken at the public hearing.
L
lL:JO p.m. Ill. 1<]NAL lJRAVl' REVU<;W OFPLANNLNO DiVISION WORK PROGRAM
Staff: Ten'} Harding, 682-5635
1: 15 p.m. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items fTom Commission
Commissioners: Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, President, Randy Hledik, Vice
President, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCov.rn
Ex officio member: Mike Sullivan, Division Manager, Community Development
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
October 15, 2007
TO:
Eugene Planning Commission
FROM:
Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
ITEM TITLE:
Study Session in preparation for the Public Hearing on the Oregon West
Management, LLC Metro Plan Amendment, Refinement Plan Amendment and
Zone Change (MA 07-2, RA 07-1 and Z 07-3)
ACTION REQUESTED: Review proposed Metro Plan amendment, refinement plan amendment and
zone change in preparation for October 18, 2007 public hearing.
BRIEFING STATEMENT: On October 18, 2007, the Eugene Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan land use diagranl, amend the applicable refinement plan
and approve a concurrent zone change for Oregon West Management, LLC. The applicant requests
approval ofthe following:
Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram to change 7.3
acres of site north of Green Lane from a designation of Low Density Residential to a designation of
Commercial, and to change 1. 3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to
a designation of Medium Density Residential.
Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 07-1) to amend the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Plan land use diagram to change approximately 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from a
designation of Government and Education to a designation of Commercial; to change 1.3 acres of the site
south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential;
and to amend the refinement plan text to include site specific development requirements.
Zone Change (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the existing
zoning of PL and C-I, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C-2/PD!SR~ Community
Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays~ and to rezone 1.3 acres of
the site south of Green Lane from R-l, Low Density Residential zone to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density
Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays.
BACKGROUND:
Please refer to the materials provided (under separate cover) with the Planning Commission packet for the
October 18, 2007 public hearing.
FOR l\10RE INFORMATION:
Please contact Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. 10th
Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541-682-5488 or via email at
heather .m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us.
: ~
, :
Attachment K
WWWH')~.Q ......'w
:::5
'.: D
.. ....mm............"... - ..n..._... ~
:: .J
......ac .....a;fw
. 1 II
20 nn ~
ID1ECIe~Je~
If11 SEP 26 'E/JI IYJ
City Of Eugene
" PtanfllOivt~iOfl ....n.. --- - .
r.I"h-i-..
i': . '1
r-'---" .
!
CTP
1..):....
'"i r .....~.....l
i. :) (tj~,~
September 25, 2007
Heather O'Donnell
City of Eugene
Planning and Development
l L....... :
.-.-~..-. -~. '-- ........'..-.. -. - ,
c: ~ ':' .._~., ";'," ;',', i' :::: r
__f~LL.__,_::.;.. ._..::.~~....~~,-,.:.::::_t~!~I_..._J
This testimony is submitted by the SCCO in response to file MA 07-2, the redevelopment
of the Santa Clara Elementary School site.
The applicant's willingness to apprise SCCO of its intentions and gather feedback has
been greatly appreciated. Although we agree in concept with the idea of a mixed-use
development, we differ with the applicant in the implementation of that idea. We feel
that the balance of residential and commercial uses is too heavily weighted toward
commercial and specifically larger scale commercial than the community needs. The
plan has neglected to provide for a truly public gathering space and adequate amounts of
pervious surfaces to balance the tremendous amounts of roadway, side\valk and parking
area, and the transition from Rl East of the planned area to C2 is not carefully considered
in the applicant's package.
. The proposed change from PUC 1 to C2 removes a publicly accessible recreation
and education area that had significant historical significance from the center of
our community and replaces it with shopping and parking. There are no plam1ed
publicly owned areas within this proposal to continue to meet the needs of the
community to gather, exchange news and ideas, or create social capital within the
nei ghborhood.
RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan Park Subareas policy 3. When appropriate, landfor
park and recreation facilities shall be dedicated as part of the development review
process jor vacant land
Metro Plan Goal8-Recreation Needs: To satisjj; the recreational needs o.fthe
citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting o.f
necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
City of Eugene pamphlet Mixed-Use Development in Eugene: Design Principles
for More Livable Neighborhoods "A variety of parks and public spaces should be
provided within the center to serve area residents and workers. Where parks and
other public spaces do not exist, the creation of viable public spaces will be designed
in mixed-use development plans. Significant open space areas adjacent to or within
mixed-use development areas, such as creeks, natural drainage channels, wetlands
should be integrated into the overall design."
The City of Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan
lists the acquisition of land for an urban plaza in Santa Clara as a priority in "Table 1:
Proposed Projects and Priorities for Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities If.
The proposed site for the plaza is located in this area on the map provided in the plan.
Santa Clara's urban core is fully developed, this site is zoned for Public Use, and
Santa Clara has less parkland per capita than most other areas of the City. Changing
the plan diagram affects the abilityofthe neighborhood to maintain land zoned for
public use to meet its needs and the stated parks priority plans of the City of Eugene.
Additionally, a public plaza/green space could be an opporttmity for the developer to
incorporate pervious areas to meet the storm water runoff and infiltration needs of the
rest of the development. Public storm water conveyance for this site is very limited
and the anl0tillt of stormwater rtilloff from the level of impervious surface proposed
will be significant. The use of df)rwells in Santa Clara has been prohibited due to the
high level of groundwater and the switch to surface infiltration is on.
. There are numerous vacant C2 parcels in our area. River Rd., Division Ave., and
Oroyan have vacant parcels currently, and the Safeway at Silver Lane and Grocery
Outlet at River Rd. and Hunsaker are closing this year creating two other large
parcels. There is no demonstrated need for more C2land within our neighborhood to
serve the greater Eugene area as supported by both the current commercial lands
study, the Metro Plan, and the RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan.
Eugene Commercial Lands Study-RiverRd.lSanta Clara subarea
Polky 11.0 Recognize that the commercial sites designated in the River Rd/Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan provide for adequate commercial supplyfor the area.
Consider additional commercial land in the vicinity of the Chambers Connector ff
needed to address community commercial needs.
Metro Plan Economic Element Policy #6. Increase the amount of undeveloped land
zonedfor light industrial and commercial uses correlating the effective sUPp~y in
terms of suitability and availability with the projections of demand.
RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan 2.3 Commercial ami Industrial Land Use findings:
The addition of 2 J acres of commercially zoned land at the River Rei. and Division
Ave. commercial area and the eight acres a/community commercial-designated land
allocated to the existing commercial area north of Wilkes Dr. is large enough to meet
virtually all of Santa Clara's commercial land needs that ),t'ere anticipated by the
Metropolitan Plan, including the commercial portion of the floating node
. The. subject site is identitied in TransPlan as "potential nodal development area 5-
C." Although the city of Eugene has not yet identified this as a node, the applicant
states that the proposal meets the intentions of nodal development for this parcel.
Nodal development in a residential area generally seeks to create a more balanced
neighborhood commercial center than is being proposed. The continued expansion of
commercial land fronting River Rd. is expressly prohibited in the refinement plan,
and the refinement plan specifically directs us to adopt zoning that is consistent with
the land use diagram and policies of the Urban Facilities Plan.
RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan General Land Use Policy 1 Adopt zoning that is
consistent with the land use diagram and policies contained in the land use element of
the Urban Facilities Plan
TransPlan Land Use Polky #1: Nodal Development
Nodal development centers will include a mix o.f housing types that achieve at least
an average density that is within the medium-density range jar residential uses.
RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan, Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy 3.0
Prohibit the linear expansion of existing strip commercial areas fronting on River Rd.
/!'xisting strip commercial development may expand by infilling, redevelopment. or
expansion onto contiguous property that does notfront on River Rd.
RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan, Commercial and Industrial Land Use Action 3.1
Discourage future commercial rezone applications for parcels that would expand the
fringes of strip commercial development along River Rd.
· Although Santa Clara has a surplus of C2 land, it has a dearth of C lland and
appropriate neighborhood scale commercial development. The supply of
neighborhood commercial land within node 5-C is reduced by 100% with this
application. Metro Plan policies B28 and 829 encourage the use of neighborhood
commercial facilities to meet the needs of our residential areas as their densities
increase. The area East of the proposed development has experienced significant
amounts of R2 development and could greatly benefit from neighborhood commercial
services.
Metro Plan policy B28 Recogniz~ the vital role of neighborhood commercial
facilities in providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood.
ft-fetro Plan policy B29 Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing
neighborhood commercial facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or
as the characteristics of the support population change.
. The applicant is proposing a "horizontal mixed-use center", The actual lay out of
the proposal segregates the residential from the commercial areas and does not
achieve a balance of residential and commercial uses, but is heavily weighted
toward C2 usage. A more balanced apportioning of land for both residential and
neighborhood scale commercial use on the Santa Clara School site property
would reflect the definition of mixed use and nodal development. According to
the City of Eugene pamphlet J-fixed-Use Development in Eugene: Design
Principles for More Livable Neighborhoods
'(Mixed-use development will combine many activities in the same area> reversing the
pattern of segregated land uses. In areas designated for mixed-use development, a
mixture of retail, service, education, office and residential uses intermingle and
support one another. "
"Residential uses in all mixed-use development areas should provide a mix of
housing types and help support a viable retail center and transit system. Residential
densities within centers will achieve an overall net density of at least 12 dwelling
units per acre.
Nodal development as defined in the Metro Plan (p.II-G-8):
"Nodal development is a mixed-use, pedestrianfriendly land use pattern that seeks to
increase concentration of populations and employment in well defined areas with
good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and
private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. Fundamental
characteristics of nodal development require:
. Design elements that supportpedestrian environments and encourage transit
use, walking and bicycling;
. A transit stop which is 'within walking distance of an}'where in the node;
. l\1ixed uses so that services are available within walking distance;
. Public space, such as parks, public and private open space, and public
facilities, that can be reached without driving; and
. A mix ofhousing t}pes and residential densities that achieve an overall net
density of at least 12 units per net acre. "
Metro Plan Policy A.13. Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan
area by creaiing more opportunities for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment
and mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on
historic, existing, and fidure neighborhoods.
TransPlan Land Use Policy #1 Nodal Development ...Nodal development
centers will include a mix of housing types that achieve at least an average
density that is l-I'ithin the medium-density rangelor residential uses.
RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 Residential Land Use Findings #11
.Metropolitan Plan land use designations in the River Road-Santa Clara area
reinforce the lm..,,-density character (~f the area and encourage medium-density
residential development near commercial centers and transportation facilities.
All these land use policy documents strongly encourage increasing residential
densities, especially in mixed-use areas and areas adjacent to already developed
commercial centers. If the applicant had to employ the underlying Rl designation
in the Metro Plan diagram he could achieve close to 100 dwelling units on just the
elementary school site. The proposed development (with amaximum of28 units)
effectively "down zones" an area that could well support additional residential
density. The application certainly does not achieve an overall net density of 12
units per net acre.
. The applicant's proposal shows a lack of adequate transitioning from the East side
of the commercial center to the neighboring RI area abutting the site. In the
applicant's site plan submitted with their TIA they show the service entrances of
commercial spaces, a service drive and a 7 foot wide vegetative screen. This
amounts to a blank vegetative wall backed by a service drive and a blank
commercial wall facing the adjacent neighbors. In addition, there is not a
buffering of uses between the proposed C2 usage and the neighboring Rl usage.
City of Eugene's pamphlet Mixed U<iie Development in Eugene/Design
Principles/Commercial Bllilding Design and Siting Interconnected sidewalks
lFell be provided to the commercial core from adjacent residential and
employment areas to encourage walking.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
The applicant's proposal would come closer to meeting the needs of the Santa
Clara community if it considered these options:
· Incorporating a publicly owned plaza/green space. This could function as part
of the necessary stormwater infiltration solution while providing the public
with a necessary social, cultural nexus in the heart of our commercial area and
making best public use of land zoned for that purpose.
· Increasing the an10unt of pervious surface throughout the site to accommodate
stormwater runoff in an appropriate manner.
· An R2 transition area at the East side of the proposed C2 area which had
dwellings fronting Eastward on a pedestrian thoroughfare, lower levels
projecting farther eastward and upper levels stepped back from the eastern
boundary to provide adequate privacy to adjacent R 1 development to the East.
Such an area should have pedestrian access at a few points \vestward through
the N/S axis of the area.
· Smaller scale commercial spaces in the commercially zoned area to provide
the community with neighborhood commercial scaled businesses.
· Increase the percentage of residential usage on the site.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kate Perle
for the Santa Clara Community Organization Land Use Subcommittee
~\DU," '~""'.'fI":l IE ,u,-.VJ 'j T~,'ff~.,\\
u;, \M1 '--lq III
r l ' Ii'
. " . '\ ! i i
\\ ' \' I'"
. . ~ ~ ~
- - - - .' - ....V'f'.....: '~/ J :
.\ U\\ /II~ 2 9 tM ,L I
w >, ,...'~.:
, ' .
1 ~
Attachment L
.. . ""
-~................
~-"""~,,,......~
~"-,,."'~,,~'
"... ..............."........-.".............
SATRE
AS,'.)()(~-ii\IT:S
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPMENT
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
Lane County Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41, Lots9100, 9200 and 9300
and l\1ap 17..04-11-44, Lot 200, 300,400 and 1900
Play field and trees buffering
ho~ing to east of develop.menl site
Santa Clara School Site llild Vicinity
A<jjacent Development Santa Clara School Site
Oregon West Management, LLC
1310 Co burg Road
Eugene, Oregon 97401
August 2, 2007
Revised August 29, 2007
'~i>'
SATRE
ASSOCLATES
Satre Associates, P.C.
132 Eait Broadway
Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Phone 541.465.4721
Fax 54] .465.4722
1.800.662.7094
www.satrepc.com
.-i'
August2,2007
City. of Eugene
Planning Department
99 West 1 Oth Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Attn: . Heather O'Donnell
Re: Santa Clard School Site Redevelopment
Metro }>Ian Amendment Application
Dear Heather,
Enclosed ,please find Metro Plan Amendmcntapplication materials for the proposed
development at the fomlersite of the Santa Clara Elementary School. Included are
the application, written statement and associated exhibits and attadl1:nents.
The Written Statement contains general project information~ a summary ofthe land
use request, information about the site, existing conditions and proposed use, as .
well as applicable approval criteria and findings.
As the Appliqmt's designated contact, Satre Associates is available to answer.
questions or provide supph::mentalinformatlon as needed to facilitate the review.
process,
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the application. We look fOf\v-ard
to working with you on the project.
.~~9
Michael Howard, AICP
Planner
Satre Associates, P.c.
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPMENT
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ...
Table of Contents ...... ............. ............. ..... .... .... ............ ........... ....
Application . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . ..... .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .... . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. ..
Written Statenlent ........................................................................
No. of Pages
1
1
2
32
Exhibits (Bound Herein)
A. Legal Description...... ... ......... .............. ............. ........... .......... 5
B. Vicinity Map ............ ........ ....... ... ..................... ............ ........ 1
C.I Existing Zoning. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . , .... 1
C.2 Proposed Zoning. . . .. . .... .. . .. ..... ..... .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. ;.. I
D.1 Existing Metro Plan Designation................................................ 1
D.2 Proposed Metro Plan Designation ... .............. .... ......... ............. .... 1
E.l RR/SC Existing Refinement Plan Designation......... ............ ............ 1
E.2 Existing Refinement Plan Designation... ............ ................ ........... 1
E.3 Proposed Refinement Plan Designation......... ... ... ...... ... ...... ........... I
EA RR/SC Existing General Land Use Patterns................................... 1
F Tax Lot Map.......................................................... .............. 1
G Aerial Photo ......................................................................... 1
H Santa Clara Square Characteristics ...........................................;.. 1
Attachments (Bound Separately)
1. Traffic Impact Analysis .........................................................
Planning & Development
Plannin
City of Eugene
99 West 1 oth Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www,eugene-or,gov
METROPOLITAN PLAN Al\1ENDMENT
APPLICATION
Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additional information may be required upon
further review in order to adequately address the applicable criteria for approval. If you have any questions
about filling out this application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center, phone (541)
682-5377,99 West lOU', Avenue, Eugene.
Check the appropriate box(es):
o Plan Text Change
o Plan Diagram Change
l,ist all Assessor's Map and Tax lJot numbers of the property induded in the request. Please indicate if
only a portion of a lot is included in the request and include any additional map and tax lot numbers for
subject property. Also, include existing and proposed Metro })lan Designations.
Assessor's Map r ax Lot Existing Designation Proposed Designation
17-04-11-41 9100,9200,9300 Low Density Resid. Commercial
17-04-11-44 200,300,400 Low' Density Resid. Commercial
17-04-11-44 1900 Commercial Medium Dens, Resid,
I
I
Street Address (if available): 2685 River Road (TL 9100); 84 Green Lane (TL 1900)
Existing Use(s) of the Property: Vacant (former elementary school)/Single Family Dwelling (TL 1900)
})rop()sed Use(s) oCthe Property: Mixed-use Residential and Commercial Center
Existing Zoning: PL, Publi~_~and; R-1, Low Density Re~idential and C-1, Neighb~rhood Commercial
Is this Metm Plan Amendment being reviewed concurrently with another land use application?
[0 Yes, application file number: DNo
FiJin!!: Fee
[2] A filing tee must accompany all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is
adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center
to determine the required fee or che.ck website www.ellgeneplannim~,org
Metropolitan Plan Amendment
Last Updated: 7/2004
Page 10f2
Written Statement
o A written statement listing relevant Statewide Planning Goals and demonstrating that the requested change
satisfies the approval criteria in the Eugene Code, Section 9.7730(3). Describe any lillchanged portion of the
plan your a....nendment may effect
Information ReQuired for Proposed })Ian Text Chane:es
o Map indicating the property included in the reque..,>t and adjacent streets and alleys.
o Vicinity map indicating the general area and allowing easy identification of the property.
No'~"""""" This is 00' a eomplete"ii" of requirements~Addi'ional informatio-;;"";;;.y be reqnired aiie~~
further .-eview in order to adc(luately address the rcquired criteria of approval.
By signing~ thc undersigned certifies that belsbe has read and understands the submittal requirements
. outlined herein, and that he/she undcrstands that omission of any listed item may cause delay in
processing this application. } (We) tbe undersigned acknowledge dlat the information SUI)plied in this
application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
OWNER (Also tbe Applicant? 0 Yes /0 No):
Name (print): Oregon West Management, LLC (Steve Graves)
1310 Coburg Road,Suite1-B
Phone: (541) 687-5653
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Eugene, Oregon, 97401
/ir\!t~
/'
Signature:
APPLICANTD / APPLlCA..1Vf'S REPRESEl\il A TIVE 0 (Check one):
Name (print): . Michael Howard
Company/Organization: Satre Associates, PC
Address: 132 East Broadway, Suite 536
City/State/Zip: Eugene, Oregon, 97401
Phone: (541) 465.4721 Fax: (541) 465.4722 email: m .howard@satrepc.com
Signature:.~~Q.
Note: . This is not a complete list of requirements. Additional information may be required after further
review in order to adequately address the applicable approval criteria.
Metropolitan Plan Amendment
Last Updated: 7/2004
Page 2 of2
SATRE ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
132 East Broadway, Suite 536, Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541)465-4721 . Fax (541) 465-4722 . 1-800-662-7094
www.satrepc.com
...
-
SATRE
ASSOCIATES
August 2,2007
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPMENT
METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURPOSE:
The applicant proposes a site-specific amendment to the Metropolitan Plan Diagram, specific to
properties identified on Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 as Tax Lots 9100, 9200 and 9300 and
Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 as Tax Lots 200,300,400, and 1900 (the "subject site"). lbe
portion of the subject site north of Green Lane was formerly the site of the Santa Clara School.
This application is submitted concurrently with applications for corresponding amendments to
the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (Refinement Plan) diagranl and text, and a
Eugene Zoning Map zone change. Approval will facilitate a residential/commercial development
to serve the needs of the Eugene community.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Subiect Site
The subject site consists of seven tax lots (as described above) with the dimensions as specified
herein on the Legal Descriptions (Exhibit A). The area so defined will be referred to in this
application as the Subject Site. The site addresses are 2685 River Road (Tax Lot 9100), and 84
Green Lane (Tax Lot 1900). Tax Lots 200, 300, 400, 9200 and 9300 are not addressed. The
Subject Site is within the Eugene City Limits. The River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
is the applicable refinement plan
Development Sitel
The development site consists of the seven tax lots of the subject site, bisected by Green Lane,
with the addition of two lots (Tax Lot., 501 and 601 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44) that are
currently designated for commercial use and zoned C-2, Community Commercial. Tax Lot 800
is also owned by the applicant; however, it is not currently within the boundaries of the City of
Eugene and is not subject to this application. Tax Lot 800 will ultimately be integrated with the
development site at the time of future Site Review and Planned Unit Development applications.
Tax Lots 501 and 601 are not subject to the current application.
1 EC 9.0500 Development Site. A tract of land under common ownership or control, either undivided or consisting
of two or more contiguous lots ofrcord. For tbe purpose of land use applications, development site shall also include
property under common ownership or control that is bisected by a street or alley.
Size
Subject Site: 8.6 acres
Development Site: 9.1 acres
Application Team
Ownerl Applicant:
Santa Clara Properties, LLC
1310 Coburg Road, Suite 1-B
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 687-5653
Attn: Steve Graves
Planner:
Satre Associates, P.C.
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Attn: Michael Howard, AICP
(541) 465-4721 · Fax (541) 465-4722 · m.howard@satrepc.com
www.satrepc.com
Transportation Engineer:
Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Attn: Damien Gilbert, PE
(541) 746-0637. Fax (541) 746-0389. damien@branchengineering.com
www.branchengineering.com
Santa Clara~. Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 2 of32
II. LAND USE REQUEST
With this application, the applicant requests City approval of a Type II Metro Plan amendment
per EC 9.7700(2)(a) to change portions of the subject site's designation on the Metro Plan
Diagram from "Low Density Residential" to '''Commercial'' for 7.3 acres of the subject site.. and
to change the designation trom "Commercial" to "Medium Density Residential" for another 1.3
acres of the subject site (see Table 1 and Exhibits D.l and D.2 for more information).
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Designations and Zoning
Metro Plan RRI SC Refinement Plan
Designation Designation
Zoning
Area
ap ot urrent Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed (Acres)
17-04-11-41 9100 LDR COM GE C PL C-2 3.1
.s .$ 17-04-11-41 9200 LDR COM GE C PL C-2 0.8
a; (i) 17-04-11-41 9300 LDR COM GE C PL C-2 0.7
.... ....
c: 4) 17-04-11-44 200 LDR COM GE C PL C-2 0.6
41 II)
E n 17-04-11-44 300 LOR COM GE C C-1 C-2 1.2
0.. ::I
0 rJ) 17-04-11-44 400 LDR COM GE/C C C-1 C-2 0.8
"iii 17-04-11-44 1900 COM MDR C M R-1 R-2 1.3
>
~ 17-04-11-44 501 COM COM C C C-2 C-2 0.2
17-04-11-44 601 COM COM C C C-2 C-2 0.3
M
L
c
Subject Site 8.6
Development Site ,9.1
Source: LCOG data. analysis by Satre Associates, PC
The portion of the subject site north of Green Lane is the fOITner location of the Santa Clara
Elementary School, and is currently zoned Public Land, designated on the refinement plan as
Government and Education, and designated on the Metro Plan as Low Density Residential. Santa
Clara Properties, Inc., a private development group, recently purchased the Santa Clara
Elementary School site. Per EC 9.2681(2) which states, "When public land is soldfor private the
development, the property shall be rezoned according to the procedures for zone changes
beginning l<l'ith andfollowing section 9.8850 Purpose of Zone Changes" the applicant is seeking
a zone change of the subject site. The applicant proposes herein a Metro Plan amendment to
allow a horizontal mixed-use residential and commercial development on the subject site.
The applicant, Santa Clara Properties, LLC is preparing to submit applications to the City for
permits to build a mixed-use residential and commercial development (mixed-use center) on the
subject site. Because the mixed-use center is a combined residential and commercial use, a
required land use action for its development is for the Eugene-Springfield Area Metropolitan
General Plan (Metro Plan) to allocate the existing Commercial and Residential designations of
the subject site to match the proposed development
The existing River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (the applicable refinement plan) land
use designations are shown on Exhibits E.1 and E.2. With approval of this application it is also
necessary to remove the existing Government and Education designation and apply Commercial
designation for the portion of the site north of Green Lane and to remove the Commercial
designation and apply Medium Density Residential designation for the portion of the site south
of Green Lane on the RR1SC Land Use Diagram. The applicant has submitted an application to
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
PageJ of32
amend the refinement plan map and text. Existing and proposed RR/SC Land Use Diagram maps
are included as Exhibits E.l, E.2 and E.3.
The appropriate zoning designations for the proposed mixed-use center under the Eugene Land
Use Code are C-2, Community Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential. The subject
site is currently zoned PI" Public Land., C-I, Neighborhood Commercial and R~ 1, Low Density
Residential Zone. The development site also includes properties that are currently zoned C-2,
Community Commercial. The applicant intends to rezone the subject site for C-2/PD/SR,
Conm1unity Commercial with Planned Unit Development and Site Review Overlays north of
Green Lane and R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential \-vith Planned Unit Development and
Site Review Overlays south of Green Lane. The applicant has submitted an application to rezone
the subject site. Existing and proposed zoning maps are included as attachments C.l and C.2.
This written statement applies to the Metro Plan Amendment application. The referenced
Refinement Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications are being submitted concurrently,
but separately. Refer to those applications for specific information regarding those land use
actions.
III. THE SITE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Location and Context
Location:
The subject site is located approximately one-half mile north of Beltline Road on the southeast
corner of the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane (see Vicinity Map, Exhibit B)
Lots Affected by the Proposed Amendment:
The subject site is specific to properties identified on Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 as Tax Lots
9100, 9200 and 9300 and Assessor's Map 17~04-11-44 as Tax Lots 200, 300, 400 and 1900.
These lots are entirely within the Eugene City Limits. Adjacent lots 501 and 601 are also owned
by the applicant and are designated Commercial on the Metro Plan and the River Road/Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan and are zoned C-2, Community Commercial.
Legal Description of Lots within Subiect Site:
Descriptions of the properties su~ject to this request are included as Exhibit A.
Planning and Zoning:
The current zoning for the subject site is a mixture of PL, Public Land, C-l, Neighborhood
Commercial, and R-1, Low Density Residential. Annexation of lots 200, 300, 400, 9100, 9200
and 9300 occurred in 2004 (City of Eugene file A-04~003), concurrent with a rezone for the
affected lots. Lot 1900 was annexed to the City in 1983 (City of Eugene file AZ-83~006) and
received its current zoning in 1989 (City of Eugene file Z-88-32). Current and proposed zoning
for the subject site are attached as Exhibits C.1 and C.2.
Tax Lots 501 and 601 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 are also owned by the applicant and ~ill
be part of the applicant's proposed mixed-use center. However, because they currently have the
necessary plan designations and zoning they are not involved with this application. Lots 501 and
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 4 of32
601, were annexed in 1987 (City of Eugene file A-87-001) and are zoned C-2, Community
Commercial, established in 1987 (City of Eugene tile 2-04-008).
Plan Designation:
ly[etro Plan
The Metro Plan Diagram applies Low Density Residential and Commercial designations to the
subject site. Current and Proposed Metro Plan Diagrams for the subject site are attached as
Exhibits D.l and D.2.
Refinement Plan
The River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan designates the subject propelty as Public Land
and Commercial. The current and proposed River Road/Division sub-area maps, which show the
present and proposed designations applied to the subject site, are included in this application
packet as Exhibits E.1, E.2 and E.3.
B. Site Description and Existing Conditions
Subiect Site:
Portions ofthe subject site have previously been used as the Santa Clara Elementary School (Ta.x
Lot 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200, 300 and 400 of
Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44). Currently the school site is vacant and Tax Lot 1900 has one
residential dwelling. The City Limit abuts the subject site to the east. Adjacent to the subject site
and at the northwest corner of the River Road and Green Lane intersection are two Tax Lots that
have not been annexed to the City (Tax Lots 800 and 900). Tax Lot 800 is owned by the
applicant but is not part of this application. Tax Lots 501 and 601 are currently designated
commercial and are a part of the development site but not included in this application. Because
they are already zoned C-2, Community Commercial it is not necessary to include them in a base
zone change, however, the concurrent Zone Change application includes them in order to apply
the Planned Unit Development and Site Review Overlays.
The site is located outside of both the 1 OO-year flood and 500-year flood areas.
Additional details on adiacent uses are as follows:
Northeast
TIle property to the northeast of the subject site is located outside of the City Limits but within
the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). It is designated Low Density Residential on the Metro Plan
Diagram and is predominately developed with suburban residential dwellings.
Southeast
The property to the southeast of the subject site is located inside of the City Limits. It is
designated Medium Density Residential on the Metro Plan Diagram and is developed with a
mixture of older suburban residential dwellings and more recent multi-family housing types.
South and Southwest
The property to the south and southwest of the subject site is located predominately within the
City Limits. It is designated Commercial and zoned Community Commercial, Neighborhood
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement- August 2, 2007
Page 5 of32
Commercial and Low Density Residential. It includes the commercial area known as Santa Clara
Square.
West and Northwest
The property to the west of the subject site is designated Commercial on the Metro Plan Diagram
and zoned Neighborhood and Community Commercial. It is predominately inside of the City
limits and developed with commercial uses.
IV. PROPOSED USE
A. General Project Information
Contingent on approval of the current application and other applications as required, the
applicant is preparing to submit applications to build a mixed.use center on the subject site to be
developed as a Planned Unit Development.
B. Specific Proposal Information
The Eugene-Springtield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) currently applies
Commercial and Low Density Residential designation to the subject site. The River Road/Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan applies Public Land and Commercial designation to the subject site.
The Eugene Zoning Map applies R.1, Low-Density Residential; C-l, Neighborhood
Commercial; C.2, Community Commercial zoning to the subject site.
In preparation for development of a mixed-use center, the applicant proposes anlending the
Metro Plan Diagram and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Diagram to reapportion
the existing commercial designation, to remove the Low Density Residential Designation and to
add Medium Deru;ity Residential designation to the subject site. In addition, changes to the
zoning on the subject site to R-2, Medium Density Residential and C-2, Community Commercial
are proposed. Maps showing the existing River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Diagram
designatioru; and the proposed River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Diagram
designatioru; are attached to this application packet as Exhibits E.I, E.2 and E.3.
In a separate application the applicant is proposing a refinement plan amendment that is site.
specific and amends the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use diagram and
text. The amendments to the refinement plan are intended to generate confoffility with the
proposed Metro Plan amendments herein. The applicant has also submitted a rezone application
for the subject site.
Section V of this Written Statement demonstrates that the requested Plan amendment satisties
the criteria found in the Eugene Code Section EC 9.7730 et seq.
Santa Clara- Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement -- August 2, 2007
Page 6 of32
V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Eugene Code Section EC 9.7730 requires an evaluation of any Metro Plan amendment to
determine whether the amendment is consistent with the following criteria. Criteria are shov,rn in
bold and italics text.
EC 9.7730 (3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following criteria shall be
applied by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with tlte relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
tlte Land Conservation and Development Commi~sion;
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunityfor citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Response:
The City of Eugene has an ackno\vledged citizen involvement program and an acknowledged
process expressed in the Eugene Code for securing citizen input on all proposed plan
amendments. It insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning
process and sets out :requirements for such involvement. The amendments proposed do not
amend the acknowledged citizen involvement program. The process for adopting these
amendments complies with the requirements of the citizen involvement provisions.
The Metro Plan contains an acknowledged citizen involvement program satisfying Goal 1. The
citizen involvement program is in Metro Plan Chapter III, pp. III-K-l to Ill-K-4. The proposed
amendments comply with and do not affect or amend the citizen involvement element in the
Metro Plan.
The proposed Rettnement Plan amendment is subject to the public notification and public
hearing processes provided for all Type IV application procedures as stipulated in EC 9.7400
through EC 9.7455, which, along with the remainder of the Code and with Statewide Goals and
state statutes, provide the provisions for citizen involvement.
The City's acknowledged program for citizen involvement, including public notice, public
hearings at the level of the planning commission and city council.. notification of decision and
ndtification of the right of appeal.. provides citizens the opportunity to review and make
recommendations in written and oral testimony on the proposed amendments to the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan diagram and the Metro Plan Diagram and on the
proposed zone change. In addition, the applicant has been to several Santa Clara Community
Organization meetings and plans to continue working with the SCCO by providing project
information and soliciting comments and critiques of the proposed development as it advances
through the planning and development process. These acknowledged citizen involvement
provisions afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1.
For the reasons cited, including the Metro Plan"s and the City of Eugene's acknowledged
programs for citizen involvement the amendment is consistent with Goal 1.
Santa Clara -c- Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 7 of32
Goa12: Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base
for such decisions and actions.
Response:
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. In order to
comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City will be responsible for coordinating
the adoption of this amendment by providing notice to all affected governmental units and
responding in its findings to the legitimate concerns of affected governmental units. There are no
Goal 2 Exceptions required.
The Eugene/Springfield Metro Area General Plan (Metro Plan), the Eugene Code, and the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, as well as the Statewide Planning Goals and applicable
state statutes and administrative regulations, provide policies and criteria for the evaluation of
plan an1endments. Compliance with these mea<;ures assures an adequate factual base for approval
of the amendment. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the amendment is consistent with
the Metro Plan, the Eugene Code, the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, and the
Statewide Goals. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Response:
This goal applies to lands that are designated AgriculturaL This amendment is for property
located within the city limits of Eugene and does not affect land designated for agricultural use.
Therefore, Goal 3 is not applicable or relevant to the amendment.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to
protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that
assure the continuous growing and harvesting offorest tree species as the leading use on forest
land consistent with sound management o.fsoi/, air, water, andfish and wildlife resources and to
provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
Response:
This goal applies to lands that are designated Forest. This amendment is for property located
within the city limits of Eugene and does not affect land designated for forest use. Therefore,
Goal 4 is 110t applicable or relevant to the an1endment.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Area, and Natural Resources: To conserve open
space and protect natural and scenic resources.
Response:
Pursuant to Goal 5, the City of Eugene has adopted certain sections of the MetroPlan, various
land use regulations within "Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code: Land Use" and the City of Eugene
Goal 5: Inventory and Water Resources Conservation Plan. 2005. In addition, the fonowing
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 8 of 32
inventories make up the entire inventory of significant Goal 5 resources within the City of
Eugene Urban Growth Boundary:
· "Sand and Gravel Working Paper," 1978
· "Scenic Sites Working Paper," 1978
· "Willamette River Greenway Working Paper," 1978
· "Archeological Sites Working Paper," 1978
. '"List of Historic Landmarks," 1976
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0250 (Division 23) establishes the applicability of Goal 5
rules to Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (PAPA), and specifies certain procedures and
requirements for local governments to follow in the adoption or amendment of all plan or land
use regulations pertaining to Goal 5 resources, The rule states:
"(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA
unless the PAPA ([Ifrets a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA
would affret a Goal 5 resource only ff
(a) The PAPA creates or amend..\' a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged
plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a sign!fieant Goal 5 resource
or to address specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows ne"w uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAP A amends an acknowledged [fGB and factual i1?formation is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in
the amended UOB area. "
The following findings will demonstrate that this application raises none of the issues which
would require the City of Eugene to apply Goal 5,
Firstly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(a): The changes proposed by the application do not
create or amend the area's list of Goal S resources, nor a portion of an acknowledged plan, nor a
code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5, and therefore, with regard to OAR 660-023-250(3)(a), the proposed
PAP A does not affect a Goal 5 resource and the City is not required to apply GoalS.
Furthermore, in Larson v. Wallowa County, 23 Or LUBA 527 (1992), the Land Use Board of
Appeals ruled that if property is not included in the Goal 5 inventory of the acknowledged
comprehensive plan, and a proposed zone change does not affect that inventory, a local
government is not required to consider whether the property should be included on that
inventory. The same logic is rightly applied here.
Secondly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(b): The changes sought by this application '>\Till not
allow new uses that could conflict with a significant Goal 5 resource site. There are no Goal 5
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 9 of 32
resources on the site itself. None of the various studies, inventories, refinement plans, and
facilities plans ha.<; listed this specific site in an adopted inventory, declared it a signiticant
resource, applied a Goal 5 resource overlay, or otherwise regulated or limited the redevelopment
of the site as a Goal 5 resource.
Natural Resources are addressed in the City of Eugene Goal 5: Inventory and Water Resources
Conservation Plan, 2005 which fulfills the State of Oregon's Goal 5 requirement for local
governments to protect significant riparian corridors, upland wildlife habitat and wetlands. The
subject site is not included in any of the plan's inventory maps or tables, nor has it been
designated "\lith a Waterside Protection (/WP) or Water Resources Conservation (IWR) Overlay
Zone. .
Because the changes proposed by the application do not create or amend any portion of an
acknowledged plan, or any code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5
resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, all of these safeguards will remain in
effect.
Lastly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(c): The changes sought by this application do not
amend the acknowledged Urban Gro'W1:h Boundary.
Conclusion:
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0250 "Applicability" stipulates that local governments are
required to apply Goal 5 when considering Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendments if the
amendment affects a Goal 5 resource. For the purposes of that mle, the section lists three
circumstances (OAR 660-023-0250(3)(a), (b), and (c) quoted above) under which, and only
under which, a Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment would affect a Goal 5 resource. As
evidenced above, none of the three circwnstances are raised by the proposed amendments, and
therefore the amendments will not affect a Goal 5 resource. The City of Eugene is not required
to apply Goal 5 when considering the consistency of the proposal. The City of Eugene can find
that the action requested by this application is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the
air, water and land resources of the state.
Response:
Nothing in the proposal or the character of the site or potential uses indicates a future
development that would compromise air, water and land resources. Future development of the
site will be in conformance with local, state and federal law including aspects of the Eugene
Code. The subject site is not within the Natural Resource Overlay Zone (!WR) or the Waterside
Protection Overlay Zone (!WP). As indicated in findings regarding Goal 11, incorporated herein
by reference, options for accessing or providing the necessary urban services are available.
Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 6.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 10 of32
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Di"asters and Hazards: To protect life and properly fj'om
natural disasters and hazards.
Response:
Goal 7 addresses natural hazards and requires that local governments inventory risks for floods,
landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, and wildfires among others and implement
appropriate safeguards when planning for development in areas of natural hazards. TIle Alulti-
hazard Mitigation Plan for the Eugene/Springfield Aletropolitan Area (Metro Hazard Plan) was
adopted by Eugene on November 8, 2004; this plan is non-regulatory but provides an inventory
of known hazards.
The Metro Hazard Plan does not identify any knowll hazards within the area of the subject site.
Furthermore, the subject area is outside of the 100 year and 500 year flood plains. There are no
adopted or non-adopted maps that identify the su~ject site to be within a known hazard area.
Future development on this site will include a full analysis of hazard risk and mitigate the risk
through appropriate construction. As such this amendment is in compliance with Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreation Needs: To satisfY the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Response:
The City of Eugene has adopted the following documents which are relevant to Goal 8:
. Eugene Parks, and Recreation Plan, 1989
. Rlver Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, 1987
. Eugene Springfield Metro Area General Plan Update, 2002
. Eugene Springfield TramPlan, amended 2002
. Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan. 2006.
The City of Eugene has endorsed the following document which is relevant to Goal 8:
. Rivers to Ridges A1etropolitan Regional Open Space Study, June 2003
The City adopted the following document, however LUBA remanded the City's adoption; the
document continues to serve as the City's aspirational and guiding parks, recreation and open
space document:
· City of Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan,
February 2006
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-015-0000(8) (Division 23) establishes that current and future
needs for recreation shall be planned for by responsible governmental agencies:
. in coordination with private enterprise,
. in appropriate proportions; and
. in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of the
resources to meet such requirements.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2,2007
Page II of32
The proposed Metro Plan Land Use Diagram amendment will have no impact on any recreation
area, facility or opportunity that has been inventoried and designated by the Metro Plan or any
relevant facility plan regarding the Chis recreational needs. None of the various studies,
inventories, refinement plans, and facilities plans list this specific site in an adopted inventory, or
declare it a significant resource.
The Eugene Parks. and Recreation Plan (1989) does not list the project site as an existing,
proposed or needed facility. In addition, the City of Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan (2006) does not list the project site in "Table B-5: Parks and Open Space
Inventory: River Road/Santa Clara Planning Sub-area" and does not identify the site on the
"Existing and Needed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Resources Map."
The Rivers to Ridges Metropolitan Regional Open Space Study does not show the site on the
"Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Study Vision Map."
The Eugene Parks. Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan does not indicate the
site as an existing or proposed facility on the "River Road/Santa Clara Area Existing and
Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Resources Map" and does not list the site or any
related project on "Table I: Proposed Projects & Priorities for Parks, Open Space and
RecreationalF acilities."
Conclusion:
Changing the plan diagram designation of this site does not affect a recreation area, facility or
opportunity inventoried and designated by the acknowledged plan to meet the City's recreational
needs. The City of Eugene is not required to apply Goal 8 when considering the consistency of
the proposal and can find that the plan amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Response:
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economy of the State, requires communities to inventory, plan, and
zone enough commercial and industrial land to support the diversification and improvement of
the economy. Oregon Administrative Rule 660-009-000 et seq. (Division 9) establishes the
applicability of Goal 9 rules. OAR 660-009-0010(4) states:
For 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 designatIon, a city or county
must address all applicable planning requirements ... "
To comply with Goal 9 the Eugene City Council adopted the Eugene Commercial Lands Study
(ECLS) in May 1992, updated in October 1992. The EeLS was subsequently acknowledged by
LCDC as conforming to the Metro Plan and Goal 9 during periodic review in 1994.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 12 of 32
OAR 660-009-0010(4) does not apply in this situation because the changes proposed by this
application will remove less than two acres from the supply of land designated for commercial
use.
GoallO - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Response:
Goal 10 requires buildable lands for residential use to be inventoried and requires plans to
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent
levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households. Oregon
Administrative Rule 660, Division 8 defines standards for compliance 'with Goal 10. OAR 660-
008-0010 requires that:
"Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to sali,~fY
housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection.
The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each
residential plan designation. '.'
The comprehensive plan map for the City of Eugene is the Metro Plan Diagram. Approval of the
applicant's proposed amendments changing approximately 7.3 acres irom Low Density
Residential to Commercial and 1.3 acres from Commercial to Medium Density Residential on
the Metro Plan Diagram requires compliance with statewide planning Goal 10, Housing (OAR
660, Division 8). (The change will have a net effect of adding 6.0 acres to the commercial
designation while removing 7.3 acres of Low Density Residential and adding 1.3 acres of
Medium Density Residential.) The Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) is
consistent with the parts of the Metro Plan which address the requirements of Goal 10, as will be
shown below. Using Metro area average densities of developed properties the table below shows
that the proposed impact of the amendments will be insignificant when considering a comparison
of the total number of likely dwelling units for the plan designation and! or zoning type.
Table 2: Proposal Impact on Potential Dwelling Unit Totals
Development - Average
Designation Density.
SFR . LOR 4.4
MFR - MOR 23.2
'" Metropolitan area du/ac on developed tax lots
Area Change
-7.3
1.3
Total Units
-32.1
30.1
The Eugene-Springfield Afetropolitan Area Residential Lands Study (RLS) was completed in
1999 as a technical document informing policy changes to the Metro Plan as part of the area's
periodic review requirements. The RLS was acknowledged by the state Land Conservation and
Development Commission as being consistent with Goal 10. The purpose of the RLS Vlas to
compare residential land needs with available land supply. The analysis does not require buildout
of particular densities or numbers of units on specific sites or within the metro area as a whole.
Information regarding the supply of residential land is supplemented by the adopted Goal 5
inventory. rt includes an analysis of the new Goal 5 protections' impact on residential lands. It
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 13 of32
also includes an inventory update based on amended plan designations since the adoption of the
1999 RLS.
The RLS contains a detailed inventory of dwelling units by district as replicated in Table 3,
below. The table shows that the Santa Clara subarea contains a significantly larger proportion of
single-family dwelling units, when compared to multi-family dwelling units, than the City of
Eugene or the Metro region. The report identifies the Santa Clara subarea as having the highest
percentage of single-family units at 88% of the housing mix and the lowest percentage of multi-
family units at only 1%. The single-family dwelling type is predominately built within Low
Density Residential designated areas. The table shows that there is an undersupply of multi-
family dwelling types \\rithin the Santa Clara sub-area~ a dwelling type found in Medium Density
Residential designations. In addition, Tables 6 and 7 show that the supply of Medium Density
designated land is not proportionate to the amount of land that is zoned Medium Density
Residential. This amendment proposes to designate Medium Density Residential land that is
capable of accommodating this needed dwelling type.
Table 3: Residential Land Study:
Percentage of DweUing Units by District and Type as of July 1992
Santa Clara Subarea, City of Eugene and Metro Region
Multi- Single
Region Mfr'd Home family Duplex Family Total
Santa Clara 3% 1% 8% 88% 100%
Eugene UGB 6% 26% 9% 59% 100%
Metro 7% 25% 9% 59% 100%
Source: Residenlial Lands and Housing Study Drcift Site Inventory Document, 1999 pages 26-27.
In addition, the RLS contains a detailed buildable residential land supply and demand analysis,
\~ih1ch is summarized below in Table 4 as it pertains to the Metro region. The subject site was not
indi\ridually considered in the detailed supply and demand analysis; however, the site is included
within the supply analysis. The RLS assumed a land demand for the Eugene DGB, SpringJield
VGB and the Metro region. Table 4 shows the relationship betw-een land supply and demand and
the impact that this proposed PAPA has upon the supply of residential land within the 1992-2015
planning period. The proposed amendment will increase the supply of needed commercial and
medium density residential land by 7.0% and l.PYo respectively while decreasing the supply of
low density residential land by 1.7%.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement -- August 2, 2007
Page 14002
Table 4: Residential Land Study:
Supply, Demand Analysis and Impact by Zoning Designation (acres)
Metro Goal 5 Recent
Demand Supply Excess Update PAPA's
Low Density 3,840 4,780 940 422
Medium Density 589 828 239 201 -87
High Density 135 195 60 18
Commercial*" 532 702 170 86
Total 4,564 5,802 1,238 726
. Buildable acres added/lost from the RLS, ClS inventories due to this application
*" Eugene Metro only
Recent PAPA's: MA 06-003 (+6,89), 02-08-243 (-93.4)
Based on expected demand projections, RLS. p, 52,
Metro does not include Springfield PAPA's since the Goal 5 update except 02-08-243,
Source: Residential Lands and Housing Study Draft Site Inventory Document, 1999 pages 52-53,
City of Eugene Goal 5: inventory and Water Resources Conservation Plan, 2005
Analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Current
Excess
422
114
18
86
640
Proposal
1m pact"
-7
1
o
6
o
The change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential is minor and the
amount of land involved in this application is small; it is not necessary to engage in an extensive
analysis of the impacts on the asset;:; Goal 10 protects. Moreover, the proposed amendment
allows more intensive residential development in an area that is under served by building types
that are allowed within the Medium Density Residential designation.
The Residential Lands and Housing Study estimations of the long term projected land needs, and
the determination that there is an adequate inventory, serve to demonstrate that the minimum
needs have been met. The proposal adds to the supply of Medium Density Residential and
Commercial inventories without significantly affecting the supply of Low Density Residential
land.
In smnmary, based on the excess supply of residential land and the relatively small amount of
acreage involved in this application, our analysis finds that the applicant's plan amendment
proposal meets the requirements of state\\ide planning Goal 10, and supports applicable adopted
policies. Please refer to discussion regarding Goal 9-Economy and the J\!etro Plan discussion of
the policies of the Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
Goal]] - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services as aframeworkfor urban and rural development.
Response;
The parcels affected by this application are currently within the Urban GroVv1:h Boundary and
have been annexed into the City of Eugene. The previous annexations were made in compliance
with an acknowledged comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the
availability of urban facilities and services. A detailed analysis of the availability of those
services follows:
Santa Clam - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 15 of32
Waste Water
The subject site can be served by connection to existing sanitary sewer lines nearby. Eight-inch
lines are located within Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. According to City of Eugene personnel
these lines should have suilicient capacity to serve the site.
Solid Waste Management
Sanipac and Lane Apex provide service tor this area of the City of Eugene. Adequate capacity is
provided at regional disposal sites and at Short Mountain Landfill. The provision of solid waste
management services to the project area will be orderly and efficient.
Potable fVater Service
Eugene Water and Electric Board provides water service to the subject site. An existing 12-inch
water main exists within River Road and a 6-inch water main exist" within Hunsaker Lane.
According to EWEB personnel adequate water service is available.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Fire Station #11 is located at 111 Santa Clara Avenue, south and west of the project area by
approximately one-quarter mile. The City provides fire and emergency medical services to the
area. The property is within the 4-minute response time area. Therefore, the provision of this
key urban service will be provided in an orderly and efficient manner.
Police Protection
Police protection and response to priority calls are provided to this site consistent with service
provision throughout the city. This key urban service will be provided in an orderly and efficient
manner.
Electric Service
The Eugene Water and Electric Board provide electric service to this area of the City of Eugene.
Electric service is already provided to the site.
Natural Gas
Northwest Natural serves all development in the City of Eugene. There is an existing four-and-
a-half inch and a two-inch natural gas pipeline at the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker
Lane. This key urban service will be provided in an orderly and efficient manner.
Communication Facilities
Fiber optic services are provided by Qwest and EWEB in the vicinity of the project area.
EWEB's fiber network extends to the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane. Numerous
wireless communication providers also serve the area. This key urban service is available and
will be provided in an orderly and efficient manner.
Public Schools
The project area is served by Eugene School District 4J, by Awbrey Park Elementary, Madison
Middle, and North Eugene High Schools. Thus, this service will be provided in an orderly and
efficient manner.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 16 of32
lmproved Streets/ Transportation
The project area is currently served by River Road, Hunsaker Lane and GreenLane. River Road
is a fully improved public street and is designated as a major arterial on the "Eugene Street
Classification Map." Hunsaker Lane is a partially improved county road and is designated as a
major collector on the "Eugene Street Classification Map." Green Lane is a partially improved
city road and is designated as a neighborhood street. The applicant proposes to take primary
access off Hunsaker Lane and to minimize access on River Road. It is anticipated that Green
Lane would be used for secondary access. Upon development of the subject site, the section of
Hunsaker Lane will be developed to City standards. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be
included as necessary to meet the City's adopted standards.
In the section of tlus statement addressing Statewide Planning Goal 12 -- "Transportation" there
are additional findings regarding public facilities and services, and those discussions are hereby
referenced and incorporated.
Storm Water Control
Storm water facilities will be designed during the site planning process to meet City of Eugene
objectives; including optimizing the use of on-site detention within the development site to
detain and infiltrate runoff. There are currently three storm sewer lines that could service the
subject site; a 24" and 21" line witlUn River Road (City operated sysrem) wrnch are full, and a
24" line witrnn Hunsaker Lane (Lane County operated system) which is nearly full. The
applicant will provide a stormwater analysis that will determine the feasibility of using either of
the piped systems and the necessary storm water improvements at the time of development per
Eugene Code standards.
Given the above evidence, the City can find that the proposal IS consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 11 - "Public Facilities and Services."
Goal 12 - Tran,yportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Response:
Goal 12 is implemented through the "Transportation Plmming Rule," OAR Division 12, 660-
012-0000 et. seq., (TPR). The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan) provides the regional policy frmnework-through ,vhich the TPR is enacted at the
local level. TransPlan was acknowledged for compliance with 00a112 in 2001.
Plan amendments and land use regulation mnendments are regulated under OAR 660-012-0060.
If an mnendment significantly affects a transportation facility, a local government must provide a
form of mitigation. 660-012-0060(1) states:
"A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility ~l
it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement ~ August 2, 2007
Page 17 of32
(b) Change standard., implementing afimctional classification system; or
(c) As measured at the end qf"the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
.~ystem plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
exLf>ting or planned transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
below the minimum acceptable performance standard ident~fied in the ISP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the pel:formance of an existing or planned transportation facility that
is otherwise pn~iected to perform below the minimum acceptable peJiormance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. "
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a) and (b), the proposed plan amendments would not
change the functional classification of any transportation facility, nor would they change the
standards for implementing a functional classification system. 1berefore, no facilities are
significantly affected under these definitions.
With regard to OAR660-012-0060(1)(c)(A), the proposed plan amendments would not allow
types or levels of uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent
with the functional classification of a transportation facility. The policies of the City (~l Eugene
Municipal Code, "Chapter 9: Land Use," and the TransPlan establish the requested plan
designation as appropriate to the classification of the streets serving the site. Specific
requirements for access to those streets will be determined through Site Plan reviews and
approved only upon demonstration of compliance with the provisions of the acknowledged
comprehensive and implementing regulations. Therefore, no facilities are significantly affected
under this definition.
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B) and (C), a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) evaluating
the performance of existing and planned facilities as a result of the development proposed by this
application has been performed. That TIA is submitted concurrently with this plan amendment
(Attachment 1) and the findings of that analysis are hereby incorporated by reference.
Impact Analysis:
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B), although the River Road at Green Lane
intersection, a facility within the scope of the study, is projected to operate below the
performance standard in the plan year, it will not do so as a result of the proposed PAPA. It is
projected to operate below the performance standard in the plan year regardless of the proposal
under review. Therefore, no facilities are significantly affected under this detinition.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 18002
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C), the analysis determined that two facilities within
the scope of the study are otherwise projected to operate below the performance standard in the
plan year. These facilities are:
· River Road at Green Lane intersection
· River Road at Hunsaker Lane and Irving Road intersection.
The commenting agencies determined that the proposal's contribution to the projected '''F'' Level
of Service at the River Road at Green Lane intersection is negligible, not worsening the
performance. Therefore under this definition, the proposal does not significantly affect that
facility. By a small margin, the proposal worsens the perfomlance of the River Road at Hunsaker
Lane and Irving Road intersection in the plan year. Therefore, it significantly affects that facility
under this definition.
OAR 660-012-0060(3) permits local governments to approve a PAPA that significantly affects a
facility without requiring that mitigations bring the facility up to the applicable perfom1ance
standards. This is allowed only where the facility is currently operating below the perfomlance
standard and, despite any planned facilities as defined in Section (4) of the TPR, it is also
projected to operate below the perfomlance standard in the plan year. Taking into account all
planned facilities, the TIA demonstrates that these conditions are met at the River Road at
Hunsaker Lane and Irving Road intersection. OAR 660-012-0060(3)(c) requires transportation
improvements that mitigate the net impact and avoid further degradation in the development
(opening) year. The TfA used 2008 as the development year in this analysis. The impact analysis
shows that even without mitigation there is no measurable development year degradation of the
facility. Therefore, no mitigation is needed to meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-
0060(3)(c).
Proposed Improvements:
The TIA has shown that the Proposed PAPA significantly affects only one facility in the plan
year and that the eUcct in the development year is so minute, the requirements of the TPR can be
met without mitigation. Nonetheless, the applicant and commenting agencies have informally
agreed that certain improvements to the existing facilities are desired. Because these
improvements wilt be specified in conditions of approval for the proposed PAP A, the proposal
must be reevaluated as conditioned. The planned improvements are offered as "minor
transportation improvements" as defined OAR 660-0121-0005(15) and pursuant to OAR 660-
012-0060(2)( e). These improvements are:
. Construct an additional Hunsaker Lane westbound approach lane
. Construct an additional Green Lane westbound approach lane.
With the proposed improvements specified as conditions of development, the TIA has
determined that, measured at the end of the planning period, the proposed amendment will
neither reduce the performance of existing or planned transportation facilities below the
minimum acceptable performance standards identified in TransPlan, nor worsen the
perfomlaI1Ce of transportation facilities that are othef\vise projected to perform below the
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2,2007
Page 19 of32
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in TransPlan. TIlerefore, potential impacts
under OAR 660-012-0060(l)(c)(B) and (C) are avoided.
Conclusion:
Pursuant to OAR 660-0 12-0060( 1), the proposed PAPA significantly affects a transportation
facility \vithin the scope of the analysis. The TIA determined that, should the City choose to
invoke OAR 660-012-0060(3), the circumstances of the impact preclude the need for mitigation
under the requirements of that section. Nonetheless, certain minor improvements are proposed as
conditions of approvaL The TIA has detelmined that, with the proposed conditions in place, the
PAPA has no significant effect under the criteria of OAR 660-012-0060(1). By requiring
conditions of development to address OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (3), the City may approve the
PAPA in compliance with OAR 660-012-0060. The City can find that the proposed amendments
are consistent with Statewide Plalming Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land
shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all /iJrms of energy,
based upon sound economic principles.
Response:
The purpose of this amendment application is to re-designate land on the subject site to: 1) re-
designate the land currently designated for Low Density Residential to Commercial; 2) and re-
designate the Commercial land, south of Green Lane, on the subject site to Medium Density
Residential.
The Metro Plan is an acknowledged plan by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development. Therefore, the Metro Plan is currently consistent with the provisions of Statewide
Planning Goal 13. The City of Eugene adopted the Metro Plan updates (Ordinance No. 20319)
on April 21, 2004. This application does not amend allY component of the Metro Plan that is
related to Goal 13 as adopted by Eugene City council on April 21, 2004. Therefore, this PAPA
application is consistent with the Metro Plan and Statewide Planning Goal 13.
For the reasons cited, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Ooal13.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
Response:
All of the parcels affected by this application are currently within the Urban Growth Boundary
and are annexed into the City of Eugene. The annexation was made in compliance with an
acknowledged comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the availability
of urban facilities and services. Therefore the amendments are consistent with State\\>ide
Plalming Goal 14.
Goal 15 - WiJlamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greemvay.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 20 of 32
Response:
The subject site is not within the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, this goal is not
relevant and the amendment will not affect compliance \-vith Goal 15.
Goal 16 through 19: (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shoreland'>, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources):
Response:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property or
involved in the amendment. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendment will not
afIect compliance with Goals 16 through 19.
EC 9.7730(3)(b) Adoption of tlte amendment must not make the A--fetro Plan internally
inconsistent.
Growth Management
Metro Plan, Policy 1. The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as
an essential means to achieve compact urban groyt'th. The provision of all urban services shall
be concentrated inside the UGB.
Response:
As detailed in the response to Statewide Goal 11 (above) urban services are available to the
subject propelty and the property is within the Eugene portion of the metropolitan UGH and
within the incorporated City limits. As such, the subject property is providing for compact urban
growth and has the essential services available for development. As defIned in the glossary of
the Metro Plan compact urban gro'wth is defined as:
The filling in of vacant and underutilized lands in the UGB. as well as redevelopment
inside the UGB.
The amendments will allow compact urban gro\\'th to occur on lands that are currently within the
UGH and underutilized for an urban area. The redevelopment of the site will provide needed
commercial employment opportunities and also provide medium density residential
development. As such the proposed amendments support this policy.
Metro Plan. Policy 24. To accomph~h the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth
addressed in the text and on the Metro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-'lvide density of new
residential construction. but necessari~v each project, shall average approximate~v six d'lvelling
units per gross acre over the planning period
Response:
The proposed development seeks to increase the anlount of medium density residential
designated land within the subject site area and thus increase the supply of land available for
higher density development within the River Road/Santa Clara subarea. The future development
Santa Clara ~ Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 21002
of the site. therefore. \\~n help the region achieve its goal of compact urban gro\vih. As such the
proposed amendments support this policy.
/IJetro Plan, Objective 8. Encourage development of suitable vacant, underdeveloped. and
redevelopable land where services are available, thus capitalizing on public expenditures
already made for these services.
Response:
The subject property is currently underdeveloped with access to readily available public facilities
and services. Approval of this proposal will capitalize on the public services and expenditures
already made and planned for in the immediate area. [n short, the underdeveloped subject
property is suitable for commercial and residential uses and has access to public facilities and
services. As such the proposed amendments support this policy.
Metro Plan Specific Elements
A. Residential Land U~'e and Housing Element
Response:
Table 5 shows that the amendment '.vilI remove 7.3 acres of land from Low Density Residential
supply and add it to the supply of Conullercial land and remove 1.3 acres of land from the
Commercial land supply and add it to the supply of Medium Density Residential land. A net loss
of 6.0 acres of residential land occurs, however, the supply of higher density land increases. In
addition, the refinement plan amendment will remove 1.3 acres of land from commercial
designation and add 1.3 acres to the Medium Density Residential designation. The proposed
zone change will remove 1.3 acres of land from Low Density Residential (R-I) and add it to
Medium Density Residential (R-2) supply. The proposed amendments will provide needed
Medium Density Residential land in close proximity to commercial services and does not hinder
the ability to provide for the housing needs of the community which has an adequate supply of
low density residential land as detailed herein within the discussion of Goal 10.
Table 5: Amendment Changes in Acres
GE to C
C toM
No change
Total
7.3
1.3
0,1
8,7
7.3
1,3
0.6
9.2
Key:
Metro Plan: LDR~Low Density Residential, MDR-
Medium Density Residential, COM~Comrnercial;
RRfSC RP: M-Medium Density Residential. C-
Commercial. GE~Govemment & Education;
Zoning: R~l-Low Density Residential, R~2-Medium
Density Residential, C~l~Neighborhood Commercial, C~2-
Community Commercial,PL-Public Land
LOR to COM
COM to MDR
No Change
Total
PL To C~2
C-1 to C-2
R-1 to R-2
No change
Total
5.2
2.1
1.3
o
8,7
5.2
2.2
1.3
0.4
9.2
Source: LCOG data. analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 22 of 32
Metro Plan, Policy A.3. Provide an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the
UGB jor the 20-year planning period at the time of Periodic Review.
Response:
The 2004 update of the Metro Plan planned for an adequate supply of residential land based on
the analysis of the 1999 Residential Land Supply. As discussed in more detail under Goal 10,
herein, the applicant is not appreciably affecting the regional supply of residential land and is
increasing the supply of Medium Density land within an underserved area of the cOlmnunity that
is also located close to transit and other services. As such this proposed amendment supports
Policy A.3.
A1etro Plan, Policy A.8. Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local
jurisdiction, of extending public services and infrastructure. The cities shall examine ways to
provide subsidies or incentives fhr providing injrastructure that support affordable housing
and/or higher density housing.
Response:
The applicant shall conform to City of Eugene requirements and pay the fair cost of extending
public services and infrastmcture. The proposed amendments within this amendment will allow
a greater diversity of housing types to occur on the subject property than would be possible under
the current designation. As such this proposed amendment supports this policy.
.Nletro Plan, Policy A.IO. Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes
existing injrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves
rural resource land~ outside the UGB.
Metro Plan, Policy A.II. Generally locate higher density residential development near
employment or commercial service, in proximity to major tram.porlalion systems or 1-l'ithin
tramporlation-efficient nodes.
Metro Plan, Policy A.12. Coordinate higher density residential develojmlent with the provision
of adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities.
Response:
The proposed PAPA will promote higher density development by increasing the total supply of
medium density designated and zoned land within the metropolitan area. The Santa Clara
subarea is underserved by higher density development and through tIus amendment the applicant
proposes to increase the overall supply in the subarea to meet the needs of the community. The
proposed amendment will locate Commercial land adjacent to Medium Density Residential on
the same development site which allows for the integration of an overall complex, or mixed-use,
development of commercial and residential. In addition, the proposed amendment is adjacent to
River Road, a major transportation route which has existing Lane Transit District (L TD) bus
service and is identified to have a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT/eMX) route ending at the current
transfer station located approximately one-half mile to the south of the subject property on River
Road. As such, the proposed PAPA supports the utilization of existing infrastructure while
increasing overall density and providing needed commercial services.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 23 of 32
Metro Plan, Policy A.B. Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by
creating more opportunities for effectively designed in-jill, redevelopment, and mixed use while
considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future
neighborhoods.
Response:
The subject area is located within "Potential Nodal Development Area 5C" (TramPlan) and the
applicant is proposing to develop a mix of commercial and residential uses that shall include
employment and commercial opportunities. These uses will benefit both future resident") of the
proposed development and existing residents of the River Road! Santa Clara area. The
Development Site is located in the northwest comer of Potential Node 5-C and represents
approximately 8.2% of the entire area of the proposed node. Table 6 shows the current and
proposed lodetro Plan designations for Potential Node 5-C. The proposed changes will increase
the supply of commercial land by 16.2%, decrease the supply of low density residential land by
approximately 36.9% and increase the supply of medium density residential land by 2.50IlI. See
Exhibit H for additional information.
Table 6: Current and Proposed Metro Plan Designations (Potential Node 5-C)
Existing Condition Proposed Change
Total Acres % Total Acres Chan ed % Chao e Total Acres
36.7 33.3% 5.9 16.2% 42.6
19.7 17.9% -7.3 -36.9% 12.4
53.8 48.8% 1.3 2.5% 55.1
110.2 110.2
Desi nation
Commercial
Low Density Residential
Medium Densit Residential
Total
% Total
38.7%
11.3%
50.0%
Source: City of Eugene, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Table 7 shows'that zoning ratios within the Potential Node 5-C are similar to existing Metro Plan
designations. TIle main differences are that the Metro Plan does not include a Public Land
category and the zoning of the Potential Node 5-C area further differentiates commercial into
Neighborhood and Community Commercial categories. From the table, it is evident that the only
Neighborhood Commercial within the nodal area is proposed to be removed 'with this application
seeking to replace it with an integrated mixed-use center that will function to provide a
neighborhood level connection. In addition. the table shows that the percent of zoned Medium
Density Residential land is significantly less than the area that is designated within the Metro
Plan (it may be interpreted that the amount of R-l land exceeds the amount that the City has
allocated for the nodal area.) The proposed amendments will ensure that medium density
residential land is developed at appropriate densities in conjunction with the mixed-use center.
The proposal satisfies the intent of the Metro Plan and this policy.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 24 of 32
Table 7: Current and Proposed Zoning (Potential Node 5-C)
Desi nation
C.1, Neighborhood Commercial
C-2, Community Commercial
R-1, Low Density Residential
R-2, Medium Density Residential
PL, Public Land
Total
Existing Condition
Total Acres % Total
2.2 2.0~
36.7 33.3%
33.5 30.4%
32.5 29.5%
5.2 4.7%
110.2
Proposed Change
Acres Changed % Chan e Total Acres
-2.2 -100.0~ 0.0
7.4 20.3% 44.1
-1.3 -4.0% 32.2
1.3 4.1% 33.8
-5.2 -100.0% 0.0
110.2
% Total
40.1%
29.2%
30.7%
Source: LCOG data, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
The applicant is proposing to develop a horizontal mixed-use center that combines single-use
buildings on distinct parcels in a range of land nses in one planned development project. This
approach achieves the goal of place making that is made possible by bringing together
complimentary uses in one place. In addition, the mixed-use center is within a ten to twenty
minute (114 mile to ~ mile) walking distance of public transit and a range of other uses.
The Metro Plan defines Nodal development (node) thusly (p.1I-G-8):
"Areas identified as nodal development areas in TransPlan are considered to have
potential for this type of land use pattern. Other areas, not proposed for nodal
development in TransPlan, may be determined to have potentialfor nodal development.
Nodal development is a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly land use pattern that seek<; to
increase concentrations of populations and employment in well de;fined areas with good
transit service. a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private
improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. Fundamental
characteristics of nodal development require:
· Design elements that support pedestrian environements and encourage
transit use, lvalking and bicycling;
· A transit stop which is within walking distance (generalZv % mile) of
anywhere in the node;
. Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance;
· Public spaces. such as parks, public and prtl'ale open space, and public
facilities, that can be reached without driving; and
· A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net
density of at least /2 units per net acre. "
Additional information regarding the various types of commercial development is included on
pages II-G-4 and II-G-5 of the Metro Plan. The information provides clarification on what
constitutes community commercial, neighborhood commercial and strip or street-oriented
commercial and how they differ. The applicant's submittal is for a mixed-use center (community
commercial and residential). Although the existing development along River Road is strip
Santa Clara '- Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 25 of 32
commercial the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and Refinement Plan ensure that a
community commercial facility is developed that, while scoping beyond the neighborhood,
provides many of the core ingredients of a neighborhood commercial development including:
· Within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support
population. According to the US Census the population of Tract 23 w'hich
includes the proposed development and area to the east of River Road is 6,663
persons2. This area \vilI provide the primary support population for the
proposed development with others coming from the adjacent neighborhoods3.
Bicycle lanes and well designed pedestrian areas are provided and elements of
these areas are further explained with the proposed refinement plan text
amendments.
· Adequate area to accommodate oIl-street parking and loading need" and
landscaping, particularly between the center and a4jacent residential
property, as well as along street jiYmtage next door to outdoor parking areas.
The provisions for landscaping and parking will be addressed at time of Site
Review and Planned Unit Development application that are proposed to be
required as part of the refinement plan text amendments. Adequate parking
and off-street parking and loading areas will be provided and shall pay
attention to the need to screen nearby residential uses.
· Sufficient frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and
bicycle access without conflict with moving traffic at intersections and along
a4jacent streets. The site will have frontage along three streets, River Road,
Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. The refinement plan provides text that calls
for primary streets to be internal to the development site and designed as
'Shopping Streets'. The development does not propose strip style
development. and \\'i11 provide convenient and safe access for automobiles,
pedestrians and bicyclists without conflict with moving traffic at intersections
or along adjacent streets.
Existing strip commercial development along River Road shall be removed and. replaced
according to the design considerations of the refinement plan text to ensure that the proposed
mixed-use center is appropriately scaled to provide for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists
while also ensuring compatibility With surrounding neighborhood development.
Concurrent with this application is an application to amend the River Road! Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan. The proposed map and text amendments provide specific language integrating the
commercial and residential portions of future development integrating and meeting many of the
objectives of a nodal development. The development site currently has L TD stops along its River
Road and Hunsaker Lane frontages and is within one-half mile distance from the River Road!
2 Source: US Census, http://www.census.gov
3 The Santa Clara neighborhood is comprised of two primary Tracts (23 and 24) with a total population of 17,125
people according to the 2000 US Census; it is likely that this area will provide the primary and secondary support
for the proposed development
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 26 of 32
Santa Clara transfer station (just south of Beltline Highway). Additionally, the proposed
development will provide a pedestrian friendly connection to adjoining residences, utilize
existing infrastructure, and increase overall density within the potential node 5-C area. Design
guidelines are suggested that will ensure that the residential and commercial portions of the
project are integrated and have sufficient pedestrian friendly amenities to foster the connection
that a nodal development area requires. As such this proposed amendment supports this policy.
l\,{etro Plan, Policy A.l7. Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type,
density, size, cost, and location.
The applicant's proposed amendment will increase the opportunities for medium density
residential development including options for a variety of housing types including to\vnhomes
and apartments. The potential density of development is compatible with neighboring medium
density residential designated land located to the east of the subject site and is within the desired
ranges for medium density residential. The location of the proposed residential anlendments
supports a ten to twenty minute (114 mile to ~ mile) walking distance to public transit and a
range of other uses which supports the nodal and mixed-use concepts.
Metro Plan, Policy A.22. Expand opportunitiesfor a mix of uses in newly developing areas and
existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations.
The proposed amendment will facilitate a zone change and therefore increase the mix of uses
providing medium density residential and commercial opportunities sited together on one
development site as a horizontal mixed-use4 center, wIllIe also infilling in an area of more typical
single-fanllly suburban development. The increased commercial and employment opportunities
will benefit the existing residents and future residents of the development site. For more
information on the connection with Potential Node 5-C see lvfetro Plan Policy A.13 above.
}v[etro Plan, Policy A.23. Reduce impacts of higher density residential and mixed-use
development on surrounding uses by considering site. landscape, and architectural design
standards or guidelines in local zoning and development regulations.
The proposed amendments include text changes to the River Road! Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Plan that include the use of the Planned Unit Development process in order to ensure that the
proposed development provides a pedestrian orientation that is scaled appropriately. Provisions
include reducing the maximum allowed are of a single building to no more than 18,000 square
feet, reducing the height limitation to 35-feet and providing a pedestrian friendly connection
across Green Lane to provide a linkage to nearby residential development (see Refinement Plan
application for more information). The procedure of a Planned Unit Development shall provide
ample opportunity for review to assure that impacts of the mixed-use development are
4 The Metro Plan defines Mixed use as: "A building, project or area qf development that contains at least nvo
different land uses slich as hOlising, retail, and qffice uses." (Metro Plan, p. lU.A-9) This proposal allows
appropriate planning and zoning for an integrated horizontal mixed-use project on a "development site" as defined
by the Eugene Code as such it meets the intent of the Metro Plan and Eugene Code definitions for a mixed-use
development site.
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 27 of32
appropriately mitigated within the Development Site. As such these amendments support this
policy.
B. Economic Element
A detailed analysis of Economic Element policies is contained in the applicant's response
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - "Economic Development." Those responses are hereby
incorporated by reference.
}detro Plan,Policy 13.6: Increase the amount of undeveloped land zonedjor light industrial and
commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and availability with the
projections of demand
Response:
The proposal (in conjunction with the related zone change application) will increase the supply
of undeveloped land planned and zoned for commercial use (see Tables 5 and 6). The increase in
supply will provide a suitable site for a community cOlmnercial center near a higher density
residential area that is serviced by existing transportation networks thus supporting the concept
of mixed-use development. The supply of neighborhood commercial land is reduced with this
application by approximately 90% within the potential node 5-C area. Although the supply of
neighborhood commercial land is reduced the proposed amendments allo\v tor the development
of a mixed-use center that will provide a neighborhood focal point with supportive services for
area residences, thereby meeting the intent of such commercial designations.
Given that the approval of this proposal would facilitate the rezoning of the property to
commercial, the proposal is consistent with this policy.
Afetro Plan. Policy B.28. Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial jixilities in
providing services and goody to a particular neighborhood
Metro Plan, Policy B. 29. Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood
commercial facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the characteristics of
the support population change.
The Santa Clara School stood as a center of neighborhood activity for many years. The proposed
amendments will support redevelopment of the site, thereby continuing and expanding that
tradition. If the former school grounds were developed under the current low-density residential
designation, it would be a retreat from the role this site has played providing vital services to the
neighborhood. The City has identified a potential nodal development area that includes this site.
When implemented, residential densities will increase and require goods and services that can be
provided with approval of the proposed amendments, but not with the existing designation.
Concern that reducing the area of C-l zoning and increasing C-2 land may result in a more
intense community rather than a neighborhood commercial area is addressed by the refinement
plan amendment. This amendment requires Planned Unit Development or Site Plan review that
will provide opportunities for the City and the Neighborhood association to scrutinize
Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement m August 2, 2007
Page 28 of32
development proposals. It also limits the size of commercial buildings on the site and requires
buildings oriented toward intemal streets and sidewalks rather than exclusively to the arterial.
Although the Community Commercial zoning district will allow slightly more flexibility of uses,
the proposed refinement plan policies requiring subsequent development reviews and limiting
building scale will a.<;sure the neighborhood character of future development. For these reasons,
the proposed amendments support and implement Metro Plan policies "B.28" and "'B.29.'l
F Transportation Element
The project area is currently served by River Road (a Major Arterial), Hunsaker Lane (a Major
Collector) and Green Lane. Hunsaker Lane is a county road that is not improved to urban
standards; development of the subject site will include improvements to Hunsaker, proportionate
to the impact of development that will bring the road to urban standards.
Additional information in this statement's response to Statev.ride Planning Goal 12 _
"Transportation" is hereby referenced and incorporated.
Metro Plan, Policy F.l: Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each
jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use
pattern.
Response:
The subject site is identified in TransPlan as "Potential Nodal Development Area 5-C'.
Although the area is identified as a potential nodal development area the City ha.<; not identified
the site for development as a node. Although the applicant is not specifically developing the site
under the nodal standards the applicant's mixed,..use center concept is support of the intent of the
node concept. Future development of the site shall take advantage of its proximity to nearby
commercial services and existing and proposed transportation networks that complements the
nodal standards and provides a scale that is compatible with existing and future residential areas.
Please see discussion under Metro Plan. Policy A.13 for more informatio~on how this policy is
met.
Metro Plan, Policy F.13: Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
A.fetro Plan, Policy F.14: Address the mobility and sqlety need., of motorists, transit users,
bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing
roadway system improvements.
A.fetro Plan. Policy F.23: Require bike""~'ays along new and reconstructed arterial and major
collector streets.
Metro Plan, Policy F.26: Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with
adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience afwalking.
Response;
The proposed development will be served by the existing streets (River Road, Hunsaker Lane,
Green Lane). Bike lanes currently exist on River Road and the applicant will construct bike lanes
Santa Clam - Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 29 of32
on Hunsaker Lane as required at the time of future development. The development will be easy
to get around, and to do so on foot with an enhanced pedestrian connection at Green Lane that
will provide a linkage between conmlercial development to the north and residential
development to the south All streets will have wide sidewalks, some of them setback from
vehicle traffic. It will be convenient, and safe, to walk within the subject site and to nearby
commercial and residential activity centers. The provisions of the text amendments to the
refinement plan provide additional scrutiny to future design elements and amenities that must
entail size limitations appropriate to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. As such this policy is
supported by the proposed amendments.
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
Response:
lyleiro Plan, Policy G.l: Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban jacilities and
services in an order~v and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-B, relevant policies in this chapter, and other A.fetro Plan policies.
The parcels aflected by this application are currently within the Urban Growth Boundary and are
annexed into the City of Eugene. The annexation was made incompliance with an acknowledged
comprehensive plan and inwlementing ordinances, and established the availability of urban
facilities and services. A detailed analysis of the availability of those services is contained in the
applicant's response Statewide Planning Goal 11 - "Public Facilities and Services." Those
responses are hereby incorporated by reference.
Therefore, with regard to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan, the City
can find that the proposed amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
H Parks and Recreation Element
Response:
The changes proposed by this application will have no impact on any recreation area, facility or
opportunity that has been inventoried and designated by the Metro Plan or any relevant facility
plan regarding the City's recreational needs. The recreational needs of the community are
adequately met by the existing and planned facilities enumerated in the City of Eugene Parh,
Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, 2006 and other associated documents. A
detailed analysis of the subject site in relation to the various parks and recreation system studies,
inventories, refinement plans, and facilities plans is contained in the applicant's response
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - "Recreation." Those responses are hereby incorporated by
reference. With regard to the Parks and Recreation Element of the Metro Plan, the City can find
that the proposed amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
L Historic Preservation Element
Response:
The changes proposed by this application will have no impact on any historic resource that has
been inventoried and designated by the Metro Plan or any relevant facility plan or inventory
regarding the City's historic resources. With regard to the Historic Preservation Element of the
Santa Clara -- Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2,2007
Page 30 of 32
Metro Plan, the City can fmd that the proposed PAPA will not make the Aletro Plan internally
inconsistent.
J Energy Element
Metro Plan. Goall: Maximize the conservation and efficient utilization of all types (~f energy.
Response:
The proposed PAPA and subsequent development of the site will encourage conservation and
efticient utilization of energy by a concentration of employment, services and residences on the
site, and enabling transit services to the site.
i\Ietro Plan, Policy .1.3: Land allocation and development patterns shall permit the highest
possible current andfuture utilization o.{solar energy for space heating and cooling, in balance
with the requirements o.lother planning policies; and
Response:
The applicant shall design future development according the standards of the Eugene
Development Code includes all standards relevant to solar orientation.
Metro Plan, Policy 1.7: Encourage medium- and high-density residential uses when balanced
with other planning policies in order to ma-rimize the efficient utilization of all forms of energy.
The greatest energy savings can be made in the areas of space heating and cooling and
transportation. For example, the highest relative densities o.{ residential development shall be
concentrated to the greatest extent possible in areas that are or can be Vo'ell served by mass
transit. paratransit; and/oot and bicycle paths.
Response:
Approval of this request will encourage and promote horizontally integrated mixed-use on the
development site in direct support of the Metro Plan goals, objectives and policies described
above. In addition, the development site is located 'ij mile from the Lane Transit District (LTI))
River Road Station and an LTD stop will be enhanced with future development. Internal
circulation is geared towards pedestrians and integrated ,vith off-site sidewalks, bike lanes and
other transportation facilities to provide easy access between the higher density residential
development on the site and the nearby transit facilities. These findings demonstrate that this
request is consistent with both the Metro Plan Diagram and Text.
IJ1etro Plan, Policy J.8: Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated
to the greatest extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel distances,
optimize reuse o.{waste heat, and optimize potential em-site energy generation.
Response:
The requested approval of the PAPA proposed herein, if approved, will enable the subsequent
zone changes and development of a residential and cOllilllercial mixed-use development that
shall provide employment, services and residential opportunities. Workers and residents will
have the option to obtain dining, shopping, and other commercial amenities less than a mile from
the subject site consistent with Policy J.8's mandate to balance all planning policies to reduce
Santa Clara-- Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 31 of32
travel distance. Existing residential neighborhoods are adjacent to the subject site. Furthermore,
the presence of schools in close proximity and nearby recreational land uses which enables
reduced travel distances, this PAPA is consistent with this policy.
K. Citizen Involvement Element
Idetro Plan. Goal: Continue to develop. maintain, and refine programs and procedures that
maximize the opportunity for meaningful. ongoing citizen involvement in the community's
planning and planning implementation processes consistent with mandatory statewide planning
standard~ .
Response: As noted in applicant's findings regarding Statewide Plulming Goal 1, Citizen
Involvement, the City's acknowledged program for citizen involvement provides citizens the
opportunity to review and make recommendations in wntten and oral testimony on the proposed
amendment, consistent with Goal 1. The action proposed is consistent \vith and does not amend
the citizen involvement element of the Metro Plan.
Aspects of the Metro Plan that have not been discussed within this application will be dealt with
duringfuture development proposals.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis and findings of compliance with approval criteria and adopted plans
and policies, the requested Metro Plan Diagram amendment should be approved as proposed.
If you have any questions about the above application, please do not hesitate to contact
Michael Howard, AICP at Satre Associates, P.C. (465-4721).
Santa Clara .c. Metro Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 32 of32
EXHIBIT A
Order No. 0247987
pa.ge 5
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1.:
Commencing at the intersection of the center of the County. Road known as the River
Road, with the. North line of the Joseph Davis and wife Donation Land Claim No. 48,
Notification 208l in Township 17 South, Range 4 West of the willamette Meridian, said
point of intersection being understood to be 4.50 chains East of the Southwest corner
of the L. poindexter Donation Land Claim No. 52 in said To,~ship and running thence
South 1.6' 45' East along the center of said road 20 feet to the place .of beginning:
.From the point of beginning aforesaid run East parallel with the North line of said
claim 14 rods; thence South 60 feet West about 14 rods to the center of the County
Road, and thence North 16' 45' West along the center of the County Road to the place
of beginning, in Lane County, State of Oregon.
EXCEPT that portion conveyed to Lane County be deed recorded August 23, 1985,
Reception No. 8529972, Lane County Official Records.
PARCEL 2:
Begim1ing at a point in the center of the County Road South. 16' 45' East 1.265 chains
from the intersection of the center line of the County Road with the North line of the
Joseph Dayis Donation Land Claim No. 48, Township 17 South, Range 4 West of the
Willamette Meridian, said point of intersection being 4.50 chains East of the
Southeast corner of the Abram Peek Donation Land Claim No, 51, of the same township
and running thence East 3.14 chains; thence North 1.21 chains to the North line of the
Joseph Davis Donation Land Claimi thence East on said line 7.98 chains; thence South
2" 45' East, 5.00 chains; thence West 10.23 chains, to the middle of the County road;
thence North 16' 45' West 3.98 chains to the place of beginning, in Lane County,
Oregon.
EXCEPT: Beginning at a point in the center of the County road South 16' 45'
East 1.265 chains from the intersection of the center line of the county road
with the North line of Joseph Davis Donation Land Claim No. 48, Township ~7
South, of Range 4 West of said point of intersection being 4.50 chains East of
the Southeast corner of the Abram Peek Donation Land Claim No. 51 in said
Township and Range, running thence East 3.14 chains; thence North 1,21 chains to
the North line of said Joseph Davis .Donation Land Claim; thence East 3.98 chains
for the beginning point of this description; running thence East along said
North line of said Donation Land Claim 4 chains; thence South 2' 45' East 5
chains; thence West 4 chains; thence North 2' 45' West 5 chains to the place of
beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
PLSO EXCEPT that portion conveyed to Lane County by deed recorded August 23,
1985, Reception No. 8529972, Lane County Official Records.
PARCEL 3:
Beginning at a point in the center of the county road, South 16' 45' East 1.265 chains
from the intersection of the center line of the County Road with the North line of. the
Joseph Davis Donation Land Claim No. .48, Township 17 South, Range 4 West of Willamette
Meridian, said point of intersection being 4.50 chains east of the Southeast corner of
the Abram Peek Donation Land Claim No. 51 .in said TO~lI1ship and Range; run thence East
3.14 chains, thence North 1.21 chains to the North line of the Joseph Davis Donation
Land Claim, thence East 3.98 chains for the beginning point of this description;
rUID1ing thence East along the said North line of said Donation Land Claim No. SO feet;
thence South 2' 45' East 330 feet, thence West 50 feet, thence North 2' 45' West 330
feet to the place of beginning, in Lane CountYt Oregon.
continued-
Order No.
Page 6
0247987
Property Description continued-
PARCEL 4:
Beginning at a point on the North line of the Joseph Ogle Donation Land Claim No. 48,
Township 17 South, Range 4 West of the Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon; where
the center line of County Road (known as River Road) intersects the North line of said
Donation Land Claim; said intersection being 268.0 feet East of the Southeast corner
of the J..bram Peek Donation Land Claim No. 51; running thence East along the North line
of said Donation Land Claim No. 48, a distance of 656.55 feet to the true point of
beginning; thence West along the North line of said claim 112~57 feet; thence South 2'
45' East 330 feet; thence East 112.57 feet, thence North 2' 45' West 33U feet to the
place of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
PA...~CEL 5:
Beginning at a point on the North line of the Joseph Davis Donation Land Claim Lane
County, Oregon, No. 48, Township 17 South, Range 4 West, Willamette Meridian, Lane
County, Oregon; said point being 656.55 feet East of where' the centerline of River
Road intersects the North line of said Davis Donation Land. Claim; running thence East
along the North line of said Davis Donation Land Claim 98.0 feet; thence South 02~ 45'
East 330.0 feet; thence West 98.0 feet; thence North 02' 45' West 330.0 feet to the
place of begiIming.
PARCEL 6:
Beginning at a point 2.995 chains' East of the center line of the County Road from a
point 5.195 chains South 170 02' East of the point where the said center line
intersects the South Tine of the L. Poindexter Donation Land Claim No. 52, in Township
1.7 South, Range 4 West of the willamette Meridian, said intersection being understood
to be 4.50 chains East of the Southwest corner of the L. Poindexter Donation Land
Claim; and running thence East 2.195 chains thence South 3.65 chains i thence West
2.195 chains thence North 3.65 chains to the place of beginning, all in Lane County,
Oregon.
. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portiol1 on the South which lies within the bounds of
the roadway as conveyed to Lane County by instrument recorded in Book 446, Page
228, Lane County Oregon Deed Records, in Lane County, Oregon.
--PARtEr.. 7:
Beginning 3.95 chains East of a point in the center of the County' Road kno~~ as the
River Road, South 16' .45' East 9.48 chains distant from the point where the center
1i11e of said road crosses the South line of the L. Poindexter and wife Donation Land
Claim No. 52, Notification No. 2144, in Township 17 South, Rm1ge 4 West of the
Willamette Meridian, and running thence North 270.9 feet; thence East 222.0 feet;
thence South 2' 07' East 271.1 feet; thence West 232.0 feet; to the place of
beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion in Green Lane conveyed to Lane County, Oregon,
by Deed recorded September 26, 1951, Book 446, Page 228, Lane County Oregon Deed
Records, in Lane County; Oregon.
~ order No. 0247987
Page 7
continued-
Property Description continued-
PARCEL 8:
All that portion of the following described property lying Westerly of the following
described line, said line being described as follows: Beginning at a point on the,
North line of the Joseph Davis Donation Land Claim No. 48, in Section 1l, Township 17
South, Range 4 West of the willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon, said point being
754.55 feet East of where the Centerline of River Road intersects the North line of
said Davis Donation Land Claim, thence South OZ" 45' East 330.0 feet to the true point
of beginning of the line to be described, thence continue South 02' 45' East 271.1
feet more or less to the point on the South line of tract of land described by
instrument recorded october 3, 1975, Reel 762, Reception No. 75-42749, Lane County
Official Records, and the point of terminus of the line being described: Beginning
7.465 chains East of a point in the center of the County Road known as the River Road,
South 16" 45' East 9.48 chains distant from the point where the center line of said
road crosses the South line of the L. Poindexter and wife Donation Land Claim No. 52,
Notification No. 2144, in Township 17 South, Range 1 West, willamette Meridian, and
running tbence North 2", 07' West 271.1 feet; thence East 481 feet; thence South o'
41' East 270.92 feet; thence West 474.3 feet to the place. of beginning, in Lane
County, Oregon.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion in Green Lane conveyed to Lane County, Oregon,
by Deed recorded september 26, 1951, Book 446, Page 228, Lane County Oregon Deed
Records, in 'Lane County, Oregon.
02/15/2007 17:10 FAX 541 48~ '07
.i.
.~
~Mf\'rtRO 7itl. <;r""'1'
CASCADE TITLE
.:'
lli;ero\>( No. 000l09ilJ
WARRANTY lYEED (INDIVIDUAL)
JARVIS THOMPSON,. "J.'rustee and MAR'\/" mOMPSON.. Trustee, hereln called sranwr, con\'ey(s) to
lIERMA.1'o{ OLLAF. lLDd BEVERLY OLL.6j{, AS HUSBAND AND 'WIFE all that real property si=-tt:d in the
Cotlnty of Lane, Stllttl of Oregon, described liS: .
S~C .Exhibit A aUllehe<l herl!tll and mllde lll'llrt bereof.
and covonaot(s) tha.t gramor is r1le ov.'l1er of we sbove de:;cribed prrspert}' free of aU encumbrnnces except
NONE
and 'Pill WiUt1llit nnd defend the $imIe aguinsl all per.ons who may lawf!.llb' d.im the s~m". .lCeepl ill; shown .bove.
Thlllroe Ilnd .~lual eo:nsideratiCln fot thislXo>nSfer b $230,000.00..
D~r:ed March 10,2000.
STATE OF OREGON, Coun!)' of LANE) sa.
~
Oil this lOtb Day of March 2000 personally I\ppeared the above lWtlJ>d JARVIS TITOMl'SON llml !\1ARY
l'flOJ\11>SON snd aclo1cwled.g",d the fcm:going inttmmclll EO Ix: llleir "olunt;,ry IIct lllld deed.
',>
Th~ tiel I", "mOUllt .hnu1l! includl!: ",..h pI.... :111 er.cum\lfImc~ existing ags.inct We ptop<:rly to which she
propel'tY remains subject or which !he purt:hasa agree. to pa.y OT assume.
WARRANTY DEED (INDIVIDUAL)
)
) sa.
STATE OF OREGON:.
JARVIS T1JOJ\-tJ'SON
THOMPSON
~nd MARY ComITY of __._. )
I certify that the' ~~r.'lin ir>stl'llmer, I was r~ej'Jed fOf
,-'
DIVISION OF ~IEF DEPUTY CLERK
LAN1: COUNTY DEEDS RND RECORDS
TO
Send Tax StammenlS 10:
HERMAN OLl.AR and lilWERLY OLLAR
84 Green LBnll
Eugene, OR 974(14
Alter RecOI1ling Rel\lm !i:l;
A.mmtllf\ TI(]~ Graup
S"O Cnunlr:Y Club P~rkw.:r HlIo, E~~cne, OR
974.01
~ \.1~ltfOC'mS!OOU~O~ ~,1JH7.:Jr.:1
31.00
IW~!Wl~~!~il~l"lnlll
Z00001S74Z 11 :38:45 An 03/20fZ000
RPR DE~ 1 - J cASHIER 03
13.00 t1.~0 10.00
by
Deputy
l@OOZ
02/15/2007 17:11 FAX 541 48;
W7
CASCADE TITLE
I "C
~
I
:E:d,ibH A
Beginning at tha aluminum Cllp markint the slluthwl!.~t ~OtAcr or the Lllwrence PolwIertl>r Don~ti..n L~nd Clllim No. 51,
T<lWDShip l' Stlutb. R'mce Jj Wtlst <)flhe Wmllm~ttl>Mcridlan, then&<; E,,~t:Z68.00 fcctlllQoI: theSamh llnc<lfsald Claim to 3
pilii'll "1'1 tbe ~entel"lIne Ilf:Ri..cr ROlld; thellce. SBUtb 17" OZ' Ea~t 9011,SZ (eet alollg snldccDterHnc to il poinl; thcm:<!, East
.2&0.61 feet to a Iroilllin set in survey retocded lit the Lane County SlIrvcY<lr's <lrriee under No. 213ll11llJ1d m3rtd.n~ the TRIlE
l'qlNT DF"BEGINN1NGI tbcaceE3~t1.Z6.47 (eet w n polntwblch Iv, by rec~rd, South 170 O:Z; EllS! 626.117 fcet,EasI1l41.64
feet lInd 5<llltQ 3" 09' :30" Ell~t from the sDllthWest coriler of said CI~im. thence., Nurlb J' 09' 30" West 1S6 feet, more or le~s.
to 11 point on tneliOuth line oftbllt tratt con'Veyed to Lan~ CQumy for toad purpons in in!l'trumj>nt recorded In Volume dd6 of
deed9, p:llle 228, nx:llnls "fLane COUllty, Dreg..,,; thene<:, Wolit 256 feet, ltllJre Or Ie.., "tonr; tilt> SQuth line of s~id roadwlIY 10
II iron pin Bct In said Sliney No. !13lill to mark the nurth-easi ""mer theran(; thence, South 10' 46' 4:.1" East 145.04 feet to tile
tfUe polm of be(:illllin{(, ill Lane County, OreeOl1.
@l003
EXHIBIT B
. 123008.000' W
123007.000' W
z z
0 0
0 0
0 0
I.D I.D
0 0
0 0
v v
v v
z z
0 0
0 0
0 0
lfl lfl
0 0
0 0
v v
v v
123007.000' W
Vicinity Map
Santa Clara School Site
Redevelopment
0.0 0.5
I . . . . . , . , .1 , , . . , . . .
0.0 0.5 1.0
1.0 miles
I
I
1.5 km
WGS84 123006.000' W
lNf/MN
~ 16 Y20
02/22/07
Legend
.. AG Agricultural
_ C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Community Commercial
_ C-3 Major Commercial
_ C-4 Commercial/Industrial
GO General Office
City Zoning Districts
R-1 Low-Density Residential
R-1.5 Rowhouse
R-2 Medium-Density Residential
R-3 Limited High-Density Residential
R-4 High-Density Residential
_ PRO Park, Recreation & Open Space
1-1 Campus Industrial
_ 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial
_ 1-3 Heavy Industrial
S Special Area
_ S-H Historic
III NR Natural Resource
_ PL Public Land
Job# 0637 o Subject Site -
Date: 5/31/07 i----l Development Site
Drawn: MH Existing Zoning Overlay Zones
Checked: RS l____--I
Revised: MH Not Shown D Eugene City Limits SATRE
ASSOCIATES
Source: LCOG data with analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Legend
IltII AGAgricultural
.. C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Community Commercial
_ C-3 Major Commercial
_ C-4 Commercial/Industrial
GO General Office
City Zoning Districts
R-1 Low-Density Residential
R-1.5 Rowhouse
R-2 Medium-Density Residential
R-3 Limited High-Density Residential
R-4 High-Density Residential
_ PRO Park, Recreation & Open Space
1-1 Campus Industrial
.. 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial
_ 1-3 Heavy Industrial
S Special Area
_ S-H Historic
.. NR Natural Resource
_ PL Public Land
Job# 0637 o Subject Site -
Date: 8/2/07 C=J Development Site
Drawn: MH Proposed Zoning Overlay Zones
Checked: RS
Revised: MH Not Shown D Eugene City Limits SATRE
ASSOCIATES
Source: LCOG data with analysis by Satre Associates, PC
EXHIBIT D.1
NORTH
Not to Scale
Legend Metro Plan Designations
L - Low Density Residential M - Medium Density Residential _ C - Commercial
Job# 0637 Existing E'ZJ Subject Site ..
Date: 5/31/07 C=J Development Site
Drawn: MH Metro Plan Diagram
Checked: RS
Revised: MH D Eugene City Limits SATRE
ASSOCIATES
Source: LCOG data with analysis by Satre Associates, PC
EXHIBIT D.2
NORTH
Not to Scale
Legend Metro Plan Designations
L - Low Density Residential M - Medium Density Residential _ C - Commercial
Job# 0637 Proposed o Subject Site -
Date: 5/31/07 1----1 Development Site
Drawn: MH Metro Plan Diagram
Checked: RS L____---J ,
Revised: MH D Eugene City Limits SATRE
ASSOCIATES
Source: LCOG data with analysis by Satre Associates, PC
i. River R06u:H/Duvusuon
1
Recommendations
EXHIBIT E.1
Description
A 1 arge percentage of thi s
subarea is within the city
limits of Eugene. These
propert i es were rezo.ned for
commercial use upon annexation.
to Eugene. The area contains
the largest amo~nt of commuriity
commercial ~Lise in Santa. Clara;
It is zoned for commerci a 1 and
low-density use; there exist
few non-conforming parcels.
There is alack of access to
interior parcels. The subarea
contains a mobile home park.
1.
Develop an integrated plan, including transportation access and
urban services, for the subarea.
2.
D~signate medium-density development for undeveloped and under-
developed property west of Ross Lane and west of Lee1s Trailer Park.
The transition from professional office use to medium-density
residential use should occur in the vicinity of a line projected
south from the east boundary of the Santa Clara Elementary School
property.
3..
4.
Rezone parcels north of Santa Clara Square and south of Green Lane
for professional office us~.
2-32
III
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
'I
I
I
'I
J
EXHIBIT E.2
NORTH
Not to Scale
Legend
River Road - Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
Sub-Area i: River Road/Division
Land Use Diagram
L - Low Density Residential
M - Medium Density Residential
.. G - Government & Education
_ C - Commercial
Job# 0637 Existi ng o Subject Site ..
Date: 5/31/07 Refinement Plan Diagram and Text 1----' Development Site
Drawn: MH
Checked: RS L____--'
Revised: MH River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan D Eugene City Limits SATRE
Subarea i: River Road/Division ASSOCIATES
Source: River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (p. 2-32)
EXHIBIT E.3
Per recommendations NO.6 & NO.8
this area to transition to Commercial
and contain pedestrian friendly circulation
including internal drives that focus
development on internal 'Shopping Streets'
East boundary of former
Santa Clara Elementary
School property
NORTH
Not to Scale
Legend
River Road - Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
Sub-Area i: River Road/Division
Land Use Diagram
L - Low Density Residential
M - Medium Density Residential
G - Government & Education
.. C - Commercial
Job# 0637 Proposed 0 Subject Site ..
Date: 5/31/07 Refinement Plan Diagram and Text i----l Development Site
Drawn: MH
Checked: RS L____--.J
Revised: MH River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan D Eugene City Limits SATRE
Subarea i: River Road/Division ASSOCIATES
Source: River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (p. 2-32), analysis of proposal by Satre Associates, PC
- - _'__~t_____~______
Existing General
>::":",::;.,--,-,, "
. ,.
River Road -Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan' ~... ~
!1
t
e Patterns
GjL<1 Low Density
.. Multi-Family
.. Commercial
~:.k~lndu~t;~al"-'
~i,.k>Education
ili'./;Government/Utilities
~.: Parks/Open Space.
. Community Services
Sept. 1964
n
~
Job#
Date:
Drawn:
Checked:
Revised:
0637
5/31/07
MH
RS
MH
o Subject Site
1----1 Development Site
t____--'
D Eugene City Limits
Taxlot Map
Source: LCOG data with analysis by Satre Associates, PC
EXHIBIT F
~ NORTH
~ II" Not to Scale
III
SATRE
ASSOCIATES
EXHIBIT G
NORTH
Not to Scale
Job#
Date:
Drawn:
Checked:
Revised:
0637
5/31/07
MH
RS
MH
2004 Aerial
W Subject Site
i----l Development Site
l____---1
D Eugene City Limits
~
-
SATRE
ASSOCIATES
Source: LCOG data with analysis by Satre Associates, PC
EXHIBIT H
Santa Clara ~quare
5-C
CHARACTERISTICS:
Go to: Site Map
Current .Metro Plan Designations:
Designation Acres 0/0
Commercial 36.7 33.3%
Low Density Residential 19.7 I 17.8%
Medium Density Res. 53.8 148.8%
Total: 110.2
100%
Type of Node:
1995 Net Density
2003 Net Density:
1995 Commercial FAR:
1995 Employees:
2000 Employees
Transit Service:
Community Center
.5.3 (194 units)
7.58 (242 units)
0.33
634
772
L TD Serves River Road, Division, Beaver, Hunsaker and BeltHne.
River Road is proposed is proposed as a future BRT route north to Belt
Line.
STATUS:
"Potential Node"
OBSERVATIONS:
· The commercial center is mostly built out. Very little vacant land remains for commercial or multi-
family development.
· There is little connectivity between commercial busi11esses and adjacent residential uses. Pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity and enviromnent tor these modes is generally fair to poor.
· Site layouts for commercial uses are generally not consistent with nodal development principles.
· There is still some opportqnil:y t.o influence an'3ngement and type of uses on school site (Santa Clara
Elementary).
· Pedestrian crossing of Division is very difficult. A pedestrian median island was recently instaIJed at
Division and Lone Oak, similar treatments needed in other locations due to heavy traffic volumes and the
number/type of pedestrian and bicycle destinations tIu'oughout the area.
Return to Top
Santa Clara Square
:Mm \ . rcr~
rl Uf~ J
I I-~j\ I ~
JJ
~I
E I
F-r-f r~ I
I --{ L .L.---
~LJI [
I '
~-----i~\
I ~
i
EXHIBIT 1.1
Proposed Refinement Plan text change:
Proposed Plan Text for insertion on page 2-32, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan,
Chapter 2, River Road/Division Subarea, text to be included as Recommendations No.5, No.6,
No.7 and No.8.
5. Notwithstanding Recommendation No.4, development sites along Green Lane and
adjacent to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site may be designated and
zoned Medium Density Residential. If the parcels are zoned MDR, they must be
developed as a Planned Unit Development in connection with the former Santa
Clara Elementary School site and with an emphasis.. on mixed-use development
principles.
6. Upon the sale from public ownership to private ownership, the City shall recognize
the area of the former Santa Clara Elementary School at the southeast corner of the
intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane, between Hunsaker Lane and Green
Lane (Tax Lots 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200,
300, 400 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44) as appropriate for Commercial
development and designated Commercial. If zoned commercial, it shall be developed
as Planned Unit Development in connection with the property described in
Recommendation No.5 with an emphasis on mixed-use development principles. In
addition:
a. No individual building footprint within the commercial development may
exceed 18,000 square feet; and
b. No building mass within 50-feet of Low Density Residential land may exceed
35 feet in height; and
c. Permitted or conditional Commercial services shall not include theaters;
lodging; C2 and C3 permitted manufacturing; medical, health and
correctional services; motor vehicle related uses; and
d. The historic character of the former Santa Clara Elementary School shall be
commemorated on site by using architectural features and historic clements
typical of the former Santa Clara Elementary School (e.g., brick facades,
castings, etc.).
7. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, a pedestrian friendly connection subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer shall be provided at a "mid block"
crossing of Green Lane and shall include five or more of the following design
elements:
a. Curb ramps
b. Curb extensions (equal to the width of on-street parking, but not interfering
with bicycle lane)
c. Raised crosswalks
d. Special paving treatment (e.g., brick, alternative colors, cobblestone,
patterned cement, etc.)
e. Adequate lighting to fully illuminate the crossing at all hours
EXHIBIT 1.1
f. To mInimIZe conflict with vehicles entering! or exiting the former Santa
Clara Elementary School site locate the crosswalk to the east of the future
Green Lane access to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site.
8. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, pedestrian amenities shall be included
within the commercial component of the mixed~use development. Amenities shall
include two or more of the design elements from Recommendation No.7.
"'!
?-
m
I
><
ill
I
!
i
Ii
f,
II
ii
II
!
II
'i
~
11
<l>!I'
1-'
exi,
UJIo
mil
mil
~,i
;n Ii
l~~
~ s &.
iiH
'a~'
."
rl~
.g ~ ~
~ ~ fi ~.
'.d~ ~
~ ~.~ ~"9
~,. t! -Iii
q~ {f
~n ~ ~
H~ I!
o.~ i v ~ ~
~ ~.~~ ~~~
:g "'~'" ~~2
~ ~a ..ff
\j c~~~ ~<q'&,
~ ~'n 1l<L~
'" ~~;~.!~l1..!
ffi .-- ~. ~! as 3
Cl J~i~[[oi~! t;f
t 'i~.~a~l~ ~
~ ~f~n"H '"
ill,' I n;~'~>,~ ~
~ ~UX .,
9
91
..-
'"
.J
, ~
,~
I ~
'i
~ (~1
! '--.'
~
" .
;ii
U
?.~
!ii ]
~~~ !
~~.~ ~~
~~~ If
~-~r ~~
QF~ti :;:~
1.:"~ p
;~H ~.~
;;!~l; ~~
~v~8.'};
~1.~.~~$l
~ ~~1Lg>h
~:i~~l'i
HH~Hr
~ ~~'~j;$~ ~
,.1'"-U!. "
lilii.L~~ u
i ~ ~~il~.& l'l
;*'~ " .., i
IN'
'"
s
i .
! !
? ~
i 1&
:= 8-
8 ~~
~ ~~
· ~ 8t
~ fi ~&.
~ ~, li1'
~ Z} ]~
~ ~~ : i
:;".: H
;ll~,\). ~.!
.2~~li2'
"S!n?<f
~t:l'.Hi1 :\
>""'u~il~ :\
i ~ ~Q'i r l
:~~;~~u> f
f{" .., ~
<PIll. I.}
.
ti~
H~
Hi
h. t
~1l; 3
;~i.
! tI bij 8
~;~~ I
~rJ~~ .~
~~~~.~ it
~~i!t~ ~ :::
l- ~H ] g~
~~~.~~ ~ .~
. .. h i ~;~ u
'~~;i'~ ]~.
~i;t; ~'~H
~'i~~~o ; "'~t
~~~~t~ '.~~i
: ~i2'~ ~Hir
:c;~~~!~riJb.~,!~
-~i.!;;]:l~I!~~ ~
B.t"'~p-"3.~1 "
i'~~&ns~n~~!~~ ~
~{I.s E:f~:1m-%U{::i
iHf""'" g
@
8"
~]
t:1II
'~li
~ I$IJ
~~s
"~
l&~
.~ t~
li~ ~
~~~
it11
~:~-s
J"1~~
" &~;
~ .,}~*
~ .',ll
~rH
~,~~1
i:;~~
~ ~.~ ~
'()~~ ~
-Sil~.6
~!~~
HH
.,J 0 ...0
~ ~ 2
tllll$.9
~~~ fJs'.
._2~:!!~ ti
"i~~E~
~Hr~.
'~~~H
hl1~H.
"=~.<u~
~:, {sL
H'H ~'{ ~
01~-~ 'li.
~z g ~g;
. t .="-
;~. ~v ~~&
] fdH~
3". OJ "i
J!'Z'~~~w,
~hH~~
,;",.-il "
~"~q".'l
2 ..~g~~j~
~~.':;-;~
"~ ~ .
~ ~bl],~
~ ~~i~~~~ ~
:! ~;~~.'ll;; a
11. \i.!l'~~p *
~ linhj ~
g ~,~ur~-g~~ G.
f-'
'"
~
t
~~
~J~
~~
H
$8..
~r
.ri
8.1l
1"
.~ ]
1\"
~!
~1l-,
'lI2s
E ~.
] "'~
~H'
W:a
!i~
'-;jK~
l~o
Jd;
~~
(j~
".
l'~
8 ·
~lF
I~~
.p
;'~l
~ f.
;~t
8-'~
'i~
it~
ij9ij
I ~t
,d
~ ~~f
z \'; 8]
~ H1
~ ~~-K
;! r-~]
~ il~
II'I~~
~w
1.. II VJ~
;;
"
,
N
?~
~'i
~>
~!
H
':1 "2
".. ~
~~ w
H ..
~~ to
P i~
~ ~.l 4:
I!( 1L i ,-
>I ~I .J t~
~ n * H
@ @
--...,..;.-
I
I .--- t ~
.- ." ~1
U 1{"
J \,<01\0 .- !I !iili :i
-!l '3
\,<\-1& --- ~I ~i ~
I --- '}l)
./ --- I ~
---
.'-
..-- 1.....1
~
~)
~)
@
@
;ji.
;'~
~.,
\ij::~
JIlOJ
rt:U
~!
I
I
I
~~...--,.--
~
'"
....j
~
q}
<1i
@
.....)
L--
~
~
;;} i-
t) ~
~ ~~
d} :t--.l
ic~ n Iii
l.:~j L.u L.U
~
~
~
i
g'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
_-1
[@
~i j
~
~
;
$
~
Pt
iig
8~&
:::~r1i
~-s.. ~
~H
~~.
';)-32
hi
~ ~-~
~-s '"
"~r
h"
';ii"'Q
Pif
H~
~ .!~;
~ ~1l1;
~ n~
~ ~~~l
c ;?J;
~ .
1..\ ..P.\i
~ !~i
]
~
il.
~
'Ii
-S
'"
j
@
~
e:0
l-i
ZI
WI
ti
01
...II
w'
,>1
lul
Li!
nJl
-eli
Di
iki
U.li
r.i
ri
01
UI
lui
~J) l
':JI
Cii
llli
Xi
r!
,i
lU:
t"- :
,i) i
...1
()
o
:r
ij
<I)
'1 I..
ik O.
""1 ~
..j Z
U ()
""1 U
In
Z Ul
"1 l-
<f> ,f)
SATRE
VISION · STRATEGIES · SOLUTIONS
I rT~r' t", - ~ lIE. ~ vg I~:. n:~'\ J
Ilf~r-~r~-' n~li~
i
SATRE
/\.S$()(~iJ\'rr.s
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPMENT
REFIN-EMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICA TION
Lane County Assessor's Map 17..;04~11~41, Lots 9100,9200 and 9300
and Map 17-04~1l-44,Lot200, 300, 400 and 1900
Play field and trees buffering
housing in east of \levelopmerit site
Santa Clara School S~te and Yicinity
Adjacent Development Santa Clara S<;hool Site
Oregon West Management, LLC
1310 Co burg Road
Eugene, Oregon 97401
August 2,2007
Revised August 29, 2007
SATRE
ASSOCIATES
Satre Associates, P.C.
132 East Broadway
Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Phone 541.465.4721
Fax 541.465.4722
1.800.662.7094
www.satrepc.com
-r
August 2, 2007
City of Eugene
Planning and Development Department
. Planning Division
99 West 10th A venue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Attn: Heather O'Donnell
Re: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Dear Heather,
Endosedplease find Refinement Plan Amendment application materials for the
proposed development at the former site .of the Santa Clara Elementary School.
Included are the application, vvritten statement.and associated exhibits and
attachments.
The Written Statement contains general project information, a summary of the land .
use request, information about the site, existing conditions and proposed use, as
well as applicable approval criteria and fmdings.
As the .t\pplicant's designated contact, Satre Associates is available to answer
questions or provide supplemental information as needed to facilitate the review
process.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the application. We look forward
to working with you on the project.
Sincerely,
Michael Howard, AICP
Planner
Satre Associates, P .C.
Plai7.ners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
SANT A CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPMENT
REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Letter ..............................................................................
Table of ('ontents ........................................................................
Application ............... ............ .......................... .......... ................
Written Statement ...... ........................ ......... ...................... ...........
No. of Pages
1
1
2
43
Exhibits (Bound Herein)
A. Legal Description ......... .........., ............ .............. .......... ....... .... 5
B. Vicinity Map... ............ ............ ............ ............. ......... .......... I
C.l Existing Zoning ......... ....... .......... .......... ............. ......... .......... 1
C.2 Proposed Zoning................................................................... 1
D.l Existing Metro Plan Designation ................................................ 1
D.2 Proposed Metro Plan Designation........................................... .... 1
E.l RRlSC Existing Refinement Plan Designation.. .......... ............ ......... 1
E.2 Existing Refinement Plan Designation............ ............ .......... ........ 1
E.3 Proposed Refinement Plan Designation.......... ..... ...... ... ....... .......... 1
EA RRlSC Existing General Land Use Patterns ................................... 1
F Tax Lot Map ........................................................................ 1
(] Aerial Photo ......................................................................... I
H Santa Clara Square Characteristics ;........ ............ ......... ......... ....... 1
Ll Proposed Refinement Plan Text. ..... ......... ............ ...... ..............., 1
1.2 Site Concept ...... ............ ................ ...................................... I
Attachments (Bound Separately)
1. Traffic Impact Analysis .........................................................
Planning & Development
Plannin
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene. Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
Www.8ugene-or.gov
REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
Please complete the following application checklist Note that additional information may be required upon
further review in order to adequately adrlress the applicable criteria for approva1. Tfyou have any questions
about filling out this application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center, phone (541)
682-5377,99 West loth Avenue, Eugene.
Name of Refinement Plan:
Check the appropriate box(es):
E1 Plan Text Change
EJ Plan Diagram Change
Ust all Assessor's Map and Tax 1,01: numbers of the property included in the request. Please indicate if
only a portion of a lot is included in the request and include any additional map and tax lot numbers for
subject property. Also, include existing and proposed Refinement Plan Designations.
Assessor's lVIap Tax Lot Existin2: Desil!nation Proposed De....iunation
17-04-11-41 9100,9200.930 D Gov't and Education Commercial
17-04-11-44 200,300,400 Gov't and Education Commercial
17-04-11-44 < 1900 Commercial Medium Dens. Resid.
Street Address (if available): 2685 River Road (TL 9100); 84 Green Lane (TL 1900)
Existing Usc(s) oithe Property: Vacant (former elementary school)/Single Family Dwelling (TL 1900)
})roposed Use(s) of the Property: Mixed-use Residential and Commercial Center
Existing Zoning: PL, Public Land; R-1, Low Density Residential and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
Is this Refinement Plan Amendment being reviewed concurrently with another land use application?
~ Yes, application file number:
ONo
Filinf! Fee
o A filing fee must accompany all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is
adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check. with Planning staff at the Pem1it and Infonnation Center to
detennine the required fee or check website www.eugeneplanning.org
Refmement Plan Amendment
Last Updated: 7/2004
Page 1 of2
~'
Written Statement m Submit 3 copies
EI A \vritten statement demonstrating that the requested amendment satisfies the criteria found in the Eugene
Code Section 9.8424. Describe any un~hanged portions of the refmement plan which your amendment may
affect.
o For text changes, a written example of the proposed text change. TIlis should be specific and site the page(s)
the change applies to.
Information Required for a Proposed Plan nia!!ram Chall!!:e ~ Submit 3 copies
o A map indicating the property included in the request and adjacent streets and alleys.
o A vicinity map indicating the general area of the amendment and allowing easy identification of the
propcliy.
EJ A. map indicating the existi.ng plan diagram boundaries and the proposed plan diagram boundaries.
Note: This is not a complete list of requirement.... Additional information may be required after further
review in order to adequately address the required criteria of approval.
By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understands tIle submittal requirements
outlined herein, and tbat be/sbe understands tbat omission ()f any listed item may cause delay in
processing this application. I (We) tbe undersigned acknowledge that the information supplied in this
application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
OWNER (Also the Applicant? 0 Yes /0 No):
Name (print): Oregon West Management, LLC (~~_~~_Graves)
Phone: (541) 687-5653
Address: 1310 Coburg Road, Suite 1-8
C. /S 'Z' Eugene, Oregon, 97401
1ty L tatel .,1P:
Signature:
I~
I
AP.PLICANTD / APPUCANT'S REPRESENTATIVE EJ (Check one):
Name (print): Michael Howard
Company/Organization: Satre Associates, PC
Address: 132 East Broadway, Suite 536
City/State/Zip: Eugene, Oregon, 97401 ..
Phone: (541) 465.4721 Fax: (541) 465.4722 email: m.howard@satrepc.com
Sigt1ature ~~ .(L
Refinement Plan Amendment
Last Updated: 7/2004
Page 2 of2
SATRE ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
132 East Broadway, Suite 536, Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 465A721 . Fax(541)465-4722 . 1-800..662-7094
www.satrepc.com
...
III
SATRE
ASSOCIATES
August 2, 2007
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPM.ENT
REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA URBAN FACILITIES PLAN
WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURPOSE:
The applicant proposes a site-specific refinement plan amendment to the River Road/Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan, specific to properties identified on Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 as Tax
Lots 9100,9200 and 9300 and Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 as Tax Lots 200,300,400, and 1900
(the "subject site"). The portion of the subject site north of Green Lane wa<; formerly the site of
the Santa Clara School. This application is submitted concurrently with applications for
corresponding Metro Plan Diagram redesignation and Eugene Zoning Map zone change.
Approval will facilitate a residential/commercial development to serve the needs of the Eugene
conmmnity.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject Site
The subject site consists of seven tax lots (as described above) with the dimensions as specified
herein on the Legal Descriptions (Exhibit A). The area so defmed will be referred to in this
application as the Subject Site. The site addresses are 2685 River Road (Tax Lot 9100), and 84
Green Lane (Tax Lot 1900). Tax Lots 200, 300, 400, 9200 and 9300 are not addressed. The
Subject Site is within the Eugene City Limits. The River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Pian
is the applicable refinement plan.
Development Site1
The development site consists of the seven tax lots of the subject site, bisected by Green Lane,
with the addition of two lots (Tax Lots 501 and 601 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44) that are
currently designated for commercial use and zoned C-2, Community Commercial. Tax Lot 800
is also owned by the applicant; however, it is not currently within the boundaries of the City of
1 Ee 9.0500 Development Site. A tract of land under cotmnon ownership or control, either undivided or consisting
of two or more contiguous lots of reo rd. For the purpose ofland use applications, development site shall also include
property under common ownership or control that is bisected by a street or alley.
Eugene and is not subject to this application. Tax Lot 800 will ultimately be integrated with the
development site at the time of future Site Review and Planned Unit Development applications.
Tax Lots 501 and 601 are not subject to the current application.
Size
Subject Site: 8.6 acres
Development Site: 9.1 acres
Application Team
Owner/Applicant:
Santa Clara Properties, LLC
1310 Coburg Road, Suite I-B
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 687-5653
Attn: Steve Graves
Planner:
Satre Associates, P.e.
Planners, Landscape ,Architects and EnvirolU11ental Specialists
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Attn: Michael Howard, Alep
(541) 465-4721 <<Fax (541) 465-4722. m.howard@satrepc.com
www.satrepc.com
Transportation Engineer:
Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Attn: Damien Gilbert, PE
(541) 746-0637. Fax (541) 746-0389<< damien@branchengineering.com
www.branchengineering.com
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 2 of 44
H. LAND USE REQUEST
The subject site, as identified in Part I of this narrative" is within the area of Eugene in which the
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan is the applicable Refinement Plan. The applicant
requests City adoption of a refinement plan amendment to the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan. The proposed amendment is site-specific and amends the River Road/Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Land Use Diagram, the River Road/Division Subarea Map, and
reconmlendations section. The applicant proposes to amend the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan to change the designation from "Government and Education" to "Commercial" for
7.3 acres of the su~ject site, and to change the designation from "Commercial" to "Medium
Density Residential" for another 1.3 acres of the subject site (see Table 1 and Exhibits E.1, E.2
and E.3 for more infoffilation).
Table 1 : Existing and Proposed Designations and Zoning
Metro Plan
Designation
RRI SC Refinement Plan
Designation
Zoning
Area
ap ot urrent Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed (Acres)
17-04-11-41 9100 LDR COM GE C PL C-2 3.1
S II) 17-04-11-41 9200 LDR COM GE C PL C-2 0.8
....
(j) (j) 17-04-11-41 9300 LDR COM GE C PL C-2 0.7
1: ..., 200 LOR COM GE C PL C-2
u 17-04-11-44 0.6
II) II)
e ]i' 17-04-11-44 300 LOR COM GE C C-1 C-2 1.2
a.. ::J 400 LOR COM GE/C C C-1 C-2 0.8
0 en 17-04-11-44
"; 17-04-11-44 1900 COM MDR C M R-1 R-2 1.3
! 17-04-11-44 501 COM COM C C C-2 C-2 0.2
17-04-11-44 601 COM COM C C C-2 C-2 0.3
M
L
c
Subject Site 8.6
Development Site 9.1
Sotm.-e: LOX, data, analysis by Satre Associates. PC
The portion of the subject site north of Green Lane is the fOffiler location of the Santa Clara
Elementary School, and is currently zoned Public Land; designated on the refinement plan as
Government and Education; and designated on the Metro Plan as Low Density Residential. Santa
Clara Properties, LLC, a private development group, recently purchased the Santa Clara
Elementary School site. Per EC 9.2681(2) which states, "When public land is soldfor private the
development, the property shall be rezoned according to the procedures for zone changes
beginning 'with andfollowing section 9.8850 Purpose of Zone Changes" the applicant is seeking
a zone change. The refinement plan designation logically shall also be amended to reflect the
current private ownership.
The existing Metro Plan designations are shown on Exhibit D.1. With approval of this
application it is also necessary to remove the Low Density Residential designation and apply
COl1mlercial designation for the portion of the site north of Green Lane and to remove the
Commercial designation and apply Medium Density Residential designation tor the portion of
the site south of Green Lane on the Metro Plan Diagram. The applicant has submitted an
application to amend the Metro Plan. Existing and proposed Metro Plan Maps are included as
Exhibits D.l and 0.2..
Santa Clara - Refmement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2. 2007
Page 3 of 44
The appropriate zoning designations for the proposed mixed-use center under the Eugene Land
Use Code are C-2, Community Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential. The subject
site is currently zoned PL, Public Land, C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and R-l, Low Density
Residential Zone. The development site also includes properties that are currently zoned C-2,
Community Commercial. '{be applicant intends to rezone the su~ject site for C-2/PD/SR,
Community Commercial with Planned Unit Development and Site Review Overlays north of
Green Lane and R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and
Site Review Overlays south of Green Lane. The applicant has submitted an application to rezone
the subject site. Existing and proposed zoning maps are included as attachments C.1 and C.2.
Maps indicating the existing refinement plan diagram boundaries and the proposed plan diagram
boundaries are enclosed with this application (Exhibits E.1, E.2 and E.3). The subject site is
located in the River RoadlDivision Subarea of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
area. In order to provide scale and clarity appropriate for indicating proposed changes to the plan
diagram boundaries, the proposed boundaries are shown at the scale of the RRlSC River
Road/Division Subarea Map. A copy of the RR!SC River Road/Division Subarea Map as it now
exists is attached as Exhibit E.l (and a duplicated copy done by Satre Associates, PC as
Exhibit E.2) and a map showing the proposed plan diagram boundaries is attached as
Exhibit E.3.
In order to maintain the range of uses envisioned tor the subject site, text changes to the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RR1SC) document are necessary. Specifically,
additional text is proposed as an amendment to the RRlSC Chapter 2, Land Use "River
Road/Division Subarea" (p. 2-32), "Recommendations" section. The applicant, Oregon West
Management, Inc., proposes to add Reconmlendations No.5, No.6 and No.7 as specified
herein. The proposed text change is included as Exhibit 1.1 and is reprinted here for convenience.
Proposed text changes are shown here in Boldface. A sentence preceding each proposed text
change describes the refinement plan page to which the proposed text change applies.
Exhibit 1.2 is a "Site Concept" showing how the refinement plan text amendments will affect
future development on the site.
Proposed Refinement Plan text change:
Proposed Plan Text for insertion on page 2-32, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan,
Chapter 2, River RoadIDivision Subarea, text to be included as Recommendations No.5, No.6..
No.7 and No.8.
5. Notwithstanding Recommendation No.4, development sites along Green Lane and
adjacent to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site may be designated and
zoned Medium Density Residential. If the parcels are zoned MDR, they must be
developed as a Planned Unit Development in connection with the former Santa
Clara Elementary School site and with an emphasis on mixed-use development
principles.
6. Upon the sale from public ownership to private ownership, the City shall recognize
the area of the former Santa Clara Elementary School at the southeast corner of the
intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane, between Hunsaker Lane and Green
Lane (Tax Lots 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200,
Santa Clam ~ Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 4 of 44
300, 400 of Assessor's l\1ap 17-04...11-44) as appropriate for Commercial
development and designated Commercial. If zoned commercial, it shall be developed
as Planned Unit Development in connection with the property described in
Recommendation No.5 with an emphasis on mixed-use development principles. In
addition:
a. No individual building footprint within the commercial development may
exceed 18,000 square feet; and
b. No building mass within 50-feet of Low Density Residential land may exceed
35 feet in height; and
c. Permitted or conditional Commercial services shall not include theaters;
lodging; C2 and C3 permitted manufacturing; medical, health and
correctional services; motor vehicle related uses; and
d. The historic character of the former Santa Clara Elementary School shall be
commemorated on site by using architectural features and historic element~
typical of the former Santa Clara Elementary School (e.g., brick facades,
castings, etc.).
7. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, a pedestrian friendly connection subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer shall be provided at a "midblock"
crossing of Green Lane and shall include five or more of the following design
elements:
a. Curb ramps
b. Curb extensions (equal to the width of on-street parking, but not interfering
with bicycle lane)
c. Raised crosswalks
d. Special paving treatment (e.g., brick, alternative colors, cobblestone,
patterned cement, etc.)
e. Adequate lighting to fully illuminate the crossing at all bours
f. To minimize conflict with vehicles entering/ or exiting the former Santa
Clara Elementary School site locate the crosswalk to the east of the future
Green Lane access to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site.
8. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, pedestrian amenities sball be included
within the commercial component of the mixed-use development. Amenities shall
include two or more of the design elements from Recommendation No.7.
This \\Titten statement applies to the Refinement Plan Amendment application. The referenced
Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications are being submitted concurrently, but
separately. Refer to those applications for specific information regarding those land use actions.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 5 of 44
Ill. THE SITE AN)) EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Location and Context
Location:
The subject site is located approximately one-half mile north of Beltline Road on the southeast
comer of the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane (see Vicinity Map, Exhibit B)
Lots Affected by the Proposed Amendment:
The subject site is specific to properties identified on Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 as Tax Lots
9100, 9200 and 9300 and Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 as Tax Lots 200, 300, 400 and 1900.
These lots are entirely within the Eugene City Limits. Adjacent lots 501 and 601 are also owned
by the applicant and are designated Commercial on the Metro Plan and the River Road/Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan and are zoned C-2, Community Commercial.
Legal Description of Lots within Subject Site:
Descriptions of the properties subject to this request are included as Exhibit A.
Planning and Zoning:
The current zoning for the subject site is a mixture of PL, Public Land, C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial, and R-I, Low Density Residential. Annexation oflots 200, 300, 400, 9100, 9200
and 9300 occurred in 2004 (City of Eugene file A-04-(03), concurrent with a rezone for the
affected lots. Lot 1900 was annexed to the City in 1983 (City of Eugene file AZ-83-006) and
received its current zoning in 1989 (City of Eugene file Z-88-32). Current and proposed zoning
for the subject site are attached as Exhibits C.l and C.2.
Tax Lots 501 and 601 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 are also ovmed by the applicant and will
be part of the applicant's proposed mixed-use center. However, because they currently have the
necessary plan designations and zoning they are not involved with this application. Lots 501 and
601, were annexed in 1987 (City of Eugene file A-87-0(1) and are zoned C-2, Community
Commercial, established in 1987 (City of Eugene file Z-04-008).
Plan Designation:
lvfetro Plan
The Metro Plan Diagram applies Low. Density Residential and Commercial designations to the
subject site. Current and Proposed Metro Plan Diagranls for the subject site are attached as
Exhibits 0.1 and D.2.
Refinement Plan
The River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan designates the subject property as Public Land
and Commercial. The current and proposed River Road/Division sub-area maps, which show the
present and proposed designations applied to the subject site, are included in this application
packet as Exhibits E.l, E.2 and E.3.
Santa Clara -- Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 6 of 44
B. Site Description and Existing Conditions
Subiect Site:
Portions of the subject site have previously been used as the Santa Clara Elementary School (Tax
Lot 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200, 300 and 400 of
Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44). Currently the school site is vacant and Tax Lot 1900 has one
residential dwelling. The City Limit abuts the subject site to the east. Adjacent to the subject site
and at the northwest corner of the River Road and Green Lane intersection are two Tax Lots that
have not been annexed to the City (Tax Lots 800 and 900). Tax Lot 800 is owned by tbe
applicant but is not part of this application. Tax Lots 501 and 601 are currently designated
commercial and are a part of the development site but not included in this application. Because
they are already zoned C-2, Community Commercial it is not necessary to include them in a base
zone change, however, the concurrent Zone Change application includes them in order to apply
the PlalUled Unit Development and Site Review Overlays.
The site is located outside of both the 100-year flood and SOO-year flood areas.
Additional details on adjacent uses are as follows:
Northeast
The property to the northeast of the subject site is located outside of the City Limits but within
the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). It is designated Low Density Residential on the Metro Plan
Diagram and is predominately developed with suburban residential dwellings.
Southeast
The property to the southeast of the subject site is located inside of the City Limits. It is
designated Medium Density Residential on the Metro Plan Diagran1 and is developed \",ith a
mixture of older suburban residential dwellings and more recent multi-family housing types.
South and SouthvFcst
The property to the south and southwest of the subject site is located predominately within the
City Limits. It is designated Commercial and zoned Community Commercial, Neighborbood
Commercial and Low Density Residential. It includes the commercial area knOV.'l1 as Santa Clara
Square.
West and Northwest
The property to the west of the subject site is designated Commercial on the Metro Plan Diagram
and zoned Neighborhood and Community Commercial. It is predominately inside of the City
limits and developed with commercial uses.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement --- August 2, 2007
Page 7 of 44
IV. ])ROPOSED USE
A. General Project Information
Contingent on approval of the current application and other applications as required, the
applicant is preparing to submit applications to build a mixed-use center on the subject site to be
developed as a Planned Unit Development.
n. Specific Proposal Information
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) currently applies
Commercial and Low Density Residential designation to the subject site. The River Road/Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan applies Public Land and Commercial designation to the subject site.
The Eugene Zoning Map applies R-l, Low-Density Residential; C-I, Neighborhood
Commercial; C-2, Community Commercial zoning to the subject site.
In preparation for development of a mixed-use center, the applicant proposes amending the
Metro Plan Diagram and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Diagram to reapportion
the existing commercial designation, to remove the Low Density Residential Designation and to
add Medium Density Residential designation to the subject site. In addition, changes to the
zoning on the subject site to R-2, Medium Density Residential and C-2, Community Commercial
are proposed. Maps showing the existing River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Diagram
designations and the proposed River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Diagram
designations are attached to this application packet as Exhibits E.I, E.2 and E.3.
The refinement plan amendment proposes diagram and text amendments. It is site-specific and
does not affect any other parts of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. No change is
required to the remainder of the refinement plan.
In a separate application the applicant is proposing a Metro Plan amendment that is site-specific
and amends the Metro Plan diagram, no texi amendments are proposed for the Metro Plan. The
amendments to the Metro Plan are intended to generate conformity with the proposed River
Road/ Santa Clara Urban Facility Plan amendment herein. The applicant has also submitted a
rezone application for. the subject site.
Section V of this Written Statement demonstrates that the requested refinement plan amendment
satisfies the criteria found in the Eugene Code Section Ee 9.8424 et seq.
Santa Clara - Refmement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 8 of 44
V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Eugene Code Section EC 9.8424 requires an evaluation of any retlnement plan amendment to
determine whether the anlendmel1t is consistent with the following criteria. Criteria are shovvTI in
bold and italics text.
EC 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall
evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the criteria set forth below, and
forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall decide whether to act on
the application. If the city cOllltcil decides to act, it shall approve, approve with modifications
or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval, or approval with modifications
shall be based OIt compliance with the following criteria:
(1): Tlte refinement plall amendment is consistent with all of tlte following:
(aj Statewide planning goals.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity jor citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Response:
The City of Eugene has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and an acknowledged
process expressed in the Eugene Code for securing citizen input on all proposed plan
amendments. It insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning
process and sets out requirements for such involvement. The an1endments proposed do not
amend the acknowledged citizen involvement progran1. The process for adopting these
amendments complies with the requirements of the citizen involvement provisions.
Ibe Metro Plan contains an acknowledged citizen involvement program satisfying Goal 1. The
citizen invol:vement program is in Metro Plan Chapter III, pp. III-K-l to III-K-4. The proposed
amendments comply with and do not affect or amend the citizen involvement element in the
Metro Plan.
The proposed Refinement Plan amendment is subject to the public notification and public
hearing processes provided for all Type IV application procedures as stipulated in EC 9.7400
throughEC 9.7455, which, along with the remainder of the Code and with Statewide Goals and
state statutes, provide the provisions for citizen involvement.
The City's acknowledged program for citizen involvement, including public notice, public
hearings at the level of the planning commission and city council, notification of decision and
notification of the right of appeal, provides citizens the opportunity to review and make
recommendations in written and oral testimony on the proposed amendments to the River
RoadJSanta Clara Urban Facilities Plan diagram and the Metro Plan Diagram and on the
proposed zone change. In addition, the applicant has been to several Santa Clara Community
Organization meetings and plans to continue working with the SCCO by providing project
information and soliciting comments and critiques of the proposed development as it advances
through the planning and development process. These acknowledged citizen involvement
provisions afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 9 of 44
For the reasons cited, including the Metro Plan's and the City of Eugene's acknowledged
programs for citizen involvement the amendment is consistent with Goal 1.
Goal Z: Land Use Planlting: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basisfor all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base
for such decisions and actions.
Response:
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of aflected govenunental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. In order to
comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City will be responsible for coordinating
the adoption of this amendment by providing notice to all affected governmental units and
responding in its findings to the legitimate concerns of affected governmental units. There are no
Goal 2 Exceptions required.
The Eugene/Springfield Metro Area General Plan (Metro Plan), the Eugene Code, and the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, as well as the Statev.ride Planning Goals and applicable
state statutes and administrative regulations, provide policies and criteria for the evaluation of
plan amendments. Compliance with these measures assures an adequate factual ba..<;e for approval
of the amendment. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the amendment is consistent with
the Metro Plan, the Eugene Code, the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, and the
Statewide Goals. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with Goal 2.
Goal 3 -Agricultural Laltd: TopresenJe and maintain agricultural lands.
Response:
This goal applies to lands that are designated Agricultural. This amendment is for property
located within the city limits of Eugene and does not affect land designated for agricultural use.
Therefore, Goal 3 is not applicable or relevant to the amendment.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to
protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that
assure the continuous grm'f'ing and harvesting offorest tree species as the leading use on forest
land consistent with sound management o.fsoil, air, water, andfish and wildlffr resources and to
provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
Response:
This goal applies to lands that are designated Forest. This amendment is for property located
within the city limits of Eugene and does not affect land designated for forest use. Therefore,
Goal 4 is not applicable or relevant to the amendment.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 10 of44
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Area, and Natural Resources: To conserve open
space and protect natural and scenic resources.
Response:
Pursuant to Goal 5, the City of Eugene has adopted certain sections of the MetroPlan, various
land use regulations within "Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code: Land Use" and the City o.lEugene
Goal 5: Inventory and Water Resources Conservation Plan, 2005. In addition, the following
inventories make up the entire inventory of significant Goal 5 resources within the City of
Eugene Urban Growth Boundary:
· "Sand and Gravel Working Paper," 1978
. "Scenic Sites Working Paper," 1978
· '"Willamette River Greenway Working Paper," 1978
· "Archeological Sites Working Paper," 1978
. "List of Historic Landmarks," 1976
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0250 (Division 23) establishes the applicability of Goal 5
rules to Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (PAPA), and specifies certain procedures and
requirements for local governments to follow in the adoption or an1endment of all plan or land
use regulations pertaining to Goal 5 resources. The rule states:
<<(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration ofa PAPA
unless the PAPA a.Uects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA
v,'ould ajfect a Goal 5 resource only if:
(a) 111e PAPA creates or amend., a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged
plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a sign~ficant Goal 5 resource
or to address spec{(ic requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
significant Goal 5 resource site on an ackno'wledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amend() an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas 0./ such a site, is included in
the amended UGB area. "
The following findings will demonstrate that this application raises none of the issues which
would require the City of Eugene to apply GoalS.
Firstly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(a): The changes proposed by the application do not
create or amend the area's list of Goal 5 resources, nor a portion of an acknowledged plan, nor a
code provision adopted in order to protect asigniiicant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirement<; of Goal 5, and therefore, with regard to OAR 660-023-250(3)(a), the proposed
PAPA does not affect a Goal 5 resource and the City is not required to apply GoalS.
Furthermore, in Larson v. Wallowa County, 23 Or LUBA 527 (1992), the Land Use Board of
Appeals ruled that if property is not included in the Goal 5 inventory of the acknowledged
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement ~ August 2, 2007
Page 11 of 44
comprehensive plan, and a proposed zone change does not affect that inventory, a local
government is not required to consider whether the property should be included on that
inventory. The same logic is rightly applied here.
Secondly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(b): Tbe changes sought by this application will not
allow new uses that could conflict with a significant Goal 5 resource site. Thereare no Goal 5
resources on the site itself. None of the various studies, inventories, refinement plans, and
facilities plans has listed this specific site in an adopted inventory, declared it a significant
resource, applied a Goal 5 resource overlay, or otherwise regulated or limited the redevelopment
of the site as a Goal 5 resource.
Natural Resources are addressed in the City of Eugene Goal 5: Inventory and Water Resources
Conservation Plan, 2005 which fulfills the State of Oregon's Goal 5 requirement for local
governments to protect significant riparian corridors, upland wildlife habitat and wetlands. The
subject site is not included in any of the plan's inventory maps or tables, nor has it been
designated with a Waterside Protection (lWP) or Water Resources Conservation (/WR) Overlay
Zone.
J3ecause the changes proposed by the application do not create or amend any portion of an
acknowledged plan, or any code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5
resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, all of these safeguards will remain in
effect.
Lastly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(c): The changes sought by this application do not
amend the acknowledged Urban GrO\vth Boundary.
Conclusion:
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0250 "Applicability" stipulates that local governments are
n..-quired to apply Goal 5 when considering Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendments if the
amendment affects a Goal 5 resource. For the purposes of that rule, the section lists three
circumstances (OAR 660-023-0250(3)(a), (b), and (c) quoted above) under which, and only
under which, a Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment would affect a Goal 5 resource. As
evidenced above, none of the three circumstances are raised by the proposed amendments, and
therefore the amendments will not affect a Goal 5 resource. The City of Eugene is not required
to apply Goal 5 when considering the consistency of the proposal. The City of Eugene can find
that the action requested by this application is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the
air, 'water and land resources of the state.
Response:
Nothing in the proposal or the character of the site or potential uses indicates a future
development that would compromise air, water and land resources. Future development of the
site will be in conformance with local, state and federal law' including aspects of the Eugene
Code. The subject site is not within the Natural Resource Overlay Zone (lWR) or the Waterside
Protection Overlay Zone (IWP). As indicated in findings regarding Goal 11, incorporated herein
Santa Clara - Refmement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 12 of44
by reference, options for accessing or providing the necessary urban services are available.
Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect l(le and property from
natural disasters and hazard.,.
Response:
Goal 7 addresses natural hazards and requires that local govemments inventory risks tor floods,
landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, and \vildfires among others and implement
appropriate safeguards when planning for development in areas of natural hazards. The Mulli-
hazard Mitigation Plan for the Eugene/Springfield Afetropolitan Area (Metro Hazard Plan) was
adopted by Eugene on November 8, 2004; this plan is non-regulatory but provides an inventory
of knowl1 hazards.
The Metro Hazard Plan does not identify any known hazards within the area of the subject site.
Furthermore, the subject area is outside of the 100 year and 500 year flood plains. There are no
adopted or non-adopted maps that identify the subject site to be within a known hazard area.
Future development on this site will include a full analysis of hazard risk and mitigate the risk
through appropriate construction. As such this amendment is in compliance with Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreation Needs: To satisfY the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Response:
The City of Eugene has adopted the following documents which are relevant to Goal 8:
. Eugene Parks, and Recreation Plan, 1989
. River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, 1987
. Eugene Springfield !vletro Area General Plan Update, 2002
. Eugene Springfield 11'ansPlan, anlended 2002
. Eugene Parks. Recreation and Open Space Project and PrioritY Plan, 2006.
The City of Eugene has endorsed the following document which is relevant to Goal 8:
. Rivers to Ridges ~Mefropolitan Regional Open Space Study, June 2003
The City adopted the following document, however LUBA remanded the City's adoption; the
document continues to serve as the City's aspirational and guiding parks, recreation and open
space document:
. City of Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan,
February 2006
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-015-0000(8) (Division 23) establishes that current and future
needs for recreation shall be planned for by responsible governmental agencies:
. in coordination with private enterprise,
. in appropriate proportions; and
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 13 of 44
· in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of the
resources to meet such requirements.
The proposed Metro Plan Land Use Diagram amendment will have no impact on any recreation
area, facility or opportunity that has been inventoried and designated by the Metro Plan or any
relevant facility plan regarding the City's recreational needs. None of the various studies.
inventories, retinement plans, and facilities plans list this specific site in an adopted inventory, or
declare it a significant resource.
The Eugene Parks, and Recreation Plan (1989) does not list the project site as an existing,
proposed or needed facility. In addition, the City of Eugene Park,;, Recreation and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan (2006) does not list the project site in "Table B-5: Parks and Open Space
Inventory: River Road/Santa Clara Planning Sub-area" and does not identify the site on the
"Existing and Needed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Resources Map."
The Rivers to Ridges JHetropolitan Regional Open Space Study does not show the site on the
"Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Study Vision Map."
The Eugene Parkr;, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan does not indicate the
site as an existing or proposed facility on the "River Road/Santa Clara Area Existing and
Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Resources Map" and does not list the site or any
related project on "Table 1: Proposed Projects & Priorities for Parks, Open Space and
Recreational Facilities."
Cone/usion:
Changing the plan diagram designation of this site does not affect a recreation area, facility or
opportunity inventoried and designated by the acknowledged plan to meet the City's recreational
needs. The City of Eugene is not required to apply Goal 8 when considering the consistency of
the proposal and can find that the plan amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
varietyofeconomic activities vital to the health, )-}'eljare, and prosperity of Oregon 's citizens.
Response:
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economy of the State, requires communities to inventory, plan, and
zone enough commercial and industrial land to support the diversification and improvement of
the economy. Oregon Administrative Rule 660-009-000 et seq. (Division 9) establishes the
applicability ofOoal9 rules. OAR 660-009-0010(4) states:
For 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 boundaryfrom an industrial use designation to a non-industrial use designation,
or an other employment use designation to any other use designation, a city or county
must address all applicable planning requirements... "
Santa Clara - Refmement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 14 of 44
To comply with Goal 9 the Eugene City Council adopted the Eugene Commercial Lands Study
(ECLS) in May 1992, updated in October 1992. The ECLS was subsequently acknowledged by
LCDC as conforming to the Metro Plan and Goal 9 during periodic review in 1994.
OAR 660-009-0010(4) does not apply in this situation because the changes proposed by this
application will remove less than two acres from the supply of land designated for commercial
use.
Goal] () - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Response:
Goal 10 requires buildable lands for residential use to be inventoried and requires plans to
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent
levels commensurate with the fInancial capabilities of Oregon households. Oregon
Administrative Rule 660, Division 8 defines standards for compliance with Goal 10. OAR 660-
008-0010 requires that:
'(SlffJicient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to sati4y
housing need,; by type and density range as determined in the housing need., projection.
The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each
residential plan designation. "
The comprehensive plan map for the City of Eugene is the Metro Plan Diagranl. Approval of the
applicant's proposL>d. amendments changing approximately 7.3 acres from Low Density
Residential to Commercial and 1.3 acres from Commercial to Meditml Density Residential on
the Metro Plan Diagram requires compliance with statewide planning Goal 10, Housing (OAR
660, Division 8). (The change will have a net effect of adding 6.0 acres to the commercial
designation while removing 7.3 acres of Low Density Residential and adding 1.3 acres of
Medium Density Residential.) The Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) is
consistent with the parts of the Metro Plan which address the requirements ofOoal10, as will be
shown below. Using Metro area average densities of developed properties the table below shows
that the proposed impact of the amendments will be insignificant when considering a comparison
of the total number of likely dwelling units for the plan designation and! or zoning type.
Table 2: Proposal Impact on Potential Dwelling Unit Totals
Development - Average
Designation Density*
SFR - LDR 4.4
MFR. MDR 23.2
* Metropolitan area du/ac on developed tax lots
Area Change
-7.3
1.3
T otaf Un its
-32.1
30.1
The Eugene-Springfield l'Jetropolitan Area Residential Lands Study (RLS) was completed in
1999 as a technical document informing policy changes to the Metro Plan as part of the area's
periodic review requirements. The RLS was acknowledged by the state Land Conservation and
Development Commission as being consistent with Goal 10. The purpose of the RLS was to
compare residential land needs with available land supply. The analysis does not require buildout
of particular densities or numbers of units on specifIC sites or within the metro area as a whole.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 15 of 44
Information regarding the supply of residential land is supplemented by the adopted Goal 5
inventory. It includes an analysis of the new Goal 5 protections' impact on residential lands. It
also includes an inventory update based on amended plan designations since the adoption of the
1999 RLS.
The RLS contains a detailed inventory of dwelling units by district as replicated in Table 3,
below. The table shows that the Santa Clara subarea contains a significantly larger proportion of
single-family dwelling units, when compared to multi-family dwelling units, than the City of
Eugene or the Metro region. The report identifies the Santa Clara subarea as having the highest
percentage of single-family units at 88% of the housing mix and the lowest percentage of multi-
family units at only 1%. The single-family dwelling type is predominately built within Low
Density Residential designated areas. The table shows that there is an undersupply of multi-
family dwelling types 'within the Santa Clara sub-area, a dwelling type found in Medium Density
Residential designations. In addition, Tables 6 and 7 show that the supply of Medium Density
designated land is not proportionate to the anlOunt of land that is zoned Medium Density
Residential. This amendment proposes to designate Medium Density Residential land that is
capable of accommodating this needed dwelling type.
Table 3: Residential Land Study:
Percentage of Dwelling Units by District and Type as of July 1992
Santa Clara Subarea, City of Eugene and Metro Region
Multi- Single
Region Mfr'd Home family Duplex Family Total
Santa Clara 3% 1% 8% 88% 100%
Eugene UGB 6% 26% 9% 59% 100%
Metro 7% 25% 9% 59% 100%
Source: Residential Lands and Housing Study Draft Site Inventory Document, ]999 pages 26-27.
In addition, the RLS contains a detailed buildable residential land supply and demand analysis,
which is summarized below in Table 4 as it pertains to the Metro region. The subject site was not
individually considered in the detailed supply and demand analysis; however, the site is included
within the supply analysis. The RLS assumed a land demand for the Eugene UGB, Springfield
UGB and the Metro region. Table 3 shows the relationship between land supply and demand and
the impact that this proposed PAPA has upon the supply of residential land within the 1992-2015
planning period. The proposed amendment will increase the supply of needed commercial and
medium density residential land by 7.0% and 1.1 % respectively while decreasing the supply of
low density residential land by 1.7%.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement -, August 2, 2007
Page 16 of 44
Table 4: Residential Land Study:
Supply, Demand Analysis and Impact by Zoning Designation (acres)
Metro Goal 5 Recent
Demand Supply Excess Update PAPA's
Low Density 3,840 4,780 940 422
Medium Density 589 828 239 201 -87
High Density 135 195 60 18
Commercial.... 532 702 170 86
Total 4,564 5,802 1,238 726
* Buildable acres adde<ll1ost from the RlS, CLS inventories due to this application
~* Eugene Metro only
Recent PAPA's: MA 06-003 (+6,89), 02-08-243 (-93.4)
Based on expected demand projections, RLS, p, 52.
Metro does not include Springfi{;!ld PAPA's since the GoalS update except 02-08-243.
Source: Residential Land~ and H.ollsing Study Drafi Site inventory Document, 1999 pages 52-53.
City of Eugene Goal 5,' Inventory and Water Resources Conservation Plan, 2005
Analysis by Satre Associates, Pc.
Current
Excess
422
114
18
86
640
Proposal
Impact*
-7
1
o
6
o
The change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential is minor and the
amount of land involved in this application is small; it is not necessary to engage in an extensive
analysis of the impacts on the assets Goal 10 protects. Moreover, the proposed amendment
allows more intensive residential development in an area that is underserved by building types
that are allowed within the Medium Density Residential designation.
The Residential Land" and Housing Study estimations of the long ternl projected land needs, and
the determination that there is an adequate inventory, serve to demonstrate that the minimum
needs have been met. The proposal adds to the supply of Medium Density Residential and
Commercial inventories Vvithout significantly affecting the supply of Low Density Residential
land.
In summary, based on the excess supply of residential land and the relatively small amonnt of
acreage involved in this application, our analysis finds that the applicant's plan anlendmcnt
proposal meets the requirements of statewide planning Goal 10, and supports applicable adopted
policies. Please refer to discussion regarding Goal 9-Economy and the It.1etro Plan discussion of
the policies of the Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
Goal 11 - Publi.c Facilities altd SeYl'ices: To plan and develop a timely, order~v and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services as a framework for urban and rural development.
Response:
The parcels affected by this application are currently within the Urban Grmvth Boundary and
have been annexed into the City of Eugene. The previous annexations were made in compliance
with an acknowledged comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the
availability of urban facilities and services. A detailed analysis of the availability of those
services follows:
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement ~- August 2, 2007
Page 17 of44
Waste Water
The subject site can be served by connection to existing sanitary sewer lines nearby. Eight-inch
lines are located within Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. According to City of Eugene persoilllel
these lines should have sutlicient capacity to serve the site.
Solid Waste ]Vfanagement
Sanipac and Lane Apex provide service for this area of the City of Eugene. Adequate capacity is
provided at regional disposal sites and at Short Mountain Landtill. The provision of solid waste
management services to the project area will be orderly and efficient.
Potable Water Service
Eugene Water and Electric Board provides water service to the subject site. An existing 12-inch
water main exists within River Road and a G-inch water main exists within Hunsaker Lane.
According to EWEB personnel adequate water service is available.
Fire and Emergency lHedical Services
Fire Station #11 is located at 111 Santa Clara Avenue, south and west of the project area by
approximately one-quarter mile. The City provides fIre and emergency medical services to the
area. The property is within the 4-minute response time area. Therefore, the provision of this
key urban service will be provided in an orderly and etlicient manner.
Police Protection
Police protection and response to priority calls are provided to this site consistent with service
provision throughout the city. This key urban service will be provided in an orderly and efficient
manner.
Electric Service
The Eugene Water and Electric Board provide electric service to this area of the City of Eugene.
Electric service is already provided to the site.
Natural Gas
Northwest Natural serves all development in the City of Eugene. There is an existing tour-and-
a-half inch and a two-inch natural gas pipeline at the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker
Lane. This key urban service will be provided in an orderly and efficient maimer.
Communication Facilities
Fiber optic services are provided by Qwest and E\VEB in the vicinity of the project area.
E\VEB's fiber network extends to the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane. Numerous
wireless communication providers also serve the area. This key urban service is available and
will be provided in an orderly and effIcient manner.
Public Schools
The project area is served by Eugene School District 4J, by Awbrey Park Elementary, Madison
Middle, and North Eugene High Schools. Thus, this service will be provided in an orderly and
efficient manner.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 18 of44
Improved Streets/ Transportation
The project area is currently served by River Road, Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. River Road
is a fully improved public street and is designated as a major arterial on the "Eugene Street
Classification Map." Hunsaker Lane is a partially improved county road and is designated as a
major collector on the "Eugene Street C1a<;sification Map." Green Lane is a partially improved
city road and is designated as a neighborhood street. The applicant proposes to take primary
access off Hunsaker Lane and to minimize access on River Road. It is anticipated that Green
Lane would be used for secondary access. Upon development of the subject site, the section of
Hunsaker Lane will be developed to City standards. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be
included a<; necessary to meet the City's adopted standards.
In the section of this statement addressing Statewide Planning Goal 12 - .'Transportation" there
are additional findings regarding public facilities and services, and those discussions are hereby
referenced and incorporated.
Storm Water Control
Storm water facilities will be desigl1ed during the site planning process to meet City of Eugene
objectives; induding optimizing the use of on-site detention within the development site to
detain and infiltrate runoff. There are currently three storm sewer lines that could service the
subject site; a 24" and 27" line within River Road (City operated sysrem) which are full, and a
24" line within Hunsaker Lane (Lane County operated system) which is nearly full. The
applicant will provide a stormwater analysis that will determine the feasibility of using either of
the piped systems and the necessary storm water improvements at the time of development per
Eugene Code standards.
Given the above evidence, the City can find that the proposal is consistent with Statev.ide
Planning Goa111 - "Public Facilities and Services."
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Response:
Goal 12 is implemented through the "Transportation Planning Rule," OAR Division 12, 660-
012-0000 et. seq., (TPR). The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is enacted at the
loeal1eveL Tram;;Plan was acknowledged for compliance with Goal 12 in 2001.
Plan amendments and land use regulation amendments are regulated under OAR 660-012-0060.
If an amendment significantly affects a transportation fadlity, a local government must provide a
form of mitigation. 660-012-0060(1) states:
"A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility {l
it would:
(a) Change the jUnctional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 19 of 44
(b) Change standards' implementing ajunctional class{fication system; or
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels o/development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the junctional classification (~l an
existing or planned transportation/actlity;
(B) Reduce the perjormance of an existing or planned transportation facility
below the minimum acceptable performance standard ident{fied in the 7:',>'P or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that
is otherwise pn~iected to perform beloll' the minimum acceptable pelformance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. "
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a) and (b), the proposed plan amendments would not
change the functional classification of any transportation facility, nor would they change the
standards for implementing a functional classification system. Therefore, no facilities are
significantly affected under these definitions.
With regard to OAR660'-012-0060(1)(c)(A), the proposed plan amendments would not anow
types or levels of uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent
with the fUnctional classification of a transportation facility. The policies of the City of Eugene
Municipal Code, "Chapter 9: Land Use," and the TransPlan establish the requested plan
designation as appropriate to the classification of the streets serving the site. Specific
requirements for access to those streets will be detemuned through Site Plan reviews and
approved only upon demonstration of compliance with the provisions of the acknowledged
comprehensive and implementing regulations. Therefore, no facilities are significantly affected
under this defInition.
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B) and (C), a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) evaluating
the performance of existing and planned facilities as a result of the development proposed by this
application has been pertonned. That TIA is submitted concurrently with this plan amendment
(Attachment 1) and the findings of that analysis are hereby incorporated by reference.
Impact Analvsis:
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(l)(c)(B), although the River Road at Green Lane
intersection, a facility within the scope of the study, is projected to operate below the
performance standard in the plan year, it will not do so as a result of the proposed PAPA. It is
projected to operate below the performance standard in the plan year regardless of the proposal
under review. Therefore, no facilities are significantly affected under this definition.
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(l)(c)(C), the analysis determined that two facilities within
the scope of the study are otherwise projected to operate below the performance standard in the
plan year. These facilities are:
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement -- August 2, 2007
Page 20 of 44
. River Road at Green Lane intersection
· River Road at Hunsaker Lane and Irving Road intersection.
The conmlenting agencies determined that the proposal's contribution to the projected "F" Level
of Service at the River Road at Green Lane intersection is negligible, not worsening the
performance. Therefore under this definition, the proposal does not significantly affect that
facility. By a small margin, the proposal worsens the performance of the River Road at Hunsaker
Lane and Irving Road intersection in the plan year. Therefore, it significantly affects that facility
under this definition.
OAR 660-012-0060(3) permits local govemments to approve a PAPA that significantly aftects a
facility \vithout requiring that mitigations bring the facility up to the applicable performance
standards. This is allowed only where the facility is currently operating below the performance
standard and, despite any planned facilities as defined in Section (4) of the TPR, it is also
projected to operate below the performance standard in the plan year. Taking into account an
planned facilities, the TIA demonstrates that these conditions are met at the River Road at
Hunsaker Lane and [rving Road intersection. OAR 660-0l2-0060(3)(c) requires transportation
improvements that mitigate the net impact and avoid further degradation in the development
(opening) year. The TIA used 2008 as the development year in this analysis. The impact analysis
shows that even without mitigation there is no measurable development year degradation of the
facility. Therefore, no mitigation is needed to meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-
0060(3)( c).
Proposed Improvements:
The TIA has shown that the Proposed PAPA significantly aftects only one facility in the plan
year and that the effect in the development year is so minute, the requirements of the TPR can be
met without mitigation. Nonetheless, the applicant and commenting agencies have informally
agreed that certain improvements to the existing facilities are desired. Because these
improvements will be specified in conditions of approval for the proposed PAPA, the proposal
must be reevaluated as conditioned. The planned improvements are offered a.<; '''minor
transportation improvements" as defined OAR 660-0121-0005(15) and pursuant to OAR 660-
012-0060(2)(e). These improvements are:
. Construct an additional Hunsaker Lane westbound approach lane
. Construct an additional Green Lane westbound approach lane.
With the proposed improvements specified as conditions of development, the TIA has
determined that~ measured at the end of the planning period, the proposed amendment will
neither reduce the performance of existing or planned transportation facilities below the
minimum acceptable performance standards identified in TransPlan, nor worsen the
performance of transportation facilities that are otherwise projected to perform below the
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in TransPlan. Therefore, potential impacts
under OAR 660.0l2.0060(1)(c)(B) and (C) are avoided.
Conclusion:
Santa Clara -- Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement m August 2, 2007
Page 21 of 44
Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1), the proposed PAPA significantly affects a transportation
facility within the scope of the analysis. The TIA determined that, should the City choose to
invoke OAR 660-012-0060(3), the circumstances of the impact preclude the need for mitigation
under the requirements of that section. Nonetheless, certain minor improvements are proposed a"
conditions of approval. The TIA has determined that, with the proposed conditions in place, the
PAP A has no significant effect under the criteria of OAR 660-012-0060(1). By requiring
conditions of development to address OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (3), the City may approve the
PAPA in compliance with OAR 660-012-0060. The City can find that the proposed amendments
are consistent vdth Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land
shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of ener~;.ry,
based upon sound economic principles.
Response:
The purpose of this amendment application is to re-designate land on the subject site to: 1) re-
designate the land currently designated for Low Density Residential to Commercial; 2) and re-
designate the Commercial land, south of Green Lane, on the subject site to Medium Density
Residential.
The Metro Plan is an acknowledged plan by the Oregon Department of Land Consenration and
Development. Therefore, the Metro Plan is currently consistent with the provisions of Statewide
Planning Goal 13. The City of Eugene adopted the Metro Plan updates (Ordinance No. 20319)
on April 21, 2004. This application does not amend any component of the Metro Plan that is
related to Goal 13 as adopted by Eugene City council on April 21, 2004. Therefore, this PAPA
application is consistent with the Metro Plan and Statewide Planning Goal 13.
For the rea"ons cited, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
Response:
All of the parcels affected by tIus application are currently within the Urban Grovv'th Boundary
and are annexed into the City of Eugene. The annexation was made in compliance with an
acknowledged comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the availability
of urban facilities and services. Therefore the amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 14.
Goal 15 - Willnmette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
Response:
The subject site is not within the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, this goal is not
relevant and the amendment will not affect compliance with Goal 15.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2,2007
Page 22 of 44
Goal 16 through 19: (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shore lands. Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resourcesj:
Response:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property or
involved in the amendment. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendment will not
affect compliance with Goals 16 through 19.
EC 9.8424
(1): The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following:
(b) Applicable provL..ions of the Metro Plan.
Growth Mana2:ernent
"~letro Plan, Policy 1. The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as
an essential means to achieve compact urban grovvth. The provision of all urban services shall
be concentrated inside the UGB.
Response:
As detailed in the response to Statewide Goal 11 (above) urban services are available to the
su~ject property and the property is within the Eugene portion of the metropolitan UGB and
within the incorporated City limits. As such, the subject property is providing for compact urban
growth and has the essential services available for development. As defined in the glossary of
the Metro Plan compact urban grO\vth is defined a<;:
The filling in of vacant and underutilized lands in the UGB, as well as redevelopment
inside the UGB.
The amendments will allow compact urban gro\""ih to occur on lands that are currently within the
UGB and underutilized for an urban area. The redevelopment of the site will provide needed
commercial employment opportunities and also provide medium density residential
development. As such the proposed amendments support this policy.
Metro Plan, Policy 24. To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth
addressed in the text and on the Ale1ro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-lvide density of new
residential construction. but necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling
units per gross acre over the planning period
Response:
The proposed development seeks to increase the amount of medium density residential
designated land within the subject site area and thus increase the supply of land available for
higher density development within the River Road/Santa Clara subarea. The future development
of the site, therefore, will help the region achieve its goal of compact urban growth. As such the
proposed amendments support this policy.
Metro Plan, Objective 8. Encourage development of suitable vacant, underdeveloped, and
redevelopable land where services are available, thus capitalizing on public expenditures
already made for these services.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 23 of 44
Response:
The subject property is currently underdeveloped with access to readily available public facilities
and services. Approval of this proposal will capitalize on the public services and expenditures
already made and planned for in the immediate area. In short, the underdeveloped subject
property is suitable for commercial and residential uses and has access to public facilities and
services. As such the proposed amendments support this policy.
Metro Plan Specific Elements
A.. Residential Land U'ie and I10using Element
Response:
Table 5 shows that the amendment will remove 7.3 acres ofland from Low Density Residential
supply and add it to the supply of Commercial land and remove 1.3 acres of land from the
Commercial land supply and add it to the supply of Medium Density Residential land. A net loss
of 6.0 acres of residential land occurs, however, the supply of higher density land increases. In
addition, the refinement plan amendment will remove 1.3 acres of land from conU11ercial
designation and add 1.3 acres to the Medium Density Residential desigl1ation. The proposed
zone change ~1.11 remove 1.3 acres of land from Low Density Residential (R-l) and add it to
Medium Density Residential (R-2) supply. The proposed anlendments will provide needed
Medium Density Residential land in close proximity to commercial services and does not hinder
the ability to provide for the housing needs of the community which has an adequate supply of
low density residential land as detailed herein \\rithin the discussion of Goal 1 n.
Table 5: Amendment Changes in Acres
GE to C
CtoM
No change
Total
7.3
1.3
0.1
8.7
7.3
1.3
0.6
9.2
Key:
Metro Plan: LDR-Low Density Residential, MDR-
Medium Density Residential, COM-Commercial;
RR/SC RP: M-Medium Density Residential, C-
Commercial, GE-Govemment & Education;
Zoning: R-I-Low Density Residential, R-2-Medium
Density Residential, C-I-Neighborhood Conunercial, C-2-
Community Commercial,PL-Public Land
LDR to COM
COM to MDR
No Change
T ota/
PL To C-2
C-1 toC-2
R-1 to R-2
No change
Total
5.2
2.1
1.3
o
8.7
5.2
2.2
1.3
0.4
9.2
Source: LCOG data, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Metro Plan, Policy A.3. Provide an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the
UGBfor the 20-year planning period at the time of Periodic Review.
Santa Clara ~ Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2,2007
Page 24 of 44
Response:
The 2004 update of the Metro Plan planned for an adequate supply of residential land based on
the analysis of the 1999 Residential Land Supply. As discussed in more detail under Goal 10,
herein, the applicant is not appreciably affecting the regional supply of residentiallalld and is
increasing the supply of Medium Density land within an underserved area of the community that
is also located close to transit and other services. As such this proposed amendment supports
Policy A.3.
Aletro Plan. Policy A.8. Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local
jurisdiction, of extending public services and i11frastructure. The cities shall examine ways to
provide subsidies or incentives for providing infrastructure that support affordable housing
and/or higher density housing.
Response:
The applicant shall conform to City of Eugene requirements and pay the fair cost of extending
public services and infrastructure. The proposed amendments within this amendment '.vill allow
a greater diversity of housing types to occur on the subject property than would be possible under
the current designation. As such this proposed amendment supports this policy.
Residential Densitvlvletro Plan, Policy A.I O. Promote higher residential density inside the UGB
that utilizes existing infrastructure, impro'ves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and
conserves rural resource lands outside the UGB.
Metro Plan, Policy A.II. Generally locate higher density residential development near
employment or commercial service, in proximity to major transportation systems or within
transportation-efficient nodes.
Metro Plan, Policy A.12. Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision
of adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities.
Response:
The proposed PAPA "",ill promote higher density development by increasing the total supply of
medium density designated and zoned land within the metropolitan area. The Santa Clara
subarea is underserved by higher density development and through this amendment the applicant
proposes to increase the overall supply in the subarea to meet the needs of the community. The
proposed amendment \vill locate Commercial land adjacent to Medium Density Residential on
the same development site which allows for the integration of an overall complex, or mixed-use,
development of conmlercial and residential. In addition, the proposed amendment is adjacent to
River Road, a major transportation route which has existing Lane Transit District (L TD) bus
service and is identified to have a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT/eMX) route ending at the current
transfer station located approximately one-half mile to the south of the subject property on River
Road. As such, the proposed PAPA supports the. utilization of existing infrastructure while
increasing overall density and providing needed commercial services.
Afetro Plan, Policy A.B. Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by
creating more opportunities for efJective(v designed in-jill, redevelopment, and mixed use while
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 25 of 44
considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and fUTure
neighborhood.,.
Response:
The subject area is located within "Potential Nodal Development Area 5C" (TransPlan) and the
applicant is proposing to develop a mix of commercial and residential uses that shall include
employment and commercial opportunities. These uses will benetit both future residents of the
proposed development and existing residents of the River Road! Santa Clara area. The
Development Site is located in the northwest corner of Potential Node 5-C and represents
approximately 8.2% of the entire area of the proposed node. Table 6 shows the current and
proposed Metro Plcm designations for Potential Node 5-C. The proposed changes will increase
the supply of commercial land by 16.2%, decrease the supply of low density residential land by
approximately 36.9% and increase the supply of medium density residential land by 2.5%. See
Exhibit H for additional information.
Table 6: Current and Proposed Metro Plan Designations (Potential Node 5-C)
Existing Condition Proposed Change
Total Acres % Total Acres Chao ed % Chao e Total Acres
36.7 33.3% 5.9 16.2% 42.6
19.7 17.9% -7.3 -36.9% 12.4
53.8 48.8% 1.3 2.5% 55.1
110.2 110.2
Desi nation
Commercial
Low Density Residential
Medium Densi Residential
Total
% Total
38.7%
11.3%
50.0%
Source: City of Eugene, analysis by Satre Associates. PC
Table 7 shows that zoning ratios within the Potential Node 5-C are similar to existing Metro Plan
designations. The main differences are that the Metro Plan does not include a Public Land
category and the zoning of the Potential Node 5-C area further dif1erentiates commercial into
Neighborhood and Community Conmlercial categories. From the table, it is evident that the only
Neighborhood Commercial within the nodal area is proposed to be removed with this application
seeking to replace it with an integrated mixed-use center that will function to provide a
neighborhood level connection. In addition, the table shows that the percent of zoned Medium
Density Residential land is significantly less than the area that is designated within the Metro
Plan (it may be interpreted that the amount of R-1 land exceeds the amount that the City has
allocated for the nodal area.) The proposed anlendments will ensure that medium density
residential land is developed at appropriate densities in conjunction with the mixed-use center.
The proposal satisfies the intent of the Metro Plan and this policy.
Table 7: Current and Proposed Zoning (Potential Node 5-C)
Designation
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
C-2, Community Commercial
R-1, low Density Residential
R.2, Medium Density Residential
Pl, Public Land
Total
Existing Condition
Total Acres % Total
2.2 2.0~o
36.7 33.3%
33.5 30.4%
32.5 29.5%
5.2 4.7%
110.2
Proposed Change
Acres Changed % Change Total Acres
-2.2 -100.0% 0.0
7.4 20.3% 44.1
-1.3 -4.0% 32.2
1.3 ~1% 33B
-5.2 -100.0% 0.0
110.2
% Total
40.1%
29.2%
30.7%
Source: LCOG data, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 26 of 44
The applicant is proposing to develop a horizontal mixed-use center that combines single-use
buildings on distinct parcels in a range of land uses in one planned development project. This
approach achieves the goal of place making that is made possible by bringing together
complimentary uses in one place. In addition, the mixed-use center is within a ten to twenty
minute (1/4 mile to 12 mile) walking distance of public transit and a range of other uses.
The Metro Plan defines Nodal development (node) thusly (p. II-G-8):
"Areas identified as nodal development areas in TransPlan are considered to have
potential for this type (~f land use pattern. Other areas, not proposed for nodal
development in TransPlan, may be determined to hmJe potential for nodal development.
Nodal development is a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly land use pattern that seeks to
increase concentrations o.tpopulations and employment in well defined areas with good
transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private
improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. Fundamental
characteristics 0.( nodal development require:
. Design elements that support pedestrian emrironements and encourage
transit use, walking and bicycling;
. A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 14 mile) of
anywhere in the node;
. A1ixed uses so that services are available within 'walking distance;
. Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open space, and public
facilities, that can be reached lvithout driving; and
. A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net
density of at least 12 units per net acre. "
Additional information regarding the various types of commercial development is included on
pages II-G-4 and II-G-5 of the Metro Plan. The information provides clarification on what
constitutes community commercial, neighborhood commercial and strip or street-oriented
commercial and how they differ. The applicant's submittal is for a mixed-use center (community
commercial and residential). Although the existing development along River Road is strip
commercial the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and Refinement Plan ensure that a
community commercial facility is developed that, while scoping beyond the neighborhood,
provides many of the core ingredients of a neighborhood commercial development including:
. Within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support
population. According to the US Census the population of Tract 23 which
includes the proposed development and area to the east of River Road is 6,663
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement on August 2, 2007
Page 27 of 44
persons2. This area will provide the primary support population for the
proposed development with others coming from the adjacent neighborhoods3.
Bicycle lanes and well designed pedestrian areas are provided and elements of
these areas are further explained with the proposed refinement plan text
amendments.
· Adequate area to accommodate off-street parking and loading need<; and
landscaping, particularly between the center and adjacent residential
property, as well as along street frontage next door to outdoor parking areas.
The provisions for landscaping and parking win be addressed at time of Site
Review and Plam1cd Unit Development application that are proposed to be
required as part of the refinement plan text amendments. Adequate parking
and off-street parking and loading areas will be provided and shall pay
attention to the need to screen nearby residential uses.
· Sufficient .frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and
bicycle access without conflict with moving traffic at intersections and along
adjacent streets. The site will have frontage along three streets, River Road,
Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. The refinement plan provides text that cans
for primary streets to be internal to the development site and designed as
'Shopping Streets'. The development does not propose strip style
development and will provide convenient and safe access for automobiles,
pedestrians and bicyclists without conflict with moving traffic at intersections
or along adjacent streets.
Existing strip commercial development along River Road shall be removed and replaced
according to the design considerations of the refinement plan text to ensure that the proposed
mixed-use center is appropriately scaled to provide for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists
while also ensuring compatibility with surrounding neighborhood development.
Concurrent with this application is an application to amend the River Road! Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan. The proposed map and text amendments provide specific language integrating the
commercial and residential portions of future development integrating and meeting many of the
objectives of a nodal development. The development site currently has L TD stops along its River
Road and Hunsaker Lane frontages and is within one-half mile distance from the River Roadl
Santa Clara transfer station (just south of BeltIine Highway). Additionally, the proposed
development will provide a pedestrian friendly connection to adjoining residences, utilize
existing infrastructure, and increase overall density within the potential node 5-C area. Design
guidelines are suggested that will ensure that the residential and commercial portions of the
project are integrated and have sufficient pedestrian friendly amenities to foster the connection
that a nodal development area requires. As such this proposed amendment supports this policy.
2 Source: US Census, http://www.census.gov
3 The Santa Clara neighborhood is comprised of two primary Tracts (23 and 24) with a total population of 17,125
people according to the 2000 US Census; it i$ likely that this area will provide the primary and secondary support
for the proposed development.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 28 of 44
Afetro Plan. Policy A.l? Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type,
density. size, cost. and location.
The applicant's proposed amendment will increase the opportUl11tles for medium density
residential development including options for a variety of housing types including townhomes
and apartments. The potential density of development is compatible with neighboring medium
density residential designated land located to the east of the subject site and is within the desired
ranges for medium density residential. The location of the proposed residential amendments
supports a ten to twenty minute (114 mile to Ih mile) walking distance to public transit and a
range of other uses which supports the nodal and mixed-use concepts.
Metro Plan, Policy A.22. Expand opportunities jiJr a mix of uses in newly developing areas and
existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations.
The proposed amendment will facilitate a zone change and therefore increase the mix of uses
providing medium density residential and commercial opportunities sited together on one
development site as a horizontal mixed.use 4 center, while also infilling in an area of more typical
single-family suburban development. The increased commercial and employment opportunities
will benetit the existing residents and future residents of the development site. For more
information on the connection with Potential Node 5-C see Metro Plan Policy A.13 above.
Metro Plan, Policy A.23. Reduce impacts of higher density residential and mixed-use
development on surrounding uses by considering site, landscape, and architectural design
standards or guidelines in local zoning and development regulations.
The proposed amendments include text changes to the River Road/ Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Plan that include the use of the Planned Unit Development process in order to ensure that the
proposed development provides a pedestrian orientation that is scaled appropriately. Provisions
include reducing the maximum allowed are of a single building to no more than 18,000 square
feet, reducing the height limitation to 35-feet and providing a pedestrian friendly connection
across Green Lane to provide a linkage to nearby residential development. The procedure of a
Plamled Unit Development shall provide ample opportunity for review to assure that impacts of
the mixed-use development are appropriately mitigated within the Development Site. As such
these amendments support this policy.
B. Economic Element
A detailed analysis of Economic Element policies is contained in the applicant's response
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - "Economic Development." Those responses are hereby
incorporated by reference.
>I The Metro Plan defines Mixed use as: "A building. project or area of development fhat contain'J at least two
different land uses such as housing, retail, and office llses." (Metro Plan, p. IIl-A-9) This proposal allows
appropriate planning and zoning for an integrated" horizontal mixed-use project on a "development site" as defined
by the Eugene Code as such it meets the intent of the. Metro Plan and Eugene Code definitions for a mixed-use
development site.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 29 of 44
Metro Plan, Policy B.6: Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and
commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitabilit)/ and availability with the
projections of demand
Response:
The proposal (in conjunction with the related zone change application) will increase the supply
of undeveloped land planned and zoned for commercial use (see Tables 5 and 6). The increase in
supply will provide a suitable site for a community commercial center near a higher density
residential area that is serviced by existing transportation networks thus supporting the concept
of mixed-use development. The supply of neighborhood commercial land is reduced with this
application by approximately 90% 'within the potential node 5-C area. Although the supply of
neighborhood commercial land is reduced the proposed amendments allow for the development
of a mixed-use center that will provide a neighborhood tocal point with supportive services for
area residences, thereby meeting the intent of such conunercial designations.
Given that the approval of this proposal would facilitate the rezoning of the property to
conunercial, the proposal is consistent with this policy.
Metro Plan. Policy 8.28. Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in
providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood.
Afetro Plan, Policy B. 29. Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood
commercial facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the characteristics of
the support population change.
The Santa Clara School stood as a center of neighborhood activity for many years. The proposed
amendments will support redevelopment of the site, thereby continuing and expanding that
tradition. If the former school grounds were developed under the current low-density residential
designation, it would be a retreat from the role this site has played providing vital services to the
neighborhood. The City has identified a potential nodal development area that includes this site.
When implemented, residential densities will increase and require goods and services that can be
provided with approval of the proposed amendments, but not with the existing designation.
Concern that reducing the area of C-l zoning and increasing C-2 land may result in a more
intense conUllunity rather than a neighborhood commercial area is addressed by the refinement
plan amendment. This amendment requires Planned Unit Development or Site Plan review that
will provide opportunities for the City and the Neighborhood association to scrutinize
development proposals. It also limits the size of commercial buildings on the site and requires
buildings oriented toward internal streets and sidewalks rather than exclusively to the arterial.
Although the Community Commercial zoning district wiII allow slightly more flexibility of uses,
the proposed refinement plan policies requiring subsequent development reviews and limiting
building scale will assure the neighborhood character of future development. For these reasons,
the proposed amendments support and implement Metro Plan policies "B.28" and "B.29."
F. Transportation Element
The project area is currently served by River Road (a Major Arterial), Hunsaker Lane (a Major
Collector) and Green Lane. Hunsaker Lane is a county road that is not improved to urban
Santa Clara -- RefInement Plan Amendment ApplicationoWritten Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 30 of 44
standards~ development of the subject site will include improvements to Hunsaker, proportionate
to the impact of development that will bring the road to urban standards.
Additional information in tlus statement's response to Statewide Planning Goal 12 --
"Transportation" is hereby referenced and incorporated.
lvfetro Plan, Policy F.l: Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each
jurisdiction that have identUied potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use
pattern.
Response:
The subject site is identified in T'ransPlan as "Potential Nodal Development Area 5-C".
Although the area is identified as a potential nodal development area the City has not identified
the site for development as a node. Although the applicant is not specifically developing the site
under the nodal standards the applicant's mixed-use center concept is support of the intent ofthe
node concept. Future development of the site shall take advantage of its proximity to nearby
commercial services and existing and proposed transportation networks that complements the
nodal standards and provides a scale that is compatible \o\~th existing and future residential areas.
Please see discussion under Metro Plan, Policy A.13 for more infonnation on how this policy is
met.
lvfetro Plan, Policy F .13: Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
A1etro Plan, Policy F.14: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users,
bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing
roadway system improvements.
Metro Plan, Policy F.23: Require bikeV.'LryS along new and reconstructed arterial and major
collector streets.
lvfetro Plan, Policy F .26: Provide for a pedestrian environment that is 'well integrated with
adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience afwalking
Response:
The proposed development will be served by the existing streets (River Road. Hunsaker Lane,
Green Lane). Bike lanes currently exist on River Road and the applicant will construct bike lanes
on Hunsaker Lane as required at the time of future development. The development will be easy
to get around, and to do so on foot with an enhanced pedestrian connection at Green Lane that
will provide a linkage between commercial development to the north and residential
development to the south All streets will have wide sidewalks, some of them setback from
vehicle traffic. It will be convenient, and safe, to walk within the subject site and to nearby
commercial and residential activity centers. The provisions of the text amendments to the
refinement plan provide additional scrutiny to future design elements and amenities that must
entail size limitations appropriate to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. As such this policy is
supported by the proposed amendments.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 31 of 44
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
Response:
Metro Plan. Policy G.l: Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and
services in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-B. relevant policies in this chapter. and other A1etro Plan policies.
The parcels affected by this application are currently within the Urban Grovvth Boundary and are
annexed into the City of Eugene. The annexation was made in compliance \-vith an acknowledged
comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the availability of urban
facilities and services. A detailed analysis of the availability of those services is contained in the
applicant's response Statewide Planning Goal 11 - "Public Facilities and Services." Those
responses are hereby incorporated by reference.
Therefore, with regard to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan, the City
can find that the proposed amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
H Park<; and Recreation Element
Response:
The changes proposed by this application will have no impact on any recreation area, facility or
opportunity that ha.<:; been inventoried and designated by the Metro Plan or any relevant facility
plan regarding the City's recreational needs. The recreational needs of the community are
adequately met by the existing and planned facilities enumerated in the City of Eugene Parks.
Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, 2006 and other associated documents. A
detailed analysis of the subject site in relation to the various parks and recreation system studies,
inventories, refinement plans, and facilities plans is contained in the applicant's response
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - "Recreation." Those responses are hereby incorporated by
reference. With regard to the Parks and Recreation Element of the Metro Plan, the City can find
that the proposed amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
1. Historic Preservation Element
Response:
The changes proposed by this application will have no impact on any historic resource that has
been inventoried and designated by the fdetro Plan or any relevant facility plan or inventory
regarding the City's historic resources. With regard to the Historic Preservation Element of the
Metro Plan~ the City can find that the proposed PAPA wiUnot make the Jvfetro Plan internally
inconsistent.
J Energy Element
A1etro Plan, Goall: lvfaximize the conservation and efficient utilization afall types of energy.
Response:
The proposed PAPA and subsequent development of the site will encourage conservation and
efficient utilization of energy by a concentration of employment, services and residences on the
site, and enabling transit services to the site.
Santa Clara ~ Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2,2007
Page 32 of 44
Metro Plan. Policy J.3: Land allocation and del'elopment patterns shall permit the highest
possible current andjilture utilization of solar energy jiJr space heating and cooling, in balance
with the requirements of other planning policies; and
Response:
TIle applicant shall design tuture development according the standards of the Eugene
Development Code includes all standards relevant to solar orientation.
A1etro Plan, Policy J.8: Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated
to the greatest extent possible, balanced 1,rith all planning policies to reduce travel distances,
optimize reuse of waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy generation.
Response:
The requested approval of the PAPA proposed herein, if approved, will enable the subsequent
zone changes and development of a residential and commercial mixed-use development that
shall provide employment, services and residential opportunities. Workers and residents ,,\~J1
have the option to obtain dining, shopping, and other commercial amenities less than a mile from
the subjl'Ct site consistent with Policy J.8's mandate to balance all planning policies to reduce
travel distance. Existing residential neighborhoods are adjacent to the subject site. Furthermore,
the presence of schools in close proximity and nearby recreational land uses which enables
reduced travel distances, this PAPA is consistent with this policy.
K. Citizen Involvement Element
Metro Plan. Goal: Continue to develop. maintain, and re.fine programs and procedures that
maximize the opportunity for meaningful, ongoing citizen involvement in the community's
planning and planning implementation processes consistent with mandatory statewide planning
standards.
Response: As noted in applicant's findings regarding Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen
Involvement, the City's acknowledged program for citizen involvement provides citizens the
opportunity to review and make recommendations in written and oral testimony on the proposed
amendment, consistent with Goal 1. The action proposed is consistent with and does not amend
the citizen involvement element of the Metro Plan.
AspeCts of the A1etro Plan that have not been discussed within this application l-vill be dealt .with
duringjuture development proposals.
EC 9.8424 (l)(c): The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all oftltefollowing:
(c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan.
The proposed amendment to the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan is site-specific
and amends the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagranl and the River
Road/Division Subarea Map and text sections. The following narrative addresses consistency
with the remaining portions of the refinement plan.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application'
Written Statement - AUgU51 2, 2007
Page 33 01'44
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan: General Land Use Policies (p. 2-7)
RR/SC. General Land Use Policy 1.0. Nfinimize land use conflicts by promoting compatibility
between land uses, especially among residential, commercial-industrial, and commercial-
agricultural uses. [Ee 9. 9610(l)}
Response:
The amendment facilitates a commercial development that provides benefits for the city and
regional population and provides varied employment. Economically, the development pays
property taxes and is a jobs provider. The residential component of the proposed amendments
will extend the existing Medium Density Residential designation to the west in a logical maimer
that and will enhance the supply of land available for higher density development within the
Santa Clara subarea. The future development of the site will incorporate landscaping aI1d other
features to enhance its compatibility with the residential uses to the east. In addition, the
proposed text amendments provide significant protections that enhance compatibility of future
development with the existing and future residential development including height limitations,
area limitations on building size and the provision for the use of the Planned Unit Development
procedures. Because of the reasons stated, it is consistent with this policy.
RR/SC, General Land Use Policy 2.0. Adopt zoning that is consistent with the land use diagram
and policies contained in the land use element of the Urban Facilities Plan.
Response:
The proposed amendments contained within this application include map and text changes. Upon
approval of the proposed ChaIlges, and as detailed in the responses contained herein, the
proposed amendments support this policy.
RR/SC, General Land Use Policy 3.0. Provide for land uses that conform to Metropolitan Plan
goals and policies and that consider the provision of a full range of urban services in an efficient
and cost-effective manner.
Response :
As detailed in the response to Statewide Goal 11 (above) urban services are available to the
subject property and the property is within the Eugene portion of the metropolitan UGB and
within the incorporated City limits. As such, the subject property is providing for compact urban
growth and has the essential services available for development. As defined in the glossary of
the Metro PlaIl compact urban growth is defined as:
The .filling in of vacant and underutilized land'} in the UGB. as well as redevelopment
ins ide the UGB.
The aInendments will allow compact urban growth to occur on lands that are currently within the
UGB and underutilized for an urban area. The redevelopment of the site 'will provide needed
commercial employment opportunities and also provide medium density residential
development. As such the proposed amendments support this policy. Please see discussion of
Metro Plan policies under EC 9.8424(b) for more information.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 34 of 44
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan: Residential Land Use Policies (p. 2-14)
RR/SC. Residential Land Use Policy 1.0. Recognize and maintain the predominate{y low-density
character of the area consistent with the l'Jetro Plan. fEC 9. 9610(2)(a)]
Response:
As discussed under the Goal 10, the proposed PAPA seeks to remove 7.3 acres of land trom the
Low Density Residential land base and to add approximately 1.3 acres of land to the Medium
Density Resignation land base (see details under Goal 1 0 for more infonnation). The change is in
compliance with Goal 10 and the an10unt of change in the supply of low density residential land
amounts to 0.2%, a relatively minor amount of land. The location of the land, near a major
arterial and a major collector and near commercial opportunities, does not make it an efficient
location to develop at low density levels. The applicant proposes to offset the loss of the low
density residential land with additional medium density residential land that is more appropriate,
adjacent to commercial development and supports the goals and policies of the Metro Plan and
the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. According to the RLS, there is an abundance
of low density residential land and this proposed PAP A will not significantly affect the
predominance of the low density character of this area. It will, however, provide much needed
medium density residential development on land better suited for that purpose.
RR/SC. Residential Land Use Policy 2.0. Provide a diversity of housing types in the area.
Available techniques include encouraging reinvestment and rehabilitation of existing housing
stock and the use (~f development standards that provide for clustering or planned unit
development.
RR/SC. Suggested Action 2.1. Provide for innovative residential development through
subdivision and other code provisions, such as planned unit developments and cluster
subdivisions for new residential development on large parcels.
Response:
The proposed amendments of this application include text an1endments that provide inr the
development of a mixed-use center to be developed under the provisions of the Plmmed Unit
Development procedures. Future redevelopment of the Santa Clara Elementary School Site \\Iill
provide significant reinvestment in the area that, combined with residential development, will
support f11rther reinvestment of the community. As such this policy is supported by the proposed
amendments.
RR/SC. Residential Land Use Policy 3.0. Evaluate traffic and compatibility impacts when
considering ne"w residential development on parcels fronting arterial streets. fEC 9. 9610(2)(b)J
Response:
Details of the proposed amendments traffic impacts are discussed under 00a112. The proposed
amendments will remove land that is zoned residential from a location fronting an arterial. In
place of residential development fronting an arterial the applicant proposes to locate residential
development along a neighborhood street that is more suitable for such development.
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 35 of 44
RR/SC, Residential Land Use Policy 4.0. Provide adequate bl!flering and traffic control for
existing non-residential development fronting River Road, (to minimize conflicts with
surrounding development). [EC 9. 961 0(2) (c)]
Response:
The applicant is not proposing residential development that fronts River Road. The proposed
amendments will create an area of Commercial designation that has frontage on River Road,
Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane and extends the current commercial designated land eastward on
the subject parcel. The applicant intends to use shopping streets within the future development
and place the majority of business circulation and store fronts internal to the site. Upon
development sufficient design and landscape standards will ensure that existing residential
development is buffered from new development. Primary access to the commercial pOltion of the
subject site will be from Hunsaker Lane, with secondary access provided via River Road and
Green Lane. The proposed Medium Density Residential portion of the subject site will receive
primary access on Green Lane.
RR/SC, Residential Land Use, Policy 5.0. Permit medium-density housing (10 to 20 dwelling
units/acre) in proximity to existing or planned urban facilities. Access to commercial
development. transit. and alternative modes of tramportation, schools and parks, and open
.~pace should be considered Medium-density residential development will be consideredfor the
north Santa Clara area consistent with the above criteria. [EC 9.961 0(2)(d)]
Response:
The subject site is located 'within the north Santa Clara area. The proposed amendments
designate land for Medium Density Residential designation in a location that is in close
proximity to existing urban facilities, with proximal access to existing and proposed conmlercial
facilities, alternative modes of transportation (LTD's "hub" is located approximately one-half
mile south of the subject site, and the BRT/eMX is proposed to have a line running to that
"hub"); elementary, middle and high schools are located within walking distance of the subject
property and parks and open space opportunities are located nearby. As such, the subject site is
appropriately located to apply the Medium Density Residential designation.
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan: Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policies
(p. 2-18 t 0 2-21)
RR/Sc, Commercial and Industrial Land Use, Policy 1.0. .Maintain and enhance the
compatibility of adjacent land uses through the use of appropriate buffering mechanisms, such
as landscaping standards. [EC 9.9610(3)(a)]
RR/Sc, Commercial and Industrial Land Use, Policy 2.0. Require site plan reviews for all nel-I'
commercial and industrial development. [EC 9. 9610(3)(c)]
Response:
As a condition of development approval for the subject site, site review procedures will be
applied. Site review is used "as a means to maintain or improve the character, integrity, and
harmonious development of an area, address potential environmental impacts, and to provide a
safe, stable, efficient, and attractive on-site environment" (EC 9.8425 Purpose of Site Review).
Santa Clara - Retmement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 36 of 44
In addition, to assure compatibility benveen the residential development to the south, and the
commercial develop to the north, of Green Lane Planned Unit Development procedures \vill also
be employed. Because any development subsequent to adoption of the plan amendment must
comply with site review and planned unit development criteria, the amendment is consistent with
Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policies 1.0 and 2.0.
RR/SC. Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy, 3.0. Prohibit the linear expansion of
existing strip commercial areas fronting on River Road Existing strip commercial development
may expand by infilling. redevelopment or expansion onto contiguous property that does not
front on River Road [Ee 9. 9610(3)(d)}
Suggested Actions:
3.1. Discourage future commercial rezone applications for parcels that would expand the fringes
of strip commercial development along River Road (Emphasis added]
Response:
The proposed amendment is expanding, through in-fill development, existing strip commercial
property onto contiguous property. In addition to the property contained within this application
the applicant owns Tax Lots 501, 601 and 800 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 that includes two
commercial designated properties that are developed at this time (Development Site).
Th~ "Existing General Land Use Patterns" map of the River Road! Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Plan is reproduced as Exhibit EA. The map shows several areas where commercial land is
concentrated as "strips" along River Road. One of the areas of strip commercial development
begins south of Be1tline Highway at Corliss Lane and proceeds north ending at Federal Lane
(north of the River Road! Hunsaker Lane intersection). The intent of RR/SC, Commercial and
Industrial Land Use Policy 3.0 isto prohibit the linear expansion of the existing strip commercial
areas along the fringes of existing development (as defined \-vitmn suggested action 3.1). The
fringes of the strip commercial area are defined by the northern and southern boundaries (Federal
Lane and Corliss Lane respectively). The subject property is therefore within an existing strip
commercial area, and is not on the fringe; therefore Policy 3.0 does not prohibit commercial
expansion on the development site. In fact, Policy 3.0, specifically allows for existing strip
commercial to "expand by infilling, redevelopment or expansion onto contiguous property that
does not front on River Road."
Furthemlore, the proposed text amendments provide for substantial buffering and review of
future development on the site in order to assure compatibility ,vith surrounding development.
Pedestrian amenities, buffering and size and scale reductions to allowed standards will mitigate
negative effects of commercial development upon River Road or surrounding properties.
Additionally, the proposed development will not front River Road, rather it will have an internal
circulation system with pedestrian oriented streets and public amenities (see Exhibit 1.1
"Proposed Text Amendments" and Exhibit 1.2, "Site Concept" and for more information).
Per Ee 9.2681(2) when public land is sold for private development, the property shall be rezoned
according to City procedures. When the Santa Clara Elementary School was in operation the
Refinement Plan and Metro Plan designations were appropriate (dovernment and Education and
Low Density Residential respectively). This change of circumstance has occurred since the
Santa Clara --- Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 37 of 44
adoption of the RR/SC and was not forecasted by the writers of the plan. The applicant's intent
of establishing a conunercial use on an in-fill development site that was f{)rmerly designated
Government and Education is appropriate for an area that is already characterized a~ strip
commercial.
The Government and Education designation reflects the commitment for the land for non-
residential purposes. Although the Metro Plan designates the property as Low Density
Residential, this designation preceded the refinement plan designation of the property a.<;
Government and Education and does not provide for the efficient development of the subject site
as a center of activity for the community. The proposed mixed-use center will allow an
integrated development that will receive substantial review that will benefit the neighborhood
and the community of Eugene.
The location of this subject site, located between a major arterial and a major collector is not
appropriate for low density residential development. The applicant ameliorates this problem by
providing needed medium density residential opportunities while also expanding an existing
commercial development in a site that is appropriate for such development. The writers of the
refinement plan may not have foreseen the school site being sold, however, per Policy 3.0, it
could be assumed that they did forecast the need for the expansion of existing strip-commercial
development as in-fill needs require. The subject site is located adjacent to commercial
development along its north, west and south boundaries. Under site review and planned unit
development criteria the subject site will provide an integrated development plan that can take
advantage of the need to provide a smooth transition between existing commercial development,
existing low-density residential development and future higher density development that is
needed in the Santa Clara subarea. The amendments as proposed satisfy this policy based on the
fact." that the proposed amendments expand existing strip commercial development that is not on
the fringe in a manner that is consistent with the needs for in-fill development that responds to
issues of neighborhood compatibility needs.
RRlSC, Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy, 5.0. Minimize impacts of new commercial
development intended to consolidate and improve existing strip commercial area along River
Road by requiring development standard,;, fEe 9. 9610(3)(e))
Suggested Actions:
5.1 Apply the following development standards to all commercial development and
redevelopment vl'ithin existing strip commercial areas fronting on River Road:
a. Site plan review of all developments
b. Landscape parking lots and River Roadfrontage
c. Consolidate and minimize access points onto River Road
d Locate new development in proximity to other existing commercial uses.
Response:
The proposed development will expand existing commercial development along River Road that
is also owned by the applicant. Future development on the subject site will first need to receive
site review and planned unit development approval and thus adhere to City of Eugene
development standards. In particular, the Site Review standards of EC 9.8425 et. seq. shall be
followed including specific standards that list landscaping of parking lots and River Road
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 38 ofM
frontage, minimizing access points on River Road and locating new development proximate to
existing development. The proposed text amendments herein provide additional assurance that
future development wiII scaled for pedestrian use and safety. The future mixed~use center will
include the expansion of the existing commercial development on the site in such a way that
maximizes the efficiency of the subject site and mitigates against potential conflicts with existing
commercial and residential development in the area of the subject site. As such, this policy \viII
be met at time of development approval.
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan: River Road/Division Recommendations (p. 2-32)
The recommendations in the subarea categories are neither policies nor proposed actions and
therefore are not prescriptive.
RR/SC, River Road!Division Recommendation, 3.0. The transition ji'om pro.tessional o.ffice use
to medium-density residential use should occur in the vicinity of a line projected south from the
east boundary of the Santa Clara Elementary School property. [EC 9.961 O(l2)(b)]
RR/SC, River Road/Division Recommendation, 4.0. Rezone parcels north afSanta Clara Square
and south of Green Lane for professional office use. [Ee 9. 9610(12)(c)]
Response:
This refinement plan amendment proposes to add a Recommendations 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 that
are specific to the subject site (see discussion below). The amended text provides direction
specific to the subject site to provide Commercial development north of Green Lane and to allow
Medium Density Residential to abut the "transition" line mentioned in Recommendation 3.0 and
proceed west. The amended text allows expansion of the existing Medium Density Residential
area in order to allow a mix of development that will support commercial development as
proposed by the applicant. Recommendations No.3 and No.4 as described above are not
substantially changed by this application and do not apply to the parcels involved as anlended
with the proposed recommendations No.5, ,No.6, No.7 and No.8.
RR/SC, Public Facilities and Services, Park and Recreation Service subsection, Policy 3. When
appropriate, landfor park and recreation.facilities shall be dedicated as part of the development
review process for vacant land. [EC 9. 9610(16)(d)]
Response:
Changing the plan diagram designation of this site does not affect a recreation area, facility or
opportunity inventoried and designated by the acknowledged plan to meet the City's recreational
needs. See Goal 8, Parks and Recreation, discussion for more detaiL
RR/SC Transportation Element, Policy 2. S'upport alternatives to the automobile including mass
transit, bicycle, walking and carpooling. [Ee 9.9610(18)(b)]
Response:
This development site is located in an area of mixed commercial and residential development
that includes on-street bicycle lanes (River Road, Hunsaker Lane), and mass transit (the area is
served by LTD routes 51, 52 and 55). Furthermore, the location of the site supports walking due
Santa Clara n_ Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement-- August 2, 2007
Page 39 of 44
to its proximity to commercial services that are within one-half mile of the subject site. As such
this proposed amendment supports this policy.
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Text: River Road/Division Subarea (p. 2-32)
Recommendations No.3 and No.4 of the RR/SC document text in this section, on page 2-32,
refer to the area of the subject site and read as follows:
"3. The transition from professional office use to medium-density residential use should
occur in the vicinity of a line pn~jected south fi'om the east boundary of the Santa Clara
Elementary S'chool property
4. Rezone parcels north of Santa Clara Square and south (~l Green Lane for professional
office use."
Proposed text:
5. Notwithstanding Recommendation No.4, development sites along Green Lane and
adjacent to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site may be designated and
zoned Medium Density Residential. lf the parcels are zoned MDR, they must be
developed as a Planned Unit Development in connection with the former Santa
Clara Elementary School site and with an emphasis on mixed-use development
principles.
6. Upon the sale from public ownership to private ownership, the City shall recognize
the area of the former Santa Clara Elementary School at the southeast corner of the
intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane, between Hunsaker Lane and Green
Lane (Tax Lots 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200;
300, 400 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44) as appropriate for Commercial
development and designated Commercial. If zoned commercial, it shall be developed
as Planned Unit Development in connection with the property described in
Recommendation No.5 with an emphasis on mh.ed-use development principles. In
addition:
a. No individual building footprint within the commercial development may
exceed 18,000 square feet; and
b. No building mass within 50-feet of Low Density Residential land may exceed
35 feet in height; and
c. )}ermitted or conditional Commercial services shall not include theaters;
lodging; C2 and C3 permitted manufacturing; medical, health and
correctional services; motor vehicle related uses; and
d. The historic character of the former Santa Clara Elementary School shall be
commemorated on site by using architectural features and historic elements
typical of the former Santa Clara Elementary School (e.g., brick facades,
castings, etc.).
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement ~ August 2, 2007
Page 40 of 44
7. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, a pedestrian friendly connection subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer shall be provided at a "midblock"
crossing of Green Lane and shaH include five or more of the following design
elements:
a. Curb ramps
b. Curb extensions (equal to the width of on-street parking, but not interfering
with bicycle lane)
c. Raised crosswalks
d. Special paving treatment (e.g., brick, alternative colors, cobblestone,
patterned cement, etc.)
e. Adequate lighting to fully illuminate the crossing at all hours
f. To minimize conflict with vehicles entering! or exiting the former Santa
Clara Elementary School site locate the crosswalk to the east of the future
Green Lane access to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site.
8. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, pedestrian amenities shall be included
within the commercial component of the mixed-use development. Amenities shan
include two or more of the design elements from Recommendation No.7.
Response: .
The recommendations in the subarea categories are neither policies nor proposed actions and
therefore are not prescriptive. They have been adopted into the Eugene Code as EC 9.9610(12).
Although adopted into the Eugene Code, the recommendations are adopted for the purpose of
evaluating applicable adopted plan policies when reviewing applications pertaining to
subdivisions, partitions and site review (EC 9.9500). [n the case of this refinement plan
amendment the recommendations of the River RoadJDivisiol1 subarea are reviewed outside of
their context within EC 9.9610(12). The proposed plan amendment will facilitate the
development of a conmlercial and medium density residential project within the area identified
in the text amendment.
Adoption of the proposed amendments and subsequent development will facilitate development
of the subject site in substantial conformance with the mixed-use center identified within Trans
Plan and the Metro Plan (potential nodal development area 5C). The City, as the jurisdiction ~ith
development review authority for the subject site, will determine whether the development
would contlict with adjacent residential areas (and, if so, what conditions of development will be
necessary) as part of the required Site Review process.
For the reasons stated, the plan amendment provides an effective transition from commercial to
residential use and thus is consistent with these recommendations of the RRfSC refinement plan.
Santa Clara - Refmement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 41 of 44
EC 9.8414(1) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more o/thefollowing:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
The proposed amendment is not based on an error in the publication of the River Road/Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan. Thus this criterion does not apply.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
The proposed amendment is not based on new inventory material relating to a statewide planning
goal. Thus this criterion does not apply.
(c) New or amended community policies.
This ordinance is not based on new or amended community policies. Thus this criterion does not
apply.
(d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation,
statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan.
This ordinance is not based on new or amended state or federal laws, regulations, or policies.
Thus this criterion does not apply.
(e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time tile
refinementplan was adopted.
Response: Two significant changes of circumstance have occurred and the proposed refinement
plan amendment addresses both changes of circumstances.
A. First Change of Circumstances
The tirst change of circumstances is the decision by the 4J School District to sell the Santa Clara
Elementary School property. The City and its citizens had no anticipation at time of Refinement
Plan adoption that the school district would sell its property to a private developer.
A portion of the subject site is the former location of the Santa Clara Elementary School, and is
currently zoned Public Land, designated on the refinement plan as Government and Education,
and designated on the Metro Plan as Low Density Residential. Oregon West Management, Inc., a
private development group, recently purchased the Santa Clara Elementary School site. Per
EC 9.2681(2) which states, "When public land is soldfor private the development, the property
shall be rezoned according to the procedures for zone changes beginning with and following
section 9.8850 Purvose of Zone Changes" the applicant is seeking a zone change of the subject
site. The refinement plan designation logically shall also be amended to reflect the current
private ownership.
The applicant has a concurrent application under review for a plan amendment to the school
property to change the designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial. Upon approval
of the Metro Plan change the refinement plan designation will be nonconforming. As such the
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 42 of 44
applicant proposes to change the refinement plan designation for the school site from
Government and Education to Commercial to reflect the proposed Metro Plan designation.
B. Second Change of Circumstances
The second significant change of circumstances concerns City Council adoption in 2004 of
Ordinance No. 20319, which amended the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing
Element. The background materials for the update are contained in two documents of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands Study, the 1999 Supply and Technical
Analysis and the 1999 Site Inventory Document. The RLS was acknowledged by the state Land
Conservation and Development Commission as being consistent with Goal 10. The purpose of
the RLS was to compare residential land needs with available land supply.
The 2004 update to the Metro Plan includes four relevant policies regarding higher densities and
mixed uses:
A.10 Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure,
improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resources land..
outside the UGB.
A.11 Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
services, in proximity to major transportation systems or lvithin transportation - efficient nodes.
A.13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities
fhr effectiveZv designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of
increased residential density on historic, existing andfuture neighborhoodf.
A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing
neighborhood<; through local zoning and development regulations.
The 1999 Residential Land Survey inventoried the developed and vacant land within the
Eugene/Springfield area. The subject site is located within the Santa Clara subarea. As detailed
in the findings under Goal 10 (above) the Santa Clara subarea has the lowest percentage of
higher density developed property within the metropolitan region. Multi-family housing uses are
allowed within the Medium Density Residential designation. As such~ the applicant proposes to
increase the supply of this needed housing type by changing the designation on the subject site,
south of Green Lane, to accommodate this housing type. The location of the change in
designation is appropriate due to its proximity to existing Medium Density Residential
designated property to the east, commercial development in the surrounding area, and alternative
transportation modes (the existing LTD River Road substation is less than one-half mile south of
the subject property). As such, the applicant's proposed refinement plan designation is consistent
with the updates to the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the criteria in EC 9.8424(2).
Santa Clara ~ Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - A ugllst 2, 2007
Page 43 of 44
VI. Conclusion
Based on the above analysis and findings of compliance v.ith approval criteria and adopted plans
and policies, the requested Metro Plan Diagram amendment and River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan Diagram and text amendments should be approved as proposed.
If you have any questions about the above application, please do not hesitate to call
Michael Howard, AICP at Satre Assoc iates, P.C. (465-4721).
Santa Clara - Refinement Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 44 of 44
SATRE
!
VISION · STRATEGIES · SOLUTIONS
_,-~"17-~i:-Yf~-T::'.'~:':'\'
'f.~ 't:. \' \\~:' \'" ., .'.
;(~ it J {) ~. \ '. \:, '.
\\N u.~ . . ~'..~_.:' "" . .
-.-:::......-:----.---- \ ~~
~ '
^ C
SATRE
;:s
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPMENT
WNECHANGE
APPLICATION
Lane .County Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41, Lots 9100, 9200 and 9300
and ~lap 17-04-11-44, Lot 200,300,400,501,601 and 1900
Play Held and trees buffering
hQusing to east of development site
Santa Clara School Site and Vidnity
Adjacent Development Santa Clara School Site
Oregon West Management, LLC
1310 Coburg Road
Eugene, Oregon 97401
August 2, 2007
Revised August 29, 2007
~~~
SATRE
ASSOCIATES
Satre Associates, P.C.
132 East Broadway
Suite536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Phone 541.465.4721
Fa" 541.465.4722
J .800.662.7094
www.salIepc.com
. August 2,2007
City of Eugene
Planning Department
99 West 1 Oth Avenue
Eugene, Oregon .97401
Attn:.. Heather O'Donnell
Re: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
Zone Change Application
Dear Heather,
Enclosed please find, Zone Change application materials for the proposed
development at the former site of the Santa Clara Elementary School. Included are .
the application, written statement and associated exhibits and attachments.
The Written.Statement contains general project infomlation, a summary of the land
use request, information about the site, existing conditions and proposed use, as
well as applicable approval criteria and findings.
As the Applicant's designated contact, Satre Associates is available to answer
questions or provide supplemental information as needed to facilitate the review
process.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the application. We look fOf\vard
to working vvith you on the project.
Sincerely,
.~~D
Michael. Howard, AICP .
Planner
Satre Associates, P.c.
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPMENT
ZONE CHANGE
APPLICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Letter . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . .... . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. ... . .,. . . . .... .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . .
Table of Contents ........................................................................
Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . '" . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ..
Written Statelnent ........................................................................
No. of Pages
1
1
2
42
Exhibits (Bound Herein)
A. Legal Description.............. ...... ...... ............ ...... ...................... 5
B. Vicinity Map....................................................................... 1
C.l Existing Zoning .................................................................... 1
C.2 Proposed Zoning ..... .... ... ....... ......... ...... ... ...... ............... ......... 1
D.I Existing Metro Plan Designation ........... .......... .... ..... ... ...... ... ...... I
0.2 Proposed Metro Plan Designation............................................... 1
E.1 RR!SC Existing Refinement Plan Designation......... ... ... '" ........ ....... 1
E.2 Existing Refinement Plan Designation...... '" ......... ............ ..... .... ... ]
E.3 Proposed Refinement Plan Designation........... ............ .................. I
E.4 RRiSC Existing General Land Use Pattems ................................... 1
F Tax Lot Map .... ..... ... ........ ...... ......... ... ......... ...... ... ............ .... 1
G Aerial Photo ......................................................................... I
H Santa Clara Square Characteristics ... '" ............ ... ...... ...... ......... .... ]
Attachments (Bound Separately)
.1 . l'raffic Impact Analysis .........................................................
City of Eugene
99 West 10tll Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
Vvvvw.eugene-or.gov
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION
Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additional infoffimtion lllilY be required upon
further review in order to adequately address the applicable criteria for approval. If you have any questions
about filling out this application, please cont.act Planning staff at the Pemlit and Infom1ation Center, phone
(54J.) 682-5377, 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene. . .
List all Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included ill the request. Please indicate
if only II portion of a lot is included in the reqnest and include any additional map and tax lot numbers
for subjt,'Ct property. Also, include existing and proposed overlay zoning.
A'lsessor's Map T ax Lot I _ .Exist~.'.l,g Zonine . Proposed 7...o~_i!_~g__
I
..- -- I
17-04-11-4 1 9100, 9200, 9300 I PL, Public Land C-2, Camm. Com.
17-04-11-44 1200 I PL, Public Land C-2, Camm. Com.
17-04-11-44 300,400 I C-1 Nieah. Com. C-2, Comm. Com.
17-04-11-44 1900 I R-2, Med. Den.Res
I R-1, Low Den. Res.
I
!
Street Address (if available): 2685 River Road (TL 9100); 84 Green Lane (TL 1900)
l!~xisting Use(s) ofthe Property: Vacant (former elementary school)/Single Family Dwelling (TL 1900)
Proposed lJse(s) ofthe Property: Mixed-tJse Residential and Commercial Center
Acres: 9.3 acres
Is this zone cha~e being reviewed concurrently ",ith another land use application?
ld Yes, application file number: ONe
Filing Fee
EI A filing fee must accompany all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application
and is adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and
InJormation Center to determine the required fee or check website www.eugeneplanning.org
Written Statement
Provide 3 copies upon initial submittal. Folloyving completeness review, submit 7 copies.
o A written statement demonstrating how the requested change satisfies the criteria in the Eugene
Code, Section 9.8865. A list of the criteria is available at the Eugene Permit and Jnformation Center,
99 West 10fu Avenue. Please note: it is the applicant's responsibility to provide adequate
iii/ormation demonstrating how the proposal satisfies the applicable criteria. Failure to provide such
information lllilY result in a denial of your applicat.ion.
Zone Change Application Fom1
Last Revised: 12/2003
Page 1 of2
Map Information
Provide 3 copies upon initial submittal. Following completeness review, submit 7 copies.
o A map indicating the property involved in the request and showing adjacent streets, alleys, etc.
121 A vicinity map showing the general area of the request and indicating the specific property involved
in the request.
Le!!al Description
o A legal description for each existing lot involved in the requested change. This description must be
typed and suitable for recording.
By signing, tbe undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understands the submittal requirements
outlirted herein, and that he/she understands that omi};sion of any listed item may cause delay in
processing this application. I (We) the undersigned acknowledge that the information supplied in this
application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
(nV~TER (Also the Applicant? 0 Yes I D No):
Name (print): Oregon West Managemer~t, LLC (Steve Graves)
Address: 1310 Co burg Road, Suite 1-B
City/State/Zip: Eugene, Oregon, 97401
Phone: (541) 687-5653
Signature:
it
//.)~
~
APPLICMi'D / APPLICANT'S REPRF~SEl'l'TATIVE El (Check one):
Name (print): Michael Howard
Company/Organization: Satre Associates, PC
Address: 132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Cit~~_tate!Zip: Eugene, Oreg?_'!.: 97401_
Phone: (541)465.4721 Fax: (541) 465.4722
Signah;re ~+~
I NOTE: This is not a cOn1plete list of requirements. Additional information may be required after further
I review, in order to adequately address the required criteria of approval.
email: m.howard@satrepc.com
Zone Change Application Form
Last Revised: 12/2003
Page 2 of2
SATRE ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
.132 East Broadway, Suite 536, Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541)465-4721 . Fax(541)465-4722 · 1-800-662-7094
www.satrepc.com
~
-
SATRE
ASSOCIATES
August 2,2007
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL SITE REDEVELOPMENT
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION
WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURPOSE:
The applicants wish to change the zone of the subject site, properties identified on Assessor's
Map 17-04-11-41 as Tax Lots 9100, 9200 and 9300 and Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 as Tax
Lots 200, 300,400,501,601 and 1900. The portion of the subject site north of Green Lane was
formerly the site of the Santa Clara School. The siting standards of EC 9.2681 (2) require that a
property be rezoned when o\\'l1ership of Public Land is transferred from public or non-profit use
to private use. The applicant is proposing to change the LAming for the portion of the subject site
north of Green Lane fTom PL, Public Land and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to C-2/PD/SR,
Community Commercial with Planned Unit Development and Site Review Overlays; and to
change the zoning for the portion of the subject site south of Green Lane from R -1, Low Density
Residential to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and
Site Review Overlays. In addition, the applicant intends to apply the Planned Unit Development
and Site Review Overlays to Tax Lots 501 and 60101' Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44.
This application is concurrent with application for Aietro Plan Amendment Type II, specifically
a change to the plan diagram. The proposed ldetro Plan amendment would change the subject
site's plan designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial for the area north of Green
Lane and from Commercial to Medium Density Residential for the area south of Green Lane.
This application is also concurrent with a refinement plan amendment to the River Road/Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan, the applicable adopted refinement plan. The proposed refinement
plan amendment would change the subject site's plan designation from Government and
Education to Commercial for the area north of Green Lane and from Commercial to Medium
Density Residential for the area south of Green Lane. The refinement plan amendment also
includes text changes to the recommendations ofthe River Road/Division subarea (p. 2-32).
Approval will facilitate a residential/commercial development to serve the needs of the Eugene
community.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Subiect Site
The subject site consists of seven tax lots (as described above) with the dimensions as specified
herein on the Legal Descriptions (Exhibit A). The area so defined \\ill be referred to in this
application as the Subject Site. The site addresses are 2685 River Road (Tax Lot 9100), and 84
Green Lane (Tax Lot 1900). Tax Lots 200, 300, 400, 9200 and 9300 are not addressed. The
Subject Site is within the Eugene City Limits. The River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan
is the applicable refinement plan.
Development SiteJ
The development site consists of the seven tax lots of the su~ject site, bisected by Green Lane,
with the addition of two lots (Tax Lots 501 and 601 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44) that are
currently designated for commercial use and zoned C-2, Conmmnity Commercial. Tax Lot 800
is also owned by the applicant; however, it is not currently within the boundaries of the City of
Eugene and is not subject to this application. Tax Lot 800 will ultimately be integrated with the
development site at the time of future Site Review and Planned Unit Development applications.
Size
Subject Site: 8.6 acres
Development Site: 9.1 acres
Application Team
Ownerl Applicant:
Santa Clara Properties, LLC
1310 Coburg Road, Suite 1-B
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541)687-5653
Attn: Steve Graves
Planner:
Satre Associates, P. C.
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Attn: Michael Howard, AICP
(541) 465-4721 · Fax (541) 465-4722. m.howard@satrepc.com
www.satrepc.com
Transportation Engineer:
Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Attn: Damien Gilbert, PE
(541) 746-0637. Fax (541) 746-0389. damien@branchengineering.com
w-ww.branchengineering.com
1 EC 9.0500 Development Site. A tract ofland under common ownership or control, either undivided or consisting
of two or more contiguous lots of rcord. For the purpose of land use applications, development site shall also include
property under common ownership or control that is bisected by a street or alley.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement ..- August 2, 2007
Page 2 of 41
II. LAND USE REQUEST
The applicants 'Vvish to change the zone of the subject site. The applicant is proposing to change
the zoning for the portion of the subject site north of Green Lane from PL, Public Land and C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial to C-2fPD/SR, Community Commercial with Planned Unit
Development and Site Review Overlay; and to change the zoning for the portion of the subject
site south of Green Lane from R-I, Low Density Residential to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density
Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review Overlay. In addition, the applicant
intends to apply the Planned Unit Development and Site Review Overlays to Tax Lots 501 and
601 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 (See Table 1 and Exhibits C.1 and C.2 for more
information).
Table I : Existing and Proposed Designations and Zoning
Metro Plan
Designation
RRJ SC Refinement Plan
Designation
Zoning
Area
Map Lot Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed (Acres)
17-04-11-41 9100 LOR COM GE C PL C-2 3.1
C> C> 17-04-11-41 9200 LOR COM GE C PL C-2 0.8
- -
i:i) i:i) 17-04-11-41 9300 LOR COM GE C PL C-2 D.7
- -
s:: 0 17-04-11-44 200 LDR COM GE C PL C-2 D.6
lit Q)
E E' 17-04-1144 300 LDR COM GE C C-1 C~2 1.2
0- ::l 17-04-11-44 400 LOR COM GElC C C-1 C-2 0.8
0 f/)
~ 17-04-11-44 190D COM MOR C M R-1 R~2 1.3
Q) 17-04-11-44 501 COM COM C C C-2 C-2 0.2
C
17-04-11-44 601 COM COM C C C-2 C-2 0.3
Subject Site 8.6
Development Site 9.1
Source: LCOG data, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
The application is concurrent with application for Metro Plan Amendment Type U, specifically a
change to the plan diagram. It is also concurrent with a refmemcnt plan amendment to the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, the applicable adopted refmement plan. Therefore,
pursuant to EC 9.7045 "Description of Quasi-judicial Decisions Type U, Type III, Type IV" the
concurrent procedure for this application is Quasi-judicial Decision Type IV. The proposed
Metro Plan amendment and the proposed refinement plan anlendment would change the subject
site's plan designation to Medium Density Residential and Commercial. In addition the
refinement plan amendment includes text changes to the River Road/Division subarea
recommendations (p. 2-32). A description of the site, relevant application infoffilation, and
supportive facts and findings are outlined in the sections below.
The applicant, Santa Clara Properties, LLC is preparing to submit applications to the City for
pennits to build a residential and commercial mixed use development on the subject site.
Appropriate zoning for such development under the Eugene Land Use Code is R-2, Medium
Density Residential and C-2, Community ConunerciaL Site Review Overlay (!SR) is required
per EC 9.8860(2) Overlay Zone requires that "the overlay zone can be applied in re!>pol1se to
adopted plan policies or where the use of the overlay zone is necessary to address future
development considerations"; in this case the adopted RRlSC policy in EC 9.961O(3)(b) applies
the requirement for an overlay zone in order to ensure that appropriate siting standards are
employed with expansions of commercial development. The applicant wishes to pursue Planned
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 3 of 41
Unit Development overlay (fPD) in order to provide further assurance that the proposed
horizontal mixed-use center will employ adequate design standards to provide for pedestrian and
neighborhood scale and amenities. Because the applicant is submitting concurrent Metro Plan
and refinement plan amendments, City Council approval is required to change the site's zoning
district.
III. THE SITE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Location and Context
Location:
The subject site is located approximately one-half mile north of Beltline Road on the southeast
corner of the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane (see Vicinity Map, Exhibit B)
Lots Affected bv the Proposed Rezone:
The subject site is specific to properties identified on Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 as Tax Lots
9100,9200 and 9300 and Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 as Tax Lots 200,300,400,501,601 and
1900. These lots are entirely within the Eugene City Limits.
Legal Description of Lots within Subiect Site:
Descriptions of the properties subject to this request are included as Exhibit A.
Plannin~ and Zoning:
The current zoning for the subject site is a mixture of PI." Public Land, C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial, and R-l, Low Density Residential. Annexation of lots 200, 300, 400, 9100, 9200
and 9300 occurred in 2004 (City of Eugene file A-04-003), concurrent ",rith a rezone for the
affected lots. Lot 1900 was annexed to the City in 1983 (City of Eugene file AZ-83-006) and
received its current zoning in 1989 (City of Eugene file Z-88-32). Tax Lots 501 and 601, were
annexed in 1987 (City of Eugene file A-87-001) and are zoned C-2, Community Conm1ercial,
established in 1987 (City of Eugene file Z-04-008). Current and proposed zoning for the subject
site are attached as Exhibits C.l and C.2.
Plan Desi~nation:
ilie/ro Plan
The Metro Plan Diagram applies Low Density Residential and Commercial designations to the
subject site. Current and Proposed Metro Plan Diagrams for the subject site are attached as
Exhibits D.1 and D.2.
Refinement Plan
The River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan designates the subject property as Public Land
and Commercial. The current and proposed River Road/Division sub-area map, which shows the
present designation applied to the subject site, is included in this application packet as Exhibits
E.l, E.2 and E.3.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement -- August 2, 2007
Page 4 of 4\
B. Site Description and Existing Conditions
Subiect Site:
Portions of the subject site have previously been used as the Santa Clara Elementary School (Tax
Lot 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200, 300 and 400 of
Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44). Currently the school site is vacant and Tax Lot 1900 has one
residential dwelling. The City Limit abuts the subject site to the east. Adjacent to the subject site
and at the northwest corner of the River Road and Green Lane intersection are two Tax Lots that
have not been annexed to the City (Tax Lots 800 and 900). Tax Lot 800 is owned by the
applicant but is not part of this application. Tax Lots 501 and 601 are cunently designated
commercial and are a palt of the development site but not included in this application. Because
they are already zoned C-2, Community Commercial it is not necessary to include them in a base
zone change, however, the concurrent Zone Change application includes them in order to apply
the Planned Unit Development and Site Review Overlays.
The site is located outside of both the 100-year flood and 500-year flood areas.
Additional details on adjacent uses are as follows:
Northeast
The property to the northeast of the subject site is located outside of the City Limits but within
the Urban Oro\\lth Boundary (UGB). It is designated Low Density Residential on the Metro Plan
Diagram and is predominately developed with suburban residential dwellings.
Southeast
The property to the southeast of the subject site is located inside of the City Limits. It is
designated Medium Density Residential on the Metro Plan Diagram and is developed with a
mixture of older suburban residential dwellings and more recent multi-family housing types.
South and Southwest
The property to the south and southwest of the subject site is located predominately within the
City Limits. It is designated Commercial and zoned Community Commercial, Neighborhood
Commercial and Low Density Residential. It includes the commercial area known as Santa Clara
Square.
West and Northwest
The property to the west of the subject site is designated Commercial on the Metro Plan Diagram
and zoned Neighborhood and Community Commercial. It is predominately inside of the City
limits and developed with commercial uses.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement ~ August 2, 2007
Page 5of41
IV. PROPOSED USE
A. General Project Information
Contingent on approval of the current application and other applications as required, the
applicant is preparing to submit applications to build a mixed-use center on the subject site.
B. Specific Proposal Information
Property Information:
City Limit.,,:
Urban Growth Boundary:
Local Government:
Utilities - Storm Sewer:
Sanitary Sewer:
Water:
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Schools:
Parks and Recreation:
Fire and EMS:
Current Metro Plan Designation:
Proposed Metro Plan Designation:
Current Refinement Plan Designation:
Proposed Refinement Plan Designation:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Inside Eugene City Limits
Inside UGB
City of Eugene
City of Eugene
Metro Wastewater Service District
Eugene Water and Electric Board
Eugene Water and Electric Board
Northwest Natural
Eugene School District 4J
Eugene Parks and Open Spaces Department
Eugene Fire and EMS (Fire Station #9)
Low Density- Residential, Commercial
Commercial, Medium Density Residential
Government & Education, Commercial
Commercial, Medium Density Residential
PL, Public Land
R -1, Low Density Residential
C-l, Neighborhood Commercial
C-2, Community Commercial
R-2, Medium Density Residential
C-2/PD/SR, Community Commercial with
Plmmed Unit Development and
Site Review Overlays
Zoning of Properties within 100 teet of the site:
Direction
North
Use
Residential, Conunercial
West
Commercial
Southwest
Commercial
Santa Clara -- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Zone
R-lIUL, Low-Density Residential, and
C-lIUL, Neighborhood Commercial with
Urbanizable Land Overlay, inside UGB
C-2, Community Conmlercial, inside the
city limits
C-l/UL, Neighborhood Commercial with
Urbanizable Land Overlay, inside UGB
Page 60f 41
South
Conmlerdal, Residential
C-lIUL, Neighborhood Commercial with
Urba'nizable Land Overlay. inside UOB
C-2, ConmlUnity Conmlercial, inside city limits
R-l, Low Density Residential, inside city limits
Southeast
Residential
R-l, Low Density Residential, inside city limits
R-2, Medium Density Residential. inside city limits
Northeast
Residential
R-l/UL, Low-Density Residential with Urbanizable
Overlay, inside UGB
R-l. Low Density Residential, inside city limits
v. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Eugene Code Section 9.8865 requires an evaluation of any zone change application to determine
whether the requested change in zoning is consistent with the foHowing criteria shown in bold
face and italicized text.
EC 9.8865(1) Tlte proposed cltange is consistent with applicable provisions of tlte Metro Plan.
The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over tlte ~Jetro Plan diagram where
apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
Response:
The adopted Metro Plan "Land Use Diagram" designates the property as Low Density
Residential north of Green Lane and Commercial south of Green Lane. A metro plan diagram
amendment changing that desigilation to Commercial, for the entire portion of the subject site
north of Green Lane, and Medium Density Residential. for the portion of the subject site south of
Green Lane, is tmder concurrent review \vith this zone change application (see Exhibits D.1 and
D.2 for the existing and proposed Metro Plan designations). If the concurrent amendment to the
Metro Plan diagram changing the designations of the property is approved, the proposed zone
change will be consistent with and implement the l\1etro Plan "Land Use Diagranl."
Regarding conformance of the proposed zone change to the \vritten text of the Aletro Plan, the
applicant's responses follow:
Growth Management
l\1etro Plan, Policy 1. The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as
an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. The provision of all urban services shall
be concentrated inside the UGB.
Response:
As detailed in the response to Statewide Goal 11 (above) urban services are available to the
subject property and the property is within the Eugene portion of the metropolitan UGB and
within the incorporated City limits. As such, the subject property is providing for compact urban
growth and has the essential services available for development. As defined in the glossary of
the Metro Plan compact urban grO\vth is defined as:
Santa Clara ~ Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 7 01'41
The filling in of vacant and underutilized land') in the VGE, as "l-i'ell as redevelopment
in.,,>ide the UG B.
The amendments will allow compact urban growth to occur on lands that are currently \\ithin the
UOB and underutilized for an urban area. The redevelopment of the site will provide needed
commercial employment opportunities and also provide medium density residential
development. As such the proposed amendments support this policy.
ldetro Plan. Policy 24. To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth
addressed in the text and on the Afetro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitmHvide density of new
residential con.,,>truction. but necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dl1/elling
units per gross acre over the planning period.
Response:
The proposed development seeks to increase the amount of medium density residential
designated land \\ithin the subject site area and thus increase the supply of land available for
higher density development within the River Road/Santa Clara subarea. The future development
of the site, therefore, will help the region achieve it.<; goal of compact urban growth. As such the
proposed amendments support this policy.
Metro Plan, Objective 8. Encourage development of suitable vacant, underdeveloped, and
redevelopable land where services are available, thus capitalizing on public expenditures
already made jar these services.
Response:
The subject property is currently underdeveloped with access to readily available public facilities
and services. Approval of this proposal will capitalize on the public services and expenditures
already made and planned for in the immediate area. In short, the underdeveloped subject
property is suitable for commercial and residential uses and has access to public facilities and
services. As such the proposed amendments support this policy.
Metro Plan Specific Elements
A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element
Response:
Table 2 shows that the amendment will remove 7.3 acres ofland from Low Density Residential
supply and add it to the supply of Commercial land and remove 1.3 acres of land from the
Commercial land supply and add it to the supply of Medium Density Residential land. A net loss
of 6.0 acres of residential land occurs, however, the supply of higher density land increases. In
addition, the refinement plan amendment will remove 1.3 acres of land from commercial
designation and add 1.3 acres to the Medium Density Residential designation. The proposed
zone change will remove 1.3 acres of land from Low Density Residential (R-I) and add it to
Medium Density Residential (R-2) supply. The proposed amendments will provide needed
Medium Density Residential land in close proximity to.commercial services and does not hinder
the ability to provide for the housing needs of the community which has an adequate supply of
low density residential land as detailed herein within the discussion of Goall O.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 8 of 41
Table 2: Amendment Changes in Acres
LOR to COM
COM to MOR
No Change
Total
7.3
1.3
0.6
9.2
Key:
Metro Plan: LDR-Low Density Residential, MDR-
Medium Density Residential, COM..Cornmercial;
RRlSC RP: M-Medium Density Residential, C..
Commercial, GE-Government & Education;
Zoning: R-l-Low Density Residential, R-2-Medium
Density Residential, C-I-Neighborhood Commercial, C-2-
Community CommerciaI,PL-Public Land
GE to C
C toM
No change
Total
7.3
1.3
0.1
8.7
7.3
1.3
0.6
9.2
PL To C-2
C-1 to C-2
R-1 to R-2
No change
Total
5.2
2.1
1.3
o
8.7
5.2
2.2
1.3
0.4
9.2
Source: LCOG data. analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Metro Plan, Policy A.3. Provide an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the
[JGB for the 20-year planning period at the time of Periodic Review.
Response:
The 2004 update of the Metro Plan planned for an adequate supply of residential land based on
the analysis of the 1999 Residential Land Supply. As discussed in more detail under Goal to,
herein, the applicant is not appreciably affecting the regional supply of residential land and is
increasing the supply of Medium Density land within an underserved area ofthe community that
is also located close to transit and other services. As such this proposed amendment supports
Policy A.3.
Ale/ro Plan, Policy A.8. Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local
jurisdiction, of extending public services and infrastructure. The cities shall examine ways to
provide subsidies or incentives for providing infrastructure that support ajlhrdable housing
and/or higher density housing.
Response:
The applicant shall conform to City of Eugene requirements and pay the fair cost of extending
public services and infrastructure. The proposed amendments \vithin this amendment will allow
a greater diversity of housing types to occur on the subject property than would be possible under
the current designation. As such this proposed amendment supports this policy.
Metro Plan, Policy A.lO. Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes
existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves
rural resource lands outside the UGB.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 9 of 41
Metro Plan, Policy A.II. Generally locate higher density residential development near
employment or commercial service. in proximity to major transportation systems or within
transportation-efficient nodes.
Metro Plan, Policy A.I2. Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision
of adequate infrastructure and services. open ~pace, and other urban amenities.
Response:
The proposed PAPA will promote higher density development by increasing the total supply of
medium density designated and zoned land within the metropolitan area. The Santa Clara
subarea is wlderserved by higher density development and through this amendment the applicant
proposes to increase the overall supply in the subarea to meet the needs of the community. The
proposed amendment will locate Conmlercialland adjacent to Medium Density Residential on
the same development site which allO\vs for the integration of an overall complex, or mixed-use,
development of conmlercial and residential. In addition, the proposed amendment is adjacent to
River Road, a major transportation route which has existing Lane Transit District (L TD) bus
service and is identified to have a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT/eMX) route ending at the current
transfer station located approximately one-half mile to the south of the subject property on River
Road. As such, the proposed PAP A supports the utilization of existing infrastructure while
increasing overall density and providing needed commercial services.
"~1etro Plan, Policy A.l3. Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by
creating more opportunities for e.fJectively designed in-fill. redevelopment, and mixed use. while
considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future
neighborhoodv.
Response:
The subject area is located within "Potential Nodal Development Area 5C" (TtansPlan) and the
applicant is proposing to develop a mix of commercial and residential uses that shall include
employment and commercial opportunities. These uses will benefit both future residents of the
proposed development and existing residents of the River Road! Santa Clara area. The
Development Site is located in the northwest corner of Potential Node 5-C and represents
approximately 8.2% of the entire area of the proposed node. Table 3 shows the current and
proposed Metro Plan designations for Potential Node 5-C. The proposed changes will increase
the supply of commercial land by 16.2%, decrease the supply of low density residential land by
approximately 36.9% and increase the supply of medium density residential land by 2.5%. See
Exhibit H for additional information.
Table 3: Current and Proposed Metro Plan Designations (potential Node 5-C)
Existing Condition Proposed Change
Total Acres % Total Acres Chan d % Chan e Total Acres
36.7 33.3% 5.9 16.2% 42.6
19.7 17.9% -7.3 -36.9% 12.4
53.8 48.8% 1.3 2.5% 55.1
110.2 110.2
Desl nation
Commercial
Low Density Residential
Medium Densit Residential
Total
% Total
38.7%
11.3%
50.0%
Source: City of Eugene, analysis by Satre Associates, PC
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement-- August 2, 2007
Page 10 of 41
Table 4 shows that zoning ratios within the Potential Node 5-C are similar to existing Metro Plan
designations. The main diflerences are that the Metro Plan does not include a Public Land
category and the zoning of the Potential Node 5-C area further differentiates commercial into
Neighborhood and Community Commercial categories. From the table, it is evident that the only
Neighborhood Commercial within the nodal area is proposed to be removed with this application
seeking to replace it with an integrated mixed-use center that will function to provide a
neighborhood level connection. In addition, the table shows that the percent of zoned Medium
Density Residential land is significantly less than the area that is designated within the Metro
Plan (it may be interpreted that the amount of R-I land exceeds the amount that the City has
allocated for the nodal area.) The proposed amendments will ensure that medium density
residential land is developed at appropriate densities in conjunction with the mixed-use center.
The proposal satisfies the intent of the Metro Plan and this policy.
Table 4: Current and Proposed Zoning (Potential Node 5-C)
Designation
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
C-2, Community Commercial
R.1, low Density Residential
R-2, Medium Density Residential
Pl, Public Land
Total
Existing Condition
Total Acres % Total
2.2 2.0~o
36.7 33.3%
33.5 30.4%
32.5 29.5%
5.2 4.7%
110.2
Proposed Change
Acres Chan ad % Chan e Total Acres
-2.2 -100.0% 0.0
7.4 20.3% 44.1
-1.3 -4.0% 32.2
1.3 4.1% 33.8
-5.2 -100.0% 0.0
110.2
% Total
40.1%
29.2%
30.7%
Source: LCOG data., analysis by Satre Associates, PC
The applicant is proposing to develop a horizontal mixed-use center that combines single-use
buildings on distinct parcels in a range of land uses in one planned development project. This
approach achieves the goal of place making that is made possible by bringing together
complimentary uses in one place. In addition, the mixed-use center is within a ten to tvventy
minute (114 mile to ~ mile) walking distance of public transit and a range of other uses.
The Metro Plan defines Nodal development (node) thusly (p. II-G-8):
"Areas identified as nodal development areas in TransPlan are considered to have
potential for this type of land use pattern. Other areas, not proposed for nodal
development in TransPlan, may be determined to have potential for nodal development.
Nodal development is a mixed-use, pedestrian .friendly land use pattern that seeks to
increase concentrations of populations and employment in well defined areas with good
transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private
improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. Fundamental
characteristics of nodal development require:
· Design elements that support pedestrian environements and encourage
transit use, walking and bic.vcling;
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 11 of 41
· A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 14 mile) of
anywhere in the node;
· Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance;
· Public spaces, such as parks. public and private open space, and public
facilities, that can be reached without driving; and
· A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net
density of at least 12 units per net acre, "
Additional information regarding the various types of commercial development is included on
pages II-G-4 and II-G-5 of the Metro Plan. The information provides clarification on what
constitutes community commercial, neighborhood. commercial and strip or street-oriented
commercial and how they differ. The applicant's submittal is for a mixed-use center (community
commercial and residential). Although the existing development along River Road is strip
commercial the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and Refinement Plan ensure that a
community commercial facility is developed that, while scoping beyond the neighborhood,
provides many of the core ingredients ofa neighborhood commercial development including:
· Within convenient 'walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support
population. According to the US Census the population of Tract 23 which
includes the proposed development and area to the east of River Road is 6,663
persons2. This area \vill provide the primary support population for the
proposed development with others coming from the adjacent neighborhood.s3.
Bicycle lanes and well designed pedestrian areas are provided and elements of
these areas are further explained \vith the proposed refinement plan text
amendments.
· Adequate area to accommodate off-street parking and loading needs and
land'lcaping, particularly between the center and adjacent residential
property. as well as along street Jhmtage next door to outdoor parking areas,
The provisions for landscaping and parking will be addressed at time of Site
Review and Planned Unit Development application that are proposed to be
required as part of the refmement plan text anlendments. Adequate parking
and off-street parking and loading areas "vill be provided and shall pay
attention to the need to screen nearby residential uses.
· Sz{tlicient frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and
bicycle access without coriflict with moving trqtlic at intersections and along
adjacent streets, The site will have frontage along three streets, River Road,
Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. The refinement plan provides text that cans
for primary streets to be internal to the development site and designed as
'Shopping Streets' . The development does not propose strip style
development and will provide convenient and safe access for automobiles,
2 Source: US Census, http://www.census.gov
3 The Santa Clara neighborhood is comprised of two primary Tracts (23 and 24) with a total population of 17,125
people according to the 2000 US Census; it is likely that this area will provide the primary and secondary support
for the proposed development.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 12 of 41
pedestrians and bicyclists without conflict with moving traffic at intersections
or along adjacent streets.
Existing strip commercial development along River Road shall be removed and replaced
according to the design considerations of the retinement plan text to ensure that the proposed
mixed-use center is appropriately scaled to provide for the needs of pedestrians and cycHsts
while also ensuring compatibility with surrounding neighborhood development.
Concurrent with this application is an application to amend the River Road! Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan. The proposed map and text anlendments provide specific language integrating the
commercial and residential portions of future development integrating and meeting many of the
objectives of a nodal development. The development site currently has LTD stops along its River
Road and Hunsaker Lane frontages and is within one-half mile distance from the River Road!
Santa Clara transfer station (just south of Beltline Highway). Additionally, the proposed
development will provide a pedestrian friendly connection to adjoining residences, utilize
existing infrastructure, and increase overall density within the potential node 5-C area. Design
6'1lidelines are suggested that will ensure that the residential and commercial portions of the
project are integrated and have sufficient pedestrian friendly anlenities to foster the connection
that a nodal development area requires. As such this proposed amendment supports this policy.
J...1etro Plan, Policy A.l7. Provide opportunities for a fit/I range of choice in housing type,
density, size. cost, and location.
The applicant's proposed amendment will increase the opportunities for medium density
residential development including options for a variety of housing types including townhomes
and apartments. The potential density of development is compatible with neighboring medium
density residential designated land located to the east of the subject site and is \vithin the desired
ranges for medium density residential. The location of the proposed residential amendments
supports a ten to twenty minute (114 mile to 12 mile) walking distance to public transit and a
range of other uses which supports the nodal and mixed-use concept.;;,
Metro Plan, Policy A.22. E.,'(pand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and
existing neighborhood~ through local zoning and development regulations.
The proposed amendment will facilitate a zone change and therefore increase the mix of uses
providing medium density residential and commercial opportunities sited together on one
development site as a horizontal mixed-use4 center, while also infilling in an area of more typical
single-family suburban development. The increased commercial and employment opportunities
4 The Metro Plan defmes Mixed use as: "A building, project or area of development thai contains at least two
different land uses such as housing, retail, and o.Uice uses. '.' (Alefro Plan, p. IlI-A-9) This proposal allows
appropriate planning and zoning for an integrated horizontal mixed-use project on a "development site" as defined
by the Eugene Code as such it meets the intent of the Metro Plan and Eugene Code defmitiol1s for a mixed-use
development site.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 13 of 41
will benefit the existing residents and future residents of the development site. For more
information on the connection with Potential Node 5-C see Metro Plan Policy A.13 above.
.A4etro Plan, Policy A.23. Reduce impacts of higher density residential and mixed-use
development on surrounding uses by considering site, landscape, and architectural design
standard,; or guidelines in local zoning and development regulations.
The proposed amendments include text changes to the River Roadl Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Plan that include the use of the Planned Unit Development process in order to ensure that the
proposed development provides a pedestrian orientation that is scaled appropriately. Provisions
include reducing the maximum allowed are of a single building to no more than 18,000 square
feet, reducing the height limitation to 35-feet and providing a pedestrian friendly connection
across Green Lane to provide a linkage to nearby residential development (see Refinement Plan
application for more infonnation). The procedure of a Planned Unit Development shall provide
ample opportUnity for review to assure that impacts of the mixed-u.<;e development are
appropriately mitigated within the Development Site. As such these amendments support this
policy.
B. Economic Element
A detailed analysis of Economic Element policies is contained in the applicant's response
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - "EcDnomic Development." Those responses are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Metro Plan, Policy B.6: Increase the amount of undeveloped land zonedfor light industrial and
commercial uses correlating the effixtive supply in terms of suitability and availability li,ith the
projections of demand
Response:
The proposal (in conjunction with the related zone change application) \vill increase the supply
of undeveloped land planned and zoned for commercial use (see Tables 5 and 6). The increase in
supply will provide a suitable site for a community commercial center near a higher density
residential area that is serviced by existing transportation networks thus supporting the concept
of mixed-use development. The supply of neighborhood commercial land is reduced with tlus
application by approximately 90% within the potential node 5-C area. Although the supply of
neighborhood commercial land is reduced the proposed amendments allow for the development
of a mixed-use center that will provide a neighborhood focal point with supportive services tor
area residences, thereby meeting the intent of such commercial designations.
Given that the approval of this proposal would facilitate the rezoning of the property to
commercial, the proposal is consistent with this policy.
Metro Plan, Policy B.28. Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in
providing services and good,; to a particular neighborhood
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement -- August 2, 2007
Page 14 of41
Metro Plan, Policy B. 29. Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood
commercial facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the characteristics ol
the support population change. .
The Santa Clara School stood as a center of neighborhood activity for many years. The proposed
amendments will support redevelopment of the site, thereby continuing and expanding that
tradition. If the fornler school grounds were developed under the cUrrent low-density residential
designation, it w-ould be a retreat from the role this site has played providing vital services to the
neighborhood. The City has identified a potential nodal development area that includes this site.
When implemented, residential densities will increase and require goods and services that can be
provided with approval of the proposed amendments, but not with the existing designation.
Concern that reducing the area of C-l zoning and increasing C-2 land may result in a more
intense community rather than a neighborhood commercial area is addressed by the refinement
plan amendment. This amendment requires Plmmed Unit Development or Site Plan review that
will provide opportunities for the City and the Neighborhood association to scrutinize
development proposals. It also limits the size of commercial buildings on the site and requires
buildings oriented toward internal streets and sidewalks rather than exclusively to the arterial.
Although the Community Commercial zoning district will allow slightly more flexibility of uses,
the proposed retinement plan policies requiring subsequent development reviews and limiting
building scale "",ill assure the neighborhood character of future development. For these reasons,
the proposed amendments support and implement Metro Plan policies "B.2S" and "B.29."
F Tramportation Element
The project area is currently served by River Road (a Major Arterial), Hunsaker Lane (a Major
Collector) and Green Lane. Hunsaker Lane is a county road that is not improved to urban
standards; development of the subject site will include improvements to Hunsaker, proportionate
to the impact of development that will bring the road to urban standards.
Additional infonnation in this statement's response to Statewide Planning Goal 12 -
"Transportation" is hereby referenced and incorporated.
Metro Plan, Policy F.l: Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each
jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use
pattern.
Response:
The subject site is identified in TransPlan as "Potential Nodal Development Area 5-C".
Although the area is identified as a potential nodal development area the City has not identified
the site for development as a node. Although the applicant is not specifically developing the site
under the nodal standards the applicant's mixed-use center concept is support of the intent of the
node concept. Future development of the site shall take advantage of its proximity to nearby
commercial services and existing and proposed transportation networks that complements the
nodal standards and provides a scale that is compatible with existing and future residential areas.
Please see discussion under Jvletro Plan, Policy A.l3 for more information on how this policy is
met.
Santa Clara .- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2,2007
Page 15 of41
Metro Plan, Policy F .13: Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
Metro Plan, Policy F.14: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users,
bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing
roadway system improvements.
A1etro Plan, Policy F.23: Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major
col/ector streets.
Metro Plan. Policy F.26: Provide for a pedestrian environment that is 'H'ell integrated with
mliacent land uses and is designed to enhance the sqfety, comfort, and convenience of walking.
Response;
The proposed development will be served by the existing streets (River Road, Hunsaker Lane,
Green Lane). Bike lanes currently exist on River Road and the applicant will construct bike lanes
on Hunsaker Lane as required at the time of future development. The development wilt be easy
to get around, and to do so on foot with an enhanced pedestrian connection at Green Lane that
will provide a linkage between commercial development to the north and residential
development to the south All streets will have wide sidewalks, some of them setback from
vehicle traffic. It wilt be convenient, and safe, to walk within the subject site and to nearby
commercial and residential activity centers. The provisions of the text amendments to the
refinement plan provide additional scrutiny to future design elements and amenities that must
entail size limitations appropriate to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. As such this policy is
supported by the proposed amendments.
G. Public Facilities and SelTices Element
Response;
Metro Plan, Policy G.l: Extend the minimum level and full range of ke..v urban facilities and
services in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter lI...8, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
The parcels affected by this application are currently within the Urban Growth Boundary and are
annexed into the City of Eugene. The annexation was made in compliance with an acknowledged
comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the availabllity of urban
facilities and services. A detailed analysis of the availability of those services is contained in the
applicant's response Statewide Planning Goal 11 - "Public Facilities and Services." Those
responses are hereby incorporated by reference.
Therefore, with regard to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan, the City
can find that the proposed amendments will not make the Metro Plan intel11ally inconsistent.
II Parks and Recreation Element
Response:
The changes proposed by this application will have no impact on any recreation area, facility or
opportunity that has been inventoried and designated by the Metro Plan or any relevant facility
plan regarding the City's recreational needs, The recreational needs of the community are
adequately met by the existing and planned facilities enumerated in the City of Eugene Parks,
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 16 of41
Recreation and (Jpen Space Comprehensive Plan, 2006 and other associated documents. A
detailed analysis of the subject site in relation to the various parks and recreation system studies,
inventories, refinement plans, and facilities plans is contained in the applicant's response
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - "Recreation." Those responses are hereby incorporated by
reference. With regard to the Parks and Recreation Element of the Metro Plan, the City can find
that the proposed amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
I Historic Preservation Element
Response:
The changes proposed by this application will have no impact on any historic resource that has
been inventoried and designated by the Afetro Plan or any relevant facility plan or inventory
regarding the City's historic resources. With regard to the Historic Preservation Element of the
Atetro Plan, the City can find that the proposed PAPA will not make the Aletro Plan internally
inconsistent.
1. Energy Element
lvfetro Plan, Goal 1: lyfaximize the conservation and efficient utilization of all types of energy.
Response:
The proposed PAPA and subsequent development of the site will encourage conservation and
efficient utilization of energy by a concentration of employment, services and residences on the
site, and enabling transit services to the site.
Metro Plan, Policy J.3: Land allocation and development patterns shall permit the highest
possible current and future utilization of solar energy/or !3pace heating and cooling, in balance
with the requirements of other planning policies~ and
Response:
The applicant shall design future development according the standards of the Eugene
Development Code includes all standards relevant to solar orientation.
lvletro Plan, Policy J.8: Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated
to the greatest extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel distances,
optimize reuse of waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy generation.
Response:
The requested approval of the PAPA proposed herein, if approved, will enable the subsequent
zone changes and development of a residential and commercial mixed-use development that
shall provide employment, services and residential opportunities. Workers and residents will
have the option to obtain dining, shopping, and other commercial amenities less than a mile from
the subject site consistent with Policy J.8's mandate to balance all planning policies to reduce
travel distance. Existing residential neighborhoods are adjacent to the subject site. Furthermore,
the presence of schools in close proximity and nearby recreational land uses which enables
reduced travel distances, this PAP A is consistent with this policy.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Pagel7 of 41
K Citizen Involvement Element
ldetra Plan, Goal: Continue to develop, maintain, and refine programs and procedures that
maximize the opportunity fiJr meaningfUl, ongoing citizen involvement in the community's
planning and planning implementation processes consistent with mandatory statewide planning
standards.
Response: As noted in applicant's findings regarding Statewide Planning Goal I, Citizen
Involvement, the City's acknowledged program for citizen involvement provides citizens the
opportunity to review and make recommendations in \\'Titten and oral testimony on the proposed
amendment, consistent with Goal 1. The action proposed is consistent with and does not amend
the citizen involvement element of the Metro Plan.
EC 9.8865(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement
plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plalt
controls.
Response:
The subject property is within the boundaries of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Plan (RRJSC). The adopted RRISC "Land Use Diagram" designates the property as Government
& Education north of Green Lane and Commercial south of Green Lane and on a portion of the
development site adjacent to River Road.
Regarding consistency of the proposed zone change with the RRJSC Land Use Diagram:
Concurrent with this zone change application, the applicant has submitted an application to
amend the refinement plan. The applicant proposes to amend the refinement plan designation to
apply a Commerc1al designation to the subject site north of Green Lane and Medium Density
Residential designation south of Green Lane (see Exhibit E.3).If the concurrent amendment to
the diagram changing the designation of the property is approved, the proposed zone change will
be consistent with and implement the RRlSC designation.
The follmving narrative demonstrates consistency of the proposed zone change with the
remainder of the adopted refinement plan:
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan: General Land Use Policies (p. 2-7)
RR/SC, General Land Use Policy 1.0. A1inimize land use conflicts by promoting compatibility
benveen land uses, especially among residential, commercial-industrial, and commercial-
agricultural uses. fEC 9.9610(1)]
Response:
The amendment facilitates a commercial development that provides benefits for the city and
regional population and provides varied employment. Economically, the development pays
property taxes and is a jobs provider. The residential component of the proposed amendment.,>
will extend the existing Medium Density Residential designation to the west in a logical manner
that and will enhance the supply of land available for higher density development within the
Santa Clara subarea. The future development of the site will incorporate landscaping and other
features to enhance its compatibility with the residential uses to the east. In addition, the
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 1801'41
proposed text amendments provide significant protections that enhance compatibility of future
development with the existing and future residential development including height limitations,
area limitations on building size and the provision for the use of the Planned Unit Development
procedures. Because of the reasons stated~ it is consistent with this policy.
RRISC GeneralLand Use Policy 2.0. Adopt zoning that is consistent l-I'ith the land use diagram
and policies contained in the land use element of the Urban Facilities Plan.
Response:
The proposed amendments contained within this application include map and text changes. Upon
approval of the proposed changes, and as detailed in the responses contained herein, the
proposed amendments support this policy.
RR/SC General Land Use Policy 3.0. Provide for land uses that conform to Metropolitan Plan
goals and policies and that consider the provision ofa full range of urban services in an efficient
and cost-effective manner.
Response:
As detailed in the response to Statewide Goal 11 (above) urban services are available to the
subject property and the property is within the Eugene portion of the metropolitan UGB and
within the incorporated City limits. As such, the su~ject property is providing for compact urban
groVvth and has the essential services available for development. As defined in the glossary of
the Metro Plan compact urban growth is defined as:
The .filling in of vacant and underutilized lands in the. UOB, as well as redevelopment
inside the UGB.
The amendments will allow compact urban growth to occur on lands that are currently \vithin the
UGB and underutilized for an urban area. The redevelopment ofthe site will provide needed
commercial employment opportunities and also provide medium density residential
development. As such the proposed amendments support this policy. Please see discussion of
Metro Plan policies under EC 9.8424(b) for more information.
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan: Residential Land Use Policies (p. 2-14)
RR/5'C', Residential Land Use Policy 1.0. Recognize and maintain the predominately lmv-density
character o.fthe area consistent with the Metro Plan. [Ee 9. 9610(2)(a)]
Response:
Asdiscussed under the Goal 10, the proposed PAPA seeks to remove 7.3 acres ofland from the
Low Density Residential land base and to add approximately 1.3 acres of land to the Medium
Density Resignation land base (see details under Goal 10 for more information). The change is in
compliance with Goal 10 and the amount of change in the supply of low density residential land
amounts to 0.2%, a relatively minor amount of land. The location of the land, near a major
arterial and a major collector and near commercial opportunities, does not make it an efficient
location to develop at low density levels. The applicant proposes to offset the loss of the low
density residential land with additional medium density residential land that is more appropriate,
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 19 of 41
adjacent to commercial development and supports the goals and policies of the Metro Plan and
the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. According to the RLS, there is an abundance
of low density residential land and this proposed PAPA will not signiticantly affect the
predominance of the low density character of this area. It will, however, provide much needed
medium density residential development on land better suited for that purpose.
RR/SC, Residential Land Use Policy 2.0. Provide a diversity of housing types in the area.
Available techniques include encouraging reinvestment and rehabilitation of existing housing
stock and the use of development standards that provide for clustering or planned unit
development.
RRl.S'C. Suggested Action 2.1. Provide for innovative residential development through
subdivision and other code provisions, such as planned unit del'elopments and cluster
subdivisionsfor new residential development on large parcels.
Response:
The proposed amendments of this application include text amendments that provide for the
development of a mixed-use center to be developed under the provisions of the Planned Unit
Development procedures. Future redevelopment of the Santa Clara Elementary School Site will
provide signiticant reinvestment in the area that, combined with residential development, wjll
support further reinvestment of the community. As such this policy is supported by the proposed
amendments.
RR/SC, Residential Land Use Policy 3.0. Evaluate traffic and compatibility impacts 'when
considering new residential development on parcels fronting arterial streets. [EC 9. 9610(2)(b)]
Response:
Details of the proposed amendments traffic impacts are discussed under Goal 12. The proposed
amendments will remove land that is zoned residential from a location fronting an mierial. In
place of residential development fronting an arterial the applicant prol:'lOseS to locate residential
development along a neighborhood street that is more suitable for such development.
RR/SC. Residential Land Use Policy 4.0. Provide adequate bl!f{ering and traffic control for
existing non-residential development fronting River Road, (to minimize conflicts with
surrounding development). [Ee 9. 9610(2)(c)]
Response:
The applicant is not proposing residential development that fronts River Road. The proposed
amendments will create an area of Commercial designation that has frontage on River Road,
Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane and extends the current commercial designated land eastward on
the subject parcel. The applicant intends to use shopping streets within the future development
and place the majority of business circulation and store front.':; internal to the site. Upon
development sufficient design and landscape standards will ensure that existing residential
development is butTered from new development. Primary access to the commercial portion of the
subject site will be from Hunsaker Lane, with secondary access provided via River Road and
Green Lane. The proposed Medium Density Residential portion of the subject site will receive
primary access on Green Lane.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 20 of 41
RR/SC, Residential Land Use, Policy 5.0. Permit medium-density housing (10 to 20 dwelling
units/acre) in proximity to existing or planned urban facilities. Access to commercial
development, transit, and alternative modes of transportation, schools and park..,. and open
space should be considered. A1edium-density residential development will be considered for the
north Santa Clara area consistent lvith the above criteria. [EC 9. 9610(2)(d)]
Response:
The subject site is located within the north Santa Clara area. The proposed amendments
designate land for Medium Density Residential designation in a location that is in close
proximity to existing urban facilities, with proximal access to existing and proposed commercial
facilities, alternative modes of transportation (1., TD' s "hub" is located approximately one-half
mile south of the subject site, and the BRT/eMX is proposed to have a line running to that
"hub"); elementary, middle and high schools are located within walking distance of the subject
property and parks and open space opportunities are located nearby. As such, the subject site is
appropriately located to apply the Medium Density Residential designation.
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan: Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policies
(p. 2-18 t 0 2-21)
RRlSC, Commercial and Industrial Land Use, Policy 1.0. ,Maintain and enhance the
compatibility of adjacent land uses through the use of appropriate buffering mechanisms, such
as landscaping standardr;. [EC 9.9610(3 HaJJ
RRlSC. Commercial and Industrial Land Use, Policy 2.0. Require site plan reviews for all new
commercial and industrial development. [EC 9. 9610(3)(c)]
Response:
As a condition of development approval for the subject site, site review procedures will be
applied. Site review is used "as a means to maintain or improve the character, integrity, and
harmonious development of an area, address potential enviromnental impacts, and to provide a
safe, stable, efficient, and attractive on-site enviromnent" (EC 9.8425 Purpose of Site Review).
In addition, to assure compatibility between the residential development to the south, and the
commercial develop to the north, of Green Lane Planned Unit Development procedures will also
be employed. Because any development subsequent to adoption of the plan amendment must
comply with site review and planned unit development criteria, the amendment is consistent \vith
Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policies 1.0 and 2.0.
RRlSC. Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy, 3.0. Prohibit the linear expansion of
existing strip commercial areas fronting on River Road. Existing strip commercial development
may expand by infilling, redevelopment or expansion onto contiguous property that does not
front on River Road [EC 9. 9610(3)(d)]
Suggested Actions:
3.1. Discourage future commercial rezone applications for parcels that would expand the fringes
of strip commercial development along River Road. [Emphasis added]
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 21 of 41
Response:.
The proposed amendment is expanding, through in-fill development, existing strip commercial
property onto contiguous property. In addition to the property contained within this application
the applicant owns Tax Lots 501, 601 and 800 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44 that includes two
commercial designated properties that are developed at tlus time (Development Site).
The "Existing General Land Use Patterns" map of the River Roadl Santa Clara Urban Facilities
Plan is reproduced as Exhibit E.4. The map shows several areas where commercial land is
concentrated as "strips" along River Road. One of the areas of strip commercial development
begins south of Beltline Highway at Corliss Lane and proceeds north ending at Federal Lane
(north of the River Road! Hunsaker Lane intersection). The intent of RR/SC, Commercial and
Industrial Land Use Policy 3.0 is to prohibit the linear expansion of the existing strip commercial
areas along the fringes of existing development (as defined within suggested action 3.1). The
fringes of the strip commercial area are defined by the northern and southern boundaries (Federal
Lane and Corliss Lane respectively). The subject property is therefore within an existing strip
commercial area, and is not on the fringe; therefore Policy 3.0 does not prohibit cOlmnercial
expansion on the development site. In fact, Policy 3.0, specifically allows for existing strip
commercial to "expand by infilling, redevelopment or expansion onto contiguous property that
does not front on River Road."
Furthermore, the proposed text amendments provide for substantial buffering and review of
future development on the site in order to assure compatibility with surrounding development.
Pedestrian amenities, buffering and size and scale reductions to. allowed standards will mitigate
negative effects of commercial development upon River Road or surrounding properties.
Additionally, the proposed development will not front River Road, rather it will have an internal
circulation system with pedestrian oriented streets and public amenities (see Exhibit 1.1
"Proposed Text Amendments" and Exhibit 1.2, "Site Concept" and for more information).
Per EC 9.2681(2) when public land is sold thr private development, the property shall be rezoned
according to City procedures. When the Santa Clara Elementary School was in operation the
Refinement Plan and Metro Plan designations were appropriate (Government and Education and
Low Density Residential respectively). This change of circumstance has occurred since the
adoption of the RRlSC and was not forecasted by the '\Titers of the plan. The applicant's intent
of establislling a commercial use on an in-fill development site that was fornlerly designated
Govermnent and Education is appropriate for an area that is already characterized as strip
commercial.
The Govenunent and Education designation retlects the commitment for the land for non-
residential purposes. Although the Metro Plan designates the property as Low Density
Residential, tlus designation preceded the refinement plan designation of the property as
Government and Education and does not provide for the efficient development of the subject site
as a center of activity for the community. The proposed mixed-use center will allow an
integrated development that will receive substantial review that will benefit the neighborhood.
and the community of Eugene.
The location of this subject site, located between a major arterial and a m~or collector is not
appropriate for low density residential development. The applicant anleliorates this problem by
Santa Clara- Zone Change Application
Written Statement ~ August 2, 2007
Page 22 of 41
providing needed medium density residential opportunities while also expanding an existing
commercial development in a site that is appropriate for such development. The writers of the
refinement plan may not have foreseen the school site being sold~ however, per Policy 3.0, it
could be assumed that they did forecast the need for the expansion of existing strip-commercial
development as in-fill needs require. The subject site is located adjacent to commercial
development along its north, west and south boundaries. Under site review and planned unit
development criteria the subject site 'Yvill provide an integrated development plan that can take
advantage of the need to provide a smooth transition between existing commercial development,
existing low-density residential development and future higher density development that is
needed in the Santa Clara subarea. The amendments as proposed satisfy this policy based on the
facts that the proposed amendments expand existing strip commercial development that is not on
the fringe in a manner that is consistent with the needs for in-fill development that responds to
issues of neighborhood compatibility needs.
RR/SC, Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy, 5.0. Minimize impacts (~{ new commercial
development intended to consolidate and improve existing strip commercial area along River
Road by requiring development standards. [Ee 9. 9610(3)(e)]
Suggested Actions:
5. I Apply the following development standards to all commercial development and
rede-velopment within existing strip commercial areas fronting on River Road:
a. Site plan revielv of all developments
b. Landscape parking lots and River Road frontage
c. Consolidate and minimize access points onto River Road
d. Locate ne}jI development in proximity to other existing commercial uses.
Response:
The proposed development will expand existing commercial development along River Road that
is also owned by the applicant. Future development on the subject site will first need to receive
site review and planned unit development approval and thus adhere to City of Eugene
development standards. In particular, the Site Review standards of EC 9.8425 et. seq. shall be
followed including specific standards that list landscaping of parking lots and River Road
frontage, minimizing access point") on River Road and locating new development proximate to
existing development. The proposed text amendments herein provide additional assurance that
future development will scaled for pedestrian use and safety. The future mixed-use center will
include the expansion of the existing commercial development on the site in such a way that
maximizes the efficiency of the subject site and mitigates against potential conflicts with existing
commercial and residential development in the area of the subject site. As such, this policy will
be met at time of development approvaL
River RoadJSanta Clara Urban Facilities Plan: River Road/Division Recommendations (p. 2-32)
The recommendations in the subarea categories are neither policies nor proposed actions and
therefore are not prescriptive.
RR/SC, River RoadJDivision Recommendation, 3.0. The transition from professional office use
to medium-density residential use should occur in the vicinity of a line projected south from the
east boundary of the Santa Clara Elementary School property. [EC 9.961 O(l2)(b)]
Santa Clara- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 23 of 41
RR/SC, River Road/Division Recommendation, 4.0. Rezone parcels north of Santa Clara .Square
and south of Green Lanejor professional office use. [Ee 9. 9610(12)(c)}
Response:
This refinement plan amendment proposes to add a Recommendations 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 that
are specific to the subject site (see discussion below). The amended text provides direction
specific to the su~ject site to provide ConU11ercial development north of Green Lane and to allow
Medium Density Residential to abut the "'transition" line mentioned in Recommendation 3.0 and
proceed west. The amended text allows expansion of the existing Medium Density Residential
area in order to allow a mix of development that will support commercial development as
proposed by the applicant. Recommendations No.3 and No.4 as described above are not
substantially changed by this application and do not apply to the parcels involved as an1ended
with the proposed recommendations No.5, ,No.6, No.7 and No.8.
RR/SC, Public Facilities and Services, Park and Recreation Service subsection, Policy 3. Tf71en
appropriate, landfor park and recreationfacilities shall be dedicated as part of the developmenl
reviell' processfor vacant land [EC 9. 961 0(16) (d)}
Response:
Changing the plan diagram designation of this sit"C does not affect a recreation area, facility or
opportunity inventoried and designated by the acknowledged plan to meet the City's recreational
needs. See Goal 8, Parks and Recreation, discussion for more detail.
RR/SC, Transportation Element, Policy 2. Support alternatives to the automobile including mass
transit. bicycle, walking and carpooling [Ee 9..9610(18)(b)J
Response:
This development site is located in an area of mixed commercial and residential development
that includes on-street bicycle lanes (River Road, Hunsaker Lane), and mass transit (the area is
served by LTD routes 51, 52 and 55). Furthermore, the location of the site supports walking due
to its proximity to commercial services that are within one-half mile of the subject site. As such
this proposed amendment supports this policy.
River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Text: River RoadlDivision Subarea (p, 2-32)
Recommendations No.3 and No.4 of the RR1SC document text in this section, on page 2-32,
refer to the area of the subject site and read as follows:
"3. The transition from professional office use to medium-density residential use should
occur in the vicinity of a line projected south from the east boundary of the Santa Clara
Elementary School property
4. Rezone parcels north of Santa Clara Square and south of Green Lane for professional
office use."
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 24 of 41
Proposed text:
5. Notwithstanding Recommendation No.4, development sites along Green Lane and
adjacent to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site may be designated and
zoned Medium Density Residential. If the parcels are zoned MDR, they must be
developed as a Planned Unit Development in connection with the former Santa
Clara Elementary School site and with an emphasis on mixed-use development
principles.
6. Upon the sale from public ownership to private ownership, the City shall recognize
the area of the former Santa Clara Elementary School at the southeast corner of the
intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane, between Hunsaker Lane and Green
Lane (Tax Lots 9100, 9200, 9300 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41 and Tax Lots 200,
300, 400 of Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44) as appropriate for Commercial
development and designated Commercial. If zoned commercial, it shall be developed
as Planned Unit Development in connection with the property described in
Recommendation No.5 with an emphasis on mixed-use development principles. In
addition:
a. No individual building footprint within the commercial development may
exceed 18,000 square feet; and
b. No building mass within 50-feet of Low Density Residential land may exceed
35 feet in height; and
c. Permitted or conditional Commercial services shall not include theaters;
lodging; C2 and C3 permitted manufacturing; medical, health and
correctional services; motor vehicle related uses; and
d. The historic character of the former Santa Clara Elementary School shaD be
commemorated on site by using architectural features and historic clements
typical of the former Santa Clara Elementary School (e.g., brick facades,
castings, etc.).
7. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, a pedestrian friendly connection subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer shall be provided at a "midblock"
crossing of Green Lane and shall include five or more of the following design
elements:
a. Curb ramps
b. Curb extensions (equal to the width of on-street parking, but not interfering
with bicycle lane)
c. Raised crosswalks
d. Special paving treatment (e.g., brick, alternative colors, cobblestone,
patterned cement, etc.)
e. Adequate lighting to fully illuminate the crossing at aD hours
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement -- August 2, 2007
Page 25 of 41
f. To minimize conflict with vehicles entering! or exiting the former Santa
Clara Elementary School site locate the crosswalk to the east of the future
Green Lane access to the former Santa Clara Elementary School site.
8. Pursuant to Recommendations 5 and 6, pedestrian amenities shan be included
within the commercial component of the mixed-use development. Amenities shaD
include two or more of the design elements from Recommendation No.7.
Response:
The recommendations in the subarea categories are neither policies nor proposed actions and
therefore are not prescriptive. They have been adopted into the Eugene Code asEe 9.9610(12).
Although adopted into the Eugene Code, the recommendations are adopted for the purpose of
evaluating applicable adopted plan policies when revie\ving applications pertaining to
subdivisions, partitions and site review (EC 9.9500). In the case of this refinement plan
amendment the recommendations of the River RoadlDivision subarea are reviewed outside of
their context within EC 9.9610(12). The proposed plan amendment will facilitate the
development of a commercial and medium density residential project v.~thin the area identified
in the text amendment.
Adoption of the proposed amendments and subsequent development win facilitate development
of the su~ject site in substantial conformance \vith the mixed-use center identified within Trans
Plan and the Metro Plan (potential nodal development area 5C). The City, as the jurisdiction with
development review authority for the subject site, will detemline whether the development
would conflict with adjacent residential areas (and, if so, what conditions of development will be
necessary) as part ofthe required Site Review process.
For the reasons stated, the plan amendment provides an effective transition from commercial to
residential use and thus is consistent \\>1th these recDmmendations of the RRJSC refinement plan.
EC 9.8865(3) The uses and density/hat wUlbe allowed by the proposed zoning in tI,e locatiolt
of the proposed change can be served t!trough the orderly extension of key urban facilities altd
services.
Response:
The discussion of compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 - "Public Facilities and
Services:~ and Goal 12 - "Transportation" in the findings regarding the Statewide Planning
Goals (see below) are incorporated herein by reference. With the findings established and
referenced herein, the proposal complies with this criterion.
EC 9.8865(4) The proposed zone chaltge iy consisteltt with tlte applicable siting requirements
set out for the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zolte Sitill!! ReQuirements and (f)
EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Sitin!! ReQuirements .
Response:
There are no applicable siting requirements for C-2, Community Commercial or R-2, Medium
Density Residential zones; therefore, this criterion does not apply.
Santa Clara -- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 26 of 41
EC9.8865(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based 011 EC 9.2510(3), the property
owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is
maintained as a natural reliource area for a minimum of 50 years.
Response:
The NR zone is not requested. Therefore, the above criterion is n'Ot applicable.
Statewide Planning Goals:
If the c'Oncurrent A1e/ro Plan and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan land use
diagram designations were already approved and acknowledged, it would not be necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the statewide planning goals. However, in Roloff v. City ofA1ilton-
Freewater, 27 Or LUBA 256 (1994), the Land Use Board of Appeals ruled that where a propelty
is the subject of a concurrent comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change, the zone
change is made under an unacknowledged plan amendment and must comply \-vith those
statewide planning goals applicable to the unacknowledged plan amendment. Because the
Statewide Planning Goals and related statutes typically address amendments t'O comprehensive
plans, the findings herein regarding those goals frequently refer to the pr'OPosed zone change as
the proposed "amendment." This is done for better comprehension and to recognize that state
documents often refer to "z'One map amendments" when discussing the action referred to in the
Eugene Code as simply a "zone change." Regarding compliance of the proposed zone change
(amendment) with statewide planning goals, the applicant's responses follow:
Goal 1 - Citizen lnvo/vemellt: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunityforcilizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Response:
The City of Eugene has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and an acknowledged
process expressed in the Eugene Code for securing citizen input on all proposed plan
amendments. It insures the 'Opportunity for citizens to be involved in aU phases.ofthe planning
process and sets out requirements for such involvement. The amendments proposed d'O not
amend the acknowledged citizen involvement program. The process for adopting these
amendments complies with the requirements of the citizen involvement provisions.
The Metr'O Plan contains an ackn'Owledged citizen inv'Olvement program satisfying Goall. The
citi:l,Cn involvement program is in Metro Plan Chapter III, pp. III-K-l to III-K-4. The proposed
amendments comply with and do not affect or amend the citizen involvement element in the
Metro Plan.
The proposed Refinement Plan amendment is subject to the public notification and public
hearing processes provided for all Type IV application procedures as stipulated in EC 9.7400
through Ee 9.7455, which, along with the remainder of the Code and \vith Statewide Goals and
state statutes, provide the provisions for citizen involvement.
The City's acknowledged progranl for citizen involvement, including public notice, public
hearings at the level of the planning commission and city council, notificati'On of decision and
notification of the right of appeal, provides citizens the opportunity to review and make
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 27 of 41
recommendations in \witten and oral testimony on the proposed amendments to the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan diagram and the Metro Plan Diagram and on the
proposed zone change. In addition, the applicant has been to several Santa Clara Community
Organization meetings and plans to continue working with the SCCO by providing project
information and soliciting comments and critiques of the proposed development as it advances
through the planning and development process. These acknowledged citizen involvement
provisions afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1.
For the reasons cited, including the Metro Plan's and the City of Eugene's acknowledged
programs for citizen involvement the amendment is consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base
for such decisions and actions.
Response:
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. In order to
comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City will be responsible for coordinating
the adoption of this amendment by providing notice to all afrected governmental units and
responding in its findings to the legitimate concerns of affected governmental units. There are no
Goal 2 Exceptions required.
The Eugene/Springfield Metro Area General Plan (Metro Plan), the Eugene Code, and the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, as well as the Statewide Planning Goals and applicable
state statutes and administrative regulations, provide policies and criteria for the evaluation of
plan amendments. Compliance with these measures assures an adequate factual base for approval
of the amendment. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the amendment is consistent with
the Metro Plan, the Eugene Code, the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, and the
Statewide Goals. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Response:
This goal applies to lands that are designated Agricultural. This amendment is for property
located within the city limits of Eugene and does not afrect land designated for agricultural use.
Therefore, Goal 3 is not applicable or relevant to the amendment.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest land~ by maintaining the forest land base and to
protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that
assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest
land consistent with sound management o.fsoil, air, water, and fish and 'wildlife resources and to
provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 28 of 41
Response:
This goal applies to lands that are designated Forest. This amendment is for property located
withln the city limits of Eugene and does not affect land designated for forest use. Therefore,
Goal 4 is not applicable or relevant to the anlcndment.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Area, and Natural Resources: To conserve open
space and protect natural and scenic resources.
Response;
Pursuant to Goal 5, the City of Eugene has adopted certain sections of the A1etroPlan, various
land use regulations within "Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code: Land Use" and the City of Eugene
Goal 5: Inventory and Water Resources Conservation Plan, 20GS. In addition, the following
inventories make up the entire inventory of significant Goal 5 resources within the City of
Eugene Urban Growth Boundary:
. "Sand and Gravel Working Paper," 1978
. "Scenic Sites Working Paper," 1978
. "Willamette River Greenway Working Paper," 1978
. "Archeological Sites Working Paper," 1978
. "List of Historic Landmarks," 1976
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0250 (Division 23) establishes the applicability of Goal 5
rules to Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (PAPA), and specifies certain procedures and
requirements for local governments to follow in the adoption or amendment of aU plan or land
use regulations pertaining to Goal 5 resources. The rule states:
"(3) Local governments are not required to apply GoalS in consideration of a PAPA
unless the PAPA qflects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section a PAPA
would affect a Goal S resource only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged
plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource
or to address specific requirements o.fGoalS;
(b) The PAP A allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAP A amend~ an acknmvledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site. or the impact areas of such a site, is included in
the amended UGS area. n
The following findings will demonstrate that this application raises none of the issues which
would require the City of Eugene to apply GoalS.
Firstly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(a): The changes proposed by the application do not
create or amend the area's list of Goal 5 resources, nor a portion of an acknowledged plan, nor a
code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 29 of 41
requirements of Goal 5, and therefore, with regard to OAR 660-023-250(3)(a), the proposed
PAPA does not aftect a GoalS resource and the City is not required to apply Goal 5.
Furthermore, in Larson v. Wallowa County, 23 Or LUBA 527 (1992), the Land Use Board of
Appeals ruled that if property is not included in the Goal 5 inventory of the acknowledged
comprehensive plan, and a proposed zone change does not affect that inventory, a local
goverriment is not required to consider whether the property should be included on that
inventory. The same logic is rightly applied here.
Secondly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(b): The changes sought by this application will not
allow new uses that could conflict with a signiticant Goal 5 resource site. There are no Goal 5
resources on the site itself. None of the various studies, inventories, refinement plans, and
facilities plans has listed this specif1c site in an adopted inventory, declared it a significant
resource, applied a Goal 5 resource overlay, or otherwise regulated or limited the redevelopment
of the site as a Goal 5 resource.
Natural Resources are addressed in the City of Eugene Goal 5: Inventory and Water Resources
Conservation Plan, 2005 which fulfins the State of Oregon's GoalS requirement for local
governments to protect significant riparian corridors, upland wildlife habitat and wetlands. The
subject site is not included in any of the plan's inventory maps or tables, nor has it been
designated with a Waterside Protection (/WP) or Water Resources Conservation (/WR) Overlay
Zone.
Because the changes proposed by the application do not create or amend any portion of an
acknowledged plan, or any code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5
resource or to address specific requirements of GoalS, all of these safeguards will remain in
effect.
Lastly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(c): The changes sought by this application do not
amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary.
Conclusion:
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0250 "Applicability" stipulates that local governments are
required to apply Goal 5 when considering Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendments if the
amendment affects a Goal S resource. For the purposes of that rule, the section lists three
circumstances (OAR 660-023-0250(3){a), (b), and (c) quoted above) under which, and only
under which, a Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment would affect a Goal 5 resource. As
evidenced above, none of the three circumstances are raised by the proposed anlcndments, and
therefore the amendments will not affect a Goal 5 resource. The City of Eugene is not required
to apply Goal 5 when considering the consistency of the proposal. The City of Eugene can find
that the action requested by this application is consistent with Statewide Planning GoalS.
Santa Clara ~ Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2,2007
Page 30 of 41
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the
air, water and land resources of the state.
Response:
Nothing in the proposal or the character of the site or potential uses indicates a tuture
development that would compromise air, water and land resources. Future development of the
site will be in conformance with local, state and federal law including aspects of the Eugene
Code. The subject site is not within the Natural Resource Overlay Zone (/WR) or the Waterside
Protection Overlay Zone (/WP). As indicated in findings regarding Goal 11, incorporated herein
by reterence, options for accessing or providing the necessary urban services are available.
Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect lift and property .Ii'om
natural disasters and hazards.
Response:
Goal 7 addresses natural hazards and requires that local govenunent<; inventory risks for floods,
landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, and wildtires among others and implement
appropriate safeguards when planning for development in areas of natural hazards. The Alulti-
hazard Alitigation Plan for the Eugene!.{",pringfield Aletropolitan Area (Metro Hazard Plan) was
adopted by Eugene on November 8, 2004; this plan is non-regulatory but provides an inventory
of known hazards.
The Metro Hazard Plan does not identify any known hazards within the area of the subject site.
Furthemlore, the subject area is outside of the 100 year and 500 year flood plains. There are no
adopted or non-adopted maps that identify the subject site to be within a knmvn haz.ard area.
Future development on this site will include a full analysis of hazard risk and mitigate the risk
through appropriate construction. As such this amendment is in compliance with Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreation Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Response:
The City of Eugene has adopted the following documents which are relevant to Goal 8:
. Eugene Parks, and Recreation Plan, 1989
. River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, 1987
. Eugene Springfield l\1etro Area General Plan Update, 2002
. Eugene Springfield Tram;;Plan. amended 2002
. Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan, 2006.
The City of Eugene has endorsed the follo\\-1.ng document which is relevant to Goal 8:
. Rivers to Ridges Metropolitan Regional Open Space Study, June 2003
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 31 of 41
The City adopted the following document, however LUBA remanded the City's adoption; the
document continues to serve as the City's aspirational and guiding parks, recreation and open
space document:
· City of Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan,
February 2006
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-015-0000(8) (Di visi on 23) establishes that current and fllture
needs for recreation shaH be planned for by responsible governmental agencies:
. in coordination with private enterprise,
· in appropriate proportions; and
· in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of the
resources to meet such requirements.
The proposed Metro Plan Land Use Diagram amendment will have no impact on any recreation
area, facility or opportunity that has been inventoried and designated by the Metro Plan or any
relevant facility plan regarding the City's recreational needs. None of the various studies,
inventories, refinement plans, and facilities plans list this specific site in an adopted inventory, or
declare it a significant resource.
The Eugene Parks, and Recreation Plan (1989) does not list the project site as an existing,
proposed or needed facility. In addition, the City of Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan (2006) does not list the project site in "Table B-5: Parks and Open Space
Inventory: River Road./SantaClara Planning Sub-area" and does not identify the site on the
"Existing and Needed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Resources Map."
The Rivers to Ridges Metropolitan Regional Open Space Study does not show the site on the
"Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Study Vision Map."
The Eugene Parks', Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan does not indicate the
site as an existing or proposed facility on the "River Road/Santa Clara Area Existing and
Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Resources Map" and does not list the site or any
related project on "Table 1: Proposed Projects & Priorities for Parks, Open Space and
Recreational Facilities:'
Conclusion:
Changing the plan diagram designation of this site does not affect a recreation area, facility or
opportunity inventoried and designated by the acknowledged plan to meet the City's recreational
needs. The City of Eugene is not required to apply Goal 8 when considering the consistency of
the proposal and can find that the plan amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state far a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity afOregon's citizens.
Response:
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economy of the State, requires communities to inventory, plan, and
zone enough commercial and industrial land to support the diversification and improvement of
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 32 of41
the economy. Oregon Administrative Rule 660-009-000 et seq. (Division 9) establishes the
applicability of Goal 9 nIles. OAR 660-009-0010(4) states:
for a post-acknOlvledgement 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 designation, a city or county
must adJ,ress all applicable planning requirements... "
To comply with Goal 9 the Eugene City Council adopted the Eugene Commercial Lands Study
(ECLS) in May 1992, updated in October 1992. The ECLS was subsequently acknowledged by
LCDC as contonning to the Metro Plan and Goal 9 during periodic review in 1994.
OAR 660-009-0010(4) does not apply in this situation because the changes proposed by this
application will remove less than two acres from the supply of land designated for commercial
use.
Goal10 - Housing: To provide/c)r the housing need~ of citizens of the slate.
Response:
Goal 10 requires buildable lands for residential use to be inventoried and requires plans to
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent
levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households. Oregon
Administrative Rille 660, Division 8 defines standards for compliance \",ith Goal 10. OAR 660-
008-0010 requires that:
"Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfY
housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection.
The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each
residential plan designation."
The comprehensive plan map for the City of Eugene is the Metro Plan Diagram. Approval of the
applicant's proposed amendments changing approximately 7.3 acres from Low Density
Residential to Commercial and 1.3 acres from Commercial to Medium Density Residential on
the Metro Plan Diagram requires compliance with statewide planning Goal 10; Housing (OAR
660, Division 8). (The change will have a net effect of adding 6.0 acres to the commercial
designation while removing 7.3 acres of Low Density Residential and adding 1.3 acres of
Medium Density Residential.) The Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) is
consistent with the parts ofthe }...tetro Plan which address the requirements of Goal 10, as 'will be
shown below. Using Metro area average densities of developed properties the table below shows
that the proposed impact of the anlendments will be insignificant when considering a comparison
of the total number of likely dwelling units for the plan designation and! or zoning type.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement-August 2, 2007
Page 33 of41
Table 5: Proposal Impact on Potential Dwelling Unit Totals
Development - Average
Designation Density.
SFR - LOR 4.4
MFR - MDR 23.2
" Metropolitan area du/ac on developed tax lots
Area Change
-7.3
1.3
Total Units
-32.1
30.1
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Land<; Study (RLS) was completed in
1999 as a technical document informing policy changes to the Metro Plan as part of the area's
periodic review requirements. The RLS was acknowledged by the state Land Conservation and
Development Commission as being consistent with Goal 10. The purpose of the RLS was to
compare residential land needs with available land supply. The analysis does not require buildout
of particular densities or numbers of units on specific sites or within the metro area as a whole.
Information regarding the supply of residential land is supplemented by the adopted Goal 5
inventory. It includes an analysis of the new Goal 5 protections' impact on residential lands. It
also includes an inventory update based on amended plan designations since the adoption of the
1999 RLS.
The RLS contains a detailed inventory of dwelling units by district as replicated in Table 6,
below. The table shows that the Santa Clara subarea contains a significantly larger proportion of
single-family dwelling units, when compared to multi-family dwelling units, than the City of
Eugene or the Metro region. The report identifies the Santa Clara subarea as having the highest
percentage of single-family units at 88% of the housing mix and the lowest percentage of multi-
family units at only I %. The single-family dwelling type is predominately built within Low
Density Residential designated areas. The table shows that there is an undersupply of multi-
family dwelling types within the Santa Clara sub-area. a dwelling type found in Medium Density
Residential designations. In addition, Tables 3 and 4 (above) show that the supply of Medium
Density designated land is not proportionate to the amount of land that is zoned Medililll Density
Residential. This amendment proposes to designate Medium Density Residential land that is
capable ofacconunodating this needed dwelling type.
Table 6: Residential Land Study:
Percentage of Dwelling Units by District and Type as of July 1992
Santa Clara Subarea, City of Eugene and Metro Region
Multi- Single
Region Mfr'd Home family Duplex Family Total
Santa Clara 3% 1% 8% 88% 100%
Eugene UGa 6% 26% 9% 59% 100%
Metro 7% 25% 9% 59% 100%
Source: Residential Lands and Housing Study Draft Site l1wentory Document, 1999 pages 26-27.
In addition, the RLS contains a detailed buildable residential land supply and demand analysis,
which is summarized below in Table 7 as it pertains to the Metro region. The subject site was not
individually considered in the detailed supply and demand analysis; however, the site is included
within the supply analysis. The RLS assumed a land demand for the Eugene UGB, Springfield
UGB and the Metro region. Table 7 shows the relationship between land supply and demand and
the impact that this proposed PAPA has upon the supply of residential land within the 1992-2015
Santa Clara- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 34 of41
planning period. The proposed amendment will increase the supply of needed commercial and
medium density residential land by 7.0% and 1.1% respectively while decreasing the supply of
low density residential land by 1.7%.
Table 7: Residential Land Study:
Supply, Demand Analysis and Impact by Zoning Designation (acres)
Metro GoalS Recent Current Proposal
Demand Supply Excess Update PAPA's Excess Impact*
low Density 3,840 4,780 940 422 422 -7
Medium Density 589 828 239 201 -87 114 1
High Density 135 195 60 18 18 0
Commercial** 532 702 170 86 86 6
Total 4,564 5,802 1,238 726 640 0
. Buildable acres addedllost from the RLS, CLS inventories due to this appHcatkm
.. Eugene Metro only
Recent PAPA's: MA 06-003 (+6.89), 02-08-243 (-93.4)
Based on expected demand projections, RLS, p. 52.
Metro does not include Springfield PAPA's since the Goal 5 update except 02-08-243.
Source: Residential Lands and Housing Study Draft Site Inventory Document, 1999 pages 52-53.
City of Eugene Goal 5: Inventory and Water Resources Conservation Plan, 2005
Ana~}'sis by Satre Associates, Pc.
The change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential is minor and the
amount of land involved in this application is small; it is not necessary to engage in an extensive
analysis of the impacts on the assets Goal 10 protects. Moreover, the proposed amendment
allows more intensive residential development in an area that is ullderserved by building types
that are allowed vvithin the Medium Density Residential designation.
The Residential Lands and Housing Study estimations of the long term projected land needs, and
the detennil1ation that there is an adequate inventory, serve to demonstrate that the minimum
needs have been met. The proposal adds to the supply of Medium Density Residential and
Commercial inventories without significantly affecting the supply of Low Density Residential
land.
In summary, ba...;;ed on the excess supply of residential land and the relatively small amount of
acreage involved in this application, our analysis finds that the applicant's plan amendment
proposal meets the requirements of statewide planning Goal 10, and supports applicable adopted
policies. Please refer to discussion regarding Goal9.Ecol1omy and the A!etro Plan discussion of
the policies of tile Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
Goal11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement ofpublicfacUities and services as aframeworkfor urban and rural development.
Response:
The parcels affected by this application are currently within the Urban Growth Boundary and
have been alU1exed into the City of Eugene. The previous annexations were made in compliance
with an acknowledged comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the
Santa Clara- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 35 of 41
availability of urban facilities and serVIces. A detailed analysis of the availability of those
services follows:
Waste Water
The subject site can be served by COlUlcction to existing sanitary sewer lines nearby. Eight-inch
lines are located within Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. According to City of Eugene personnel
these lines should have sufficient capacity to serve the site.
Solid Waste Management
Sanipac and Lane Apex provide service for this area of the City of Eugene. Adequate capacity is
provided at regional disposal sites and at Short Mountain Landfill. The provision of solid waste
management services to the project area will be orderly and efficient.
Potable Water Service
Eugene Water and Electric Board provides water service to the subject site. An existing 12-inch
water main exists within River Road and a 6-inch water main exists within Hunsaker Lane.
According to EWEB personnel adequate water service is available.
Fire and Emergency .M"edical Services
Fire Station #11 is located at 111 Santa Clara Avenue, south and west of the project area by
approximately one-quarter mile. The City provides fire and emergency medical services to the
area. The property is within the 4-minute response time area. Therefore, the provision of this
key urban service will be provided in an orderly and efficient manner.
Police Protection
Police protection and response to priority calls are provided to this site consistent with service
provision throughout the city. This key urban service will be provided in an orderly and efficient
manner.
Electric Service
The Eugene Water and Electric Board provide electric service to this area of the City of Eugene.
Electric service is already provided to the site.
Natural Gas
Northwest Natural serves all development in the City of Eugene. There is an existing four-and-
a-half inch and a two-inch natural gas pipeline at the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker
Lane. This key urban service will be provided in an orderly and efficient manner.
Communication Facilities
Fiber optic services are provided by Qwest and EWEB in the vicinity of the project area.
EWEB's fiber neuvork extends to the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane. Numerous
wireless communication providers also serve the area. This key urban service is available and
will be provided in an orderly and efficient manner.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 36 of 41
Public Schools
The project area is served by Eugene School District 4J, by Awbrey Park Elementary, Madison
Middle, and North Eugene High Schools. Thus, this service will be provided in an orderly and
efficient manner.
Improved Streets/ Tram]Jortation
The project area is currently served by Rivet Road, Hunsaker Lane and Green Lane. River Road
is a fully improved public street and is designated as a major arterial' on the "Eugene Street
Classification Map." Hunsaker Lane is a partially improved county road and is designated as a
major collector on the "Eugene Street Classification Map." Green Lane is a partially improved
city road and is designated as a neighborhood street. The applicant proposes to take primary
access off Hunsaker Lane and to minimize access on River Road. It is anticipated that Green
Lane would be used for secondary access. Upon development of the subject site, the section of
Hunsaker Lane will be developed to City standards. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be
included a<; necessary to meet the City's adopted standards.
In the section of this statement addressing Statewide Planning Goal 12 - "Transportation" there
are additional findings regarding public facilities and services, and those discussions are hereby
referenced and incorporated.
Storm Waler Control
Storm water facilities will be designed during the site plmming process to meet City of Eugene
objectives; including optimizing the use of on-site detention \\i;thin the development site to
detain and infiltrate runoff 'Ibere are currently three storm sewer lines that could service the
subject site; a 24" and 27" line within River Road (City operated sysrem) which are tull, and a
24" line within Hunsaker Lane (Lane County operated system) which is nearly full. The
applicant will provide a stormwater analysis that will determine the feasibility of using either of
the piped systems and the necessary stolm water improvements at the time of development per
Eugene Code standards.
Given the above evidence, the City can find that the proposal is consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 11 - "Public Facilities and Services."
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Response:
Goal 12 is implemented through the "Transportation Planning Rule," OAR Division 12, 660-
012-0000 et. seq., (TPR). The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is enacted at the
local level. TransPlan was acknowledged tor compliance with Goal 12 in 2001.
Plan amendments and land use regulation amendments are regulated under OAR 660-012-0060.
If an amendment significantly affects a transportation facility, a local government must provide a
form of mitigation. 660-012-0060(1) states:
Santa Clam - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page37of41
"A plan or land use regulation amendment signfficantly a/jects a transportationfacilitY!l
it would:
(a) Change the functional classijication of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standardy implementing afimctional classffication system; or
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels o.ldevelopment that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classffication of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the perf(Jrmance of an existing or planned transportation facility
below the minimum acceptable performance standard identtfied in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that
is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance
standard ident{fied in the TSP or comprehensive plan. "
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(l)(a) and (b), the proposed plan amendments would not
change the functional classification of any transportation facility, nor would they change the
standards for implementing a functional classification system. Therefore, no facilities are
significantl y affected. under these definitions.
With regard to OAR660-012-0060(1)(c)(A), the proposed plan amendments would not allow
types or levels of uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent
with the functional classitication of a transportation facility. The policies of the City (~f Eugene
Alunicipal Code, "Chapter 9: Land Use,"and the TransPlan establish the requested plan
designation as appropriate to the classification of the streets serving the site. Specific
requirements for access to those streets will be determined through Site Plan reviews and
approved only upon demonstration of compliance with the provisions of the acknowledged
comprehensive and implementing regulations. Therefore, no facilities are significantly affected
under this defmition.
With regard to OAR 660-0 12-0060(l)(c)(B) and (C), a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) evaluating
the performance of existing and planned facilities as a result of the development proposed by this
application has been performed. That TIA is submitted concurrently with this plan amendment
(Attachment I) and the findings of that analysis are hereby incorporated by reference.
Impact Analysis:
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B), although the River Road at Green Lane
intersection, a facility within the scope of the study, is projected to operate below the
performance standard in the plan year, it will not do so as a result of the proposed PAPA. It is
Santa Clara- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 38 of41
projected to operate below the performance standard in the plan year regardless of the proposal
under review. Therefore, no facilities are significantly affected under this definition.
With regard to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C), the analysis determined that two facilities within
the scope of the study are otherwise projected to operate below the perforn1ance standard in the
plan year. These facilities are:
. River Road at Green Lane intersection
· River Road at Hunsaker Lane and Irving Road intersection.
The commenting agencies determined that the proposal's contribution to the projected "F" Level
of Service at the River Road at Green Lane intersection is negligible, not worsening the
performance. Therefore under this definition, the proposal does not significantly affect that
facility. By a small margin, the proposal worsens the performance of the River Road at Hunsaker
Lane and Irving Road intersection in the plan year. Therefore, it significantly aflects that facility
under this definition.
OAR 660-012-0060(3) permits local governments to approve a PAPA that significantly affects a
facility \vithout requiring that mitigations bring the facility up to the applicable performance
standards. TIus is allowed only where the filCility is currently operating below the perfonnance
standard and, despite any planned facilities as defined in Section (4) of the TPR,it is also
projected to operate below the performance standard in the plan year. Taking into account all
planned facilities, the TIA demonstrates that these conditions are met at the River Road at
Hunsaker Lane and Irving Road intersection. OAR 660-012-0060(3)(c) requires transportation
improvements that mitigate the net impact and avoid further degradation in the development
(opening) year. The TIA used 2008 as the development year in this analysis. The impact analysis
shows that even without mitigation there is no measurable development year degradation of the
facility. Therefore, no mitigation is needed to meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-
0060(3)( c).
Proposed Improvements:
The TIA has shown that the Proposed PAPA significantly affects only one facility in the plan
year and that the effect in the development year is so minute, the requirements of the TPR can be
met without mitigation. Nonetheless, the applicant and commenting agencies have informally
agreed that certain improvements to the existing facilities are desired. Because these
improvements will be specified in conditions of approval for the proposed PAPA, the proposal
must be reevaluated as conditioned~ The plalU1ed improvements are offered ao:; "minor
transportation improvements" as defined OAR 660-0121-0005(15) and pursuant to OAR 660-
012-0060(2)(e). These improvements are:
. Construct an additional Hunsaker Lane westbound approach lane
· Construct an additional Green Lane westbound approach lane.
With the proposed improvements specified as conditions of development, the IIA has
determined that, measured at the end of the planning period, the proposed an1endment will
neither reduce the performance of existing or planned transportation facilities below the
miIumum acceptable performance standards identified in TransPlan. nor worsen the
Santa Clara-- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 39 of 41
performance of transportation facilities that are otherwise projected to pelfoffil below the
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in TransP/an.Therefore, potential impacts
under OAR 660-0 12-0060(l)(c)(B) and (C) are avoided.
Conclusion:
Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1), the proposed PAPA significantly an-ects a transportation
facility within the scope of the analysis. The IIA. determined that, should the City choose to
invoke OAR 660-012-0060(3), the circumstances of the impact preclude the need for mitigation
under the requirements of that section. Nonetheless, certain minor improvements are proposed as
conditions of approvaL The TIA has determined that, with the proposed conditions in place, the
PAPA has no signiiicant effect under the criteria of OAR 660-012-0060(1). By requiring
conditions of development to address OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (3), the City may approve the
PAPA in compliance with OAR 660-012-0060. The City can find that the proposed amendments
are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land
shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation (~f all forms of energy.
based upon sound economic principles.
Response:
The purpose of this amendment application is to re-designate land on the subject site to: 1) re-
designate the land currently designated for Low Density Residential to Conmlercial; 2) and re-
designate the Commercial land, south of Green Lane, on the subject site to Medium Density
Residential.
The Metro Plan is an acknowledged plan by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development. Therefore, the Metro Plan is currently consistent with the provisions of Statewide
Planning Goal 13. '[be City of Eugene adopted the Metro Plan updates (Ordinance No. 20319)
on April 21, 2004. This application does not amend any component of the Metro Plan that is
related to Goal 13 as adopted by Eugene City council on April 21, 2004. TherenJre, this PAPA
application is consistent \',1ith the Metro Plan and State\vide Planning Goal 13.
For the reasons cited, the amendment is consistent with State\\'ide Planning Goall3.
Goal 14 - Urbaltization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition .from rural to urban
land use.
Response:
All of the parcels affected by this application are currently within the Urban Growth Boundary
and are annexed into the City of Eugene. The annexation was made in compliance with an
acknowledged comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and established the availability
of urban facilities and services. Therefore the amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goa114~
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect. conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along fhe
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greemi'ay.
Santa Clara - Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 40 of 41
Response:
The subject site is not within the \Villamette River Greenway. Therefore, this goal is not
relevant and the amendment will not affect compliance with Goal 15.
Goal 16 tltrougll19: (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands. Beaches and Dunes. and Ocean
Resources):
Response:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property or
.involved in the amendment. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendment \vill not
affect compliance with Goals 16 through 19.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis and findings of compliance with approval criteria and adopted plans
and policies, the requested zone change should be approved a..<; proposed.
If you have any questions about the above application, please do not hesitate to contact
Michael Howard, Alep at Satre Associates, P.c. (465-4721).
Santa Clara -- Zone Change Application
Written Statement - August 2, 2007
Page 41 of 41
SATRE
",
VISION · STRATEGIES · SOLUTIONS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR
H
Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
Zone Change and Plan Amendment
Eugene, Oregon .
-
August 28, 2007
(Final Revised)
Prepared For:
Santa Clara Properties, LLC
1310 Coburg Road, Suite 1-8
Eugene, Oregon 97401
"--;:--;:::::<'-~-";;" 1''' t:;;:;::-J
~D~ fE ~ j~" U \V! l" I C\ \ !
I U< r----==---~.^'..?....;:>l! 11: I
~~Ul 'il ill
.: il : I j
lit 1 'i" '1 t'\ r''''07 '. : ~.' / I
\: \ (\'1 / "'-1 I~ l' , '~._"
'! '\v.oJ '-..... o_.\., i
L-_______..............__....J
0......-----
p; J:'::.~:1i~~;:'i]~2,:~_.~~.____,,~.~...1
City Oi
Prepared By:
BRANCH ENGINEERING, INC.
310 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Phone (541) 746-0637
Fax (541) 746-0389
Project No. 07-015
TRAFFIC IMPACT At~AL YSIS
FOR
- . ..~....
l:::::::?:::::).;::',~:.::;:;':'.(i-:;'f.:/;)-;:':<::~;:::::::::;'::::::;>~:::X::;:;:('-:~:<':,::::;:-:<:';:;:~_:':;::;:::::'X~0:;:;>>':;:;%~*::;:-:::':::':':;';::::<-::r:::::;::-::;{;:~' ::::::~::~:,{y.;~'.;:~::;.'}~_;"<:'0::C;':,'X~>_~':~>;<-;.';":",'l)',;:>;.;::;:_<::, :;;:;, ;';';;:i:~:;:':~:,:;:>;~;;;"'2'::"-,,:;:;;".:;;{,:;;:::::;::,;:,:;,;::;:.;:::::;:-x;;;:;~::;;:.j;;:;:;:<; ;:;::"-;:::; :::-::::
Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
Zone Change and Plan Amendment
Eugene} Oregon
1:~::.;::!:~;:~;~-&;'9~~;~;~~:~;:~;:g{{<0~;::~:;;;:~;i;;::;;~:;;i~;~;::;;;;;;:;$>>>")}::::::;;;:;:;~;:::::~:~:g;::;;:::;;:i:*%.{:~;:::;:~;~;:~~;~:%;:;;~::~~:-?-:;::':~;:~~;;?:>>:~~;;::::.'::~~:::::~:::i:~:;,~i:~~~;~;:${;~:<.::~~;~~;>:~":"~:::~~.::~:::~:.::::~:;~:::~:.:.~&::;~::::;~~:~:~;~:~:~:~:;;;;;::;~;;>.;~;;;:::;;:;;;;>,:;*..
August 28, 2007
(Final Revised)
PreDared By:
EXPIRES: JUNE 30. 2009
BRANCH ENGINEERING. INC.
. .
310 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Phone (541) 746-0637
Fax (541) 746-0389
Project No. 07-015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARy...................... .......... .................................... 1
2. RESPONSE TO COMPLETENESS REVIEW COMMENTS................2
3. INTRODUCTIO N .......................... .................. ............ .............. .......... 5
4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 7
Site Characteristics ..... H...... .... ............ ...................... .... ....... ........... 7
Site Access........................................................................... .......... 8
Intersection Sight Distance...... ....... .................. .:....... ............ .......... 8
5. EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................ ................................. ......... 10
Roadway Network.... ............ ............... ....................... ...... ........ ..... 10
Transit Facilities .... .........n..... ......................... ............. ..... ............. 10
Crash Analysis ................ ..... .......................... ...................... ......... 10
Non-motorized Facilities........... .......................... .............. ............. 12
Existing Traffic Volumes...........................................................;.... 12
Intersections. . .. . .... . ... . ... . . .. .... .. . . ..... . . .. . . . .. . . ... . .... .. .... . . . . .. .. . .. . ... . .. . . ... 14
6. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................16
Planned Transportation Facility Improvements ............................. 16
G ro vvth .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. 16
Trip Generation........................... .................................................. 19
Trip Distribution ......... .................. ......... ..... ..................... ............... 20
Traffic Assignment........................................... ............................. 20
7. iNTERSECTION PERFORMANCE .................................................. 27
Mobility Standard ............................................................,.... ......... 27
8. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE .......................................... 30
9. M rTIGA TION...................... ...................................... ..... .................... 33
10. RECOMMENDA nONS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................35
LIST OF FIGURES
f:~;;:~S,~:::;::.~.C;:;;::j.~::~;:'::':';:;:;::;:,;:.:;:::;:;;;;.:;::;;:;:;:::~;:;;::;;::;:;>::::~.;::::'~:'::'::;:~:.:::;y:{.:::;:::;~:'::':.:;:;;_:::;;,::::::;:::~;;;;::;::;:;;.:;:::;:::;:;:;:::;~;:;:;;:::;:;:;::::;::;:~-:,::;:;:;:;:;'.;;;';:::;::.:::~;;;;:::X-;::::::::::,;:::;:::;;;::::6':?;;::;:::;;:::;:::;:;:::;:::::;.~;:-Y.'{(;:>>;:;%<:<:-').$:;x,>~:;.~;:*.;:*:~;;.x;:;~.};..:;};;..g;>>:{"
Figure 1 :
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Location Map. ....... ......... ...................................... ............ ......6
Conceptual Site Plan ............................;................................9
Crash Data: River Road at Hunsaker Lane.......................... 11
Year 2007 'Existing' Traffic Volumes
(PM Peak Hour) .................................................................... 13
Existing Transportation System ........................................... 15
Future Year 2008 'No Build' Traffic Volumes
(PM Peak Hour) ................................................................... 17
Future Year 2022 'No Build' Traffic Volumes
(PM Peak Hour) .................................................:................. 18
Assignment of PM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic
(Existing Designation) ........................ .......................... ........21
Year 2008 'Build' PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Existing Designation) ........................................ ............. ..... 22
Figure 10: Year 2022 'Build' PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Existing Desigllstion) .......................................................... 23
Figure 11: Assignment of PM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic
(Proposed Designation).............. ....................... ................... 24
Figure 12: Year 2008 'Build' PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Proposed Designation)........................................................ 25
Figure 13: Year 2022 'Build' PM Peak Hour Traffic Volullles
(Pro posed Designation)........................................................ 26
Figure 14: Recommended Mitigated Transpoliation System .............. 34
LIST OF TABLES
l:~~;<:~~';'-:,;.o~k~::~;~'~;:::::::::::,'::,~;:;:;:;:k~:,:~:-::;:;~;...;~:;:~::::>::~.:<:<<~;:;;~~.;:~.;::;;.;::.;:::;':';:;':';':~;':':';':'i-;.:.;.;.;~~~:~::~_t?.&i{>&~:.t.A..;-t,,,<"0~~:;':'>:S';;::;~;:;:;:::::;i~:::~:'Xi;~:';:.:&';_~::::;::Zi.{;{:~:;:..j''f.~;;:~::':-::;:::;;.,:,:~:~::-:;~::;.:~.::::::;::::::.:>.x;:~:;:;~::.::g.6:;:;~;:;:;:::;:;5:::;:;;:;{::.:;t,(,:~{~::::/x::,,'<;;:::
Table 1: Zoning Designations ............................................................... 7
Table 2: Accident History .. .... .... ...........n .... .... ....... ......... .................... 11
Table 3A: Trip Generation (Existing Designations) ..................."......... 19
Table 38: Trip Generation (Proposed Designations) ........................... 20
Table 4: Trip Distribution ................................,.................................... 20
Table 5: Level of Service Criteria ....................................................... 27
Table 6: Mobility Standard ... .............................................................. 28
Table 7: Intersection Performance Results ........................................ 29
Table 8: Mitigated Intersection Performance Results......................... 33
LIST OF APPENDICES
;,/< <<.:::;::':::::;::::)-':-::;:;~;;::~;::;::<:;,:~;::: :.:.:<;~;:.;.;.:-.>>;~>;~;.;-;;>:.-;,>;;;.;
,;:;:;,:::,:;;;;:'::;.:~-::":::.::<<;;x~;;:x;:;:7;~~;t::~
.~~_.-..
,?;:;;,;:;:;;x:::::_~:::: :.;;:,,";:::.~ ::.:;::::::~.:':;;;::.;<-:
.;,:,:,:;;,,;.:,:.:,:c-.:.;.;.:.:, ;.>;.>>:->;.:.;.;.;
AppencUx A: City of Eugene Analysis Scoping Checklist
Appendix B: Lane Transit District Route Schedules
Appendix C: ODOT Crash Data
Appendix D: Traffic Count Summaries
,Appendix E: Growth Data
Appendix F: ITE Trip Generation Data
Appendix G: OH P Mobility Standard
Appendix H: Intersection Perfonnance Calculations
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
.....N.',A....';.'."N.....'-'""V"'.v.V,/,.^.;"^^^'vv..._''''....V.,,:,.,,~,,v,..v.v'...",.....,.....,...:...,.,.,.,.,.:.,';........~.'<......_..._._................v.-....,..."V",A"."~.,..~..;>:,",:,,..+;~.;.;v,~_v.....~.v.-_..>'..............,.,....v.............."'''v.....""...,.....,"".".",<,,~""'.,..+,........................,.......,...._..'......T..""..,'._....._.
PAGE 1 OF 36
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Description
Th's t'c,v'sed T"affi" I'~'p"'f't A nahrs's 11"S t"'e>~l' ,..,rAnal''''d J'n r"'''I~Otl''P. to CA,n..,..,"'nt" "'<>c""v>>A ~"'n tIle Cl'l-\l
1.-' ,'YL J. -tvU.l.J. (..I."""" :.01.. 'J.}.1. l,.\. ,I ''''''1t'1'1o"o1.1' "" ..1..1.,-,'::)3,.Jv ....JJ..l.U..J.!......,l.f.\...>J.""' w.L""':UliV.1.L" .....,/
of Eug~ne, Oregon Department of Transportation and Lane County. This analysis addresses the
applicable comments, imd the scopes supplied by these agencies, for the fomler Santa Clara Elementary
School site redevelopment in north Eugene. The proposed 9 acre redevelopment site is planned to be
constructed in multiple phases comprising of a mix of commercial and residential uses, The cun-ent
zone change and plan amendment application are the first step in a multi-phase process to ultimately
develop the properties to a mixed use commercial and residential center.
Traffic
The proposed changes in zoning could potentially generate 60 additional PM peak hom vehicle trips
when compmlng reasonable worst case development scenarios with and without the proposed zone
cha.'1ge and plan amendments. 'With City, County and State concurrence, the folIO\ving intersections
were e\'aluated for potential operational issues associated with the proposed development Hu'ough the
planning 1101iz011 year of 2022:
.:. River Road at Hunsaker LanelIrving Road
.:. River Road at Green Lane
.:+ Site i\ccesses
Results
In summary, the proposed development is not projeck>:d to cause significant adverse impact to the
operational characteristics of the applicable transportation infi-astructure, provided the recommended
mitigation measures are implemented to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed
development.
i@-'r;:s".Hi':j),;',}
'....:~ 1_.. ,.,.., .,J
L.,. ,'_.___._ .
Engil!.e(~'rjng, Jnc.
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment PAGE 2 OF 36
""""><><:'><":"':'><.'.;'.,A~><-v,_...:><...,.v.<.v.."'.?"_".-"...,'.....v..v..,...~'......'.v.v........".".'.~.,...:.,....,,"',",,,,,,,,,,_~,_,,,~,,><,,,o("v,>:""-"""">;~"_T_N''''.A.A.......',,,,''''.'hVNV.."'.-.......'.'.......-'......:.......-..."",,-.~',,><""",,.~,_><x._>c-, ,.><"~~><';K">_.'''';.;''''><;<><~.".v.:<.'-v,,>.><v.'''''Y.'..'v.).._~.........',.>""'.........,...,.."-..........."......................"..-...'.'01'.....'.......'....................,,-......""^^^'..'.<o..
2. RESPONSE TO COMPLETENESS REVIEW COMMENTS
Memo dated March 22, 2007 - Gary McNeel, City of Eugene Sr. Transportation Analyst
i\.fter r~'vie\ving the comrnents presented b:rr the C,it:y of Eugene, I resr~ectfulI-Jr offer tl1e fol1o\ving
summary of revisions:
1. The conclusion has been modified to represent the results of the revised analysis.
2. The analysis has been revised to assume only right-inl1ight-out movements at the River Road
access. Also, a nOlih/south shopping street connecting Hunsaker Road. and Green Lane has been
incorporated into the study assumptions.
3. The analysis has been revised to assume only right-inlright-out movements at the River Road
access. Additionally, the eastbound movements from the north and south site accesses have been
shown in the assiglUllent of site generated tratnc. All allo\vable uses in the proposed C-2 Zone
were reconsidered, and the respective published tlip generation rates \vere compared to assume
the reasonable worst case development scenario. Although a medical dental office generates
slightly more trips than a shopping center when view'ed as a stand-alone use, \vhen reviewing the
typical uses that were surveyed in referenced sources used in the tlip generation manual, it was
found that the shopping center uses typically include higher tratnc generators such as dlo1've-in
banks, retail stores, and restaurants. Small office buildings \vere also sited as peripheral
buildings observed in some of the surveyed shopping centers. Some other high trip generating
allowable uses included grocery and convenience stores, which are already represented in this
area, and would not be expected to develop on this propeliy. It is our opinion that the shopping
center represents a reasonable worst case development scenario. 111e maximum potential floor
areas \Vere determined by the project planners and architects. It includes parking areas. building
setbacks, and other pertinent design elements. Previously, 100,000 square feet of gross leasable
floor area was assumed. As the site design has evolved and land use codes ha\'e been applied, the
buiiding areas have decreased. The resulting shopping center gross leasable Hoor area is 90,000
square feet.
4. Projected tratlic volumes in the year 2022 scenarios ha\'e been rounded to the nearest 5.
5. Intersection perfol111ance has been reevaluated using 11CM2000 methodology, and LOS has been
used for CIty faei lities.
6. The conclusion has been updated, based on the recommended mitigation measures,
A copy ofMr. J\tfcNeel's comments is included in Appendix 'A'.
-(@JJ_~_(~~~_.._....}~_l~lg i.n e ~rillg, LIt t
August 28, 2007
!.~.:!~?<~<>.~~,~~.~,! ~~~.L :~.I?: Sant~ Clar~qS.ch?ol Sjt~ Redevelopment PAGE 3 OF 36
~ . . . ... ,- "-'<..l<. ~ .~.'- .x '" ._.v. ...., A.,.<.,.. ^...."".y.",,'^', -',,,v........". .,.....,.......,....,........,... ,,,.<'."",,'.... '>..A.~,... ....... "..".,u._.">.."~n."""".":<":<""x.,x,.",,,;+;o,......,.;,,,".,,><.v/_"......_..._.""'<".".:<~..'o.......""..............N..'.'.V".......<'....~..,..".."./'"..;..'N................v...................'<",.................,v.'.'....','..
Memo dated March 23, 2007 - Ed Moore, AICP, ODOT Sr. Region Planner
After revievving the comments presented by ODOT Region Planning, I respectfully offer the following
summary of revisions:
1. The intersections previously evaluated were chosen by the City of Eugene in their scoping
checklist. As requested, \ve have contacted the Lane County to detel1l1me ifthey had concems
beyond the City's scope, and they have concwTcd with the proposed scope. The only State
facility within the area of influence is the River Road! Be1tline Highway interchange. It has
been detennined that the amount of development generated traffic potentially impacting the
interchange \\iould be \vithin nonnal day-ta-day fluctuations (less than one percent), and
therefore 'vas considered insignificant.
2. The planning horizon year has been confirmed with all three applicable agencies, and the year
2022 was mutually agreed to.
3. The only State facility within the area of influence is the River Road! Beltline Highway
interchange. It has been detemlined that the amount of development generated traffic potentially
impacting the interchange would be \vithin normal day-to-day tluctuations (less than one
percent), and therefore was considered insignificant.
4. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes are typically provided in traffic studies tor informational
purposes, and the most recent available data was presented. None of the analysis was based 011
the ADT data, and recent design hour volumes were obtained as required.
). PM peak hour is ty1Jically evaluated as the design hour by transportation professionals, and the
City of Eugene requested that hour be evaluated. Lane County ha-s approved the scope as well.
There was 110 seasonal adjustment perfom1ed, as this site is yvithil1 an urban area, and is not
adjacent to a recreational route or higln:vay.
The conclusion has been updated based (111 the revised analysis.
A copy ofMr. Jvloore's comments is included in Appendix 'A'.
i(j~~) I~I'i::nch EIlg-ilwf'ring, In::
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC fMPACT ANAL Y8IS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 4 OF 36
~""'A">'-:""""""""""""""""""":"'''''''''''''''':."",,,,,._,,:.:<,-,,.,;.;.:.,,,,,:.)<,,;<,,,,~,>(,:,,,,,,,-,><,,,,,,>(,,.:,:.;>._=:<,,,~x:<",_,,.,,..,,,'.:'."...v:<:<.:<"",,"":<.....v,_,.."....<','.......'v...'......'".v.v..v....'v,....,......,.,'.'..,........"-',NA.N.,,,,.,,......."'...._........'..."'...................'^^'^'~,.'.."'.'.,.,....-.-...,...h......vYV.....Vh....,."..k'''.'''.:..,c">.-''''-''''''-,;,>;"'-,,.-,,.,~,;.,.,.'.."""""".,,,,.,:.....:...,,,,,,
Memo dated AprH 9,2007 Stephen B. Wilson, P.E., ODOT Senior Traffic Analyst
After reviewing the comments presented by ODOT Region Traffic, I respectfully offer the following
summary of revisions:
1. The gro\\'th rate ha.<:; been adjusted as requested.
2. The existing designation assumptions have been modified as requested.
3. TI1e proposed designation assumptions have been confirmed and slightly adjusted.
4. Trip distribution assumptions have been confim1ed.
5. HCM2000 methodology has been applied.
6. 'No-build', 'existing zoning build" and 'proposed zoning build' scenarios have been evaluated
under the year 2007.
7. Division 60 Cliteria have been reevaluated based on the revised analysis.
8. The conclusions have been updated based on the revised analysis.
9. HCM2000 methodology has been applied.
A copy of Mr. Wilson's comments is incl uded in Appendix 'A'.
i~Lrl:;~;:l_!L~l__X~~t~_~l~~~!~~l~
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 5 OF 36
"~'-"-':''''~''''.''''','-~,'':'-'';'-'''''''';';'''''"-''..-';+''''',,,....."....,.v.'"V'+v.""..J".._'.'.'....,~._.._.>-.,."'._.......,.'......._............,.,..'.."'........^.....,.".-,."<.'.""'^.......:.,....,,..,""-....-,,=...',,"'~"";...,.:....", "':"':"''''''''''''':''''''''',',''.'_'''''''';V.'.-''''''>.Y.'."'."..,."'._...v"'_.......v......'^..v.v.v,v""v,'...v.v,.,..-,v..~""',.-.v..v.v,.,........"...."""."''"'.,."",.:.;.:.;".;"..",,,,':>.'.k"'.'.>.....'.'.'.'.'.
3.
INTRODUCTION
Branch Engineering Inc. has been retained by Santa Clara Properties to evaluate potential traffic impacts
associated 'vvith the proposed zone change and plan amendment applications in north Eugene. . This
repOli sttives to meet or exceed the :t:equirements as presented in the City of Eugene's approved scoping
checklist dated January, 172007, the Lane County Scope received on April 16, 2007: and the ODOT
confu111ation of scope received on June 22, 2007 (see Appendix A). Although this analysis is intended
to address City of Eugene Code Section 9.8675, and City Administrative Order 58-02-02, a development
specific trafilc impact analysis could be justified, if the development assumptions change signiticantly in
future land use applications.
Included in this analysis is a summary of existing and proposed transportation infrastructure,
dOCl1l11ented existing traffic volumes, projected future traftic volumes, and intersection perf()lTIlunce !
capacity projections at relevant intersections \\lith and \vithout the pi'oposed de,;elopment.
Figure 1 depicts the location and extent of the proposed redevelopment area.
=;~. Bn{ !:~)..~~L~~ i l.~!~:::.l~i.~~g,)~l.~..
August 28,2007
r
I
!
I
VICINITY MAP
EUGENE, OREGON
\
~.T.:.
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
I
I
FIGURE 1 i
~ }
- u u - u_ -- - --- - ------ \~l ~ranch _~~gine~ring,_ Inc.~/
~~/
~-"':
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
~"'~~"'~,""-v..~;'..q .'.......9 _._..__....u..._'.'-"_.,'_.~. NoA.........vvv...,,,.. ."",,,.>-,.-.<"~-,,,,,,.. ,:."N.'.'.:.:">,,,..>,,:.,,,~>.y'" "", ""':"'V'~''^'.v.'''V'''' _ v.....'.....v....-.w""..".:".. ~.:'.>,._ ~,,~."'.:"'.;", ..v."...... ~.<".."'__. .."._v.-....,......-.."'.........'........"""Y",c""....,...""''''",:""~""""':''''''''''.,~'''V,";''<,'''~_<__~.'..''''........".'...'. .........
PAGE 7 OF 36
4.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed 9 acre redevelopment site is planned to be constructed in multiple phases comprising of a
mix of commercial and residential uses. The detailed site planning \vould be expected to taI,':e place after
the applications for zone change and plan amendment have been processed; hovvever there has been
ongoing site planning occun-ing.
The limits of redevelopment include Assessor's Map 17-04-11-44, Tax Lots 200, 300, 400, 501, 601,
and 1900, and Assessor's Map 17-04-11-41, Tax Lots 9100,9200 and 9300.
,.
Site Characteristics
The propeliies are generally flat and have been historically developed \vith an automobile lubrication
service, a single family dwelling, an elementary school and the associated improvements. The school
has been tor the most pari demolished, and there are remnants of activity structures and sprnis facibties.
The lube service facility and the single family dwelling are cUlTently occupied, but are expected to be
demolished prior to redevelopment. The actual construction has not been scheduled, but full occupancy
could be reasonably expected \\lithin fIve years. Redevelopment is dependant on the proposed changes
in zoning and plan designations. The fonowing tables summarize the existing and proposed
designations for the propeliy's zoning:
--------------~-~ .__'~.~~~.~t; ~ ,~: ~~~1#~,J~~~.ij9!~l~~~Z:~.:~i:f:.~::..: -~-;:..J.';.;..: _..':.J~.~;~
" - : "
i Map: 17.04.11.44 17 ~O4-11-41
Assessors Ii
Lot Number: 200 300 400 501 601 1900 9100 9200 9300
Area (acres) n -.., 1.26 I 0.82 017 I 0.24 1.33 '"'I '1) I O.7:J. 0.65
...J/ :>.-...
------- ~-- _'.__ _____n_
Existing Zoning f>T C-1 ('-2 R.J PL
...L
Proposed Zoning I C-2!SR R-2 (,-2iSR
i
=-.-.".--:-..:.=._----==---=--"":.-=.."-.+_._---...""--""._------".-------.._"":."":.-=_"::'_..:......-..._-.-.--=-..... , __.v~.7_=.:.-=~~_=:.::.-....=_..:.-=-_'_="'c;_:.=-_-.-=_
i~~2' n:: h Eng~!l:~'f:~l}I.~Ln.Jl:l!:.n
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 8 OF 36
'.".'A .......v..,"',,,...:.,.:.L.'''.:,:.,.,.:.:.:.,,...,,,,,, "-'-.': ""..,,,.,,.-.;......".......9...0;-..'.....',,.'" '.' -.'.....'...v~.,..'~.......~",", "......,:. '."...~"',:". L.;,""".:. ."""'.:".:...;o;.............'''.;....V......^............V,' ," .'."""-,,,.'.' ,..-._^'":,>;,,~,,,,"" .>".."';<:<"X>o<Y."_y.o<~""".,:<...>,"'-..,,,,-.,,.......... . '." './'.V'"v."V,,'.- ..........b.'U'"'' " '...,.:",:, :'.' .~-..":,.,,'^....^.^.~.V.'_.,,.......'...........'.......V.............A...-
Site Access
There are five existing private driveways serving the numerous properties, two on River Road, t\:vo on
Green Lane, and one on Hunsaker Drive.
Based on City standards, and existing improvements in place, it is likely there wiII be one major access
point on the east side of River Road at approximately mid block, t'\\'o evenly spaced access points on the
south side of Hunsaker Lane, and two aI:cesses (opposite each other) on the n01ih and south sides of
Green Lane. A north/south private shopping street through the site between Hunsaker Road and Green
Lane is cunently assumed. As required in the scope, the River Road access was assumed to be restricted
to right-in/right-out movements. For analysis purposes, the site access to Hunsaker Lane was evaluated
as one single full movement approach. Justification for additional accesses \vithin the influence area of
the River Road tmffic signal should be verified during the site preview process.
The "shopping street" with plivate intemal parking lot cOlli1ectiol1s \\'ill be designed and constructed in
the future to serve the development. The location and character of these streets and accesses should be
detennined in the site review or similar land use application process.
Intersection Sight Distance
All proposed site access locations are within urban areas on streets with re1ativeI:y low speeds. City and
County vision clear zones have been included on the site plan, and should be conl1rmed during the site
reVIew process.
'nIe site plan is conceptually illustrated in Figure 2
i@..IlL~i.nCli Eng1Lle.~rjn#, be
August 28, 2007
_______.P..-=~~.~.::_~~ MW:;:~A'iW,f".:;:,.
~ :~
~~ t) .
<:
.
o>r-
~R~
!IllS-
,,11
~'::~
,sol(
:r~ )'
-"s,
l;l/
~m~
0&
-"~ .-
i ~
~h
~.zi
~~l
*II-~
<lf~~
$..Q
~H
h~
~g a;
it"
~u..li
h~
I) c(r
~~K
~o"
~s~
;:;Ie
J~o
H
(f> (I'
".::j- ~>
m Z
--1
n _1>--
~ P
(l 1>
m --n
-1) J<J
--1 l>-
€€J
~
:r:
()
()
,-
U)
----l
m
".:.{
X
m
U
c
(f>
IT!
(l
()
:.r
:l
IT!
IU
(l
l>-
r
1J
rn
-<"
ni
r
()
-lJ
-(
in
z
----I
:~' [l"1 Wi:
: .. @
L.___ _____J [~r~
~ ~~ ~~
~ !i!~ ~~
" ~z 1>'
!;; '" ,-
"'1
W. fli R';
I 1 \ t ._)
__;__ L_U __~..J
~2 ~ ;jl
.@ ~
'1 ~
"~ .. ;;-
11 :;- z
-~ '" z
Q
!l Iii
~
';r-
'1'1m
'1;\
,m
i;0
;;
ii
I
~
"
I
"
"
'I
--
---
~-
~-
. ~"'\~
'(',<0'"'
--
--
~
_/
(
I
I
I
,
/
!
,--
0>
1 ~
,
I
......-..
,1
( I
, I
\
I l'e.;-
I ._J;'R~
L--~......---'-..;....-4 ~~
;<jr
: ~~
! ~
..
&
~
@ @
m "i ~ ~
o "~ \il
W. ~g
~ .K
&~
~H
~ ~i
fa p..;:
<; a
.
.-
J
l
r!
I
S'
s,
l
"
n
-0
l
.
it
;l
'i
~
~
g
r-
I
I
.
I
I
I
...~....
---- ..... ,--
@ @
f'i
~g
'" R S.
~ ~~.
Ii
;~
~,r
~~
:.;.
J!
if
~s
[~
~~
.
~ '
"~
ii>
~~
oj
"f5
~
~ ~ ~i' ~
p k.: il1
~ "- ~~ ~
~ ~~~: ~
~ Hi i
to .~ ~
.11_'-
~-3 2-
'0 1 ~
~~ a
~t~
[l:
~t~
~1'!
~l~
~f~ ~~
H~
~~(r
~H
F~
I~h
<0
-"
H
..~
1~
~~-
~~
,~
~
f
~~I:i'l'
~?=1. I
12m ,I
(~)
~!
~i;j
"j!
J!~
;;),-
'i
--~
G
; ~"~"
il1
"() ~.~
s~~
m~~
~,~
~ 0..
.~~:
o.~
~a
~~
a~
.~
So
p:
Oja
~"
J~
r
~i
~~
li.,d
2~
~
~
Kl
~
~ ~unu
~ ~~~[L~
goo UJ. ~:!
g ~:~J~~~
ill .i<;By~
.. ~~~-~~~g
~~&.~i2~
.~r 0..
~ f ~ BJ i1
~; Hili ~ ~
~~.g'~~!~
a",~.j:W<f
~ r J; -~ Z2
:iJ~'~~i [
&l~i ~J~~
~Fn; a
~~i~!~
; 2~ ~ ~~ ..
'l- ,,--- -.. ;{
~~~~~~[
'-i~il.gi
Q~~~n
dodo
~ ~ tlf ~
ah~"-&
giKH~
~~'~~~f'
~ (\ ~ ~
s. ,~"
--
--
I"
(~
{;\
e
~
@ @
~ [~H ~
; Ha ~
~ ~~h ~
III l;]l;- ~
6-< ~~~~ ~
-, ~ ~~
~ H;a
'" ;,2"u",
[too"gQ-
:t'" ..
-oU;
p~~
~~~g
~9"f-.4J
~ ;-=2-
~;:~
~!tl"
~ ~,-~
, -<-2' ~
! ':~
-r~~
'C
~;~
&~&
q~i
~g[
. ,
H
i!
--
@
HH B H f
, , . . , , ' . ~~ ~ R 1 ..,., f 3' ~
\l'~;e:;:n:s-:r!;:;,'~-. ~ !i .;e~""'"<I.':1O ,
. 9-"':-i n {jo....t.: (Jo Ii ~ :::r .Il .........\')...1\0
~~~NHHt',~ i 1lJH~~~ "
H!llg[H~~ ~ iHl~n ~
~~;-})-~<il',>~~, 1l1&~_ili~"--
~3~~." {?{t)R*R)o ;~~. *,..s~
~~~~F ~~>.~--o .g ~J~~
~;! ~ li~~~_l II Ift~
. 0' ~ ~." *' ~.' ~
i,g. ~.Io ".
"J.~. ~-,~_$ ~5 i'~ ,-
~~'O i Jlf-o~il' ~g~" ~
.~. I lat~ .~ --. ·
~ ~ u s ~Jg -g ~ E ~
al ~. ~~~g"~" ~!"[ ~
I~ ! !til; ~I I
.~ ~~~~~ '~ '
1. ~.t.. 1.
~ [~.R ~~ ~
!l .:: 6"~ q, I,. ~
~ ~Q H;; :B
~ !a~: .
~ :S'~ ~ ~
! ".~ ~ 1
![~~ .
~ t <{
~ ~
11.-
r
@
nt
'~~~~~~l
hil:~"th
~~~...s..,.,t;~
. ,to < . ~ ~ '
.;; ~ >1!"" g ~
H2.1~,,~
,."S~I!';;tl
~hg ~ ~
!~~~~H
g%H~~
~J S,t i'-
~!t :th;;
~;; ~o~i
~.~ ~h"
~~ It:.[
~~ ~H
~ ~ 1il ~
;y ~<6'
~ U!.
! "f
t~
h
It'<
0:-""
~
@
e
rs>
:;;
lIT
111
r'
'!l
~
-.
rs>
~_' Pi~ :Ii
1 '~"(S[\I":! ~
~ N~a';&H
~ i~~ll ~,~~ ~
j ~,'I~;;;-~~ :}!
!'l r&_;, U ~ a ~ ~
~~~t_~~&i~ i
~~~r~~.~ l'
'h. .~~~ r.
~Jt; 50~1: l\
" . it.
~~t ~t~ ~
In l,:1
'.s ,,~
~ -~ F~~
,~ ~[O
11. ?~ ~
~! :~~
~ [ ~"~J
, u~
~ 0 ,; g 0
~ iE
~R~'
f~'~
!H
~n
"
]J
o
C
::0
m
l\)
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 10 OF 36
5.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway Network
The relevant roadways for this study are:
.:. River Road
.:. Hunsaker Lane
.:. Green Lane
River Road is functionally classified as a major artedal street. It runs north-south connecting Eugene to
Junction City. In the project area, it has five vehicle travel lanes, including two northbound, two
southbound, and a center turn lane. The posted speed in theproject vicinity is 35 MPH. There are 011-
street bicycle lanes and sidewalks in place in the area ofinterest.
Hunsaker Lane is a major collector roadway. connecting River and Irving Roads to Division A venue. It
is not improved with sidewalks, curb, or gutter. The posted speed is 35 MPH.
Green Lane is an unimproved east-\vest local residential street 'vvithout sidewalks or bicycle lanes. The
Posted speed is 25 MPH.
Transit Facilities
The proposed redevelopment area is serviced regularly by Lane Transit District (LTD) Routes 51, 52,
and 55. There is direct access to bus stops that are regularly served by these routes adjacent to the
project site. Specifically, there is an existing bus tum-out on the River Road site tl'ontage. The cun-ent
LTD route schedule is included in Appendix B
Crash Analysis
An analysis of crash history \vas perfonned tor the relevant existing studied intersections. The most
recent available tbTce full years of crash data was evaluated (January 1,2004 th.rough December 31,
2006 as supplied by ODOT and January 1,2003 through December 31,2005 as supplied by the City of
Eugene).
During the period of analysis, there was a total of 62 crashes at the Hunsaker Lane/River Road
intersection. This results in a calculated rate of 1.69 per rnillion entering vehicles, which is relatively
hi!!:h. Thirtv-one of the crashes were rear-end collisions which are not unusual at signalized
~). ~
intersections. Ho\vever, 21 of the crashes included turning movements that are not as acceptable.
Detailed review and site observations suggests that most of the tum-movement related crashes are
;~';, " 1'1"; l;i"},
'. :00, " 'A }". ',.<.
y'mmu.
En.g~r~_~~~~Ei~lg~ II1C.
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 11 OF 36
',,,,,/.':"'''':':''~<^''l<.~.~.'.,,~,,,,,_'.,,, '",,,,,,,,,,,,~.,,,..M"_'''-''',y,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,',,,^''''''Vv'.v.'''''',,"'."'..",'.:'"."..,.v,,,,,,.,.;.:. ',,,,.,.:.,,,,,.,.,,,.;. "";'''''''''~'''>'X>''.V''.N'.MN',V''^V^ VhV...."....-.:.:.,.,.,.:"...,.:.,.:......>;......."'_""",,^..<"^,"'.../v>.-.v...................................,.:.. ':"'-':"""""'''''',~''''''''''''''~Y.~'''''' _.....^........'>I'........"""..<.......-",..""v-'.,.~ ""~""";:"~":.,,"",,..y..:,,....'...........'" .v....-........
related to drivers not yielding to the right-of-way of another vehicle, and one half of those involved a
pennissive lefHul11 signaL
Figure 3 shows the crash data at the River Road and Hunsaker Lane intersection,
Im'RI\!ei~'ltd - & H urisaIZei~llrving .mmh'h-c:~a'se1Iyt IS{m!
I 62 Accidents . .. 01/01/95 - 12/31/05 !
-~--_._----_.. .___...n_..________u_._____u_u.._____u_________.__~.;.______.n.______." ...._._u.n___~.___............_____.___._U_h__n______________.
I~ I~ f~ Ii (f~ I~
- _. _._- -.... -
(<')tb--~"O'",.....
o 0 00 0 0
}~ ," I" fA.;:!; f'"
t.~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~
...... '(") N -_ .0
a:> -- -. ~ -...
o 8 ~ ~ ~
p; J~
l~ t~
! ~
"""'_re26WC6'05
>;. L~1SOO y--
~G4I05'04 011C6'03
L CL ,"11/22'03 -0:;;;;
O4il~ .v
. 1Q'mro
LCBi23i03 .
~~
;WOOlCD..... .. .ro:28i{}\
.....'f~
. .,~
I fig
)'" )" ~~ ,.., .; <0''''' \'" t .,.,
0' co" 0 0 C 0
-.-- ............................ --"-..
Q') ....- ,"=t" C} tl)~CO to t.()
:? ~~.:: t: S2 ~ !2!2
g,2 g;,g; \~ t; ;g i;g
i
04i~ )
fJS17.'O:-,-)
t"' i'"
"" a
~ ~
C<J .,.....
; ~ .(Zi
:: 0 C
~'H"n....h..-n.._ un
I'" f"'I'"'
.~ ,~ ~
g ~ ~
l~
'l~. ...........
r ~~
T " 10'V;:n mi($;U5 07.iffiI'-5
trf=
07110103:-)
12f171O:L.../i
03'04i~~
. 01!~~:l I
C5'31JD3 ~
I
I
f'" f" 1" tv
o 0 C 0"
'~g ~ G .~..
- - -. 1--
U1 ro :..... l.('J
0- 10 (:') 0:
l~ t~ f~ #~ 1~
;8 b 18~j8 h
.::::::::::':'::'::':.::'::.::: ::::ji:;!~g;:r1]Hi:jtLJQJ:~Qllij~ill.$:wftfj:Ir.l~Jffj ~JI~tjr :Qi;)n,,: :fq)' :Q!ro !?Y: ::::.. :~:::'::::.::::::::'::':~::::
4--- Straight
~-I Stopped
Unknown
<-Backing
~ Overtaking
~ Sides\vipe
iIIiII:tn(tJ.~':::::i:H.f:f)~.::lItl.f..i::Ei~,.;m..
~ Parked
~ Erratic
~ Out of control
't:~ Rjght turn
;r- Left turn
~ U-turn
Pedestrian
X Bicycle
C Injury
@ Fatality
Nighttime
r', DUl
FLxed objects:
o CR:neral
!ll Signal
il!l T f et~
o Pole
~ Curb
2 Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Figure 3: Crash Data River Road at Hunsaker Lane
""IT T T h~.t-_&filj-ma:TI-:Mr~:t.:l;uw_:o~::.mr;r-~>>.-IliRiHli::4.:};1~g.r.mtJtiC31
As. indicated abcn'e, there \vere 1 7 crashes that inc1 uded injuries. The remainders \vere reported as
.. .
property damage only (PDO). There \vere no reported crashes at Green Lane and River Road
intersection during the period of analysis.
=~.... n..;
. ,.... ... .... 1"~" I [.' I
i, _ l.~: ; L'~ (d..... 1...
r'li'iT:!C'(~r;n(l irv
.u.i C. -.... '- - 1..~:. -- '-
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 12 OF 36
The ODOT and city of Eugene crash data are included as Appendix C.
Non~Motorized Facilities
As indicated previously, River Road is fully improved with bicycle lanes and sidewalks fronting th~ site.
Green and Hunsaker Lanes have not been improved w'ith these facilities.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADI) volumes \vere obtained iI'om the most recent City ofEugelle
Trame Flow Map. Traffic counts are based on typical weekday 24 hour counts. The ADT on the
relevant roadways in the project vicinity are as fo11O\vs:
Roadwa\(
River Road
Hunsaker Lane
Green Lane
ADT
20,600
6,800
830
The ADT on Green Lane was estimated to be ten times observed PM peak hour volumes, as there '.vas
no available pub 11 shed data, The ADT is presented for infcH111ation purposes only.
Existing PI'll peak hour trafEc volumes '.vere detennined by'manual traffi.c counts conducted by Branch
Engineerjpg staff in January arid February of 2007 (see Appendix D). The counts \-vere taken bet\veen
4:00 and 6:00 PM on typical weekdays. Results of the counts indicate that the evening peak hour
occurred fro111 5:00 to 6:00 PM. The PM peak hour is commonly evaluated as the design hourhy
transportation professionals, and was the only peak hour identified in the Agency Scope. Seasonal
adjustments to the observed volumes vvere not considered necessary, as the development site is in an
urban enviromnent and is not on a recreational route or high\vay.
Figure 4 shows the existing PM peak hour traffic volumes.
~@~~_~_IJ~(~_ll.uEn gil~:~.I:il~g_:.J]_lL
August 28, 2007
Y-EAR 2007 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(PM PEAK HOUR)
--~
\
!
~~
/ 410,"23 '"
~ ~tl.. ~
85 j -L 444-
22 --to- ........ 136
. 220 -. t 87 /
\ z;J t r;;
1091
/~""~ -f
I ! Y
( J
\ / PRfV.L\ TE
\. t 1
\.." / DRiVE
"'-~_//
~
I
!
i
I
i
l N.T.S.
'--u
iRViNG ROAD
~--,
/ ~
I \
( \
I 102 --to- ...... 667 I
\ )
///~\" /1
/ ~--_//
//
HUNSAKER LANV/
~/
\
II
"
"'"
',-
"-.
"'-
" ..---------.,
.'-.. / '-,
''-.. // .~"-
'-"" "-
/ \
I \
I \
I \
I 33 ~ -- so I
\ i
\ f
\. /
~ //
'" ./
'............._----_......----~
/
/
;1
I
/...,---.------1........
// 1127 ""
9 I 11 ~
/ ~*l.. \
I 4-' t..29 \
\17t r-21)
\ ~t~ /
~g 22/'
'-.'" 1 386 /'
---_.--/
I
!
i
Branch Engineering, m~_~~._/~I
F'I G URE 4 __',
_m __om __ ~~/. ~,\\
\ !S I
~~
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 14 OF 36
'.-, y ^.:,..:"^".:.:.......:.:.:.~"x...,,N<...-..,,~,."v.',..........v....... ...."N'.^.^..........."""'.."....~.:>:"'..,.,,:.^"~ x^~~:,~"':O,.;..''''''''''N ..'^'......"'.,._....._'..'..........V<.".._....'..."......-cA_A_A".",,~"x>:>:>.~~;<~.,,"''''.~-''....._'.....'''.~,....'......'...'._...''',....:y:".-~',:,-^~""~x,.">.~.~^".:.."',.....~.....:'..._...,,._.__..........,'-.
Intersections
With City of Eugene and Lane County conculTence, perfonnance was evaluated at the following
intersections to determine if the proposed zone change and plan amendments would significantly impact
these transpOIiation facilities:
.:. River Road! Irving Road / Hunsaker Lane
.:. River Road! Site Access
.:. River Road / Green Lane
.:. Hunsaker LaneiSite Access
.:. Green Lane/Site Access
The amount of traffic expected to be routed to any state owned facilities was considered to be \vithin
typical day-to-day fluctuations, and therefore found to be insignificant.
The Ri.ver Road / Irving Road / Hunsaker Lane intersection is CUlTently a fully actuated signalized
.,'
intersection. There is pennissive left-turn phasing for the east and west approaches; and
protected!pemlissive left-tul11 phasing for the nOlihbound and southbound approaches,
The River Road / Green Lane intersection is tv;ro-way stop controlled.
All site accesses are assumed to be hvo-\vay stop controlled. For the purpose of a conservative analysis,
the Hunsaker Lane accesses where combined and evaluated as a single approach.
Figure 5 illustrates the existing transpOliation system operations at tbe relevant intersections.
~(l?\:
~)n..n_
-..... .
n. L Ii g Ei e::: r mg .'..nnnnno
August 28, 2007
r
i
i
Ii
~N.T.8.
EJ:'ISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEAf
fPViNG ROAD
t.
....- HUNSAKER LANE
GREEN LANE
LEGEND
@ STOP CCi!\iTROLLED f~PPROACH
~ TRAFFK SiGNAL
+ VEHiCLE TRA vEL LANE CONFIGUR.tJ. nON
FIGURE 5
Branch Engineering, Inc. J
n _'''_.m. -. .m_5/
--I..?-~
(~)
~
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 16 OF 36
6.
PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
As required by ODOT. the year 2022 was selected as the planning horizon for this analysis.
Planned Transportation facility Improvements
TransPlan Maps illustrate flnancially constrained un-progranm1cd improvements planned for Hunsaker
Lane. The improvements include on-street bicycle lanes, and other upgrades to urban standards.
Growth
Future 'no build' conditions were estimated by tact0l1ng existing traffic volumes by the projected
Average Annual Oro\vth Rate (AAGR) as published by Lane Council of Govemments (see Appt.'l1dix
E). Eugene/Springfield metropolibm population is projected to increase at an average AAGR of 1.17
percent over the next 25 years: however, AAGRs have reached 2.5 percent in the past 25 years. For this
analysis, existing background tranIc was factored at a 2.5 percent per yeaI' growth rate.
Future Year 2008 and 2022 'no-build' traffic volumes are shown in Figures 6 and 7.
l@}l:~:1:~C !l__l~ngill ~.~:.l:i.!}.tL)rj.(':
August 28, 2007
(
--..;~
FUTURE YEAR 2008 'NO BUILD' TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
(PM PE.4K !--{OUR)
~
/ 4~ I ~4 "\
II .JtL. \
( 87 j t...(55 \
I 23 -. +-~1J9 \
\226 t t89
\ +ttr+
\.~ 280 f1f.~ v 5~8
~- \
\
\,
\.
\
\
IRVING ROAD
//~.,,\
I \
i \
\,05 -+ 1- 684)
/0\
///' ."" /
,.//'/ '-... ---/
/../.. -------
//
//
HUNSAKER L.4fjF/
ry
!
! ~--........~ .
If r y~j
I ! )
I j
I \
I \ t / PRIVATE.
I ~ / DRIVE
I '~~~..__/"
!
j
!
!
j'
!
11
I
I
\
'.
/
/
I
I
/
/
I
I
I
/
/
/
I
I
....----..............
// 1155 '......
9 I 1 t """"
/ ....J t l.. \
( 4 J t.. 30 )
\ 17 t t 22 /
\ ~t~ J
", 9 I 23 /
......." 1421 ./
------..-
" ~
G,....,t:~r-i.' I 4fl{'r \ .........
ri t..:...,~ ~. I c: ................
.........
"".
........
........" /
. /
'Ji
!
/
I
f
! 34. ~
\
\
\
,
\.
.-------
/- ~,
/ .......
"\
\
\
+- 51 \
i
}
!
I
/
......... ./
" ,//
'-----....-....-..........--
\ N.T.S.
~
"'.......
FIGURE G
i
......;:;;:-----~ i
@l Branch Engineering, J~c...-J
r
FUTURE YEAR 2022 'NO BUILD' TRAFFIC
VOLU1\fES
(PM PEAK HOUR)
/~~
60 I J5 ,
II ~..l. \
I I J. J.
I ! 125 ~ ~ 545
I :50 -II> +- 200
\ 320 t t 125
\ ~tr+
~400 85/
',,- 1580 ..'/'\
---.------ \
\
\\
\\ Q
\\
~-----'------,
/ '\
I \
I \
( 150 -+ +-970 )
\ /
///\, /1
// ~.------/
HUNSAKER L~
r
IRVING ROAD
//.--;;;;-----------.,,,.
I " ....-~
/ I \ ............-
I T 'r
( I
i /
\ t /
\ /
\" /'
"',~",,-/
II
I
I
pef\! A. TE
\
\,__ A,
GREEN LANE '""
''''',
'.
""". ..........------...........
'--,-- /' --."
, /
'i'
!
i
I
I
(
i 50---+-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\..,
"
\
\,
\
\
\
-75 \
I
/
I
/
/
/
.,.......... ---.../
---..-
i
i
I
I
~ N.T.S.
,
"r)
I
I
/
I
i
I
/
/
I
i
/
I
/
I
__I
/// 1630 ~''-
/ 15 t 15\\
" ~ l.. \
! 5-1 A'-.40 i
~ 25 t t JO )
\ ~t,... /
\ I, I
'~15 ';m ,/
,,"~-~!!:----,//
Di~/VE
FIGURE 7
~
\~ty~'anch Engineering,
--.;::~
~
In ~ _-/
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment PAGE 19 OF 36
"""V"'''~'''''''''-U''''',:x.'''''X''''''''X'''''''''''_>_'''''_',,^^.,"<V^''v..'-"^.......v."....v.........v.v....''''''''''''''.....".x....c......'''..o;........''^'''''''''''..'."'...."".'<...J.....v..~.."....'^'........-.v,..,."'''''',.:.:.:.,,:.,:"....:,,"~_.: :'.X>...'.v~.....h...'.V,"""v...."'".;......"x"""";;:.,,",,.'"""x,,..............., ..."'..'.........'^'-.,..'.....,,,-.,,-.c..,,,-,,.,,.,,,,,,:_,,,,,,,,...,,,..--...'h......'.v....,'\....'^N..-.....-..,.Xy..,.....:.:.:.
Trip Generation
Peak hour trip generation values for reasonable worst case development scenarios for both the existing
and proposed zone desi.s'11ations were estimated based on Tlip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the
Institute ofTranSp01iation Engineers (ITE).
Under the existing designation scenatio, lots 501 and 601 were ignored, as these lots are cUlTently
developed with an automobile quick lubrication commercial use and the site generated trips \vere
accounted for in the observed background traffic volumes. This use is a pennitted use in the C-2 zone.
The assumed commercial uses in the C-l zone were based on reasonable worst case development
scenarios supplied by the project planners (see Appendix F).
The reasonable worst case development scenalios for residential zones vvere based on maximum
allowable density of dwelling units, as detcnnined by the City of Eugene Land Use Code.
For the contiguous propeliy that was t(mllerly developed as an elementary school and is proposed to be .
zoned commercial, client supplied infonnation \/v'as used to detennine maximum developable leasable .
tloor area for a shapping center. The maximum potential tloor areas \I,'ere detemlined during tile
feasibility analysis of purchasing the property, and it included pat'king areas, building setbacks, and
other pertinent design elements. Previously, 100,000 square feet of gross leasable tloor area was
assumed. As the site design has evolved and land use codes have been applied, the building areas ha\:e
decreased. The resulting shopping center gross leasable floor area is 90,000 square feet.
The tollmving tables summarize the projected P~f peak hour trips entering and leaving the siteunder the
assumed reasonable worst case development sc_enarios for existing~and proposed designations:
: .' . __--n.----'--, '.: ., T ABL.E. 3A:---ji-iVfP~a.~ ,H.oQfTrip, G,~n~r~ti(j~ " ", '>' ", ;,\<>':~: .;.!
' , .'.' ,,' ,: .,'. ,'.'" , "', '.", ':. ',;';::",: -. ',.: (Existing" ,Desig'.~ations)', .:", }';/'5,':r'.,;:"". '..: .<' ;,:h'~:;'f:..:;jI~)'~;:J
.,.. , ~', "." >" ~ ~>'..'" '.. , ' .',' . .... . _~ ,,~, '.''>;. ".\. :,J. "':" ._~. '~o!~.<, ~, -'...""...~ ._"')..~~);t'k.:"~':>.''\:1
Rate Per
Unit
Number I Trips Entering
of Units # %
Trips Leaving
# %
Total
Trips
fI Zone Land Use
Ii
C-1
High- Turnover
Restaurant
(ITE Land use 9~)___________
1 Drive-in-Bank
(ITE land use 912)
Specialty Retait
(ITE Land use 814)
Single-Family Detached
Housing
riTE Land use 210
Elementary School
(lTE land use 520)
----l-------m
PL
10,92 2.08 14
45.74 2.3 ,,~
-- "
-- ___u
2.71 2,4 "
,
---~
1.0 J 1 g 1 J
3.13 47 63
61 ~:~} 9 39t>Q
50% 53 50'>"
-.----
44(~o 4 56O/to
23
C-1
!i
Ii
I'
---.-m11
10/1 II
ii
ii
II
II
7
, C-1
~.
:1 R-1
Ii
!
63%) I 7
-------- ---------.
-"""'ilj-'
,)//"0
18
43'% 84
57f:-<1
147
,'--_-=::.....,.................:.-.-.-.-.w_w"'.1..__ _
I
I
- 144 l - 157
m:.wL_~~........~................,.:::.=w_-_-_w_w_-,w_w_-__=.=_
30J
-,J~w:"..,.:.....w.-.- .
Totals
:@: j3r~; n~- 11 _El1r,ll,:~.'::L}.ll.g.' In:-.
August 28, 2007
THAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Hedevelopment
PAGE 20 OF 36
r-_.mmm--m h........m_......__.m. 'h.m'__'" --h....~h..... ....__m ........
! TABLE 38: p~ Peak Hour Trip Generation - _.' i
: (P d O' .. t~) ,
i ,,' ropose eslgna Ions., ..' ". :", ......:->..';~,<.~...,.-:':
Zone Land Use Rate Per Number Trips Entering Trips Leaving Total
Unit of Units # % # % Trips
..
R-2 Apartment 0.62 37 15 65% 8 35% 23
(lTE Land use 220)
...
C-2 Shopping Center 3.75 90 162 48<l1, 176 52'Yo 3:H
I' (ITE Land use 820)
LT~S - -- 177 - 184 -- 361
-.. ... .. u.__n. _ u_n. -- -. -.--. - -_':-_.,,".~~
Trip Distribution
The site generated traffic was distributed to the adjacent road system based on land uses, existing
operational characteristics in the project vicinity, and observed origin/destination tendencies at nearby
representative developments. These observations where compared to available Lcog models, and with
OOaT conCUlTence were considered more reliable than modeled projections.
.--
Table 3 summmizes the resulting tlip distribution.
___hn,__u_. .~,;. ~I'.y:,,:~;:.};;m.-:-~-,.< "-'.~' .~~..~:;....,.~~=~~~~/".>..,: 'j. , ~"l
; TABLE :4t;.Jrlp D~strJ,6~tl.tl~1'~ <:::>-;: '..,
~ \ " .:"G-' " ..... \ .....;l.y _. '.' , :. _... .Sol.-'
,
Trip Origin I Destination Percentage of Site Generated Traffic I
... :
- I
-North 25".'(', i
~. _. n__
i East 20"/0
" - nn___
':
'I South 45~."~
j.
I .. h..
West 10<;-0 .,
Ii
Total 100% ......~=_.Jj
-. --------------:_-.-----...-."""'.-~ ._________u._nu... -_....:-.-----.;..---:_._-_....._~
_.._.__.___n_.__..__.h.
Traffic Assignment
Based on the above trip distribution assumptions, site generated traffic was assigned to specific
intersection tuming movements at each of the relevant imersections..P.rojected traffic volumes in the
year 2022 scenm10s were rounded to the nearest 5.
Figures 8, 9 and 10 ilJustratethe assignment site generated traffic and years 2008 and 2022 'build'
traft1c volumes under the existing desiimation scenario. Figures 11, L? and 13 shO\v the assiznment of
_. ~. ~.. ~
site generated traffk and years 2007 and 2022 'build' traffic volumes f(.)j' the proposed designation,
respecti\1ely.
;@________._____.:LJ~.2tl~,~:rin.~ '
AUgllst28,2007
rr---
I
I
-..;
ASSIGNMENT OF PM PEJ.4K HOUR
SITE GE1VERATED TRAFFIC
(EXISTING DES/GNA nON)
~
/ j' 16 ""
I( ,l.. \
. L2t ).
I 6...... ..... 8
\ 8 t f<~8
\ =-' t ~
18
.~
1-
!
, N.T.S.
/~".,
I \
I \
f \
I !
\ 50"") f' 15 )
A ~ r--- /
/// """ 67 17 /
/ ~----
. /
HUNSAKER LAN['--/
\
\\
'\
\
iRViNG ROAD
PR!V.4 TE
DRIVE
I
I
/
/
I
/
_--..1
,// 38 --"""
;/ i 29',,-.
;' I \
I "+ \
/ 'L 26 \
! !
. .
\\ ,53 j
.... I
\"" t r: //
", 28 ./'
.~----
i'
i
\
/~
"~
'"
".
"". ....------_._~~,.
.........../ '.......
',. / 53 13 '",
;; <II...J l.. '\
!... .. \
! 56....) '-14 \
! !
\ i
\ I
\ 9 t ['2;
\~ ~ ~ //
''', 6 1 ./'
--------------,'
8 ___ !I
--.~~.~ . I 1/
( ~ i Branch Engineenng, nc:J'
~ '--' 1------- - - ;;::::/
/
------/
FIG URE
~
/
I
YEAR 2008 'BUILD' PAl PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLU1'IES
(EXiSTING DESiGNA nON)
I ~~
1/' 421'40 ~
I . ~,L..
( 87..J. ~ 476
29 -.. +- 147
\234 . t 127
\ ~tr+
~ 288 86
~\
\\
\\
'\
IRVING ROlID I
/~~
I '\
I \
/ \
\ 105 ......... +- 684 I
\ 50 . .. 13 j
~\ ~ ~ I
/// ".'-.. 67 t 7 /
/ ~----/
//
~-----~--..........
/ 1213 .......".,
/ ~ \, --------
( )
\ PF<!VA TE ,
\ t/
""-,,"-..... 1455 /,/
....-----"'"
DRiVE
~
I
I
/
,
/
/
,
,
/
,
/
I
/
/
/
~--.J.....
/.// 1193 "",
. 9140 '\
/ ...J t l.... \
I 4 J ~56 1
\'7. .55 /
\ ~tl"+ /
\'.. 9 59 /
'-..,,_ 1449 ../'
"-----_....--'--
''',,-
'"
"-
".
"-.
"..'-.. ,"-..--..-.......
". // 5T 13 "....
'''/.,) \
/ ....J l.... \\
/ 56.J 'l14 \
I J4 -- -- 51 )
\ 9 t .2 j
\ ..... ,-+ ;/
\, \ I
\. 6 1/
'". //
'"'------........---------....
~'V.T.S.
FIG URE 9 y......,.
_..@ Branch Engineering,
!
I
I
Jl
IHc.:/
..........................................:............--..................--.......-------..--..-..-......."................................................
r
YEAR 2022 'BUILD' PM PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLU1\fES
(EXIS T/NG DESIG/\JA TlOrD
~
// 5r/ yv 49 ""
I( .Jtl..
I 123 j -t..- 664
I 38 -+ ..of- 205
. \ 327 -. t 164
I 4;) t ~,
i 1598
j
j
I
!
i
!
!
i
I
i
!
!
i
i
I
j
!
I
!
!
i
i
!
!
i
I
\
\'r-
I
/
/
/
/
I
j
/
I
_-__. I
/'/ 1670 ~"
// 13 I 45 ~
/ ...Jtl. \
/ 6J l.6B \
I 6. !
\ 25 t t.:J J
\ ~ t frlo- /
\". 13 58 /'
"-" 2035 ~/
--------~
~~
/ \
I \
! \
( 148 -+ ..of- 966 )
~'50-, ttJ)
~ ~ /
/// 67 17 /
// '-- ./
/ -------
HUNSAKER LAIjf>/
~~~,
/ t \
( )
\ I
\ t !
\ "-, 2055 ____//
'---------
PR!VA TE
DRIVE
;
"-
',,--
,,-,,'.
"-.
'.',,-,
'."'. ~--------~,
-'. / '.
'''-~,/ 53 t 3 '~
I l.. \
I I \
I ~ \
I 56 J l. 14 \"
! 48 -+ +- 73
\ a r2 j
\ ., t T /
\ I
\~"- ~ r; ///
~~
I
!
i
i
,
!
i
!
I
!
!
i
I
)1
Branc~ _Engine_~~_~~~-,-___~!~J
\ N.T.S.
~,-
FIGURE 10
;'/--:--'\
@i
\
\ ~J~
~
ASSIGNMElvT OF PM PEAK HOUR
SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
(PROPOSED DES/GNA TJON)
41
l..
~ 18
+-9
r39
T
\
\
IR V1NG ROAD
~-----..,
(/ r ~
( ~ 35 )
\\ )
PRIVA TE
\ r.l
"" 63 / DRIVE
',- /"
-...........---------""
~
I
\ N.T.S.
~___m..
/' \
\ i
",>-
!
;/
/
I
/
....--------........l
//~ 39 "~
// ! "'\
/ \
( ~46 )
\ t r ;'
"''-' 63 22 ///
~--
/~-~
/ \
I \
( I
\ 57.. .- 22 /
/\ ~ r /
/ ~ 66 25 //
// ~~
I-IUNSAf:(-~
j
(j)
~
;<,
"\SfTE: ACCESS
;
/'-.
"-
"-
',,-:
,,-,
',,-
-"-""-- //<'---~,-
"- "- // to '"",
)' 40 '\
/ ..J l-.. \
( 10.J ~ 10 )
\ 12 -.., r 3 j
\ T T j
\ ~ r /
~ 6 2 //
-, .../
'----.....-...---..
GREErV LAl\JE
FIGURE 11
!
i
i
~~' I
' \ I
(\ ~ ,). Branch Engineering, J~c.___j
>....::.-..--/
r
I
YEAR 2008 'BUILD' PM PEAK flOUR
TRA.FFIC vaLUAtEs
(PROPOSED DE8/GNA TlONj
....1
I
/
//
//
//
HUNSAKER LA!Y9/
~---.
898 "-
i 42 I 65 ~
( ..J + L... \
I 87 J l. 473 \
\ 39 ~ +- 148 )
\226 t [l'28
I \ ~ t r+
I .~ 289..1 58
I ~44
\
\
\
\
\
\
\\
IRVING RO/,D
-------~-..... /
// 1252 '''-'''''/
/ ! \\ .,.--,/
/ .i.. \---
( "-- 35 \
I :
! I
\ !
\ /
\ .;. r+ /
.\. ! 6J /
"----" 1.455 //
~------~
PRill ATE
[iF~/VE
~
i
i
I
I
I
I
.------.--.......!..
/// 1/94 ----...."
9 ! 11 '\.
! I! \
/ -+--' '-to- \
( 4 J +- 30 l
\ 17 t (" 58 .I
\ "*ltr+ /
'" 9 45 //
"-" 1484 j/
-.....---------~
r
!
!
i
I
, ~T l' ,.,
\~~:.: .'~'
/ '\
"j/
I
/
I
/
/
I
fiGURE 12
.
/-~
I ~.
! \
105 -P- +-- 684 \
57 t (" 22 I
~ r+ /
66 25 /
--------/
II
II
i
-^........
.................
................
.........
.........
-........ /-'~
......... // '''-'"
-........;/ 40 10 '\
I ....1 4.. \\
I to j ~ 10 \
I 34- - -- 51 l
\ 12 t t.3 !
\ ~ r+ /
\. 6 2 /
\......... /
'-----....._-_//
I
~~). Branch Engineering, Inc.,,)
~
r-Y"
YEAR 2022 'BUILD' Pkf PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLU]JES
(PROPOSED DESIGNA nON)
----------.
/' 1755 ~..
. ."
;/ I \ ~"
t \----
/ ~J5 \-/
\ )
\ J
\ t ~//
~...., 2055
-------.-~-
/
/
/
I
I
/
/
/
/----.--...1..
/ // 15'~70,S -....~
/ ~t~ \
( 5..J +- 40 )
\ 25 t F 75 )
\ ~t(. I
\,,--- 15 50 /
....,'-..... 2075 ./
-.--::..----
/~
60'~(V 75 ~
! jtl. \
f 125 ..J 'L 665
I 45...... +- 210
\320 t F 165
I \ ~t,..
i ~ 410 85
I ~605
\
\.
\
\
\
\
\.\
\
IR VING ROAD
~
,NO l' r-<
\~~ on. .~.:').
~-................,",-
/ \
I \
I 150 -+ +-970 }
\55-. F20/
I
/"-\ ""I r-- I
// '~65 V
./ ------
HUNS/.\KER LANr;.../
/-...~
PRfVA TE
DRIVE
'"
",,-
"".
'.. /".--~--.....................
"-. // "
"" ./ 40 10
// ...J 1-.,.. ""\
/ ... ... \
/ fa ~ ~ 10 \
I 50...... +- 75 i
\ 10, r5.1
\, T T '
I'
\ +-1 r" /
~ 5 5./
~-----...---/
FIGURE 13
i
~~, J
rn\tn~~.~.~.~.~. ~~gineering, Inc./
~r-
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 27 OF 36
.......,.........v"...yy.y.v,.v.:.,.:.:v:.:.:.:.:;.;o'.:._.;.:.;.:v,,'""~'.....~..^"^"..........-.,..........".'>.<.-,.,..^".""-...."."'".<k"":."~,.:<;q...v....................."O.^_'V.'.=.....'....._/.:."'''"'~~'';.,,>..~_~,,_.........,......""'..-o,...........v.y........v...'.............:.'...:,'-:.O':.:,~:<-<...."",,.,~:<....._-l'...._......_................................"'"-.,"~.hV......:.........:-"':.'.:..:'":T,~_.;""..........;<,.._J<""<.;v_;v_.._""-._.~~..:,>"',..".....^VN.'....<,...._...
7.
INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE
Relevant unsignalized and signalized intersections were evaluated to detel111ine Level of St'l"vice (LOS)
based on delay as well as the calculated Volume to Capacity (Vie) ratio. Calculations for the
un signalized intersections were perfi:.l11ned with the computcr program Highway CUll-acitv Softwarc
(HCS-t} Version 5.2, by McTrans. Thc signalized intersection \vas evaluated using thc computer
program SYNCHRO 7, by Traffic"'lare.
Level of service, based on vehicle delay, is classificd by a lctter scale from' A' to 'F'. LOS' A'
represents optimum operating conditions and minimal delay. LOS 'F' indicates OYer capacity conditions
causing unacceptable delay. LOS 'D' is generally considered thc minimum acceptable level of service
by the City of Eugene. Mitigation measures may be nccessary when level of service falls below 'D' as
the result of a development.
The LOS detel111ined by average delay per vehicle as established in the Highway Capacitv Manual. 2000
is as follows:
.~.
I-----u _nmmuu_____ u________u_______uu
. - .: .: ". 'TABLE 5: LEVEL OF SERV'ICt-.CRITERIA - : ; ,..:;'_
,'~. '~::) ,'-'.' --,.,.,', .~...; ." .,"'..i"~ ':.....4. .~~>....;"- :.,.,. .""-,,..",-' .,'..~."'.,.;:....("'"::"'.-':'\i".;.-,;., ..'i\. .....", . :;"':'; ........~'
Level of Service
Unsignahzed
Signalized
.J
!
.,
i
II
t~..... -
A
B
C
D
E
F
< 10 see
>10 and S1 5sec
>15 andS2 5sec
< 10 see
> 1 0 and :S2 Osee
>20 and S3 5sec
>25 and ::~3 5see
>35 and ::;5 5sec
>35 and:::5 Osee
> 50 see
>55 and ::;8 Osee
:> 80 see
Another measure of congestion is performed by di viding the number of vehicles utilizing a
transportation fadIi ty by the calculated capacity of the facility, resulting in a volume to capacity (vic)
ratio.
Mobility Standard
The local TSP establishes minimum acceptable perfcnmance standards. The perf0l111anCe is measured
by delay or vlc, depending on the applicable jurisdiction. As indicated in Transplan, the mobility
standard tl)f city of Eugene is LOS 'D'. Based on the Oregon Higlnvay Plan, the maximum volume to
capacity ratio for ODOT facilities is 0.90 for district/local interest roads. Lane County's maximum
aUm,vable volurne to capacity ratio is 0.85 within the metro area. Capacity incrcasing are often
necessary whcn the mobility standard is exceeded as the results of a development
!tiLr.:l:;J:~l_~}l__ l~_")!Lil!_~e(ng, (nc.
August 28, 2007
~'.v."...v.'.v..v, ..',', ,.:<,.,.:",,,,,,., ""'".,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,;.",..."v_.................;,....N....,....-,""...........,,,,,,.,,....,,,,">.".:"~/.Y.~....;.^...."'''^''...^........'^v....-J\N',,................._.,, ",."",.,.,..:.:.:.,:." ":':<"".~X>, '. '.-..V. '~........N"''^'...."..........,....,,.V'''''''''''.,.,.,''''''. ,""'"X~......."~.n;q.....'-".._~.._-_....,... ..J'.V........ .'...A.'-..."''''r...~...C, ~:.",.,,:',.,.:,"'.,~'<X '=."""",..'.-""",'.'...,.-...v.v"",,,,,,,.,,..y.,,,..,,~ ~
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 28 OF 36
No ODaT facilities were found to be significantly affected by the proposed development. The
referenced data is included in Appendix G.
The following table summarizes the mobility standard for each transportation facility evaluated:
Mobility Standard
Hunsaker Lane/Site Access
Lane County
0.85 vie
I m___"'__"''''m
Hunsaker Lane/River Road
Lane Countyl City of Eugene
LOS 'D' ,0.85 vie ~
--.---...-------.... i
--__m~-~~~~~-==J
LOS'D'
---._------
LOS'D'
-- ----------
River Road/Site Acess
City of Eugene
River Road/Green Lane
t.~_-_ . G~een Lane/Site Ae~~;~--~_=_~~_+:__
City of Eugene
City of Eugene
=CQt.~LB l ,)n.:....r~....~pg~.J):?~.1:!_~)X' i' .
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara Schoof Site Redevelopment
PAGE 29 OF 36
Results of the intersection perfonnance analysis calculations are documented in Appendix H, and are
summmized in the following table:
r--.....~......... ........-............ .-........... ........._~h........~............ ,
TABLE 7: Intersection Performance Results i
. , .
: .. ,......' . ; (PM P~ak liour), . .' _ , '., ,
i-;:.:....;.. ....~_.~-.,-......-_~_n'."'. '._n....-:,.....~___.-;......:.,. ..hH:. ;-.~,. ~----7..n..h_;.;.. _:__._...._~........;- ". _ '" .._.~._~....,.........~.~-....._:;. "'....u._ .,...,,'.....-...,..~ _.....:-_..... h_-,':J~~"",,___~,_._
Year 2007 Year 2008
'No-build' 'Build'
(Existing)
Year 2008
'Build'
(Proposed)
Year 2022
'Build'
(Existing)
Year 2022
'Build'
(Proposed)
i
Intersection I Movement vIe LOS vIe
LOS V/C LOS V/C
LOS V/C
LOS
SIGNALI~Eii,< ,:.... :'. '. '" ;;, '". ,; <.. .. .,<: .: ';,' . ..">':~::,, ....' '. '. : "".'. ".: :.":,; c;..' "'.: ..'.< ;', i
River Road at Hunsaker
Lane/lrvlng Road
0.91
D 0.98
D 0.98
D
1.41
F
1.43
F
River Road at Site Access
Westbound Right n/a n/a nfa a/a n!u C n/a n/a n/a
River Road at Green Lane 1
Northbound Left nla B n/a B n/iJ B nfil C n!a C
Eastbound Approach n/a C nla C nia C n/a D n/a D
Southbound Left n/a B n/a B nia B nia C nfa C
Westbouncl A.pproacr, n/a D nia F n/a f l1ia or' n':; F
Hunsaker Lane at Site Access
Northbound Right n/a n/a 0.02 Dc' a 0.()3 n,'(: 0.01-; nia 0.03 n/a
NOlihbound Left nJa n/a 0.22 n/a 0.22 fl,/a 0.34 n!a 0.35 n/a
Westbound Left nfa n/a OJiJ Ilia 0.02 n/8 (J.G 1 llia 0.01 nia
Green Lane at Site Access
Northbound Approach nia
Eastbound Left
Southbound Left
L......:.",,,,.:,.:.." s.~~~:,:~~~:~,:. Right
nia niU A n'a n!a n!a A ii
\ ("" i\ '" A "
n a n a Ill'a h, n a '.... n a ,'"). n d i--, ii
n a H/::!=-" A"," ,','" B I"' 'J
ll/a r: 3 II a A n a A II 'a A I n'a ,tI, .-
'. - ,',',',,'.','::,w........... w.....~-=-""..,.,:......~,.=,~~.w.~l.., , """",...w....:,,=~~....:.=~,..,~:,.,.w,==~
ll'a
nia
imK"f~.','), Fn:lFh EYi"FI,C(.:.-.rpio
". ,." ~U.'h . ~... r.'-' ..I.. '. .. - ).--(:-
"'':::::-:'
1,.:(,
............'....
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara Schoo! Site Redevelopment
PAGE 30 OF 36
8.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE
To detem1ine if the nearby transportation facilities would be affected by the zone change and plan
amendments, Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) was referenced.
OAR 660-012-0060 - Plan and Land Use Regulation l\mendments, states:
(1) \\There an amendment to a functional plan, an acknmvledged comprehensive plan, or a land
use regulation ,>vauld signiflcantly affect an existing or planned transp01iation facility, the local
govenmlent shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function. capacity, and performance
standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio. etc.) of the fkility. A plan or land use
regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility ifit would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map enors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system: or
(c) As measured at the end of the plmming period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(A) Al10w land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels
of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or pImmed transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the perfbmlance of an existing or planned transportation facility
belo\\' the mininmIn acceptable perf(jtTuance standard identitied in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(el Worsen the perf0l111anCe of an existing or planned transportation facility that
is otherwise projected to perfom1 belenv the minimum acceptable performance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
(2) Where a local govcmment determines that there would be a significant etTect, compliance
\vith section (1) shall be acconlDJished tlu'ouzh one or a combination of the follovving:
. . ~ ~ ~
(<1) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land Llses are consistent with the planned
function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility.
=;~9, ~t:1';C!r(j, F:-:winpp!"i" ,;.
"" ,.,.,>:' ' '... ...~.t . 1.~ Ju....,.. ..J..!.:. .'.. __11....,
." . -. ~
nh.u.______un.hO____ u . ...
August28,2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment PAGE 31 OF 36
..........v.'.v..'.'..............N.-..v.',.-.,.-v.v.'.c'"',.,V.V..b..'.,'.".,,,,,...".";."'".;,,..~":<M.;<;<"'....._<~._..'.........v,.,...J'.._v.....'....."'''v.v.~',""""'~,."XVK":<Y.....'....;"'j...............,.....,^,................'..^7..,..V...,....:,.",.,."""""'.""",.:<,,..>.~"-".._...N..._...'.....'."'.J....."^'..,.,..~..,v."........,...,.,v.v...:>,...,.,,:<.'''.''XYN......v..'..'.''n'......._._..............'V'...,..'.',,'v,....-..,-..v..........vyA..,.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities,
improvements or services adequate to SUPPOlt the proposed land uses consistent with the
requirements ofthi5 division; such amendments shan include a funding plan or
mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation
finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service \viH he provided by the end of
the planning period,
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for
automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes.
Cd) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or perfom1ance standards
of the transpOliation facility.
(e) Providing other measures as a condition of development or tluuugh a development
agreement or similar funding method, including transpoliation system management
measures, demand management or minor transportation improvements. Local
govemments shall as part ofthe amendment specify ,vhen measures or improvements
provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided.
(3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local goVel1U11ent may approve an
amendment that would significantly af):ect an existing transpoliation facility \vithout assuring
that the al1crwed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and perflJTI11anCe standards
of the facility where:
(al The facility is already perfom1ing belc:)\:v theminimuH1 acceptable performance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan on the date the amendment
app1ication is submitted;
(b) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, impro\'cments and
services as set t()rth in section (4) ofthis rule would not be adequate to achieve
consistency with the identified function. capacity or perfonnance standard f<.n- that fadlit),
by the end urthe planning period identified in the adopted TSP;
(c) Development resulting 11:0111 the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts
of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the pertonnance of the
[-'[cjIity by the time of the de\'eloplnent through one or a combination of transportation
improvements or measures;
(d) The amendment does not involve propcliy located in an interchange area as detJned in
paragTilph (4}(d)(C); and
=....fT3\. ~ -.)..1' .
\~:'ld
Englll,o;:'ring, In::
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 32 OF 36
.............".'Ny.v.v.-.V_v..>V."",,,.,,,,,,,,.,,,;..,,'"'XXY.>;"'...,..""^^""-'N._"".^v......v"'.,.."':v.."'.:.:.",,:."';.,,""""."'^....""""~.......w.............'-v._...>'.'.....":."~.".,,:._':""'.."n........,,^?,,..v.....,,......v...'^'.'^'..v.'...,......:.,.,.,.-".":.;n''''..:,...,~...,.~.....y..........J...........'.'.....-.-,v..,v.""..,."..",.,.'.:.:.:....;,.""",,>.".._M...,......................"'^"".....A-'^v...._...."'=...,....V.C<'
..
=(8)'-:' . 1:> ;..... J' (. i,
H J _==' : .I L ~). '_~ "_ .t:
v............
(e) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a \vritten statement that the proposed
funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a
minimum, sufficient to avoid ftlliher degradation to the perfol111ance of the affected state
highway. However, if a loca! govemment provides the appropriate ODOT regional office
with written notice of a proposed amendment in a maImer that provides ODOT
reasonable opportunity to submit a ,,,,ritten statement into the record of the local
government proceeding, aIld ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local
govemment may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (d) of this section.
E r~:~~~lt:':j)~:.g.:..Jl~ c .
August 28, 2007
Table 2A i ant 0 2 umts
! acre on R-2 zo
13 Proposed an Apartment (
Designations but seems to b
9.5500.
-. ------
14 Table 3 The trip distribl.
assumed in the
The analysis re
20 Table 4 methodology,
movement.
--------- I This study shot
I 20 Table 4
I build" and a "
! volumes.
Page
Par:agraph
13
Table 2A
Existing
Desi gnrttions
13
Table 2A
Proposed
Designations
21
TPR Criteria
'1'\
.1...;;'"
Conclusions
n/a
Appendix F
Comment
The eXistmg zoning trips presented in this table do not seem to
accurately represent the maximum allowable trip development,
pennitted for each existing land-use zone (R-I, C-I, C-2 and PL).
According to the Lane land-use code, the PL (Public Land) zoning
allows for government offices, but not residentiaL The existing R.l
zoned parcel should only alIo\v for 18 single family residences, while
the commercially zoned propeliies would seem to allow for a more
f
intense commercial land-use than Specialty Retail (ITE #814). A i
more detailed study of the maximum allowable permitted uses, under I
the existin zoning} should be made for_t~is analysis. --;i~
The proposed zoning trips presented in tIus table also do not seem to
accurately represent the maXim. um allowable trip development, based
on the proposed zoning assumptions. It is unclear how the proposed
acreage has been partitioned to assume 26 Apartments, and 100,000
square feet of Shopping Center. A more detailed explanation of how I
the rezoned land \vol..tld be partitioned is necessary for a thorough
assessment.
The study aSStill1es a maximum build-out on the proposed R-2 zoned
1 :l f 6 " The Eugene Code allows a maximum of 28 units per
ned land, for a total of 37 medillm density units. Also, "
ITE #220) is not pem1itted outright on R-2 zoned land,
e allowed, foHowing the special provisions under EC
Ition percentages must correspond to trip distributions
local agency if-.COQls'~vel demand model.
sults for signalized intersections, based on HCM2000
must be for the entire intersection, and nOL for each
___.m________.n_____ I
LId contain analyses for a "no-build", "existing zoning
proposed zoning build" scenario, given 2007 traffic
Due to significant irregularities with this analysis, the three Division
60 criteria assumed as "met" through this analysis will need to be re-
eval::lated, based on changes. recommended in this r~view. n__mnm
The conclusions drawn from this analysis will most likely need to be
, re.~y.~~J.ua~~)_ gi \len Lhe. chan~c:? reco!:lllnended in tlus review.
I The sig-naliz~ intersection. a~alysfs deve1Qpe~1 fa.r this stvu~y:. w~s
Ii gcne:ated usmg .theoutda~ed OD? r-devel[!pt;'~l software~ SlG. ~A~~,
and IS not conSidered rellable. [he assumptlOns contallled m tIns
software follow 1995 HCM methodologies, and is not considered
acceptable hy ODOT standards. All analysis must foHow BCM2000
3:na1ysis methodologies. _____
-2-
......'."."."..."".,.rr";..""".'_~>.~.;__.'..~..~.~v."'........'..... VA-""-'-'Y"A"="""~""_<"""~~__"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,'.T."""'''''_,,"AV,,"'''.."""".""".."..""..."'"'_...."...V...'"..<"<""..."'.........''''"'''.;.:.,,)<"y.,,,,:,;. "....-".,..~,,"~.'.'."".'......''''^'',' ,'-.'.'.',;"y"". "","",, ~~>., ,........."".....,..;,...,........._...........,..,..... ".,....'.....'>... ....'<'~.r""".,..,',.,.:,~,~~"........,,''"....._ "'''''-,<''-',''........"........_,.....,.....
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 33 OF 36
9.
MITIGATION
As indicated previously in Table 7, the mobility standard is currently exceeded at the River
Road/Hunsaker Lane/Irving Road intersection, and is projected to be further degraded as a result of the
proposed development. Similarly, the Green Lane/River Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS
'F' \\'ith or 'vvithout the proposed development. A traffic signal was considered at the Green Lane
intersection, and due to proximity to adjacent signalized intersections, would likely degrade the capacity
of River Road n01ih-south movements. Therefore, it is recommended the developer constmct an
additional westbound approach lane at each of these facilities to offset these impacts. The Mitigated
intersection perfoffilance tor the two impacted intersections is shown in the fol1(}wing table:
f..mm..... '__"'mm.. ...-........- _...m.....m......._....
. TABLE' 8: :'Mitigated Intersection Performance Results' .
I .
i. . . ..' .'. .(P,M PeakHour) '. '.' . . .. .
! ; ~.,',. '",'~~~. .~ ,'~~~' ~ '_ -;; r_, ',':..~.\., . ~ ,,:: \ '...., "'., "
'Build' 'Build'
(Existing) (Proposed)
Year 2022
'Build'
(Proposed
-+-
Mitigated)
Year 2008
'Build'
(Existing)
Year 2008
'Build'
(proposed)
Year 2022 Year 2022
Intersection I Movement , vie
LOS V/C
LOS V/C LOS vie LOS V/C
LOS
rls.!~~~ij;,.;::~~ i.:~ :.i;~;';~F~~.' {i;,::~;E ~~~;~: :.:;::..<.{';.~>:~;::F~:....:.):;:~:..{:~~ ><~ ',:- "<l~~':\\;~,:! '~;~.;::/~~t~ '~'. ,,: :. :',:;';:~, ;;i:~:':;~~<~;:)~j
River Road at Hunsaker
Lane/Irving Road
D 0.98
D 1.41
F
1.43
F 1.19
River Road at Green Lane
Northbound Left nia
Eastbound Approach n/a
Southbound Left no'a
Weslbound Approach n'a
Westbound Right nn:l
L.~.:............_-...~w...-~ e stbou nd T~.~.:?~!@.:2.~.:t~__,=,.~;.~.~:_._._....
B
C
8
F
n/a
C
D
C
F
n/a
l1!a
B
C
n/a
c
[)
C
F
n':r
ll!a
n/a
no'a
fI/<)
niu
nia
no'a
c
Dr:
,
c'
II
fI/a
B
F j ::',:
n.'a n/~l n'a l}'(j
n/a n/a n;) , nta
..:=.~_.~~.,~......:...-.-.-:......w.w:::J...w__...~.~_.~~.
111(.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
nla
n!a
rua
il/(1
nla
Figure 14 conceptually illustrates the recommended transportation infrastructure ilTlprOvements.
;@};):(tI~ c h. E n g.il.i.:~:~:I:~J')~:h' In (' ,
August 28, 2007
\:\1. T.~~__
REC01\IME1VDED TRANSPORTATION
SYSTE1\1
(MIT/GlJ. nON)
IRVING ROAD
HUNSAKER L4NE
GI?EEN LMJE
LEGEND
~ STOP CONTROLLED APF-'Po.4CH
~ TF<Af:TiC SiGNAL
4 Vr::j-.,Hf-'f c: ~I' Q A v;:::
't y 1..-.. ,/<...---<-- ,\....... V l-.L..
LAfVE C'Of\fFtGlJRA Tlorv
FIGURE 14
~"'--';'"
(. ~ _ t__~~'~~l~!_~_ ~ngin~e_!'ing,
\ .
~/
I
I
I
~
Inc._~
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL YS1S: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
y"",^,"^^""<'..:.:.,...,.,.,.,..,.,.-.,,,,.,...~;....~x,,,,,,,,,.:.,,,.,.,.,,,,."."";..'-"'V.
PAGE 35 OF 36
10. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Transit Facilities
The development site is cun-ently adequately served by public transit. No transit system enhancements
are necessary to accommodate the proposed zone change and plan amendments.
Non-motorized Facilities
It is recommended the developer construct an on-street bicycle lane on the Hunsaker Lane frontage, as
well as side\va1ks on all site frontages. Additionally, pedestlian street crossing enhancements should be
induded between the residential/cDmmercial sites. Details ofthese erulancements should be reviewed
under future site review applications.
Crash Analysis
During the tlu'ee year period ofan,dy~;is, there 'Nas a relatively high rate of crashes at the Hunsaker
Lane/River Road intersection. An adjustment to the signal timing or phasing, such as adding all-red t~me
or protected only lefl-turns, would likely reduce future crash rates; ho\vever, no accident reducing
measures are necessary to accommodate the subject development.
Trip Generation
The proposed development is projected to generate an average of 60 additional PM peak hour vehicle
trips under the reasonable worst case development scenario for the proposed zone change and plan
amendments when compared to a reasonable worst case development under the existing designations.
Mitigation
It is recommended that the developer construct one additional westbound approach lane at each of the
tv,'o studied public River Road intersections.
Transportation Planning Rule Criteria
T11e f()UO\ving summarizes the applicability of the relevant criteria:
OAR 660-12-06001 (a) \vas notf(.mnd to be applicable. as the proposed zone change and plan
amendments will not change the functional classification of an existing or pla1111ed transportation
facility.
OAR 660-12-0600 )(b) is not applicable, as the proposed amendment \vi11 continue to allow
types or levels ofland uses which \vould result in levels oftravel or access which are consist('nt
with the functional classification of the relevant transpOliation facilities.
~~.?\, r~-f-{; -l(~h
:" :,.. .c' ,.J,., ,,-
. c........ u_...__u
Lllgm e~~;:~~lg
In:-
August 28, 2007
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
PAGE 36 OF 36
,V..v..v..v"v........,..,"-""'............F,"'...'.,"v--.........,V.V, ~"'''~''';>;~x,,~~ ~~~".,..,..~,o<.""':+'..,.,.,<,,:."'''~...,,;'''.,,:<,,>;'''',,.,....'''.-';;,,~.........M.,oM3.,............"'...._..r,..'.-....,.,'...'....,.._.'..._"...v.v.v."...:,"";."..~:...+'.,.:"v".":._~.,",...,,..:' ;.;.,y;...~.M..-'"......r_".y_.v....'.....'.v.-........._......_.......-.&,....,....,'~.:.,~.,.,.~,.:.,,'"",.....,."":o..;+;..,.v. .;o".q...~y.. u.....".,......-"h..NV,~^.V.. ,..^..,............
OAR 660-12-060(1)(c)(A) is not applicable, as the increased vehicle trips generated by the
proposed zone change and plan amendments were not found to cause types or levels of travel or
access that would be inconsistent with the functional classification of any transpoliation facility.
OAR 660-12.060(1)( c )(B) is applicable, and is satisfied, as the proposed zone change and plan
amendments were not found to reduce the performance of an existing or planned transpoltatiol1
facility below the l11inimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP.
OAR 660-12~060(1) (c) (C) is applicable, as the proposed development is projected to worsen
the perfol111ance of a transportation facility (Hunsaker Lane/River Road ti'affic signal) that is
already projected to perfOlm belov>, the mobility standard.
As indicated above, the Hunsaker Lane/River Road tramc signal will be significantly effected as
defined in OAR 660~ 12.060(1) (e). Therefore, OAR 660-12-060(2) is applicable and subsection
(e) is satisfied, as the proposed development will include "minor transpOltation improvements"
as a condition of development.
OAR 66{)~12-060(3) allows local governments to approve amendments that \VOlIld significantly
aUcct an existing transportation facility provided the following subsections are met:
OAR 660-12-060(3) (a) is met, as the applicable facility is already perf<.m.-ning below the
minimum acceptable mobility standard.
OAR 660-12-060(3) (b) is met, as there are no plaru1ed transportation h-lCilities that \vou1d be
adequate to achieve consistency with the identified perfon11ance standard.
OAR 660-12-060(3) (c) is met, as the proposed development \;>.,'ill mitigate the traffic impacts to
avoid further degradation of the bcility.
O/d~ 660-12-060(3) (d) is not considered applicable, as the subject property is not within one-
half mile of an existing or plalmed interchange on an interstate highway.
OAR 660- J 2-060(3) (e) is not considered applicable, as ODOT has detennined that no state
highways \vitI be af1ected by the proposed deve10pment.
Conclusion
In summary, the proposed developlnent is not projected to cause significant adverse impacts to the
adjacent transpOliation system, provided the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.
i@J:~.2:.~~.!Jl__h~.!~H.i~i.~:~~Xing, .fne:
August 28, 2007
APPENDIX
A
. AGENCY SCOPING HISTOR.Y
C>
Standards for Traffic Impact Analysis
Administrative Rule R-9.8650
Traffic Impact Analysis/Traffic Impact Study Format
Address River Rd UV, Hunsaker (former Santa Clara Elementarv School)
Date 1/17/07
Land Use Application #
Building Permit #
Project Description Goal 12 Analvsis for Zone Change Project Name Oregon rVest
and Metro Plan Amendment l'vfanagement, LLe
170411 41 (9100. 9200, 9300) Existing: Zone = PI. }.4etro = R-l
MaplTax Lot # 1704 J 1 44 (200,300. 400) Land Use Proposed: C2
Site Size (s.O _373,300 +/- Horizon Year (full build-out) 2022
Existing Access(es)-# and width 1 access to Hunsaker -. 35 feet
Analysis Period:
Weekday PM Peak
Weekday AM Peak
Weekd-:-,y Noon Peak
Saturday 2PM Peak
Other
x
Trip Gerwration Requirements: Reasonable
worst case development scenarios for existimr &
proposed zoninf[
Trip Distribution Requirements: _Exist & Prop.
Scqw of Analysl\ M' 5ttHiy (S,dtv,are tequirtd~ baekgrm.md traffic growth factors, etc.)
TTip (i'.;:.,Ly}ution per tcog Emmel Afodeling and assignment per area operational
characteristics. Operational analvsis per HeM lvfethodolo'?)l. l\.-labilitv siandard per Transplan.
lntersections to be analyzed:
1. River Rd (a) Hunsaker/lrY.f.r;.g
.., River Nd,.@ Gn:fi't L(f'!::'
_.................:................,..N>>........'.....,.,... .... ............................
Accident Study/Collision Diagram Required:
No
No
3.
5.
Twific Signal Wa..rra..l1t Analysis Required?
Yes
No
V
.'1.
Special Requirements of Study (Truck turning radius diagrams, internal circulation
analysis, driveway stacking and operations, movement restrictions, median treatment)
Anv new access to River Road should be restricted to right-in/right-out movements.
-Oregon
Theodore R Kulongoski, Governor
Department of Transportation
Region 2 Tech Center
455 Airport Road SE Building A
Salem, Oregon 97301-5397
Telephone (503) 986-2990
. Fax (503) 986-2839
DATE:
April 9, 2007
File: Eugene
TO: Ed Moore
l!-.,!:,.a ~=- Senior fl~an~J__."
.,'-.....d "'1 -, .' I ~
. f, . ~ v ~
FROM: Stepbel B. "dson, PE -.
Region 2 Senior Traffic Analyst
SUBJECT: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
Zone Change and PIau Amendment
Transportation Planning RuJe (GollI 12) Analysis Review
River Road
City of Eugene
Lane County
--""'".-......".=-,:"=-~~-===--------"......-..---...~
These are review comments for the Santa Clara ,\'chool Site Redevelopmeltl Transportation Planning
Rule (Goal 12) analysis, prepared by Branch Engineering, Inc. The focus of this revie\l..' is the traffic
analysis methodologies <lnd assumptions, The tratIic analysis assumptions and procedures contained in
this study do not follow ODOT analysis guidelines1, Also, the land-use assumptions and subsequent trip
generation analyses me questionable.
A detemtination of significant effect has not been adequately determined through this traffic study. l\
revised complete traffic study, to be reviewed by the Region 2 Traffic, should be required before any
conclusions or recommendations may be accepted by the Department.
Page Paragraph Comment
L~--- Table JA The Existing Zoning designations in this table are accurate.
- -----.--
The 2015 '"no-build" tmfik volumes presented in this table seem to be
12 Figure 4 based on a growth rate of 2.7'YO per year, rather than the state growth
! rate of 2.5% per year. This should not have an"adverse impact on the
------------ i u!,wlysis results. .uu _.no ------- -'
I hnp.:!{w.)Y.w.,};~[9.w;(fUJ,0.y(QPQ~I[n!i.'U:i.I/\.e.t"-1,,s:.h!J1;j.1.
- I -
.----------
Pa1!e Varftgrftpb Comment
--.----
If the unsignalized intersections in this study were l'lnaly
n/a Appendix F HCS2000, then why wasn't this software used to ana
signalized intersections? What is to be gained by using
methodologies and outmoded software?
-~l
----1
zed using
lyzed the
_ outdated J
If you have any questions regarding my comments, please contact me by phone at (503) 986-2857 or by
e-mail at steph(!}Jjl..,.l"l.lL'IJ21J{QY,odot,state,m:'lLy",
Cc; File
- 3 -
..,
c
Public Works
Engineering
Team Central
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
858 Pearl St. 3rd Floor
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5291
(541) 682-5032 FAX
www.eugene_or.govfPW
Date: March 22, 2007
To: Heather O'Donnell, PDD
From: Gary McNeel, PWE Team Central
Subject: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment TPR Analysis
Heather, we have completed our review ofthe subject TPR (Goal 12) analysis performed by Branch
Engineering dated Februaty 25, 2007 and offer the following comments for your consideration:
.,.
1. On page 1 of the TPR analysis, the last sentence under the Results section notes that "All studied
transportationjacilfties are projected to operate within the mobility standard under all scenarios
through the planning horizon year of 20 15. No special mitigation measures are necessary to
accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed zone change and plan amendments under the
requirement of OAR 660~12-60". PW staff cannot concur with this conclusion, as indicatcd by the
concerns in our review Dotes that foHow.
2. On page 5 of the report, under Site Access, the assumption set does not follow the City Scoping Sheet,
which noted "Any new access to River Road should be restricted to right-in, right-out movements." Also
due to both the length offrontage along Hunsaker Road (which exceeds maximum block length of 600
feet under EC 9.6810), and the street connectivity standards ofEC 9.6815(2), the assumption should
consider the possibility of a north/soutb public street through the site between Hunsaker Road and
. Green Lane.
3. Figure 7 in the report, illustrating assignment of PM peak hour site generated traffic incorrectly
assigns left-in, left-out movements (47 and 40 respecth'ely) to tIle proposed site access on the east
side of River Road which would not be permitted with tbe right-in, right-out only movements
indicatcd in the Scoping sbeet. Vehicles destined for the left tUfn at River Ro~td and Hunsaker
executing a right-out from the site access is also questionable during tbe PM peak, since
northbound queues at the signal will mnke the necessary two-lane weave difficult. Those vehides
should be added to the westbound through movement on Huns~lker at River Rond. In addition,
there are no eastbound volumes shown on Hunsaker or Green Lane (should be 200/0 as shown on
Table 3 on page 14), about 80 onbe 392, whicb would account for the summation of movcments in
Figure 7 only being 312. The assumption of shopping center (ITE land use 820) as the reasonable
worst case development scenario fails to consider many otber higb volume generator's that could be
considered under the proposed zone change and plan amendments. Tbe application should
consider other high volume uses or mix of uses (such as medical) that could be permitted under the
proposed zoning.
4. Due to the changes noted above, the volumes shown in Figure 8 will need to be adjusted. AU
projected volumes in 2015 analyses should be rounded to tbe nearest 5.
Page 1 of2
. .
5. The Analysis section indicates the TransPlan regional level of service standard, based upon volume to
capacity ratios, however, the City of Eugene also has a delay based level of service standard for
signalized intersections outside tbe CATS area of LOS "D" and LOS "E" for unsignalized
intersections and signalized intersections within the CATS boundary. SigCap is an analysis tool
primarily intended to provide the analyst with information used in planning applications and may
be useful to compare traffic conditions and design alternatives at individual signalized intersections.
Individual'movement vie ratios such as those indicated in Table 4 are not appropriate for
determining compliance with agency (City) mobility standards, such as for Eugene's LOS '.'D" for
sig'naUzed intersections, rather vie ratios sllQuld be used only for determining compliance with State
mobility standards for State facilities.
As indicated on the SigCap worksbeets in Appendix F (Intersection Performance Calculations), the
overall LOS at the intersectioD of River Road and HunsakerlIrving in the no-build is LOS E with
96% saturation assuming a signal timing cycle length of 120 seconds and LOS E with 970/0
saturation with the same signal cycle length. As indicated in OAR 666-012-0060(1)(c)(C), the plan
amendment must not "Worsen the performance of an existing or ptamted transportation facility that
is otherWise projected to perform below tlte minimum acceptable performance standard identified in
the TSP or comprehensive plan ff as measured at the end of the planning period identified hi the
adopted transportation system plan (2015). Once projected volumes are adjusted as noted in
comment #3 above, the degradation in performance will be even greater.
6: Based on the missing information djscussed above, staff anticipates that Public Works will not be
able to concur with the analysis provided and conclusions indicated on pages 21 and 22 of the TPR
analysis. Mitigation to address the performance at tile intersection of Huns akerl Irving and River
Road will be necessary.
Page 2 of2
..
.... OF
;~i~?;~)%:{~.
A.l .,p,e
. \r~~~~l1f;P~
Ted~G:M:mcr
Department of Transportation
Region 2. Area 5
Planning & Development Office
644 "At> Street
Springfield, OR 97477
541.747.1354
FAX 541. 756.2509
ed. w,moore@odot.state:or.us
23 March 2007
~".. "~,;,""<'~; -"" 'if' ,,:~~,.-'F';~-(
~f:"\ fP :",;: Ii: n M lr.- t',.... t ;
If)' It. '1,,' l& U \!j 6 l! In
<:;;. >W , _j. ll,
! > )~.......~_." 1; t j n
Ii q Hl in
I, U U FEB 2 B 2lI01 i L:::i ;
\ f (
_._._.~~____.J. I
Ciy vi bjie"e t
l p~t~~r;:i:';:',~)I.~+:.;('!1 ~~
"1I'l ,~__...~i4--
Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street
Eugene. OR 97401
....
Re: ODOT comments on the Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment Metro Plan
amendment and Zone Change.
This letter represents ODOT's comments on the aforementioned proposed Metro Plan
Amendment and Zone Change requested for the Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment located
at the southeast comer of River Road and Hunsaker Lane in Eugene, Oregon.
The Metro Plan designation for the site is "Low Density Residential" (see attached maps). The
existing Eugene Zoning designation is "Public Land" and "Neighborhood Commercial", and the
Overlay Zoning Designation is "Urbanizahle Land:' The proposed Metro Plan amendment and
Eugene Zone Change is to designate the site "Community Commercial and Residential."
Plan amendments and land use regulation amendments must show consistency with the adopted
TSP under OAR 660-012.0060, the "Transportation Planning Rule." If an amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility, a local government must provide a form of
mitigation. The PAPA for the Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment included a 00al12 (TPR)
analysis prepared by Branch Engineering dated February 25,2007, The foHowing comments are
based upon that analysis.
1. In the introduction to the TIA, the applicant states that the scope of the analysis is based on
the City of Eugene's Standards for Traffic Impact Analysis, Administrative Rule R-9.8650. In
evidence of such, the applicant included in Appendix A of the TIA a check list. As stated in
R.9.86S0,
"The purpose of Traffic Impact Analysis Review is to ensure that
developments which will generate a significant amount of traffic, cause an
increase in traffic that will contribute to traffic problems in the area or result
in levels of sen'ice of the roadway system in the vicinity of the development
that do not meet adopted level of service standards provide the facilities
necessary to accommodate the traffic impact of the proposed development. "
On the check list provided by the applicant, under "Intersections to be analyzed," only two
intersections are identified and subsequently studied. These are River Road @
Hunsaker/Irving and River Road @ Green Lane. There is no explanation either on the
checklist or in the TIA as to how these two locations and only these two locations were
identified. In addition, ODOT was not consulted when scoping the TIA.
Given the level of traffic congestion currently experienced on River Road in the vicinity of
the project, a number of existing intersections that should have been analyzed were not
Given the request to fedesignate and zone the site from "Public Land and Neighborhood
Commercial" to "Community CommercialfResidential", in addition to the two intersections
that were studied, the following intersections should have also been analyzed:
Beaver@ Division Avenue
Santa Clara @ River Road
River Road @ River Loop I
River Road @ OR 69 WB Ramps
River Road @ OR 69 BB Ramps
Oak Way @ Lone Oak
Lone Oak @ Division
Due to the limited scope of the TIA, the analysis as presented is not adequate to make a
finding under 660-0 12-0060(1)(c)(B). Any conclusion reached in the TlA should not be
relied upon in making a finding that the proposed development will not have a significant
impact on the transportation system and require no mitigation as concluded in the TIA.
660~012-0060 (l)(c)(B) state that where Han amendment to a functional plan, an
acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land u..<;e regulation would significantly affect
an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place
measures... to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified.. .
performance standards of the facility.. .as measured at the end of the plmming
period. "
2. That raises the second issues with the adequacy of the TIA, what is the correct date
for the "end of the planning period"? The TIA uses the planning horizon from Trans
Plan, 2015 for measuring traffic impacts (8 years from today). The Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) has a planning horizon of 2025, and the Oregon Highway
Plan (OHP) has a planning horizon of2019. It would seem prudent that the City
require the applicant to evaluate the long-term impact of the PAPA based on the RTP
which has a planning horizon that is 18 years from now. In addition, the Oregon
Highway Plan requires that the traffic impacts of development and plan/zoning
amendments look out to the end of the planning period (horizon) or 15 years,
whichever is greater. So to be consistent with the OHP, the applicant needs to use the
RTP planning horiz.on of2025.
3. The TPR identifies a Yz mile radius as the area of influence for an interchange (660-
012-0060 (4)(d)(C)(i). The location ofllie PAPA is within that 12 mile radius of the
River Road @ OR 69 interchange. Yet the interchange is not analyzed in the IlA.
Consequently the TIA as presented is inconsistent with TIA requirement of the OHP,
and does not meet the intent of the TPR.
')
..
4. Existing average daily traffic volumes are based on City of Eugene data that was
collected in 2002~ seven years ago. There is no explanation in the TIA why it was
used and how the validity of the data was verified for accuracy in 2007 (outside of the
PM Peak Hour, no new counts were taken).
5. As stated in the TIA, PM peak hour counts were taken in January and February of
2007, between the hours of 4-6 PM on a typical weekday. There is no explanation in
the TIA as to how it was determined that 4-6 PM on a weekday represented the worst
case traffic volume. There is also no explanation in the TIA how counts taken in
January and February represented the average or peak month for traffic congestion.
Traffic volumes vary throughout the year and to compensate for this a seasonal
adjustment factor is commonly applied. None was applied in this case.
In conclusion~ the TIA for the Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment PAPA is
inadequate for the City to make a finding of no significant impact and be consistent \Vith
the requirement of the TPR. It is recommended that the City either deny this application
based on the applicant not providing an adequate TIA or, with the consent of the
applicant table the application pending the preparation of a new TIA. If the decision of
the Planning Commission is to table the application, we would be available to work with
city staff and the applicant to develop a TIA scope and review draft materials which will
help ensure that traffic issues are adequately analyzed, and the requirement of the TPR
are met.
Please enter this letter into the record for the planning commission and upcoming city council
hearings.
c. Erik Havig, Region 2 Planning & Development Manager
Jane Lee, Area 5 Manager
Michael Spaeth, District 5 Manager
Marguerite Nabeta, DLCD Field Representative
3
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 16, 2007
TO: Damien Gilbert, P.E., Branch Engineering
Gary McNeel, S1'. Transportation Analyst, City of Eugene
cc: Ed Moore, Sr. Plmmer, ODOT, Area 5
FROM: Shashi Bajracharya, Lane County, Transportation Planning
Subject: Scope for TIA on River Rd / Hunsaker property (former Santa Clara
Elementary School)
Staff at Lane County Transpoltation Planning h3..<; reviewed the Branch Engineering
request for a TIA scope proposal and the City of Eugene TIA scope response received on
April 11, 2007. The proposal is for Zone change and Metro Plan amendment for the
properties fOffiler!y owned by Santa Clara Elementary School which is annexed into the
City of Eugene limits. Lane County generally concurs \vith the City of Eugene scope. The
follov,ring are the additional requirements applicable for Lane County Roads.
The subject properties abut three roads. Hunsaker Ln to the north is a county road;
functionally classified as an Urban Minor Collector Rd. The section of River Road to the
west of the properties is under the City's jurisdiction. Green Ln to the south of the
properties is also tmder the City's Jurisdiction. According to the Intergovernmental
Agreement between the City of Eugene and the County, Hunsaker Ln and Green Ln aTe
under county's maintenance jurisdiction. LC chapter 15 governs roads in Lane County's
operation and maintenance jurisdiction. This code can be vievv'ed at www.lanecountv.on~,
then follow the link "Lane Code". LC 15.697 specifies the LC Traffic Impact Analysis
Requirements.
Pursuant to LC 15.697 (I) (c), a traffic impact analysis is required as part of a complete
land use application when any plan amendment proposal is considered. The following are
the requirements of a TIA that studies the impacts of the plan amendment proposal.
(1) The TIA shall evaluate all road facilities \vhere direct access is proposed,
including proposed access points, nearby intersections, and the nearest major
intersections with a traffic signal. We concur \vith the City of Eugene's
intersection study requirements. The TIA shall document compliance with the
goals and policies of the applicable transpOltation system plan.
(2) The TIA shall document compliance with the requirements and guidelines of LC
15.696 Roadvv'ay Performance Standards. Lane County uses vie as the basi(; peak
hour performance. Per Table 4-Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratio (vie) Peak
Hour Operating Conditions 011 Lane County Roads, the applicable v/c ratio to
achieve within the Eugene-Springfield Metro area is 0.85.
(3) When analyzing signalized intersections the overall performance of the
intersection in telTI1S of vlc must be reported. For All-Way Stop Controlled
intersections the Level of Service Standards for the overall intersection
performance must he used. For Two-Way Stop Controlled intersections the vie
capacity ratio specified above shall be the performance standard for the analysis
of approaches that are not stopped.
(4) Pursuant to LC 15.697(4) (a), the analysis shall analyze the performance of the
intersections for a full built-out year and the planning horizon of 20 years. The
proposal did not mention a fun built-out year. If the performance exceeds the
maximum standards, the analysis shall propose road dedications and
improvements for capacity increases; implementation of demand management
strategies; or other suitable mitigation measures. The mitigation proposal shall
comply with adopted plans and requirements of affected facility jurisdiction.
(5) Lane County Transportation Planning concurs \Iolith the proposal to use LCOG trip
generation data and EMME2 model for trip distribution and assignments.
.",
(6) We concur with the City's manual reference. HCl\1 2000 is the guiding standard.
Lane Manual 15.450 provides additional approved Roadway Design Standards
and Recognized Guidelines for use in a TlA. Latest editions of the publications
may be used if available.
(7) The TIA shall analyze crash experience in the proximity to the site. It will also
evaluate and certify site distance availability, queuing at intersections, access
points of importance. The study shall recommend dedications, improvements and
other measures required for deficiencies, if found any, conforming to the
requirements of LC15.697 (7), The study shall also e\:aluate site circulation and
alternative modes of transportation such as bike and pedestrian needs.
(8) New accesses to the proposed development should be consistent with our Access
Management Standards and that access should he analyzed in the T1A and
planned as tar east as possible on Hunsaker to avoid conflicts and blockages with
signal queues. Lane County is interested \vhether the new development will have
accesses from Green Lane,
(9) Hunsaker 1..n- Beaver St is planned for urban improvements in the Lane County
Transportation System Plan. This development proposal needs to accommodate
tIus future project. This project had been previously programmed in our erp for
FY 09-10 but funding has been dropped due to financial constraints.
Please find attached Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for additional information on
preparing a TIA for Lane County roads. Please feel free to contact me at 682-6932 should
you have any questions regarding this scope. Or, we will be happy to meet with you for a
discussion on this scope if you choose. Thank you.
JamesA. Branch. P.E., P.l.S. .
Rene Fabricant. S.E.. PE .
Michael Lane Branch, P.E.
Damien Gilbert, P,E.
June 12, 2007
Mr. Stephen B. Wilson, P.E.
ODOI' Region 2 Tech Center
455 Airport Road SE, Building A
Salem, Oregon 97301-5397
Sent via email: Stephen.b.wils.Qmg;.odot.state.or.us
Re: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment, Eugene, Oregon
Dear Mr. Wilson,
This is a follow-up note to thank you for your time and consideration by meeting with us on May
31,2007. We appreciate having the opportunity to discuss ODOT's comments for the subject
project with you. Based on our meeting, the follov,ring items need to be clarified:
1. lJse ofHCM 2000 methodology for the signalized intersection
2. Confirm the reasonable worst case scenario for the existing and proposed zoning
3. Confirm the amount oftraffie projected to impact the interchange
4. Verify the adequacy of observed trip distributions from the adjacent shopping center
5;- Confirm the planning horizon year
The foJIO\\~ng are responses to the above issues for your consideration:
1. As we discussed, it is our intent to use HeM 2000 methodology.
,
L
2. As requested, I wiLl plan on using the existing zoning rather than the metro plan
desig11ation for the existing scenarios. For the proposed zone, here is some rnoH.~
infonnationabout adequacy of the shopping center land use assumption: The Trip
Generation, ih Edition manual, lists some of the typical land uses for the shopping
center land use are office buildings, movie-theaters, live theaters', restaurants, post
offices~ banks, health clubs and recreational facilities (for example, ice skating or
indoor miniature golf courses), drive-in banks, retail stores, etc. These uses are
typical uses allo\ved in Eugene's C2 zone. I feel that the shopping center land use
adequately reflects a reasonable worst case development scenario for this site. If you
prefer I use additional land uses, please let me know. The project team has been
developing a shopping center site plan that maximizes the development potential
which is likely to be in the range of 100,000 square feet of gross Jeaseable t100r area.
The most CUlTent site plan win be used for the impact analysis if acceptable.
CIVIL
STRUCTURA.L
TRAFFIC I TRANSPORTATION
SURVEYING
Leiter to Stephen B. Wilson
Santa Clara School Re-development Site
June 12, 2007
3. For information, the following items are other l,md uses allowed in the C2
commercial zone, that may not be included in typical shopping center trip generate
rates: Supermarket, discOlmt supermarket, Convenience Market, Nursery (garden
center or wholesale), Hotels and lodges, General Light Industrial, Self-service car
wash or automated car wash, New car sales, automobile parts sales, Auto care center,
Transit station, Gas/service station, Light rail Transit station with parking, Day care,
Church and synagogue, Library, Public School (middle and high school), University,
E- commerce facility, Congregate Care facility, Single-family detached housing.
The City of Eugene raised a question about trip generation potential for a
medical/dental facility. Again, it is my opinion thatthe shopping center rate
adequately represents the reasonable worst case development scenario, as
medical/dental offices generate roughly the same traffic per square foot as a shopping
center.
3. The second item I wantto respond to is the amount of traffic impacting the Beltline /
River Road interchange (nearest ODOT facility). Based on the trip distribution used
for this project, and the difference in site generated traffic (before and after the zone
change), a conservative maximum of 285 new PM peak hour trips will be distributed
to the westbound ramp intersection portion of the interchange. Based on a recent PM
peak hour traffic count our staff performed at this intersection, the new trips equal
roughly 3 percent of current existing intersection volumes, and roughly 2 percent of
future year 2025 intersection volumes. It is my opinion these increases are \vithin the
day to day fluctuations that would be expected at this intersection. Please confirm if
any additional study area will be required by ODOT.
4. We have re-counted the adjacent Santa Clara Square Shopping Center intersection to
confirm our trip distribution assumptions. The two counts were reasonably
consistent, and I intend on re-distributing 5 percent of the site generated trank from
the north to the south. It is my opinion that our local samples are more representative
than the lcog model due to the size of the TAZ. Please confirm that our trip
distribution assumptions will be acceptable to ODOT.
5. We intend on using ODOr's desired planning horizon year.
Based on the above, the JoIlovving are tour items that 1 need clarification or confirmation from
ODOT prior to revising the analysis:
· Acceptance of reasonable worst case scenario for the proposed zoning
· Confirm acceptance oftrip distribution assumptions
· Confirm that the amount of tramc impacting the interchange is within typical day to
day fluctuations
· Confinn the planning horizon year (2018 or 2025)
Branch Engineering, Inc. - Page 2 of 3
Letter to Stephen B. Wilson
Santa Clara School Re~development Site
June 12,2007
Again, I appreciated the informative meeting we had, and look forward to your input on the
above four items.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide any additional information.
Respectfully,
~j!yt$J-
Damien Gilbert, P .E.
Cc: Steve Graves, Owner
Gary McNeel, City of Eugene Senior Traffic Analyst
Ed Moore, AICP, aD aT Area 5 Senior Planner
Michael Howard, AICP, Satre Associates
Rich Maris, Architect, Arbor South Architecture
Branch Engineering, Inc. -- Page 3 of 3
Eugene. Santa Clara School Rezone
Page 1 of I
Damien Gilbert
,........nn..u'_~.,..____._.__._ .._............... .... ....,._..".,.,._"...,..............".... '_.- ......... ......._......,...."...
From: WILSON Stephen B [Stephen.B.WILSON@odot.state.or.usJ
Sent: Friday, June 22~ 2007 10:07 AM
To: Damien Gilbert
Cc: MOORE Ed W; BATTEN Ann M
Subject: Eugene - Santa Clara School Rezone
Damien...
In response to your letter of 12 June 2007, regarding the Santa Clara School Rezone
analysis, Region 2 Traffic agrees to the following points:
· Proposed Zoning (Worst Case): The use of a Shopping Center (ITE #820) is a
reasonable assumption. The only other development I would consider forthis area,
would be a Supermarket (ITE #850). However, there appears to be at least two
supermarkets within this vicinity, plus a grocery outlet store, and two convenience
marts. So, it is unlikely a new supermarket would locate on this land.
· Trip Distribution: Trip distribution based on recent counts is a reasonable
assumption, and would supercede any model projections.
· Beltline Interchange Impacts: Your analysis seems to have shown that trips from
this rezone would only account for, at most, 3io of the total volume at the ramp
terminals. Since traffic is assumed to fluxuate by 101'0 from day to day, a 31'0
increase is insignificant. An analysis of the Beltline/River Road ramp terminals will
not be necessary.
· The 2004 Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan has a planning horizoA of 2015. You
propose either 2018 or 2025. The 2018 planning horizon is only an l1-year
projection, whereas 2025 is an l8-year projection, assuming a base year of 2007.
For planning purposes, the Department generally requires a 15-year projection.
Therefore, a planning horizon of 2022 would be considered adequate.
Hopefully, these points will adequately address your needs. If you have any futher
questions regarding this analysis, please do not hesitate to contact me, or Ed Moore.
S tepften 91 WitJon, fiE
Senior Transportation Analyst
ODOT - Region 2 Tech Center
455 Airport Road SE - Building I A I
Salem, OR 97301-5397
(503) 986-2857
6/22/2007
APPENDIX
B
.-'
TRANSIT SCHEDULE
From: Eugene Downtown
To: River Road
Name: 51 Santa Clara
From: River Road
To: Eugene Downtown.
Name: 51 Eugene Station
LEAVE 1st
Eugene at
Station Jefferson
River
Road
at
Park
Jefferson ARRIVE
at Eugene
1 st Station
River
Road
Station
Bay A
ARRIVE
WHkes
at
River Road
LEAVE River
Wilkes Road
at at Spring
River Road Creek
River
Road
Station
Bay 8
River
Road
at
Park
5:50 5:53 6:02 6:07 6:12 6:25
6:00 6:04 6:08 6:12 6:16 8:16 6:21 6:29 6:35 6:40 6:55
6:30 6:34 6:38 6:42 6:46 6:46 6:51 6:59 7:05 7:11 7:25
7:00 7:04 7:09 7:13 7:17# 7:15 7:20 7:29 7:34 7:41 7:55
7:30 7:35 7:39 7:43 7:48# 7:46 7:52 7:59 8:06 8:12 8:25
8:00 8:05 8:09 8:13 8:18# 8:16 8;21 8:30 8:35 8:41 8:55
8:28' 8:31 8:35 8:35
8:30 8:35 839 8:43 8:48 8;48 8:53 9:02 9:07 9:13 9:25
9:00 9:05 9:10 9:14 9:18 9:18 9:23 9:32 9;37 9:43 9:55
9:30 9:35 9:40 9:44 9:48 9:48 9:53 10:02 10:07 10:13 10:25
10:00 10:05 10:10 10:14 10:18 10:18 10:23 10:32 10:37 10:43 10:55
10:30 10:35 10:40 10:44 10:49 10:49 10:55 11:04 11:09 11: 15 11:25
11:00 11 :05 11:10 11:15 11:20 11:20 11:27 11:35 11:41 11:48 12:05
11:30 11 :35 11:40 11:45 11:50 11:50 11:56 12:06 12:12 12:18 12:35
12:00 12:05 12:10 12:15 12:20 12:20 12:24 12:33 12:39 12:44 12:55
12:30 12:35 12:40 12:45 12:51 I 12:51 12:58 1:10 1:16 1:21 1:35
1:00 1:06 1:11 1:17 1:22 - 1:22 1:28 1:40 1:46 1:51 2:05
1:30 1:36 1:41 1:47 1:52 1:52 1:58 2:10 2:15 2:20 2:35
2:00 2:06 2:11 2:17 2:22 2:22 2:28 2:40 2:45 2:50 3:05
2:30 2:36 2:41 2:48 2:53 2:53 2:59 3:11 3:16 3:22 3:35
3:00 3:07 3:11 3:18 3:23 3:23 3:29 3:41 3:46 3:52 4:05
3:40+ 4:15
3:30 3:37 3:41 3:46 3:55 3:55 4;01 4:13 4:18 4:24 4:35
4:00 4:07 4:12 4:21 4:26# 4:21 4:26 4:35 4:39 4:43 4:55
4:30 4:37 4:42 4:50 4:56# 4:50 4:55 5:04 5:08 5:13 5;25
5:00 5:07 5:12 5:20 5:26# 5:20 5:25 5:34 5:38 5:43 5:55
5:30 5:36 5:41 5:48 5:54# 5:50 5:55 6:04 6:08 6:13 6:25
6:00 6:06 6:11 6:17 6:21 6:21 6:26 6:34 6:38 6:43 6:55
6:30 6:36 6:41 6:47 6:52 6:52 6:57 7:07 7:11 7:16 7:30
7:00 7:05 7:10 7:16 7:21 7:21 1:26 7:33 7:37 7:42 7:55
7:45 7:50 7:55 8:00 8:05 8:05 8:10 8:19 8:24 8:29 8:40
8:45 8:50 8:56 9:01 9:06 9:06 9;11 9:22 9:27 9:31 9:40
9:45 9:50 9:55 9:59 10:03 10:03 10:07 10:14 10:18 10:21 10:35
10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:03 11:03 11:10
* Starts at River Road and Fir lane and deviatBs.to Madison Middle SclrooL Sign reads: Madison Schl. Does not operate during
specific 4J holidays, breaks, and summer. See Rider's Olgest page 6 lor delails.
+ Leaves from Madison Middle SchOOl on Wilkes Drive. Makes slops only 10 drop off customers. On Wednesdays, this trip leaves
at 2:40 p.m. Does not operale during specific 4J holidays, breaks. and summer. See Rider's mgBSI page 6 tor details.
# Trip ends al Spring Greek. Another [Jus. 51 Eugene Station, begif1S inbound service 10 Eugene Station at Wilkes at River Road.
-.-------- ---.-------------
m ~ SPRING CREEK
=r~ "0rJ:
IRVINGffiN OR, 41. ~
,--, WILKES DR.
Modi.EOn
Miti~l<
Schoal
51 Santa Clara
(S] LTD Station
II L TO Park & Ride
RivN Rooo
Sratkm
IRVING
8ELTUNE
mm
SfL VER LANE
~f$::.{~~gJ<
Rivifrl:J
SilOf'lling
CeraI':(
\
~-
~ f'ARK
L,,.:}-
~
N
\ ----.----...-..-
From: Eugene Downtown From: River Roan
To: River Road To: Eugene Downtown
Name: 51 Santa Clara Name: 51 Eugene Station
u__........________ ____________________________.-o'.____._.--....~__
River River ARRlVE LEAVE River Hivllr Xl>'<:f
LEAVE ls1 Road IWad Wilkes W!Ilres !Wad Road ~>><~ Jeflere<1ll ARRIVE
I Eugetlil at al Statoo at at atSprir,~ Stal:m; at at EllgsnR
Stal!lJfl J~on Park Bay A River Roa<! River ROilC CreeK B:;rll P~rk 1st Stal;on
!
7:30 7:35 7;39 7:44 7:49 7:49 7;54 8;04 8;08 8;12 8:25
8,30 8:35 6;39 8:44 8:49 8:49 8:54 9;04 9;08 9;12 9,25
9:30 9:35 9:39 9:43 9;48 9:46 ,9:54 10:04 10;08 10;12 10:25
I 10:30 10:35 10:39 10:43 10;50 10:50 10:56 11:06 11;10 11:14 11:25
I 11:00 11:05 11:09 11~14 11:19 11'19 11:25 11.32 11;;>$ 11;41 11:55
11;30 11;35 11:40 11:<1'5 11;$0 11:50 11;55 12:04 t~~{}9 12:14 12:25
i PM 12:00 1M5 12:10 12:15 12:21 12:21 12:26 12:~~ ~~::t~ 1.2:4!l 1:05
I 12:30 tt..~~ 11;40 12:45 12:51 12:51 12:56 ::::::.::. ":l~ 1;15 1:25
1:0D 'l'~~ 1:10 1;15 1:21 1:21 1:2& l:~~ 1:40 1:45 1:55
1:30 1:35 1:411 1:45 1:51 1:51 1:5& 2:IH 2:11 2:16 2:32
2;00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:21 2:21 2:2& 2:36 2:41 2:46 2;55
2:3l) 2:3$ 'N(I 2:45 2:51 2:51 Z:5fi 3:04 3:09 3:14 3:25
3:00 3:05 >'~o 3:15 3:21 3:21 ')":-.'; 3:34 3:39 3:44 3:55
3:30 3:35 3:40 3:45 3:51 3:51 "0<> 4:04 4:09 4;14 4;25
4:00 4:05 4:10 ~:15 4:2~ :;::li 4:26 4:34 4:39 4:44 4:55
4:30 4;36 4:41 4:53 4:53 5:01 5:11 5:16 5;21 5:35
5:00 5:06 5:11 5;11; 5:21 5:21 5:27 5:34 5:39 5:44 5:55
5:30 5:36 ,':41 5:46 55i 5:51 5:57 6:04 6:09 6:14 &:25
6:30 &:,>~. ':",,,$ 6;45 &:50 6:50 6:56 7;04 7:09 7:14 7:23
7;45 ' . hS5 7:59 8;04 8;04 8:09 8:16 8:21 8:26 8;37
8:45 8;55 9:00 9;05 9:05 9:10 9:20 9;24 9:28 9:40
9:.f5 9;55 10:00 10:04 10:04 10:09 10:16 10:20 10:24 10:35
10:45 H::.~ 19:$ 11:00 11:04 11:04 11:11
~ Eug~ne
g Station llay
7;56 8;15
8:30 8:35 8:40 8:44 8:49 8:49 9:13
i 9.30 9:35 9:40 9:44 9:49 9:49 10:15
I 10:30 10:35 10:40 10;44 10:49 10:49 11:13
I 11:30 11:35 11:40 11:44 11:49 11:49 12:14
i
I PM 12:,3IJ n:.~ 12;4~ 12;4<; 1Z:SQ 11:50 12:$4 1;04 l:W 1:16 1:25
I 1:30 1:36 1:~1 1;45 1:50 1:50 1:54 2:(13 2:09 2:15 2:25 I
2:30 2:30 2;41 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:56 3:03 3:09 3:15 3:25
3:30 3:30 3:41 3:45 3:50 3:50 3:56 4;03 4:119 4:15 4:25 I
4;30 4:36 4:41 4:46 4;51 4:51 4:58 5:07 5:11 5:16 5;25 I
5:30 5:36 5;41 5:45 5:50 5:50 $:55 6:04 6:09 6:13 6:25 I
I.,~ ,$ 6:41 6:45 6:50 6:50 6:55 7;04 7:09 7:13 7:25 I
7:30 7:35 7:39 7:43 7:48 7:48 7:54
.----..------------- -------.-----.. _u_____J
~
0
0
a::
~
0
52 Irving ::J
~
IRVINGTON OR.
(S) lTD Station Cl f~"r WILKo OR.
~ rU:i
II LTD Park & Ride ~
'" ~
'"
~ IRVING
f1JJimoofWgh Soma (mu
5q<.mre
Bf:Ln.JNf mtS)
SILVER LANE F'i1 .,./ RivuRaiXi
-----L":::~_; Stotm
1'Jvrth E!Jg((l~ \ R;....;era
Hi!}h School Stropping
Ir/ing Cer#r
From: Eugene Downtown i From:
To: Irving '113 River Road i To: Eugene Downtown via River Road
Name: 52lrvillg ! Name: 52 Eugene Station
___.__.___n___uu -1-__________ ___._.n______. ,
Blair Ri>ier River MArJE lEAVE Ril'€f PJvm
lEAVE Road Road lrvington Dr. Irvifl!)tonOr. Ro8d Road 8lalr ARRIVE
Elll!ene at al Stalim1 at at Stalicn at at EUQeIIB
StalilH1 4th Park Bay A WiikJwtJrcuks Wiflowbrook, BayB Part 4t~ Station
[Q] PARK ~L?J
.'IM 6:56 ~
7:05' 7:15 7:24 7:35
7:30' 7:43 7:54 8:05 N
7:45 7:49 7:54 7:59 0:06 8:06 8:18 3:30 8:40
B:15 8:19 8;24 8:29 8:36 8:38 8:48 9:03 9:10
B:45 8:49 8:54 8:59 9:06 9:08 9:18 9:21 9:26 9:37 '"
9.15 9:19 9:24 9:29 9:35 9:35 9:45 9'50 9:55 10:07 "'
III
9:45 9:49 9:5/: 9:59 10:05 10:05 10:14 10:19 10:24 10:37 "" (1:gm~
::>. Mi....~ilJn
10:15 10:19 10:24 10:29 10.35 10:35 10:44 10:49 10:54 11:07 ?
10:45 10:49 10:54 10:59 11:05 11:05 11.15 11:20 11:25 11:40 u 2nd '"
11:15 11:20 11:25 11:30 11:36 11:36 11.46 11:51 11:56 12:12 ,'?:-
:-, : '1' 4th
11:45 11:51 11:56 12:02 12:09 12:0~ 12:21 12:27 12:31 12;42 ;i- 5th
PM 12:15 12:21 12;25 12:30 12:37 12:37 12:49 12:54 12:55 1:12 ~-71
12:45 12:51 12:55 1:00 1:Cl7 1:07 1:19 1:24 1:28 1:40
1:15 1:21 1:25 1:30 1:37 1:37 1:49 1:54 1:58 2:12
;;:;
1:45 1:51 1:56 2:01 2;05 2;08 2:19 2:24 2:29 2:42 z
2:15 2:21 2:26 2:32 2:40 2:40 2:52 2:57 3:C13 3:17 <>::
<
2:45 2:51 2:55 3:02 3:10 3:10 3:22 3:27 3:33 3:47 ;r
3:15 3:21 3:26 3:32 3:40 3:41) 3:52 3.:57 4:03. 4:17 U 10th
3:45 3:51 3:55 4:03 4:11 4:11 4:24 4:3.0 4:36 4:50 ~
4:15 4:21 4:2& 4:33 4:41 4:41 4:54 5:GO 5:06 5:20
4:45 4:51 4:56 5:02 5:10 5:10 5:21 5:26 5:31 5:45 <5
5:15 5:21 5:2& 5:33 5:41 5:41 5:53 5:59 &:Q5 6:20
5:45 5:51 5:56 6:01 6:U8 6:08 6:19 6:24 6:29 6:40
6:15 6:20 6:25 6:31 &;38 6:38 6:49
AM 1:31
7:59 8:03 e.01 6:15
(US 8:19 8:24 8:28 6:36 6:45 8:50 8:55 9:08
9:15 9:20 9:25 9:29 9:36 9:45 9:50 9:55 10:08
10:15 10:21 10:26 10:30 10:38 10:49 10:55 11:00 11:15
11:15 11.22 11:27 11:31 11:39 11:39 11:50 11:55 12:00 12:15
PM 12:15 12:23 12:28 12:33 12:40 12:40 12:51 12:57 1:03 1:15
1:15 1:23 1:28 1:33 1:39 1:39 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:10
2:15 2:23 2:28 2:33 2:41 2:41 2:52 2:58 3:02 3:15
3:15 3:22 3:26 3:31 3:38 3:38 3:50 3:58 4:02 4:10
4:15 4;22 4:26 4:31 4:38 4:38 4:48 4:53 4:58 5:10
4:45 4:52 4:57 5:01 5:09 5:09 5:20 5:25 5:30 5:38
5:15 5:22 5:27 5:31 5:39 5:39 5:48 5:53 5:58 5:08
6:00 6:06 6:11 6:17 6:25 8:25 6:35 6:39 6:43 6:55
7:00 7:05 7:10 7:14 7:22 7:22 7:35
AM 10:31' 10:39 10"43 10:47 10:55
11:00 1~:04 1::09 11:1.4 11:2.0 11:20 11:32 11:3-7 H'41 11:55
PM 12:00 12:05 12:10 12:14 12:20 12:20 12:32 12:37 12:41 12:55
1:00 1:05 1:10 1:14 1:20 1:20 1:32 1:37 1:41 1:55
2:00 2:05 2:10 2:14 2:20 2:20 2:32 2:37 2:41 2:55
:l:00 3;1l5 3:10 3:14 3:22 3:22 3:32 3:37 3:41 3:55
4:00 4:0!l 4:11 4:15 4:22 4:22 4:32 4:37 4:41 4:55
5:1111 5:06 5:11 5:15 5:22 5:22 5:32 5:37 5:41 5:55
6:00 6:05 6:10 8:14 6:21 6:21 6:31 6:36 6:40 6:50
, !leQin' 311 ~..mgl3l1 m RIVer Road DIre minute eaHi<;r.
HUNSAKER
5nntu Clara
$qUOft
a:
~
'"
BtL niNE
ft:;:-.QIVISION
~Frd M,yu
Shopping C<nl,r
""
~
?::
a:
o
Z
rTSILVER LAN!' -~"1":
~ ~"f,.~~%g~r" \" ~
~ '2
C!j ;
MAxwm L- 2\
~4 HOWARD \
f.1J\#,
5thQO'
m~
R"" Rood
Station
RivierCJ
9}(wpir~g
CetH('!
~
N
t~J
55 River Road Connector
(S) LTD Station
Ii LTD Park & Ride
~,
::iW.ORN
PARK
)..
....J~
f'u-, From: River Road Station from: River Road Station ~
! To: Grove and Howard To: Santa Clara Square/Fred Meyer
Name: 55 River Road Connector Name: 55 River Road Connector
______________n__n____n__n_n_n___n_nn__nn_ n____nu.._____uu_uu_u_~uu___~_
LEAVE ARRIVE 19VE :
Palk Gr<l~~ DiviSion ARRr>'E
Emarald at at Slatioo Station at RNBr Road
I 8ay G Park Rl1l8r Road Maxw~U !lay A Bay A fmc /klyer Slat,on I
I .:. !
[~liw~~i;irmJ~~tIt~~~lf!1~~~~1ij~:::~]1~::1~1fi~}rl~~]~~~~~i:~~~lIi~;:~1.lk{~~.~~t~~~tJ~r~~~~}tj
I AM 625 0'31 0'35 641 5:45 5.45 6.50 5.56' j
i 6.4S 6:54 6:58 7:05 7.10 I 7.10 7:16 '1..22+ i
I 7:19 7:24 7:30 7:36 7:44 7:44 7:50 7'54+ i
7:47 7;54 7:57 8:00 8:1O! 8:10 6:16 8:25" i
6:34 8:41 8:45 8:53 8:56 i 8:58 9:G3 9:09 I
9:34 9:.1G 9:44 9;51 9:55 i 9:65 10:00 10:06 i
10;34 10:40 10:44 10;51 10:56 ! 10:56 11:iJ2 11:00 I
11:34 11:41 11:46 11:53 11:56 I 11:56 12;02 12:09 I
PM 12:34 12:40 12:44 12:51 12:55 I 12:55 1:01 1;09 i
1:34 1:40 1:44 1:51 1:65 I 1:55 1:59 2:06
2:04 2;11 2:15 2:22 2:27 i 2:27 2:34 2;40
2:35 2;41 2;45 2:52 2:57 i 2:57 3:03 3:10
3:05 3:13 3:18 3;27 3:35! 3:35 3;41 3:46
3:35 3:44 3:49 3:58 4:03 4:03 4:09 4:20
4:07 4:14 4:26 4:27 4:31 4:3-1 4:36 4:44
4:37 4:44 4:48 4:54 5:00 5:00 5:06 5:14
5:07 5:14 5:18 5:24 5:30 5:30 5:38 5:45
5:37 5:44 5:48 5:54 6:M 6:00 6:07 6:14
6:07 6:14 6:18 6:24 6:29 6:29 6:3& &:42
6:35 6;41 6;45 6:52 6:57 6:57 7 :03 7:05
......"
9:40 9:44 S:50 9:53 9:53 10:02 10:07
10:35 10:41 10:45 10:51 10:54 10:54 11:02 11:07
11:23 11:29 11:32 11:39 11:43 11:43 11:50 11:55
PM 12:23 12:29 12:33 12:40 12:43 12:43 12:51 12:56
1:23 1;29 1:33 1:40 1:44 1:44 1;52 1:57
2:23 2:29 2:33 2:40 2:44 2:44 2:52 2:57
3:23 3:30 3:34 3:41 3:45 3:45 3;52 3:59
4:23 4:30 4;34 4:41 4:45 4;45 4:52 4:59
5:23 5:36 5:34 5:41 5:45 5:45 5:52 5:56
6:23 6:29 8:33 6;41 6;45 6:45 8:52 6:57
. Coo!inues as rouls 3x to UO.
APPENDIX
c
ODOT AND CITY OF EUGENE
CRASH DATA
I
Page 1 of 1
Cindy
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"RIFE Christina M" <Christrna.M.RIFE@odot.state.or.us>
"Cindy" <Cindy@branchengineering.com>
"RIFE Christina M" <Christina.M.RIFE@odotstate.or.us>
Thursday, June 21, 200711:33 AM
CR.HunsakerLn@RiverRd(SantaClaraLCDS38D. pdf; CRGreenLn@RiverRd(SantaClara)
_ COS150.pdf; CR.HunsakerLn@RiverRd(SantaClaraLCDS150.pdf
Crashes along River Road at Green Lane & Hunsaker Lane in Eugene (Santa Clara)
Cindy.
Attached are detailed and Summary reports for the above intersections for 1-1-2004 through 12-31-2006 that you
requested. Since there were no crashes reported at Green Lane and River Road, I could only send a Summary
report for that intersection.
<<CR.HunsakerLn@RiverRd(SantaClaraLCDS380.pdf>> <<CR. G reenLn@RiverRd
(SantaClaraL COS150.pdf>> <<CRHunsakerLn@RiverRd(SantaClaraLCDS150.pdf>>
Christina "Chris" Rife
Crash Data Technician
Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit
Transportation Data Section
555 13th Street NE, Suite 2
Salem, OR 97301-4178
503-986-4239
Fax:503-986-4249
mailtQJ~!J[i?tinfUJHife@odot. state. qr:.~?]
6/21/2007
w
(;)
<(
0.
z
o
U5
:>
Of-
f-z
z::J
w0
~z
0._
Of-
..Jo:::
Wo
>o.w
wwo..
00::;:
6~z
-<<eO
I- _
~!Q~
O::UJ:j
0:J0
(L 4::. C)
UJz>-
Z<cCO
<(I
g:UJ~
,<(W
Zo::>-
OC)>-
- 'CO
~2U)
f-2w
O::f--
OUO::
o.W<C
(f.lUJ~
Z<(~
<C>-:J
0::<((1)
f-OI
Ll..ZUJ
004::
Cu - 0::
Zf-C)
UJ~
~~
f-O
O::(L
<c.r;
c.z
W<(
00::
Zf-
o
Cl
W
0:::
o
1'-
o
o
~
~
N
<0
o
o
....,
~
(I)
o
o
Ll.~1
Ll..0
00::
'ZO
ffi2~
~G5
-Ww
(/)0:::
'z
0::0
~i=
Zu
-w
(/)
f-U-
~~
>-Ll..
0::0::
C:J
(/)
~
<II
(3
<II
1::
~8
<1)0
c:';i
<1>~
0>('")
::lcZl
W,<""
c: _
:;"0>
<Il ;::l
o e
0::::5
~.q-
~O
ii~
~~
<Jl'^"
c:
'"
..J
c:
III
III
('3
WO
..JW
c.o:::
0:)
LU-,
(L~
WO
..JW
0....J
Od
LU~
0.
..J(/)
<CLU
f-J:
0(1)
f-<(
0::
C)
>-W>-
l-Cl-'
0::<(2
W,>O
c.~
0<(
0::0
C.
'..J(/)
Z<(W
Of-I
Z<((I)
U-<(
0::
U
..J (f)
<LW
f-..,-
<05
"-<
c:
u
~
0::
<(
CI
>-
~
UJ
~
U
:J
r::
W
i.l.
i:
z
Q
Uj,
::J:
..Ji "
010:::
U0
1>-
~
f-
a
I-
(l)
:5
.f:
~
o
'0;
::l
~
'-
S
<lJ
:0
'0,
'm
en
c:
-il)
.0
VJ
(l)
0::
'"
e
u
z.
c:
o
<l)
::>>
<Il
>=
in
-0
:;:;.
&
o
Ci
~
.JE
f
'3
'"
~
""'
en
E
.q-
o
o
S
~
o
ll.l
.2
U
GJ
~
-'
~
o
f-
~
OJ
E
.~
rr
~
0>
E
3
Q.
l!:
.c
VJ
~
ll.l
~
G;
>
VJ
:>
~
o
2
~~
t:n!..L.
~.!B
.c: ro
00
.~ ~
ro ~
ti50
'0, l!J
<1>",
-1 .~
i1i;B
02
Z(/)
....J
<(
z
w::
w
~
<(
0..
Z
o
(jj
:>
01-
I-Z
Z:::J
W<9
:;;;Z
0.._
Of-
m~
aJD.W
Dil:!~
ZOI-
OZZ
i=<(0
~~~
0::(1)....)
0>-....)
0..~8
~Z>-
<(<m
0::3:0::
1-(1)<
'<(w
zo::>-
Qr.;'>-
!<z~
f-Ow
O::i=-
f:~~
(/)(j)Z
~~~
0::<(<1) tii
I- 0 I .>C
U.Z<I) ro
00<( ~
~;:::t5 :I
W~
~X
h=2
<(<I)
o..z
W<
00::
Zf-
o
~
w
a::
o
t--
o
o
~
-
N
G3
c
o
If')
t()
o
()
tL~
lJ..OO
0::
'*5@
uJ_f-
~t;::i
-WW
(fJ0::
&Z
wQ
I-f-
Zo
-W
(I)
::.:::
0::
<(
o
>-
<
o
I-u..
Wa::
SV5
~
ro
D
ro
C
t<l
(I)
~'"'
<1>0
::::0
<l)N
0> '
::::;-
w'?
c C"J
,- -
>-lJ..
e:::e:::
0:;'
C/)
(fJ
v
(3
:::J
0::
f-
WO
....JW
0..0::
@;;
c...~
-g~
o ::>
c: 0
fD~
.~ ...-.:-
0::8
ro<;l
wo:-;-
ro-
....J
WO
....Jw
o....J
Od
g::::::
..JC/)
<w
I-I
OC/)
1-<
0::
u
~lli::
0::<2
W::'fO
0..<
~D
a.
z~K1
~I-:r:
~~
a::
u
~u::
;'Cw
r-:r:
w:~
0::
U
~I
~l'"' 0-,
Uo2<(
- OWl-
(f) N I 'J
:J 0:::
6: fi l?j ::
oiLS 0:: g
>- N
00
00
00
00
00
C"':l !"J
00
co
00
U1 ....J
:5 <
N~5
C5~
O::Ztn
~<:5
>- N
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
co
oe
"<!' ..J
o <
gw~
-'>-'
.. (1\ to-
~Z<1"
w<g
>- N
00 0
00 0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
(")
~
.;;:
a
'iij
::3
~
o
(')
~
E
<P
::c;
:Q>
Q;
g.
'a;
.t::l
'"
t)
.c;
'"
e
u
~
o
<l>
0>
E
t<l
-0
::::-
a:;
0-
2
0.
~
2
N
o
n
o
'5
'"
:!:
>-
E
("')
..f'
o
o
~
-
'2
-
:.:>
Q}
,;::
t)
&
<P
N
~
a:;
1=
~
W
OJ
.,5
o
Ii
E!
s:.
'"
ro
ti
<11
U
';0
m
'"
oJ)
:>
~
.8
~~
01!J.,
~~
s:. ro
'-'0
~~
E ~
Ui '...
.~~
.....I '3
CJ (J)
o~
z0
o
....J
<
f-
a
I-
..J
<
~
u..
'"
~
'" :2. ". co '" C' g "- ~::> N C. N C. " co
C> V " " " " c ,::.; '0 '" " " .~ .~ .0
;~
,.,
Z
'"
.>
'"
'" <;. '" C~ " C " ~ " " "- " C g g
r~ g "- c g " g :?: g " c. "
- c 0 " " '" " c " "
~;
z
0
:(J ~
~ z
~ 00
t: '':::
fii r-.
t: a: .T,
0 ':: ~
'" '" .
to to
> a:
1:-1 Q .
., " -~,
3 r.: ~
~
H W '"' to
t-, ~~ ;:; '0
'" "
H ,. H ~ .."
" ~ 'n :0 "
* M ,
.' '" g' -,
'" '" '"
"
." " ~ ~ '"
0; ~ -,
,...
> -'"
'" . g-
, (.
'" Q; Q
c. S
., ::.;
'" S . ~
" :
~: ~ ~~ ~
:;: ?? ~ N
,t:.? r.: ~ ,
~ '" ~~ " ,
;5 0'
t.. ~ "
0- S '"
0
k' ,... ~
~;
C;; ,., ~
'. 0;
;.:,
t: ~
~; '" ~
;~, ~
~
0
,:,;
?i
c ~_.r
2. .'
"
", "'
,,; (U
~
~;
,0;:'
'f. "
f
~~ z:
::::'0 ""
"'H
l--~ 0: .w
o..,:;-z.::r.
~~~5~
~h~
[-00
t" c.;C,J
~u;c.::
t:r,;... >-.
0:: :-,1:
f.' y", W
? t. t
;:~ ::: ~~
_J::" v)
('..
~~ ~:.: ~:.-
:: ~: E~ .-.'
~,:: '" s:
~~f.
~ .::
.:;:....::u
c:; Cu i;) ,:,: :::.
~
0;
tv
\,0 0. C\ C
<:'\: :~ " :,
Co Z, C. ~
D ,..)
~S
'"
"
0:..: (?
..,'"
...)a;
"'
, r_,
0< '"
" "
~. "- ~.
00 '"
N '" '0 '"
~ '" '" ~
C ;r. ,.,
z ;';
" '" " '"
0: '" z ..
~ " f2
'" -'
:; " 8 I::
.::
v, t..:!:-.c:
.-<: l" ~
"
"
~~
Ow
~ -~~
'"
".
n
::, 0:: 0
Z {,..; ~..
'"'
~ vr
"-
E...
<:: Z
"
"
"
<(
frl W
~~Q
;Z Q, ~
.-,
c
'"
>. ;;:..
~r-:
z: ;-....
"'> ,.;. f~
e8~
~
~
t,:, 0::
Z~~
.xu.;:!:;
::: a: f~)
~fi~
c c- ~t
>-=t:..;; ....:;:
U y'1:,
;c; F-~ ~..
l-CCS
t~:?
0~'::;
:;!
~:
;~
~
OJ:: I,_j
I ~ ..,
~~3
>--'c--'_'
'"
c
z:.....
0;
.~
E ::; t
~ ~.'
~ s: ~:;
"
::;. C
~ u
"'; ~
'2 f"
~: ;-;:;
::.
~. j
'. ':'
",..::: ,~
.-,~., :.
~:'
;0:, hl
~ ~,
~
,.
'"
o
'"
1,1..:;::
~
W L>
~~I
o
g
~ .^
~ "
> V
'" '"
00 '"
"
c,
'"
'"
:::
.:r
-
<<
.'
C
.<
"
"
>" .
X:;:
~
H
'f.; W
'"
<(
~l V
~~i
N
"
~
,{
..:: ,..:;
:..-' t..? C
7.. Z ~
....; rJ':; .~~.
:>:: :>J .o-!
~j t3
~
'"
~;,=t.
:'c'
~
~
'"
~ ;:;,
:,:. cr;
'"
..,;' r.;~'
~ r.~
'"
~,'
'-- ::
,-,"' ':' ';:'.
"-:':1".. ,.>
z
,) ~
,~
'"
.! \.
'" '"
00
~
~
'"
'"
"''''
'"
'"
,...
;.') Z
0:
~.
,J
gtf3
2~~
]'".1
'"
",
o
Co
g
~
". "
, V
;g ~
:>:
'"
",
<oJ
Z
g
r;'
'"
p
'"
~O
i~~
r..
Q
I
..:r H
fi~g
~: << c...
z
I-If--o';..-.
~~c;
J
"
:~
i<
L>
~ ~ ."
1 ::>
::1
X 0::
~ ~
.::: :C;
l':: [..:
?t
"
,~
'.
.. ~;
~r ;.::
.:'(-0...,.
z
.~
;: ~
~~
'"
~'./
CO
'"
,:;:.
'"
0,
0;- N
V
0: '"
C C
~
~
"
'"
..
0
~
g;
"-
"
'"
[ '"
E:
'" "
'"
~;
~,:, l)
<oJ ... r.:;
Z :> ~
~ C;
"- t
"
0
,.. N
, V
a: ;:.:
00
'"
~
Z
'"
~
"
d
'"
~
~.
l.'
j ~:;
"
~ Ci]"-
~ t"
~ :z
~~
~~ u;
C. ~:.
c.., .....,
tC
'"
'"
f;
v~ t:~
...
"'
..,
'"
z
8
(<
~
'"
~
'"
'"
8
z
g
~,
;::
~,-', .
z ~ ~
'" Q
"
:;.
o
wu..
~~
M ".,
~;j t --
8
...
w
'"
z
:) [if
~ g ~ ~
(.) (.) -.-' t:;. ::::.:'
'"
'"
[:~ t':i
~~
~ ~
~~i ~-:;
:.i h.
~ ~ :_~
1-. :-..
v
~
l.i
r.:;
~: ~~
i~~
I~ ~' ~.
'--' ~
~: ~
,-.-. '.1;:'"
.:") C.
~ C "_"
;~t g 8,.
~-2
~
'"'
~ '-<
..'(
r-..:i 'x
o
~ ...:J
c.:: .-, ~
~ ~;. (~
~~
'-.
~i
[:,
'.':} 'Z u:,
~<
~:~.~~
~:, c..,
:i; I', ~
()
~
~
v.'
"
i~:
"
~~
~ ~ ~1
oc :::0::
o
u: ~
u, ,:...
c} t ~
"'" ;.1 !:;
,:..
".
.e,
...:: ~...
.:,
c, .-- i'
tZ ~ ~;
f,,~,
~i
:..;
'"
'"
;.::;
~~
r.
:C
{0
C:
"
~
"
~ ~,
.:t ....
:.-iH(o~:".'Ha:::::'~~
I:. ~ ~; ,_ ::. ~ ~ t
(:: ..... ~')
_.x. ;...
:; t
,~
... ~~ ~
".,,:~ I:':: ,. '\
~t~
(Q 3; r<"; :~.
':.. Q
.:.~ ~~ ~~
~: ~~~~~~(:.
....... ..:::
f~ ~
,-{ f'J ....-. ~;)
hl..j
C'l,.1 r.,:
~ !oJ ~:
~i'~:~~
~ ~~ f:
:~ .:':: .3 1..-; i~
'.;) ~ C(,
.~ '-'
H
tjtj
~ ~
~~
:;: ~~ ;~
~ ~..
W ~~.
?~ ~
c;.
~ ~~
~~ ~
l U:;
~ ~"_:
~~
__ '::. ~r:' '-'
,'v ,-,-.
~~ 2:~
Q
'"
N
,.,
'"
'"
c<;
'"'
"'
'"
o
~
'"
2
0)
i--;
'"'
:3
--.-:
'"
c:
~
'"
"
~
'"
(.)
w
e
:'~j
..'
~,
~~
~,
;,.j r.( '."
~
:',._:",:;;, t-;
~ - ~_i.~
G ~
dj
....... ,..
t~ ~~ ~~
-;!
."'. ..."; W f"'> ~(
~~: 6 8: 8: c" '_
0}
::::: u.
~~
,.;
. :/'"f
.'" :1' 6
i~
~ ~
>,
~~~z
c< c(.
v.' ~_' ._'
<:(
~~ ~;
:;"r
r~
~-;
:;" ';;,'
5 ;.'-:
....:; t-.
~ E~'
c' ~, (-,
~ j ~~ ;~( ~
~} it.. I~
;.)
~:
~
H
r.t,
'"
~
:0; ~,_: E
t: ~.~ ~ ~
~ ,-,
~ H :;~
t: '~ f~ ,-,
~:;:~
~ ~
~:f.~
", -. @' ~
;;: .;(
" J~ C'-'
~~
~
~:1
..... -' '::::-......'
:-~': ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-'
-~u..;~~u.;
~
r~ ;'-.
!-? ~9 :::
,.,
':~ ,::) .-,
,:: ~;: ~ ~ "
~~~~~~~
,~ ~> ~ t: :~ ~~ . . '-J
.., t? ~ t~ ~
~ ,}", ;:< ... ,:,: 0:.
1/) <0
~ {(.
~~ ~ ~
~
:'---- ~
r.( ~.
i.:. 'f'
~) I:: ,~
5f f~: u' f ~ ~.;,: ,--' ~ ,.0..
.~. f~~ :: ~ H ~.:;'
~ ~ :r; :. 2
- I-' ;...., ~ .::.....
.'- ~... ~j ~'.
x>:' ;::; 0:'
:7i f."
e:.. ;:~
;..... ;;:
Z':~::" "-
~ ~
~~
... ;',.--'.
g -~
'T.
,~': ~;
;-' 0::
:~: ~
8
c: '"
~ ;,.-.
:3 ,.:: ~ :~
g ~ i..) <
~J .t t
.... 1.(
~ ;:::
~
~
8, .~ ~. ~
'* ~
~ ~~ ~;",
x ~
~?J '--'~__~j~t,:j
':'J . ~" ...:1 c2;:5 f,5
~ ~",-~~~j"~ '"
S ~: :,: ~ B :~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~..~
6
~ ~
i~ 0:
,_: .;)
I I
... << <<
..,
e,
. ... .. f-
;:? ~ ~ i~~
:.~
~ ~ ~ ~1 ).~ ~ ~ -:-:- I':; I"
0~z;t!j :~t::;
~z~ ~.~:~~~~
~ ~ ~,
~
~ y .'
:,. ,,,
~~
';.-?::
e:<
I ~
r,
~:)
c' C:' -.' ~
0:
t~~ n
G}
~, ;.(
_;i
(-. 'f; {I_,
:..\ i
~~~ ~~
~~ r;
1:'.
;:'" {~ I Z ~
~ ~2 C"; :r:
, {-< F ;:5 ~
.:c:.; ..::,;... c..,
'z. .:'
~,
-,.~ ,....;
~
.-' ,::;, (;-
~,
;..:~
:::
~'
,':'
~
~
c-,
t
,i
t~ ::~
~s'
,..:;
H ':':
;:.. ::::::
;:; S
i;...
.-;- ~
;:: 2
~ .. c-.
< .x ...,
;;: ;~
t, ...
:':: ~; ~ ~
f'o<; I..:
~~: 1,;
~ ~ ~; ~.
0: :-; g --"
,~
e-'
CJ;; :~.:
)-;
;.c
",
?::
~ ~.~ :-~,
~ ;t;
~ lJ~ '7
~ ~ ;~ ~
H
~ ~~ ~
~ "-'
u. a:
I..
.... c., I:; I:::
!..:
~.
c< ',. 1....
~ ~I ,~. '--" -
'f, I.; C',J
'.!J
~ ,'., ~,?'
;i:
~~~
~ t....
~ (;)
~..~. ~
t;~ G
~~.c~~~
~52~;;
l"! ~ ~ ~
~
:i
;-1
~
~.
"
~s.
~~
." ,.:;
"'-
f-
t..:
~
~
~ ,:;
"'
.. I~.
:z Jl.
.:: G
r~ t
~wg
~: 1:1. 0
::~ !~~ \,;.
~~ ~ ~
~.~ 7
;;:
"
w
~
~
0)
::t: r-- ~ w
i.:~ 0 Z :z
::1: ~ Ci C !-~
S , , I ~
.j.
~ 8
~ ~
~~
""'I J.-.!
Q-O
.j
OJ
"
'"
o
~; 1:~
c. ;::: ,..:::
t : ~
8 2 ~.o. ~.
~~~~....-
;~~~~~g
~ ;-l ~~ ~ ~ ~
0(
'.)
:;;:
...,
~ ~
~ ~
c,.~ ~i
82
t'" ~
VV
::"Ju:i
~~
~. c..
~
~ ~
f-lr:r::f->a.::;
~.~ ~.':),-. ~
~ A r,S
N ~,
I I 5 ~
~ 'Z ....-.
'"
""'"! l-! l:;''l
~~~~
8~~~
Q) {(.. c~ I),
.x
"'
'"
r.--
o
...
e
^'
I !
..
~
..:r
z
o
~
'"
~
...
"'
g
'-'
5
....
~
.,
~
0:
...
'"
2
t.:
z
o
H
..
'"
S ~ ~
r.? H t::!;
fA !-=I .,.:.
Cl. t:.r) H
U
~ ~) ~
i-l ~ .-
5
rif 0;; f..U
~~ ~ ~
tfJ :;; r:n
C. n .:)
Ci,..:r..~
~ ?3 0
'"
t:;
co
O.
'"
'"
o
~~~
2 ce. ,~
Q G z:
"
8t
C,J
... "
~ {(,
,.;j -0
~.~ ~
_ x
g
~ ~ ~
~~~~
E
~ t3
;;: Q
.0: w
.D..; w
'"
;?~
I I
'::l.r.r:.
..-...; ~
:'.1 l;r~
:r:: {:r:
C:.CC
~~
:-~ E--.
:4. ,~
o,'-'=l
~...:!
~) t;.
g:~
..,- .4. ~
~ .- c; a 0 ,.
:""'-1e:e:~h:
~ (3
e: ?=
"'
"'
~
'"
'"
1::
~
H
...
'"
t-o~
g~~~u:, ~~~!
t.'1 a 0 ;$~ w:< 0:: [r) u'
"
;2
S ~ ~ ~
~ P:;-..... ;;;
0;; 0 ~ ~
~~2~z
~
iZ
to
z
;;
ltl
H
,.,
..:r
o
to
>") i;- 1:-> ~ I:' ~ :-.c:.
'3 ;~ ~ t? ? !~ .. c.,:~ ~ .."..
~ H ~.~.: ~,:. ~; ," c; ~ R
_ ~ 0 .~ ~. b ~ ~; 0 6 ~ b
e _
tt~
;.--1- W
..:!; ','
I:": ........
r' u:J
~ ~ .9 ~
~ c.... .~ '...'
:t: b':l
~;;:
0"
...1..
<3g'~IC
o 0
f>.,: ,......
!/r ~ j....
~ rn ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ,_
C'.~ '.: "::- ',(:
,.,
w
".
~~~
~
\..'
,;.'
i.:J
,::,
t.:,
~ ~~~
lc
(...:. ~l
)?
~ ~~
~:..,
I"':
'"
~
~:
;".::
~ ~ ~:.
~~ t:J
.... in
cc
'l~
r~'.,
'"
'.... ;-;,~:..,
~ :~
.- ;~:
'..':
,/;
'.. v,
0'
..,
() '2
"'-. ti ~~ (,~, -.
~ G~ ~: ,...,
..< ......
.;.;. .'
::.? w
..:
z:: -- 1-'( {,.,
.,
C. ~. {..,
...
"'-t ~ (..;.. ....
!.t.. -..
,~
~ ]-'.
~~-'c,~i:
t; :: t; .. ~
~
~,; ':'. t3 ,~, ~
;:( >:J:. ,'^";
~
f-' (,~
::' .< ':'0
(( {.. f-
::: ~ /-. ;-,
is"..
~ ..~ ~.
...... t::
,... "'
-::-:" ....,
:.... Co-
:.'"
;~
c,
,.:,
z. ~ :;:; ~
I,~ c.~,
~ ,:, (;-.
r::
~..: C'" l.t:
C,
t.:: ~. ~.,
;:~ L. ~
:3 ,-. -.
...... '..
~ .=1
0:
~
~' ;<
'"
>.'": "-
tl ~ ~ n' ...~ C~
l.I..: (l.'
c..
.,
.., z.
-. ~ S
;~
1
8
..
'"
H
'"
t.:
'"
;.:
r::
'"
S
:~~ '-'
v..
~ C
E
..:r
z
o
H
...
;:;
'"
"
~
:,:) .::J.:
~ >i:
'-' ~:
~,'.'
~ ~.
g - w
>j
t~ ~
~3 ~::
,~' {.....
e,:,
"",: c--.
z,.: t>-:-.
~ 2 tJ:
....; ("
e.-. .:... ~
~~ f .. ,~ ~.: ~ ;~
n; ~ .'>
co
~ c'
.~ :=::
~ ,~ ~.~,
~ - :-< ;.-::
1"; :z ~:: ..... ~
Z <1. <. ~:
'/; '. .:;..;
.:,
~~
::;
'..J u..;
0..: >
~ ~'
'-' ~ e.:, ':;
~ r-, 0. {(, L';
o """
M f:~
~ Q
~~h;
~
,'): ~;
;::) .....
...
'.; '..'
;.~ l~:
u::~.z.~.
:.. i:~
'.; ;.,;e:;
Z c.,,)::..
~
~.
:j i.
~ ,~
'., lS.
~. ~
l;--. I:,
'"
Q
o
U
5
~ ~~;:.;:;
~ ~~l "- ,;1
E-o A:: ;.: l.r.
g ~ v ,~ ~t,
rn Q ...... E~ .......
0:..,:';:, 0) :-: '''';'. s: ~'-'" .~ ~~
? ~f ~~~ j ~~ H I :.'r ~,~.~ w ~:~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ;(' ~~
~) 1 'j' I I ~.. :;: .- "" f:J
~2::~~.- t~~~ ::,~~..~~~3
t'
t~ ~^
;.:..; :j h! '..:..
'"
'"
"
,<
c'
~~
eO
~~ ~
c:: -=->::
0:
n
~~ ,..
:.:;
~ ~
~ ::;
.:.. {~ t ~
r~ eo:
tJJ Cl
~ 8 ~
::?:22-
:...""': ,~. 1-'
C'
<<, ::'
Co
,., ,..-.
""-, r'" r-.- ,-"',
,..
'"
;:J
6
~
~
...
'"
Q
8
'"
~
'"
;:;
'"
l;!
0:
~
'"
"
'"
z
~-:;
0....
~c: ~
~;;;?ii
o'-'~.
;:.:u;
t....:,;.1
~~~
w,<
fi: w: f~
;:;s:~
;s c:.
OJ
'I'la::Z
("'..:0::::
7:l.;(j
:z: z
.........::::.~
;I;C'Z
~.... :::;
.......I..^
;7::NI
'"
o
5 ~~f2 ~'
H bJtuhr ~
~ I~O;:~f-IO
" ~z; ~ ~ w
~ ~~~::;.-.
i:01 rn ::::
c.l ~:;:Z:::::3:"
Q:j. .:;:::..; :.:)
Ci '.:-'::.').::: I:;::
3 ~~:~~g
$-I if::...,; ,r.
(L; W ("J ~',: ,..... :..1
~ :;i i::;' ~"i Z
ifj c: '.") C':..) z::::
..1 f:f
S! '"
()
.~
~, t:
'f
"
..'
I~ c.
<c, ..'
(.,-'
,..
~
c.~
~~
~' ~ ~~
w ;;3 ~--~ ~:~
Z ;? ~".~ .:: ~~~
2 '.~ ~ . ()
t ,::, ~ '~~~ ~:
~ ~;~e~
ii .:,::: cr... M u.;
~ .:-).:; ,-: .:.
"'
o
'"'
,..
j
/J)
~
;:;
'"
Q
8
'"
"'
~
Fj
H
H
~..:": ....) ~ ::: ~
(;
.;:
~5~~~:
'"
'"
;;;
"
'"
;:-; u ~, , .:0.
'" ~
0 "' ~~
" '" '?:
'" D '.j ::;
U r4
,~ .:;. ;',
:1 '"
()
~
w
'"
co
w
'"
{., Ol:
~ 8
'" ,..
c; '"
M
H '"
,., 'J
j UJ
/J) 0
~ ,.,
'" H
.' S;
'"
Q
0
u
0;
~
'" '"
'"
c
"
"'
~
'"
co
'"
?5
a:
'"
:>
..
~
~
1,;.1
~
',.'
:<
",
~
C)
'"
?~
...
l~~
~
~.
cr. ,~
,
"' t:U
::.;
;;~
c< ,,;
'" '"
t--- r:::
I", ~
r::
f--
~'
z
~
,..
'"
'"
~
~
"-'
.~l
~
C
cc,
~
:~
"-
C'
~
~~ ~
~~S ~ s ~E
~~0 ..,._~ ~~
~~~ ~~~~. b~
C~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~
~~<~: ~ i~~C ~ ~~
~S 0 ~...._~~ ~~~~~) ~ ~~
~t ~ ~~,~~,~~ ~~"':"~,.'.~,.:','.'.-,-_:.':,.t:"~'~"I.f ~ .~,_; ~
~g ~z W~"Z~_-Z~~ :~-" '7 ~ ~ t~~~
to S~~ 2g:S~~~ ~0~~~~: :~ ti~~
~~ ~~: ~I~j.~~~; ~~~:~S~~ ~~ ~~ :~l :,~.~
"v ~ ~ ~:~;~~~~ 0 ,~~ z~ 0 ~ ~~8:::~ .
':'b~i :~~~f :;o~i;;,"i?":'< ,iJ2",~.>'~" :':~~ ~:;?~;H~:.::
~ ~ ~-, ;. :i C:" ~ P :>. ~: .:~_~ ;~.:.j ~.~ ~.~,. t f.~~" ~,:.'.~ ~,,:-.~ CL:,. f~ 3:," :f,_~ t,) h 1""'; ..... :=: ':: :~:: ~ ~ :.1 ~;
. ,'\. '''''' L' ,.. ~ _ _ ~- r _ ~ .:, ,=, ;:~ :.:' ,.... (!.. :;;: ;..-. :-t:
i ~ ~ ~ ~ Z C~:::: ::: '." ,c, ~., ,. , 'n" '-' ~ ~, ,. ," ~ ", "-'._ .
a~[i~i;;!!ill;;;;~!i~illiri!!;~[~I~!~!!!!~
~~~~tt~~~~~8~~~~~'2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P~~~E~~~
g~3~~~~~~~~2~~~~~t~:~222~202~t2~g2~~~~G~E~
s
..0
.:1
Z
i..:;
?
3
~~~~t~~:)t06~ ~~~~~~~)~Z~~ 0~ ~~~~~f~j~~ ~~~:
~'8~b~~gG~~~t~~~~~~~~~[i~~~~~~~~~)~~~ ~z~z~
~w ~~~; ~~ K ~.~. ~~~ ~:~~~:::~2~"~8~~
;~~2::;t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~i~~~E~~~:
;::. ---''--': -:v '-" '.,,:.
c.:; c::. c
~ .::-. '.::' -:" h ;::'
r--- CC' ..::~ ~. -' ~.. r.- ~ .." ....c. :.... ;" C. .~, .,...A r-J .,,> .",r ~r:
ggg;;;~~~??2;~;88~~~:~
:.... CC' c. C) --. ~'! .v, '': ...-. W ,'"
~~! ~ ~ ; ; ;~ ;: ~: ; ~ :~;:
.):. >::'t. '::, ~.,
:;;~; .;:
~
{-I Z
;:; ;:;
'" ...
:':i ;:;
,... r.,
"'
j '"
fd
"' '"
'" "
r.;
:, 5
... :-
'"
Q
~)
'.J
'"
C<
2
" ...
'"
~
t1l
'"
~
'"
{.;.
"
'"
~
::'
.,
5 -
~ !~j
,); I)..
H I~;
~t
<.....; .:..
~f;j
:.'-' 1:-.
j~
p I.r;
0.1; .::
~~
'"
~ ':!'
::...ro::..:;
"
,.:: ~
u.' 0;':"
.... ~ 0 w
:-::, ;l; t:.il
G~:' :2~iU
-,:",'. - ~~~" ,t,,':', ,:.,~ :.z
- :; ~ j t; ~;
~. ::: ~ ";: Z I:'
S::. ...:. ~5 :~: >,-; i:: t
~~:~~~~-~~~) ...
1..<:. .:,:, ::: u ;!: ~-
,.) "C, f.~ ;;::; I~:
;~~~;~~ ::~~~
u.: '-'0 :.:-' {" ~:::.. r_:':
L'; <:. rl C~ ~ ~,
,~ .~: ~ 0 f-' (:' :.' t,rj ~.:'r
,"., ... :::; ;.::: ;; f/. ~ !-'I ~ Z ~
:~, t.".' 0 r.:!'. Z r..t~ ~.1 h
k~ ~-: C: ~ z i::. - <. [j ~ ....'
;:, [.. l'.' E. Q 2- 6 ~ z [:3 :s
~~~lX~!E-'Z;~~v',zr
!--<H~:;V) ZI.:;toW
~:')3.0C,-, Z..:.:. I--< '2; i.<.' {....,
:~~~~~~~~~~~
;~ ..i: ;:: v) v:'
~~~~;~i~~~:
'") ,,', "'-.l...r. 'L ,,, {C' c' C
"J" ",-j" '.,. ,..,. ~ --:- ~.: -.:' .....,
C C c: c:;-: C:. C' c:
8
I:; ('_,
I..: :.:::
.:: I~:
;:. u;
v L;
~-I I-~
t.... U; ,.,;::t..
~,..... H::t-.
~~~~
:.!;'I-':::::~
j:-- C' ~ :)
~~ 2~ ; f;;
CJ) i.l~
~~
:.;:-~
U4'e::
~~
~~
t-.
~*
,.J i::~
t~ t)
6~
~~
~:
{,,:<
:':1 ~~
t.~
~~
tJ {G
;:.. {i)
"
W
~
g
V)
p~
U ;~ :~
'-~ :,': ...;
"" ~;, f-< c-.
E-~'::ZZ
33~~
:) :;. ~; }~~
;?~~:~~
C( oj) j). ;.:..
.-:.; ::.;
c.' ~1J
:\: .~
~n
(:.
:..:~ .....
~2~ .~.g~;~s
~ ~ (")
~~. ::] u:'
;,:; ;....; 'Z ;.) :.: '.;:~ ~..:'
Z~~a~f~~~ ~ ~~ ~~
f IF~~:~~0~~~8 ~ ~~
~~f~~i~~~~~~3M~. ~~
_~~~~H~~~~~~ "~2 ~ ~!~
:111~::::~ii~ii ~i~~i
5;;~~ft~f~~~;~~~~~~~~~
~i~~~ggg~~~~~~;~~@~~:
~~:~~~-H_~~k~~~~C:~ ~~~~
::;:o~ tIJ :,', co:' (0 ,::; ~ ::..:: ~ :--- :::::; ::;.: ~ I~""':': ::- 0:: "-=, ~;, I)~
~~~~~~~~~2~~~~2~~~@~~
~.
~ ~~
'.J
H
~~~~;~~;~~~~~:2~~~~~~2
~x:~~~~~~~~~~~2~;~~~~
'-' l ..
.::. C' ;:.
"'7' .r; \';' !'". 0;<' C ,...., ,.... ,~) ..,r ..;, ,:.
lr, .r, l'J if: '-': '.:.J...;:; W .~ \.:..~ ..s:.:....
:;-, C' c -:.:' -:;., c. Q ':) ':: ':~ '::
'T;;~6~~:;.
;:::;-, ,:;).:;) C '::
'" "
~ 0
><
,., '"
'"
0 a
><
... '"
::'i '"
0
m "
~ ;z
,~ s
'"
Cl
0
'-'
... s
'"
r;: ...
'"
'" ><
,.. :<
'" u
~ 0;
OJ
'" Q
3
CG ,.. (i)
i-' ~ '"
v) ~
~
t;3 '"
0.- .. u
U '" ~
ex; ,.. ::;
....) '"
I..)
G
>-<
u
,..
~
~
:'5
'"
'"
s
t;i
t
,..
,.. .
tr..lr..'i
j f~ ~
~ ~ ~,
>-. c: ~
z i~:
~~ a.~ ..::: :>
~ ~ 00 ~ w~~ ~
?-.,_-, t, ~ c.,:, ~ ;:.:;
~ 2:-L ~.::. S:3~~.~ Z ,""I :3 c ~
~ ~ .. :,: ....:l ~ ,0;0: ,....., d ~ \: C.
~zo ~~ ~~:o~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~~~ ~~ ~~g~ ~~ ~~ t ~ ~~ _ ~~
a ~:.'~ . ~"~,.~,,::.c~,,.,"~".~.' ~:._.. ~.~ ~ g~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ .~: :~ i 3 ~ ~;; ~ 0) '.': ~ t 5 ~..o '.1
;'2 cL ;>J t ~ ,~ :;; ,,; 02 :;' ';' ... ;; '" ::: :i' . . . ~ ~ :.?,.:. :2 0 ~ ';- ~ ._. ~ t~
0~i0" 1_. ~:...~ ~~~ ~"i.~.;'j:,.,~.,;.~j: '.' ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~~~~gz~~
~...;.:~:...-:~,~.~~ ~~~2 ;.:~.i~,~~~:.j:; w: ~ w ~ ~N Z~~Z2"''''
~ ~:~~ ~:.-,~ ~r.~~:.. ~BS ~J ~ ~ I ~~ ~~~c(W~0
~ ~ ,;:..: :i i -t=; ;~. eo:: t3 ~.~ W f-::.. 1 :.:; \.:' ~~ W vJ f-i C' ,L ~:: v~ --. -:.. --. [.~- <.oJ;;:" ..... ...'" y..J t.',
" ' "'" r '. ~. '''' ~ ' ' .., Cl ~ .~ :~ ;_~ c-- 0 - -. H ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~. t~: ci c. ..; :-t
~i~~:~~~2 ~~~@~ ~~2~~~ Q ~j~ " - GG~~
~~~~~~~~~ ~~3~~l~~50~~80 ~ ~g~ ~~.~~ ~.;.._~t,~.'.'_~.'~_:~~,'.~.~~:,:.~,'~,~ -j. 5
r::., 0.11 . .-. , .--.-< ~ ~: :,H" ~ ~~. ~.'~..; ~ ::.i ~.: ~,~; ~~ S, _.~.o. ?.-". ~~: '-' - -' ,. ~ >. ? C>- '," ,~.. ~ -, - -. ~,,,,,' ~o>.:.; f.~.~o:" g,',
~r""".':,....r,~.;.~.~.;...~.',~~.~..,..~. ~'~'.~~.~-~~,~-=~- - ~ ~~ _~~_ ~~o.1 ~ ,-~v
~ - ' ....... - .J .' ~ ,~ I " '-i;' H w (::: 0 ~.'.,;:: ~,'" ~'.',. ;.,~.. :< ~:~ ~ P,',:.> :.,; . c:-. ~ ....
.~I~~~~~G~ ~ ~z~~~~~2~0~o~ ~c _'J~~'~;.... . 20
. ." - ." ."... . ex; ~ ."' ~ _,,; ~ t ~ l:j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w [j !~j L M
~iiIJ~lljlj~jJ~~i~i~illi~~:~it~~:;ii~i:;ii;'i~~!~~::;:;;~~
(3
,...
VI
H
,C:
C)
~
~
r~
::r.
j
~
~-'.
:-:;
u;
'+'")
;:.,
'"
;.,.j
t.'.:
~
~
rL. ~~ z: t~
~ 0: f:. :.> c.;. (;, :.;.- .:::: ::.:: ::.:. ~ ;0 0-:: ~. \.., ". u,.. ;:: 7- l-<,. }.-';j ::;r;:.;;.::::: 'x' ~..( ,.: ~ .....', ~ t,. . ~ 0..
~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
11::li~il:!!I~~~~~~I~!I~li;I'~illli~~:i~llli!!!!~igt;~i~il
f-< "'
~ 8 ggggggf:~[~:~~~::~~~~~~~82;8~~'~~t~~82:~8~2~:~
'"
~~,:c'~'~a'O-Nrn~:r:w~.oo:~;;:,r<N~'=~~[~0
~~~.~~M~~~~=V~~~~~i~~~~~~~:~'~.,.
(~0C'OOOCC~C,()::.C.(~():::C:0000C~~C
... '"
~ ,~
H
,., ...
'"
'" i<
;; t>
... '"
;3 '"
'"
i!; "
~ i
0; 0
,. ,.,
w
"
()
~;
... :t.
,-. S
~ >-
'"
"' H
" e;
0:
Q '"
'" "'
'" Q
~
3
]
(.., ~,
~~
:c: IJ)
w::-,...
> v')
'"
-<
'"
.,
c'
z
~,
~~
~~
~:; l-':t
z~
~t
'.n>
>, .:.-.;
'I)
~
<
l~
E:
L~
t:t:1
'"
< ..
'" c.
'"' ~
c -
g
'"
,::( G)
W ....:J-
,~, S
~ ~ ~ ~::
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-
~~ ~,~" ~ ~ 22 ~
~~g - ~ Q G~ w
~ ~ j~ ~ ~: G ~~~ t t ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~Q ~ ~ 5 ~~~ ~.. ~~ ~ ~
,:.:" '.' ~ ~ f '--/ (.. t>-; :.. ::::: (-; :~~
~ ~~~~ ~'" ~ ~ ;.~.~:' ~ ~:~ ~ t - ~,~.~,~~.','.',i,~;,.',
~ i ... g ~ -... J.:G 2: ~ r-.,;: ~ ',,'.: ~ '- .__ :3
;-. . ~ - [:._'." ::","" ::; M Cu ~ H' '.' l:;, .,;.
~ ~~~t;~ ~~ ~ ~ 5~ ~ ~ ~~~t~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~
.x: z g~ ::( -:~ ~ ~ U.; H t.<..1 ;): r.' ~ :}.. t I ~,.,:_~, r,-.~", ,~.',',i ~~ ;,' -~: tL;~ ~~ g :~ .~: c! W
i:: 0 h ;:; ~ ...;.:.:.. ~ ~~=: ~~ (j ;..::' h C, :0.' ~~~ ':': t' ~ ~ z w . IY ...... , ,
~~~oo~'.'~2~3~ -,~w~~ ~ ~t~oo~~G~~:~~~~~
~,'.~;, ~, ~:..:.:' ,:'J ':: v) I): c.-; c.:. c.- ~:., ~,. c~~ ,',:..... 2 ~..~ ~ c. f_',~ ~~ ~,-, ;.1; ~ Z .~: '.' {.,:' ::;: ~ H '"_. .:.:: ':.~.--' a
. ~ (.~ < o<::,~ :.: '-f [\., >-; ;~. .... _ I.; z: u.:; .:.: '-~ ._, _ r: :_.' ;_~ t-~ ;.: ;..' ,}; :.~. ....:; :~: ;x ~_,
~ :.::: '.J oJ o:~. [<., .. :-: \,J ...~. '..,.;:'; >-- ~ C f_'" ::~ {--. . ) ~ ~ \.--< .~...... ~.'" c' ,-' .,.
~ ~~~~~~~o~g:~~ ~~~;D ~1.~ ~ 0~,E~;~.- ~~tfficlt@~;j~~~~
~ ~~,.',~..~~~.,.,'~.2..~,~,~~I,...i,.,~.~,;:,. ozxz~>.~. ~ ~ ~~s...... ~2~>o.~~~S~t5:z..
C":t - -, .'...... '-" - ~- .. ..:::. ~ ~; ?,,: ~.,~'..~ "':~.' 2 .~)..... _~ . 'X .').:,. w 0.; ,-". .... '
N ,~_.,.~,~~-~,.g...",-,'.-.3"~:f:~.....,;,~ - ".... '-1 ...~ (~ ~ ~;~~~~f~j;~~;~::i
..~ :...c. ..... ~ .... . - ,,~,,~ ..' I , u... ~ ~ ...., :!: :,:' :~._. ~, ;] ,r~:,' 2' ..... -< k,l.. - f---o ~ t-- ' , '-' '- _
~ U;0UC-O~~~ awu ~~~~t~~ ~~~~~I_-'~ t~ ~~~g~~~~~~~~~~i~
c{ ~ ' "?' .....J i~ ::,.' ,.: c:, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~::1 '-'~ 1.'; ;:" H ;-, ::::: :Z.::.:; ~ ~ ~'.-:.' ::' .-- H 0:.'-.. (.J ::.:; ~;.r::: r~1
o ~~g~ga~ ~S~~~~2~ =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~
11~1~;i~I;!~!ii!!I~;;il!!;~i;;!!i~!;;!i~lllll;i~~:;,~,~.:,.~,:.~,:::,.
~0~~~~~~2B~~&~~~~BBt~~~~i~~~i~t~~G~~~~~t~~~~~t~~
~~ ~!::~ >1:;
.~ b ~ ~,~,~~x ~~
v ~~~~ ~~~,~Q~~~~~t~~i~~ ~z~~ ,~:)U ~j~~~~
111;iiil;~:;i;;!~ili~;;iilii~illi;II:~:ili::iB~!:=I!
...-'"
z c'
f" C
~ t.:
~"""'~~:~lnt:nrr_~o_~~~v:~~~'~C~~~~1~~~~::~
~~~~~~~~~~~S;~~;~~;~;~~~~~~~~~~'~
'-, (,..! ", T;"' ~.., '.D ,~~ 0;:::; -z
~~ ", ::.. ~, <:r ,:7, v (!
c' c :':-, c' -::;,.;"--' '.:"_'::
o ~" -,~- .;:. '..;' (-. -:::' u. (.; :-,-; ".,-. C '--or ,,:','
.::;, ::. <;, '::;: .::' ... .-, ,....; .-\ ..... .;:.; .'oJ :x
'---' .-" ....., "-j- ,.': ," ... -.. --: .-.-{ ,..... <""'"> ..... "'"
"
<-
'" t^
,.. t ..
'" ,~ '"
.... ....:i g ,..,
H ,.;:
.. ~ roO ,.;: z:
tIl 0 ~ :-1" E
~ H
g ~ u:; ...
lL ~
" ':"J '"
0 ?l ~ f, '"
H '" '" In ~
,.. ~: ~ S ,~ roO ;~I
~ ~ .. '" "
,.. .. "' ..
'" '" H
~ '" .... ! I ..., ;:; '" " W
Q '" H 8 g to
/).: 8 tJ <- to ", '" 3:
'" r.;
<- c., ~ ., ~ to ~/) '" .. '"
Co '" :,:, '" ~ - " l';
... ~ '" ~ S H Z :z '" B :....
" (' '" ~ >: z: '" "
~ " 071 '" z 5 Xi '" c; '^ Vi "" '"
5 g () 1 f:: 3 0: '" '" ... tIl :~ ~: '"
'"
to. .. f..~ H '" ,.., ..' " ,.. Q ,.. to: " 5 <
t5 '" ... < c " ~ ~ ...,
C! ~ ~ < R ~ it J~ DO
W ~ ;:..J 2:';: -' .. ~ to ,.. f:U
w '" 5 ... X 3 ~ w '"
~ tIl ~ .;) '-" ,.. '" <-. - z " ~)
.., c. l~ c; ~.l " Q '" :;, >, M ne Z g ::;:
0 U "" :...' Q :0 '" ;3 ~ t~
" '" '" .-, Q '"
8 ..; '"
'" '" I" " c:. H " ~"
0
0 ",. M ...., ...- - '" .., r, .~.-, = "', ~,
0 0
U tJ
'"
:,,:;
:c.
~
:~
r,:-.
"
GO,
"
,-::.:
ne
'" '-,
""
~ ..'
"
o:.~
,~ ,:~
~ :~ ,.'
'"
" ~:
0 .. "-
H Z .' I~:
" () '" ,~
~ ~ Z '"
'" "' ~--(
~ :;1 :z ,~
1J "-
,., " ~: ..
'" I:; -
'" "
.::: ~ '"
t~ '"
~, '" '"
t-,;, \..": Vi ~
'" H ~
"..
,..
~ ... ...J ~ ~
p '"
9 .
'" ii; '" ':; ..
,; c: ~ ..'
'"
'"
8
u:;
t~
~~
s'
..
~
z
;=;
,..
j
to
~
<-.
3
6
~
...,
to
5 ~
u 0
,.; ~
~ '"
,...
:3 '"
,.:)
... '"
() 14
5 '"
b,
b~
:..,:.
;:...'
r"
~,
;:.)
u:.x:
~;;,.:;
::-- ::::::
:'::'r.-<
....... c\
G~~
'"
i')
H
g ~~
,.
..
f.; t;
(J~$3;;
t; :\: t; :i:
t;~~;;~
2
,..
.::
,.;
~
~
..
I I
I ( ;
...J"":;w
;~S ;~~ ~~
~-~~6~ ~~~~~
~~~t:f:; cLD~O;H
r.:!. ",,"" "1 .:< ""~ a; u:;
""'~' ..~~, S.~.'.' ~.~~., ~. ~,
- - .. - - :7",.~: ',~.' ~J, ne,"'...'., r..",
0... :::.. r-':: :...-,:..., ~. _ ,- ~ ...~ :z :;::
~ G ~~: ;( c~. ~J ~j t~ G u: ~;; ...1 ~~ ~~ ~ @
Z Z C' ':' :::- <Z :z :;:; ::' ,...:} ,,( ::: ::: G: e::
M ,.... :::: ':' Z U H H ..... ;:: .....:; U ,::r: .~; :..:~ :..:.
~~~~~;~~~~~~~I~~
:.::. :;:. :::. ::-:. ::J:: it ~ ::::, ~_ ;:; :::: :.: :,:: ",
.,: .:0:: .:0:: e'~ 0:: /::-: ~ :;, :." :::' :::. ;":, ::' ::. :.: ~'
'"
CO
o
U
'"
H
,...
'"
'"
,.
'"
0;
,..
~~ ~~1;;:~1
(;) '1 :~~ h .-i .'-' '-.I.; :::::
,..
5
..,
~
~
"'
'-'. ,-,j. ~c' r. U' ~. .-.--. (.. ":1' \~) ;-. ,:,-. x' c. eel cr,
(:) c;. ~, ;:;:. C ~ ~; <.~ .-; ~.; ~-, -< ~... ,-~ O. cr,
OJ
Q
8
~ '"
?€ -"
M 8
g to M
:z '" :r.
Z h W "' ...
'" '" ,-' ~> ~
H n; ~ to
'" a;; H
f-: ~ 0 ~ ,J
~ c.; ~ 5
.. ?
'" 1.J i2i .. :::~~ H
H ~' ., ..
'" :: '" '" .-, j
() t.:' :..1
'" f~ ,;; ',0" W '"
0 t9 M ~ ... ~ ~
... f-< ',9 ~
3 z ,.. ~ 15 ...
~ '" ~"= ... '" ... t:
'" ~? G -<
m ... ::0 c.; c.; ~ '" '" 0:
~ " ~) ~ t a. Q w
... u ^. ~ '^' '" III
0: 0 0: ;.;: '" ~. W to>
'-' "
'" OJ H H H CJ c.; "
., to> :z ...) '" ~ ,,-, :.~ .~ ~ u Ii
" ~ 0: i;) w t-. " U ~'": H
is '" t" :n ,c, i1 '" ~ :> S
" :> t<:) '" W '" ~ :.:- '"
u '" ... H t!' '" '" w ,;; U Q
" S ~ "- ;,; '" "' {u t.~ ~: -
.. ::' .~ " "" "" '" '" '" - ...
'" g ijI
...
... 5 '"
~ u '"
'" ... ::.' ~ '" ..
.... 0; LJ ~ B '"
u 0 Ul " .' M -;"; '" r~ ... :2
... :0 '" ,<"y ,.. ,.., a, t<.
... '" " ,- '" ,'" (; ", 0:; C.G lli ... '" ID
:z :$
'" ;:;
"' ~
" ~' ..., ... cCo .. 01 '.0 ~. C
C
U U
..
~1 '"
.., ""
.... cc:
E (,-1
8 - 'L "-
,0: .., ,=,
.. ~ ;: ~-~ c.;:;
::1 ... '"-
<r. t: r~.
~ t < H ..' ..
v, ,., --. T.:t:
... '" ~
::. C. .~. -'1 -
'" .:) '"--( ~! !~?
'" " .::< H '"
0 Z p,: "' ~ ~ .~ I):
U 3 " ~ c:: .r:::'~.
.. ~,~ ;-- L ij:'
'"
'"
'"
,..
" '-'
Z ,.. ;2; .', :;. '" [~
"' '" u 9~ ~ "- :2
:.: c UJ I:: [.. ~ ...
!:: 41 H ~, e.- o:
0 ., 0 .. f,'; ~ .., "- ~
,.
.:
"
()
U
...
;';
,.,
'"
8
..
j
'"
"
"
n;
..
0
0
U
~ Q
... ....
.{ ,..
3 0-
....
e
~ '"
'"
"
'" "
.. "
'JJ 0
.., ..1
'"
'"
'"
...~ <:
~8
i.i :c, i:" /< i€
"'~:t3 2! ~ '"
l-~ ..J (,) .' .::....
;;3g ;..v;~ ;-.?, 2 ~
~~ 8~1 ~H ~ ~
~~ ZM~ ~x ..~ :a~
:0 ~~g ~~ ~~ ~t
-6 ~~ ~~~g~,,~~:,,~,~: ~~
2 ~ g: ~0 ~ z .~ ,i> Z '~2:'~ G:;:;;:; ~
~~ :~ ~ ~S~Ei~~ ~ ~:~~~
I...l 'J ,;, ~~ a:.. :s: D.:; VJ . k ..:: 'i.l
~! z~~ ~ c.q,~ ~_~ I~~~~
O:~ 8j~ z ~~~~~~~'~~ _~~~;
S I ~~~~ ~ ~~Q ~ ~ ~~ ._
~111.'!I!III;~!III.I.i~!~~I;!:li~~~;!
~v~~28~~D~wC~~2~~~6~~~5~0g~~~~ow~~~~~
r~~~i~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~1zz ~~~~~~ ~~~ 2~0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~ ~ 7~~~~w ,rn~...x1~~~~~~~ffi~~~z~~~
""~:,:"~,~,,:,,,,,,~~,'~~_'._'f.~>~:~..~.~.f.~_'.~,,~,~~.~~.~~:~u~~~~'_,~,~ '~~~:0~<<
. ~"--' .-. - - ... -... - I ;x. ~ z: :": :;: :c: ;t: :;;; ~I ~ :;:., :":' ,"::::>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~it~~I~~~~~~r~~~
~~C'4~'~~~~~C'(~'_.(v~=~~r~~~O'-'Nm~~~~~~~OOC~0~~
ggggg~~gggg;~~~~~;~22S~~~~~~~~~2;~~~~~
~~
"
.-.(
~
~
~' i~ :
i:-;
t-. ,-,
2:
" "
'. ~
~ ...,
'-'('::
>
f~ (.;:
, "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E-J :-.: _-5
i~~~~i5~~2~! ~
,~~ 6 < :-~ ~ ;~; :;: ::: ~~ :~; ~~ L:
e., o. <..:. ,:.:.:z: 0-.' ~ '-! 1-' ._, ;:.
~:~~~~~~;~~~~'~~
.......;;" ::' C' .-. '::: :,::. ;::; ....... <::' ::;:: :-:
~~ 0 ~.~.:: I I J ~ I ; ;2 .~ ~~
':: :'~...... Z :.:: :::: ;::: ~ ::': ......:,..
.~.: (:. i:' :-.~ -,:, 0 >1 '.~\ ::::
i ! f : ....: ,..-..'j :-: I--! f-. .-! t"~ i-~ "'",
~ <-' j:-< f--: ~-. :;-, ~ _~ ,_-,:=::
..... ..... ~ r--- :. ;~; r_~ ';" '-..-' .-,) ~; :..' ~ G
.:] c.. :...-, ',') i....; i.;.:. I:~ :'':1 {-c:. t::..1 ;-; ~ j_.
.'.; rl "..... ~' {OJ v) :;; : -~ {.~, IJj :.., L~ ::::: t--
}; D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~
~ :;: ~ i~: ;:: ;:; ~~ .=:; ~ ~ ;...-. ~ ~.
:::...;e:.::~v.:; ;,:;::::
:~~:~~~2~~~f;~'i
-< < r.( .< :::': ;::-: ;: ::: :2: ::., C. Z ;.'.1 ~
...
~
....
~ "
? f;.;
() ~
~ 5
i:':. ., "'
S ~ '- i="_~ I~~ ,,=l e:
r.( .- :.:' ,:, ~ ~
... ;..:: <"
'" '-: " I.'; ~}
~ >-; -:) ~ Z '" tij r:,
~'; C- o' :1.-1
" ;~ .. ~ ;~} :> i:;
'" .:."': "" ;',
'" ~- 1;; ,':;' <
f::: '..~ "-- "' ~,:, #
~, H .-. ,'. ~; "' ~ ~ ..
., i~~ r-~
'" ~ w ~ ~r.,
0 - ~ ~.
.., - w " " ~ e-
X ~ to:, .~
" ~o; (o"} '" ~: ;;:: ~
'" g {,~, ;-0 '.:i "
0 '" t; a: ~, ff ".:
.. '" "" tj '" I~: ~~
.: " " ... :::J 0-' f--
i.!
'" ~ ":; '..:". ,.
0
()
2
~
v!
~
i::
to>
"
8
'"
'"
j
o
Cl
~
.;;
~ c' '-,
,.- :;:~ ::;.
.'-: .'~ .:;.
,...-; ,.-, ')'
>-<
...A ;:;
(:1 ;.....
w:Z
lAM
"'
wW
;?c..
...
~~
...
OJ
....
H
13
...
~ ~
~ ...
'"
..,
<<
... U
'" to Z
'"
'" '" ~ '"
8 Q ;?, Q ,... 0'
~ :z '" z '" '" f-! ~
::G ~ 0 ;;; '" l' (:) ~ :c
8 S S j t; :-~ 0 Z :rt
cr, W u, tI) "-
~
0 II
Q to
N
{) "
<< ... z.: ,-
;:! '" :-.:; C
~ Z ::i ;::! M 2 8 c) ~! '"
'" ::; ?, ~ 2 ~. ~,)
<: r...; ':) '0 C/; <;
[;j
fr; ~
~: ~~
Ci't :::.
Z
l~
",
~?i
t.~; ;.~.;
::; :-..:;
V' {:'I
C ~.
-0 C
'"
8 0
''';' 1....
",
,.,
t' >..
:~)
?~ ,.. '" ~,
- ~ "
.. '" "
'-..: '" (: ".
~~ ,..; ~ ;.,
~-~ :g: ,.., M
u~, ... ;.1: -~
0 ,. '" a:
," << < ^
"' "-
" c2 ~
;:.,~ ..,
'" ~,~ '-'- !~ ~:
'i: ,~ ~., >-i
.. ~ ~; .j ~,
w ~ ,0
- '" C. C") ~.
,~ '" .-,
'" ;.. r,,' '" ... ::-~
0 '"
... ... < ,.. - l~
'" ..::r (:..
... ::~ r.: w '" ... ..
.... :.IJ ~ ,-
S " ,:... '~.' 1 ,. r: f. E,j
," t: w ~
0 c.' ,- ",
... ... 0; "- a; " ",' O'
... ,o' ;:: c: ~ '" c.
.-,; " a ~.~ ... v:. ,;.,
., B k
t" X M ~' OJ ~~ ~
~ '" ~ " "-' {f' ~ f:J L.) ~ H "
'" w >>. ... '" k. ~ ~.,J ~
'" " '" ~ ... N '"
F- e> ti ,.. -;' " .. --. .-. c' ',-
-" ',' j k: c: :~) 0:- " -- ~ >.:: ~
'" g u:. .:) l';' ," r, '.-
0 '.,!j ~: t ;;,
0 :3 <.( ~ ~ f:. , ,- '::; ,.. ~ ~
'--' r.., '.. -- ~ , -- ... .-, ...
'"
'"
I:: u i-::
'" ...1
to to '" ~ " f.;:: ~ .-:
Q ;[' I:: I~-: :~
~ ;., ," aj lJ,::, " :2
... 11: ,~r ~
'" 9 --<;"' '.. "" -J ~:: .- .:' <;,-:', ,c-.
O' g '" .~ :c ~: -- t: c (., f '..... ~
~ iii U) ". ~, ., ,-. x 1:,.; ..,
I::. ~ [-- :t C(, - ", ;z f-- < 5
to , ,~ v '" c
0 co. .- . . <>
0 .- c ..
U
DATE STREET 1
1/2/2003 RIVER RD
1/6/2003 IRVING RD
1/16/2003 RIVER RD
1/20/2003 IRVING RD
1/30/2003 RIVER RD
2/9/2003 RIVER RO
2/17/2003 RIVER RD
3/3/2003 RIVER RD
4/12/2003 HUNSAKER LN
4/23/2003 RIVER RD
4/25/2003 RIVER RD
4/29/2003 IRVING RD
5/8/2003 IRVING RO
5/31/2003 IRVING RD
6/5/2003 RIVER RD
6/14/2003 RIVER RO
7/512003 RIVER RD
7/10/2003 IRVING RD
8/23/2003 HUNSAKER LN
10/27/2003 RIVER RD
10/27/2003 RIVER RD
10/29/2003 IRVING RD
11/9/2003 RIVER RD
11/22/2003 HUNSAKER LN
12/17/2003 IR\/lNG RD
2/2/2004 RIVER RO
3/1/2004 RIVER PO
3/10/2004 RIVER RD
3/12/2004 RIVER RD
3/28/2004 IRVING RD
3/31/2004. RIVER RD
4/5/2004 HUNSAKER LN
4/20/2004 HUNSAKER LN
4/26/2004 RIVER RD
5/14/2004 RIVER RD
6/4/2004 IRVING RD
6/12/2004 RIVER RO
6/19/2004 RIVER RD
6/24/2004 RIVER RD
7/16/2004 RIVER RD
7/31/2004 RIVER RD
8/212004 RIVER RD
8/22/2004 RIVER RD
8/29/2004 RIVER RD
8/31/2004 RIVER RO
9/11/2004 RIVER RD
11/24/2004 R!VER RD
1/24/2005 RIVER RD
3/9/2005 HUNSAKER LN
3/9/2005 IRVING RO
3/31/2005 RIVER RD
STREET 2
HUNSAKER LN
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
HUNSAKER LN
HUNSAKER LN
HUNSAKER LN
IRVING HD
RIVER RD
HUNSAKER LN
IRVING RO
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
IRVING RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RO
RIVER RD
HUNSAKER LN
HUNSAKER LN
HUNSAKER LN
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
HUNSAKER LN
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
IRVING RD
IRVING RD
HUNSAKER LN
IRVING RD
IRVING RD
IRVING RD
HUNSAKER LN
HUNSAKER LN
IRVING RD
!R\'ff'JG RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
RIVER RO
IRVING RD
TYPE OF COlL
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
SIDESWIPE - MEETING
ANGLE
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
REAR-END
ANGLE
REAR-END
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
REAR-END
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
ANGLE
TURNING MOVEMENTS
REAR-END
ANGLE
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
REAR-END
REAR-END
FIXED I OTHER OBJECT
REAR-END
SIDESWIPE - OVERTAKING
TURNING MOVEMENTS
ANGLE
REAR-END
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
REAR-END
ACCIDENT CLASS
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non Fatal INJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non Fata! INJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non Fatal INJ Vehleular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non Fatal fNJ Vehicular
Property Dari1age Only
Non Fatal fNJ Vehicular
NOll Fatal INJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non F alai INJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non Fata! !NJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
....
5/15/2005 HUNSAKER LN
5/16/2005 RIVER RD
6/8/2005 RIVER RD
6/26/2005 IRVING RD
7/312005 HUNSAKER LN
9/14/2005 RIVER RD
9/18/2005 IRVING RD
9/22/2005 IRVING RD
9/26/2005 RIVER RD
11/5/2005 IRVING RD
11/6/2005 IRVING RD
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
IRVING RD
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
ANGLE
REAR-END
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
REAR-END
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
ANGLE
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
TURNING MOVEMENTS
Property Damage Only
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
Non FatallNJ Vehicular
Property Damage Only
Property Damage Only
APPENDIX
o
TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARJES
-............',.
:~ '...:- . ,~;. '_ _~:~:~~:}:~;~it~~~~~~~;~l~:.x:~~~.~~\t:~rtttmm~~;~:~;:-~:F:::~~:~v, ~>>~~~~;~;;:~~~~~m~~~~:*"~~ ~$]~~~~~~~?:~~.: :;.... _ _ << '.
~
0..
(1)
c
ro
-1
c
(1)
1Il
o
@).....r---.
'U 0 0
a::I.DO
......-N
(1)0.......
>t-g
ocg~.....
(1) (1) Q)
E'Uroo
roOoz
Z().....(1)
<l>Q)....0l
=:!::: g ro
u.U)U)0..
()
C
0)
C
r--..
r--..
'"<t
r--..
';:: _cnr--..
(UlIJCf')
, 1IJ 0 to
(U .l:; Olo
C(/)~tb
.- .c 0 "<t
OliO .!:;:.
..... 0::2....
:.... ..,.. Q) '<:l^
UJ f') ~~
c
..c 'ti
U (f)
c
ro
l-
ea
,_nu, ,
, , ,
!Ej~ s: 6 ::!~~
. ~'V< ~ '-C \C:~
i' ! 'r-.t
l ]'; i-
[-.1 I
I ""I"" '0 t- 001 "",
I ~1r;; ~ ~ ~l~;
'.5.' IN
11
1: 0.. 0-. r- ~;.......
il""'i
~: ___u..L..
it.=t-~-~~ ~, ~i ~l
I ~:- - - ,.,,-
1,1
~ !
j~!.n ('"4 r-. <:1'i~
l-~~ ~ ~ ~l~
~j~[ 1
~r--ejo C ooio
:..c::l
l i-':
i".'
13[~--~r'
I .+..
~1B: ~ ~ ~ii~
:!Nt"-'INt"t"'i:::
lJ I'
I I
!-EjC N C o;{'".:
~[, "t;'..,
- ~;:! j
Uj Ql ~!~ ~ t~ ~!~~
~I ~I:~ if"
_I,ll ~:::- ~ ~~iN
, I ....' ~ \0 \.Q -, ~I
wl :~lNN N~i=
~! L~, :
,_~ 1, : z: 0- In V-.r"): ,-...(
: ~i ;,...~
...;J; ''''''''-i
Ir-- i ~~~ ~*
Q; ,o._j
g! ll~::: :::
~;,: iYc~_','......_.
= _ ceo; C
F=:
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
L.
:3:
::-- N:!""',
:("l
"1 u.._.._uu_.___u_~_._
~,~ ~~:::
N""', r-.: ,-./:-
~!
to
!~;--. 0 C =-:
. .'!..I'
"-'
....[
~, ~~7 r"", "'T ("'.1
~~ ~g,:
......' ^".
::),....,
e::------'r \
.:1)1 ~!~ 8,.: ~ ~~~
: C!N --. ('-1 ('.J ::::
;!.! -
: ::::;:,--,'+-, ~ :....,-...~
,j;- :<",!
:_u~~~_-L-_~+~_~_~___
[ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~J
i ~~ i ~ i ~;
U)
-...0 N -..c ~'QC
::2 ~ ~ ~[:;
IN
I
I
- r- tn ("<ItV';
<:2 :2 3 :gf G
jN
!
V', ." - "r::
1'-1"7 -.:r~!..-
:(""'>J
I
I
I
NNO~-lj\C.
i
I
"'1' I'f"'. "'1' '-.0; r-
000 ci~
--......0 f'"-JiV
----.........1..
:.;:t!;:~f!::
r.....,,..,..n("l"lf~
~-
i
co-o oi 0
...y r-, \C v-~i N
IN
~ "1" v -;;-;\C
~:;~ ~ ~i~
v; t""'", - 01C'.
I
,-=" O~. l-ni C
_; or.
Ir, ~ ("'.1
c--''-
"'T ,=. ":'t"" 1-- _
:1'"-1
~ 0. ":!'" C:-t-
t--';';.::7' -;-.:::r
(") (...(:-,}~;
c-=:.;:; c
r--, ('.~ - ......,; :;r..
~~~
0: ('..; if~
~ ;: ~ ~: ~
Co::... ~O":2
:;::: V"; C I'-J,'
e: --:~ ~: ;7'
v. \,.-,
~. .-....-. '-,.
-. '- - '-.
/".1 :Oo::r:N'..o
~ ~ ~ ~j ('"". 0
oc
N
o
V'.
_'0
~';
oj::> c:
~
..,.
~lo eje- C-
o; ~
._H<__n_n-'- i
, J
~ ::i;g ~;o 0
.".
N
.0: .0
::1
~ ~ ::i~~ siC": ~r
J_
0. 0 o.jC: -'j'- 0
.~':; 6f'3\ ~ic:::;:
- I :
.._~--_._-~~
M \0: ':>c n: r.... r-
:;;r-. .....:lr-. a-::-c
~ V1t~j 0'.;
1 :
N
ci '0
OJ
-:
~:: 6!:g 8ic 0
: -1
I
~ ;: ~f ~ ~i ~ ~
('" :N i
~ ~ 6:;:; ~: c =='
\or, .=: ~i"""4...c
C (-,: :x:: .
.":1';
i
e:-ir-
....
g;
c
-,
00:::;-
'N
- ...... ,~..J: C\ t...., (-': t"';
..:> c.:C ......:: v;..c~ t"J
'f',
.~:.::::
o ':: ~: __ 0; c; '_
~:2:
'7
"" -:;:.:::;:
" -
N
'"
-,
0;:j
":1""1
c
....(...... -T t'"'J c'::;, ......
('-1 ,....; r1 -:;:::
V'"'l- :-<.-
O:r}
f"I"';._
r..J '.C:;::._5-- -;;:'::;:
~ 8, :~ 0":
n~-
N " ("",l -- :;
",", - --" ......; ~-
'$- "" or, ~
" v ~;
t= ~ ] ~ " -t
'" "0 0 <;
" ~ >,
> >
.~ < " i
'-' ~ ."
t~
'f',
.~ 0
.,- :.t"~~r:~U";:}>n:~:
i~ .~;:::; ~ ~ ;;:.:::~?
;;:'c::
~ -~
,- _ N N m <"..:: ~: 0;
.3 j; ~ ::~r
UI~~i!~~
~~~.~.~l;~~
o :::. . ::;. ',<:
:::: Z ~ ;.;<,
~~
, -
i
~-'
, , '
i~~;
~!
-C; ~ I
at ,
EL.....;
_I '
~i ~'
r-li ~
;
:, .~ ;
"
-l
: , I
!''''''''''''':':,:::i
I : c.. Zf
i i~~!
: i }
! i I
! <-------------J
! ~! io [
. jlu~.J
~i S!
Z[ i= i
, I
,-----.-.-.-,
i ':;; i
! -l I
~$;
;<~
! .
,
,
I
i
~; :-@} i
5' i:G: i
~!..._....j
",
:;::i ~
""
"
-'
-= EJ
f:
(f; ~
~.~
:::: c-:;
v 1.J
_hm<__::;'" ~
.,;... r- tr. (".f: lr;
~::g ~~;~
:N
i~i
l~:
I
. I
I i
__._.u..u__+__.u_+_~
t("1 "'7 ~ O;C;- :.,,::.:
jN :r.:
, ....0:
: : i
7 ~'''T ..:;-:~. -ioc!
:- ""'01
! If'-;
i {,
: i!
CCCC:O_O'
-i~i
o N,~ ~l~i
-----~-'-+
~ ;! ;: g,: :::: : ;-!
Mr<", ...,"';.". i~l
I I
I !
.". S-- ':0 "': ~ ::! ~,I,
I '
1 ! i
'q'" "!1' ~ ~j...o x.: Ni
~ ~;:; ~jr3 s::j~i
, i
I.Z:C1
O!~I
i
-m-----f~l-l
c- := = ~;$; /:;;1
. jr-:l
tC. ~. - C;:7'>
...., "'1" M
, ,
g; i;?,r~i
o o:~:
-, ...... 'J 1;"":
[
~i;3:
r-.
..,. C" -:i :::>........
~~~?;;:;.:::
:v,:
;~~:
o
~
-: ~ t.
/"1"', {'"--,
- t'<'-.:-:,....
t--
t--
'<t
t--
lo-.....m,.....
~ ~ 6~
\V .l::; 0'>0
c:: (/) ~ to
-- EO;::
0')1.0 .. ~
r- 032.,..
"- ..... Q) -:t
W f'? '&~
c:
.s.: .~
(.) (f)
-C
('lj
l0-
rn
....
ID
~
(t\
1/)
c:
:;:}
:r:
~
0)
c:
.~
@)Nf'-
"000
O:::lOO
..- N
.....0-
IDf'-"-
.2: 0 t2
O:::O-r--r-
IDQ)Q)
E'O ..... 0
oCtlZ
~U::ID
~~.s ~
LLU)U)Q..
(.)
C
0)
c:
:nn+(
~ ~;~, ~
: ~ir- r--
; ,I
L~l
, ]! ~ ~ 1: ~l;;:
: .-; t- J'- r-. l""-j ""
~ N
1 ~l r- t'-- ("-I 0.1 lIJ
! :t- ~j\O
. ]! :
I..Z Ni\O
- C>'::~
r- r--:c:;-.
iN
?!M 0'.
~i r- r-
, !t
;~-l
~~i~ 0 '=> -[~
"=':-: I
;r;ioc ~ ~ 00)0
:1 e<i"" '" '" "'I.....
~!~1 N
Wr;1 '>.!:; -:::t '..c. \C1 N
:-~J IN
;: ~!~
: !""'"I
I---------l-~J-~-~-~--~:
: "Ic-. '" -:r """-
: ~~O, 00 0-. 'M},__
iJN,...~Nr<ll~
iu~ [
[~!r<""' N C:::;Mi:xJ
-::s' ": i,
=i+~4:
-\ ' i
=1 -;:::: 0 0 0, '..cl tr.
j!.~- - T~
Zl :::::OC r'"j N'-.::t
~J;:J ~ ~ ~ ~
! ~j;; ~ ~ :::;:~
i
~i
~I
>.
~!
,",'
=;
qo;:
~:
~Iuu
.~i
:>..1
~
S1
:...:
r.;!
: ( :
----j:.~r~.~..;--~/~.
: ~I- - - -'..-,
i ~l i
t--, :
i ~12 v, N f~1;:'
I :I) ~
J'-~J ~ <i ?:!~
~,;;:::::
;:;:iI;:;; ~~:;:'; N~
'l.:: l." ~ V'::'~
~;...... .-- ....... -'-':;
;,...Ji
'"2:1""'"; - ''':::-C:O
~~~;::~o--:~
f
: V.! ,::; ::; __
-:~1
~.
~:~}::: -.. 'x
~~ ~i
,;s. ~ OC - '.
. s:j;c ~ ~ eg:~
:Ft--'....... - -;r-.
!ji'" ~
.:) (,.f:::r
~:nn~
:'lS:
'-C t- r-- t--!r-
OC ~ ~ ;;! ~
!~'
"1' N .' ",I",.
;c ~ ~ ;;j ~
j......
N V":. 0. V); N
iN
O'\::/)O.o:r--
OC '.0 ':lC 0'1 r-~
i~
I
::; - O-IN
I
~ 'Xl ~ ~;o
(1-, ":1' tr". \C: N
iN
0-. N ..q- r-!N
:N
-.c.;c t"l .z...;V"'.
I""S - 1'".1 """"l~
0' --::: ~ (,"-'It_
r"~ oc t- f"I"'.: N
l'1')......l""i~.!:::::
I
I
C 0 C -1-
....., -.j'" v, V): t-
...... """" - -il.rl
MCI.....N:_
w. ex< vvc;.
l"j"\,,: r--J N:c-
"'T 0! (-.j '/): ~
'-C r- r-... \~: J-.
. ~,
,
________u_______o
~ ~ ~ :!i~
N ('-I :-. ("",1 I I"':
('~ '.0 r"-~ "'tt; '"1"
-- 21~
OC N
\......~ -::::- f",
\C. ./: ........
r. C''':'-.
-:;- <f", ::J"-
N \"'"~ ~
('..1 {"',J ("'.\
C :,",,j~. -;~
.---
Ie--
"*" :-.....,;;/.: ..;;.:-.
:.",-
0- :y'.t--:..,;;
:::: C: :-"! ('r,: 1--
r-~ r-.r :--.i ("":::X
'~.....,~ """',:...,";
~ 0l
~ ~ ~ ~I ~
C ~~:~'
~-~~~
i ~
!~~j~6
i8""1
I .
~ :
~iC 010 0
~. I
; I
~ ":1::> or e
.------------i--------+------u
c:; ~i e; -:1..c. '~
~ :=[ <.C~: ~
I :
I
..,
!-.
..,
'"
-c
00
N
~
01 0
0:
c v, ",1 ~ =11 -c ""'
:;;.:.3 '~,'<t ~l ..;
"" ,- ",: '<t S2' C ::;
"":!' ,.6 6! -::::- ;:::1
"
~ ~ ~! ~ 3! 0 0
("".) :
i :
0'" J"'~ n; 0' r-
-={~ o<!- ~
"-j""'i
01 0
0:
N
,~
'"
N
""
1"-40"< ...c!o-. _It''''".c-,
On'-::~r."':j ('""i
- i C\!
'F, \f:; -: 0\ N: '-C. oc
g ~ ~! ~ ~f -- 6
~ ~ ~i~ ~,c::;
--...............--.........,.....
r-- t-41~. 1.t"}:\.C ........~
N ~t ~ g\ 0
g
0: 0
Si
~~; ;:~ g:r d
~ i?, ~,~ ~: N 6
-c
~;
oc
~ ~j :;:0 ~]~ 0
i
%:1-... ~:""'-'I
r.~, ~ ~: N _"
:0
0:
-::0
'Xi ~ o;:~ ~:..... ~
0-_:
DC!~
0'-:;-.'....)-._
~ g ~: ~ ~j
N-q- ("....10 \""'J;C""l:<;
'";j' N c:-q I.f"";: -ri
'~:
:; ~:::. ~~! ~ ~t ~ v
~ J ~ ~ ~: ~ ~.
.:j' "':.iv
;,~
:~----~11.
:<.....
I :i: .
..,j ~i
co::.,
~L------J
~i 2 i
Wi ~ i
~
-I
1-.....-..+......--1
, ! E:~1
1< f-i
I .
~----1
~j %i
I::: :x. j
!':-------i
~i 2!
zi r= 1
LJ
31
-1 u__un,
:!:.., ~:
~~!
i 4: ;
-=: "~i
;:' ~ ;
01 :
~~--::_--j
~! .
>;
,.... ;::
, !:"..~.
~ .....';'.....
"
"'g ""5"f;
::t:
.:>
0;
~
-;:;
~
7Nt-NiV1
..... \0 ...c. -i tr,
OC ~ 00 x,i~;
: i
~ r-'
,,~:
I"":
E
i 1
---+~,j
;gi
: -j
!
&, 00 '0 =1 t....
oo\c< 'X)Q'\:N
:('1";
i I:
"T 00 -::r ~; -= '"'10-.:
VI "'=t v; ~I- l:"'l r-:I if):
N l.Cioe::
I !
I J:
~" 'T~I~
~ :'::.~ ~i~ ~i~j
1 i~!
~ \C ~ ("~!_ j~i
N oe r..... ('f"",,:('.j If"-l:
n ~ l"') t'<"'O) ~ 10-..:
1- 1 "
I !:
I !:
ff'\ ~ v-; I.(;j r"'~ <:1"f 0:
- - t-: "-JV) JV:i:
I ''''i
: I i
t'.J Q C-- ("r~...... w! ~I
~J ~ ~ :q; g: pi g::,
:...... .....; -I
, : i
2; ~ ~ :g:~ ~i~!
,~o-.io-.'
i-I' -,
I :
......._..._..._._L______.l.u_;
\Co ('Ij ":::t' 7"( r-....
f".... oe \D <:::t"' \C
..... _...... .....!v:::
I-I
f-:
: 0;1
~ ;:: ~ :'1: 4
:::j~
-.c:: ~....-:
~I~i
OOM..... tn:--.o ~:c{
("I","'1'~, N:~. ~:~i
'-'
'.Q \!"
N f"'. N
-:::. lr; :r..
("I (,-l '"':t
('-IN ,...,
-'"
'"
-:~~
. \ c..::!:::
:L~
:~ ;-:
. '"
_.:~=
:~ ~ g ~ ~
;::. ~N ,-..I N
~~
~ ");0
~ ~)b~;
g 0
.;f'~ ~,
':) v:
...... ~,
~;~~; ~;~:
-~
,? '-
0)
u ~?d. ~t ~:~.r~:
)o~...~. H~I~r
=::. ~;;~
, "
e:;:;
~ v-
:>."-
~
0-
m
......
m
()
m
......
c
ttl
(f)
@(')
"0 0 I'-
O::lOO
...-0
....ON
(1)1'--
.2: 0 !::
0:: ON.....
<1l \1) (J)
E"O.....o
mo~Z
ZU.....(J)
.~ .~ 2 g>
LL(f)CI)o..
o
c
.-
0) r-
C ~
. i:: _ [;;
Q)<lIC:~
(])o<.O
Q) .l::: 010
C(J)~cb
.- EO;::
0)1O -_
Co:Q.....
.....<l.l"<!'
UJ CO? <<g, ~
c:
..c .~
o (f)
c
m
s...
OJ
r-----j :
; '"Zl\:;'...c;.O ""j":'..o
!.~~ ~ ~ ;!Ig
, ij~~~~!~
!,-----'
{ ]i~::\.c.Vl;~
I ii !
, ~l '
f_n ..mt-~r;;;-~--~~-~i-~'
~i~~~r.~!:!
f! I
jn...:
: ",:",...--olr---
1 pi i
~!';L~ ~ ~ 01_
:=:1::i:Nl"f'",N r-~iO
~1ii2J[ :-
",. .
I ~r-~i~ or; N ~:~
I i=j i
· ;"'CN~r
~-jj: '"
j l;~-.~ ~ ~f~
: ":'irr; r-r, f:'". r"""'l11'"'i
[ :j
1'-1 ,
! :1':0.0 - 0 C'--
f]: l
~i ~~ i
oR-t-:-\,C!1.l')
~i ~;N~'~' -j~
il;l~, ~ ~ r-i~4
:~}~~~g;!:
:'__.1
i ~i~'~' ~ ~J~
rr.:
0>'
~[
~i
>1
5:~
",I
..I
.,.,
-,
,
~,i
:g~
~:
~:
( :-n.._n.~_._-;_______________~____
'E: Il ~: ox. DO v.... 1:"'--; x.,
]j ~i oc :)-, 0\ :n; ~
tl ~'
e.:::~,_ "" I---.! i
_ } IT.~'''''''1 "7" t:"', HI: N
I"": ,-
~i ]i{:;;; ~ ~ ~:!~
~':'" '<0 "~ -c' ~
:N
:;--i
: r- i
:Z:.oc: '0 ,...: N',:x.
~jC"{~: ,.....-. N._
:r.>
J!~"<
w'<'V'
;:=
rE,
C" -,-.., -.::;:~.
~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ;::!;; ~
: Z;'c ~ ~~, ~',if'l",
:~,("'":~' ,-
~;~ ~ ~ ~J
~: ~ :s :g ~:
U":
&
N
'"
ill') f"("", - ("--
i~C-:;1"lc
lMC\j
f f
~!::> OjO C-
",.:
......
-Z
,..,
'"
"^.
",:001'" e
..:, I
, i
i I
~f 0 ~i ~-~..
~,t.rl 0,
;--:
C')
.,..
t- 8! 0
:; d ~fQ 8iO 0
-,... 1--;
N ...- ~J" ,:J~ c
('.t ~ ciN S:f
-! :
::;. 'q" ;.a! 0 Q:::::' ~
t".( - C::N 2i
__hnn__.__O __nn+_.._...._n_.
("'~ .0: ~ f"'!'1: 0" r-
~ ;;,S g;i ::5
01 c
~ S:!
V) 0-, (""J.r, 010 C
CJ'. ,...:; 1 0' ::::. ~
..... : -1
t"-l V) :-"{: "') Ni:;T. QC.
= ~ ~::: ~i
s~~!~~iC~'
.x:
..c
...
~:~ gjc ~
=;1"<"\ __j
I i
- 'I ~
sl ~
!
~,
~i ~ ;! ~ 2; 0 C
~; -~. :3:~ g::":: ~
-;
r:.
('.(
't'"".J;_ .--, 0
~:~ ~
0"
0: ~
::;.
~ ~.; ;.l:f~ g;
0"-
\.J., -:
:2D:-i
~~ t.... c-.i ~.$ ......
.....;':'5t ,x:: - ....:
"'-~::.:::' '~;
~.... f'".J ..t"};....., 0:::::: :::
-.:i ~'2~:
HiU
;..J
c
~ ~
L :-;
:.> ;>-,
~' l
- ~:..
+': 8 ; 0' -- ~;
:::: ,-1 x; .:;-
E. .~t".) ....l ,....;
:~ cc
- ~
(5
';; .~ ~:;
~ 20
~~
~_~~~_~ ~ ~ h_ ____n.._..............._
:tH~HH~
~:
-01
f-i
...;i
" ,
I
-+....-..:]
Q,. ~:
t Zi.-c;i
:<f'-<:
!
f'~;h'i
'1Z! ~I
sf ~ 1
e' ,
if....;;
",I .E
!I'-
__..n..";
;;:::'
...
-'
,
i i I
~-"~i;]1
i<~i
I :
I .
~
.-.z:: Oi)
=i :2
fl---1---I[
z: :-
: - !
:::.
! ~:
i ~:
I
, '
::;.... ~;
~~i
;__uun!
~;;
l----~
;r,'
"',
;ti f=
,-
"
--.........
< ~-'6
"Q'
::
~
;g:..
";:!
~~
'"S".c
2.
=!
'~
\J).
..:..:::~
c: ~
t,! (l
.. j;:... c::....
...... ~ .".. O":r-
.~ ~.c: 1""'"):-...:::.
r-.... QO OC f.....:_
C"",
~' :
'.-.:
i~j
i
~ .,.. '-, .;;:.;::....f~j
,..,.,"':$' <'I'".N:"'1" ;_(
,- 1"'1
i '
~ "':t ~ Oi_..c'M'l:
N ~, !--1 N; s: e:;!i
i r---j'i
: i i
0'-. '::N N "'-1:N..q-:.-i
i~~F~1
I ,
f !
~ N f' l~! ~ :!1~:
. ,
..{mnmfn-i
~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ 19j
~, C') C"",,~ ~ I ~i
i i
- r-. _ '.!';:l./'") '0'(",,:
N.....:t ~"""'!Z'I..if~i
i 1':
~ ~ ~ ~i~ B'~I
r.-- -::t 0"
~. rot',......
· i i
1.r\.lr, '-C:o-..l
-:~r-:i~,
, i I
n":................L..
~.~c<~~~i3
:f"""'".
!:::.,i
~,'
~~:
~: ~ ~ ~.~ ~:~i
: i
: i
: ;
, <
~:J! ;:J
:::>'::1
f'... -.c. ',c. \C;
.z::..c r-"j ,--I :X.-:C-.:
N ~. r--', \'~. = ::.~:;;::
:::::'-r-
r-. f ,.,~ ff'}
~~, ,..,... ,..,.,
:t s::
:~ ~
'-' ~ N ~'L:f~ ~~~:
~ ~~:~:
~/ ~~~~ ~j~i
;z;;.:.
....... ......
:;' ;{.
APPENDIX
E
GROWTH DATA
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>,,,-.: :'-:~::':"*~,6 ~ ~
',;ijt l;n'O:: 'g .... '""
t~lJl
m"';;;; ~-z
W~~
US: On
iIt;:*
';,'0'
i~
;CQ'
'(I$:
;:~;
"#- c/?
~W
....0
~>:b'_ ~ ~
,;0 . .
:-:Q' ~ or-
,~
'''Ci
...
WI"-
'r-.. <t
'00
ma
.~;~ l?; <t
.. ;;:
(I~~
::;;:~:::;::::m:
~(J)
C')l<'>
....- 0)_
.~~
~;;
...
""N
N~
~Q)
;:)!N
:3;) CD
-N
N
..'.........,
. .' l.':) <P
~~
~ "'.,. ,'l 2~
E ;". .IN
U '.
"0 '. .,...
~I ........ ~
~
c:
::::l
o
U
Q)
c:
~
...J
r<) ~
('")0
l<'>~
~t6
m.,..
C:N
N
T'. !'- 0
.,' ro en
.;<:~. to ctJ
'".....~ <0 N
:\, :'.D >:!.)
"" "- ~
".~
~
42
e,.
~;
~ ;.,
::::l'
~ ....
Il. ".'
.
:;
,.
:;
_ 0
15(.)
.g.~
05
'Cfi.?flcf.'#'#.cfi
t.n In 0 a::> I"- "!.
NNN(")Nr-
o~
0>
M
'##
C"l<P
""0
'#. ~ oF. ';!;! oF. ~ '# ~ ~ ';!;! oF.
" '" Q " '" "
~ '" ~ 0 '" C") <') I"- a::> '<l: c:
'<- N r- <:i- N c? N cv) 0 r- r-
'* ~ 'Cf:.' ';ft oF. ~ -z ~~
Q " "
"'1 C,! <0 U) <<! ec <0 <P
.,.. .... 0 N r- 9 0 cv)
?ft.#-'#.if'.
ln~~CO
d~~9
~#.
(01[)
NO
*-"*'
0<')
NO
ct.'#.
C"lN
r-9
~ ~ ~ ~ ct. ~ -z ~ '#. ?;-~ ?ft- '# ~ t<
c '" " " '" " " "
0 l'-: ~ 10 <D <') (:l> O'J '<l: 0) "<t .,.. 0 r-
N r- .,.. ty) N 0 0 cv) ...... 0 N 9 N 0
'<t <<i C'? ,..... U; U) <D ro 0 N gsfl It') N
N ~ 0 <0 ('<') <t <D !'- 0 ;g
N .,.. '"" q N ~- ".... N t.n
ui <<S .,.. N r- .,.. ci
N C')
.
'#. ~ 'Cf: #. oF. ~ ';!;! ~ '#. ~ #. ~ #. ~
0 " " " " C "
'<l' C') r- I"- <0 <Xl '<t N a::> N 0 r-.. o:t: (0
N cO <:t ci cO N ci r--: <:i- en r--: c? '"" 0
N '"" ,..... <t N <t r- N N
(t")vl(}M't'"'-o::):.nm~r-u><o
O>ID~<ON'<7l()I"-'<t<1">Wt-
0;) ro '<7 N I'-. ~ f'- l.O N 0;) (:l> N
r--:N<or-:"<ic<:> N-6"':
('<') l()
"...
O)MN
weco
<.0 (!) -..::t
C'>.i '<$'- I"-
r-<t
.,..
NOC"?Q1. "t"""l()Mro
<PI'-. (0.... C')O;)CD<Df'-
<DOl<'>~Or-..I'-.N
t6MriNN~
"'=t~ro~DO>O')O~'t"""'m'0J
<{)N~~NC'\I'(;j-r--N<OO">T"'"
(O{Q~~('.jf'-...~1"-...-<.DCOt'f)
L6 ~- 1"-: ~ .:0')'"' c0 N .....: __
o~
.,..
to ~ "i' <:0 ('") N "- ;j) <D r-- ('") CJJ N
N ..... 0 '<t l'- N f'- m I~ <0 r- >-. N
0 ro 0 N <0 <to ('") .,.. m It') I'-. r--- to
0; (6 0 N N '" ...... -<i 0
1- .,..j N Q)
1-- '.0 l<'> ("oJ .;- '" 0 n '7 '7 (0
t- O'J "<t .,.. I'-. u::' 0 tD ('<') U)
;j) <.0 CO (0. ~ m 1'- U) 1'- >-.
cc) .
0 m ~ .,.. ...... ~ .,..
lD ...... <Xl CO
a>
>
o
"P >..
~<:>
<l>1~ ~
~ c: l'O
tI} ~.;: :::
~Jl~3
U
.,;:
U ;;:
~ ol~ 4i (3
C::;:::ES ~ w= 2'';:
l::g.i:~tI}~~ECii
.E::!l\l<l>~;:$OO~
l.L,O>UO..JU>
"... <0
"l""""-.::t
o (J)
<:to:>
('oJ;j)
("oJ
<D<D
00
l.') <t
-<ictJ
CO (:l>
~
0;) CO
0.,..
m ,,~
C'.J N
t~ 0
~ ~
'"
:1
.,
c:
QI
U
Vi
::i
E
e
....
en
e
:1
0>
w::
Q
::>
10
'"
-0
c: E
r:
0 :c
m .~
<1>
...
o' ';;;
." E>
<1> -a,
~ ...
<:; 0
..... 0,
Ol 0
..... .l:!
C ~
<0
Ol ~
... ~
'" e
.,
(.) ';;:;
:: ,!::
0 ..
Vi ~
-e
(l>
~E
1;'i~
o 0
E-g
8 'E
E::>
~ ,0 ~ ;::S; ?f. a?. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?f?- ;(i: ~~ ,- ;:,;::
'" 0" 0 c '" '" 0 0 0 ", '"
<'4 t--: <:<: <'4 c::J (") 0 r-- c; ~ 1'; ~ 'P ::0 l.":!
..,..,. 0 '<'"" ~ N C0 r..n c::J -r- N 0 Le') --- --
T
C:f?<f.
"'l;
-:-0
~'#-~';#.~~'cf2.e,?f2-'cf!.~~
.,.. 1..") .,.. "t t-; OJ a ..,... (D 0
.....'-NN......c:?Ol.r:i.,....:m 0
o
U')
N
000000
~ cO c:: 0::; i.1-J
L."r") ro ...- ,.......
~N g.?
-:-
.....
o
o
"'<t"
ooooooooo.~oo
-;:- N ~ co ~ OJ c:::: .::0 -;- .L.'J Q) ("')
Cj) i'- m i....... ro Q) e ~ ("') 0 Cfj (V)
r;t)'" ~ 0:> ~ .~ C"O C",) rr-i ":"- ...
~ 1..')
.,...
00000000
MOrn~:7N mm
:- (!) r-- 0::> co (") N en
co t'- .~ - C"') 0'") '"Yj ....-.
00
c::J
('jC)
cJ C'1~
~ 1..'")
00
co (\")
c:\ tc!
.,...
C'') .... ", :""J col,...; N ""Imlo
C) Q " (.0 N f'-,l"- ::0 <:; COI':;:; c::J
co co " N r- t:") ...-:- f'--....... ':'--i.. . Ci) c:) N
~ ~ ::0 !'- ~ 0') C:'") ;>4 -;-
.,-
>.
=
=
"
<.>
"
0lC,l
<'155.
~ 1_ I I I
2? 5~ 1.01 J
ClGC,lC-~ G
~ ~ ~I g g gl.g .s ~ '-1= ~
o c ~Im u ~'C ~ ~ ~ C,l ~
I 01 "t: ~ ;.... - {(~ ~ - ~ ~. $- ~~
::J' " '0 0 51 e tC ~ :3"'5 0 (l)
Wim',o u: h !()I~I>,o,\.) ,,.,J S
~;::S;
~o
~ N
I
00
O"J-.::r
.,... 0).
('j .,.. n
::3
Ci3
A.
'E:
...
E
a;
Co-'
C3
:s
l:l
II>
'"
~
::
c
;;
l:::
~
",- 'ff
::r
lii5'gs ~ ~
ocou.....
.,::0 W a>
N~ ~
N '-J'I'~ ~
g
o C
Nt:::)
en ~_
~a;
N
00
QJ N
f'- ~..
CD
C'? c:n
N
~ .g
- ~ ~
1m ~-=
-g'~IW: a..
... Dig '"
E 2-: ~ 0
o o' c;. ~
l-OCl",
o k ~
u'- = ~
.-coc
!=,:J !J:! N
e:
.~
'E
~
0'
c..
<::::>
o
<::>
N
~g
-0
g: N
$:' .E
-g 2
~ l>;
~]
a: u;
o '"
..J
E
'E
~
0'
~ Q..
-01:-
:::: t3
~ g
o '"
:::;5
1: '"0
~ ..s
o lQ
Cj .a
w "'0
:: ~
.:i Ei
:=
'"
U
w'
- ~
c;
>
,...
Ci
:::n
e u
~ ~
'" II>
III ~
>= C!::
e e
E
2 ~
'-
=:l ~
Cti 0
!!l Cl..
E ::
~ ~
t.)
r.i
~ ~
c :;.7)
Z t::
",
APPENDIX
F
TRIP GENERATION OAT A
. i
Page lof2
Cindy
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"Mike Howard" <m.howard@satrepc.com>
"Damien Gilbert" <damien@branchengineering.com>; "Jeff Bond" <j.bond@satrepc.com>
"Cindy" <Cindy@branchengineering.com>
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:11 PM
RE: Santa Clara School Redevelopment
Damien:
All four uses can be developed on 2.08 acres.
Let us know if you need further information.
Michael
From:DamienG ffbert[ma i1to:damien@branchengineering,com]
Sent:Tu esday,Ju lyl 0,2 0071 :30PM
To: JeffBo nd;Mlk eHoward
Cc:' Cindy'
Subject:R E: SaritaClara SchoolR edevelopment
Thanks!
Quick question: would we be assuming all of those uses for the existing zoning scenario? The C1 zone portion is
2.08 acres. Would I just pick the highest trip generator out of the commercial uses you provided, or should I
assume all 4 uses can be developed on 2.08 acres?
Thnnk you,
DamieTl Gilbert, P.E.
Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
p: 541.746.0637
f: 541.746.0389
From: JeffBo nd[ mailto:j. bond@>satrepc.com]
Sent:Tu esday,Ju ly1 0,2 0071 2:22prVl
To:DamienG ilbert
Cc:MikeH oward
Subject: SantaClara SchoolR edevelopment
Damien,
From the aerial photo I cafculated the area of the former school at roughly 40,000 for the main building(s) plus
another 7,000 sf of other buildings.
Looking at the plans and sticking in some buildings from various projects I came up with the foHowing for the
comrnercia! area: .
Starbucks w/drive-up 2,075 sf
Restaurant
Seating 6,300 sf
7112/2007
Page 2 01'2
Non-seating
2,700 sf
2,400 sf
2,300 sf
Retail
BanI< wI drive-up
With these square footages I think we can meet the parking requirements without too much trouble. We might
even be able to increase the building area a bit
I hope this information helps. If this isn't what you need, or if you need clarification please let me know.
Jeff
Jeffrey S. Bond ASLA
Senior Landscape Architect
Satre Associates, PC
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene OR 97401
(541) 465-4721 . Fax (541) 465-4722
www.satrepc.com
7/12/2007
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
(932)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
On a:
1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 pm.
Number of Studies:
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA:
Directional Distribution:
38
6
61 % entering, 39% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
[. Average Rate Rang~_E~_~a~____._.____~__.._ St.an9ard Deviation
10.92 2.80 62.00 9.39
..-----
Data Plot and Equation
l X Actua! Data Points
==,,~~~d c~rve Equation:
w
u
c::
w
.9-
~
ill
15
:c
ill
>
ill
c;;
<C
a5
>
0<(
11
l-
220 :----
i
210 -t - - -
-I
::F
::1 >
1501
140 i
1
130 -1
120-; -
i
110 -;-
i
100 --j -
i
90 -~ -
80 -,
70 --f -
1
601-
<
_() ..J _
:~ J
:1,' "
10
x
~ - - . . - - _-x. . - -
. .
". ',r'.... l'
-)i: .
x
";":
x
. ~< .
x
- -I
- j
,', X I
I
- : - - - :1
---r--:-~
x
.'x
x
- X -
-x
- \- -
- ;.:,?
x
. :'j(.
x
/'
,--
x
:~<
- -x-
x
/
'>~" -
2
6
12
14
13
7
3
~
5
8
9
10
11
X:::: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
.. .... -- -.. Average Rate
Not given
R2 = ****
Trip Generation, 7th Edition
1725
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Drive-in Bank
(912)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
On a:
1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies:
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA:
Directional Distribution:
47
3
50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
_____ A v~:.~~_13_~_t~oo__oo____oo___n__________~~ge of Rates
Standard Deviation
45.74
3.00 ~ 242.50
43.52
. ._.~_.nn_.
Data Plot and Equation
700 :
i
~
!
i
600 i'-
!
. .'... -::.
...~
500 ..
.- x-
en
--0
i:::
l.U
.g.
f-
Q)
:Q
.s::
(j)
>
(j)
en
m
q;
>
~
'I
f-
, ;,-"
./ .
/ .
x
/'
400 --. --
!
1
-I
1
~
300-] -
!
-I
200 -! - , .
x
. . - . . -....;./
: y
. _ x'/ _,_
::<
-' - ->: - -
x
>:: X
!<
100 001 -
'x
.y
x
/<
x
x - -
i
I
1
'X
:X
/'
;;(
/'
i >< ~/ >: .
i x-
o _~n....y....__;_m__y..n+_____~n-4m_:-_:..n,_..__;..m__,_;'....n,_____~..__n'''''r_n,''___;''''---r-----~--_.._,--_m-i
x
o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
X=' 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
>< Actual Data Points
-- - -- n' Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given
R2 :::: *<-H
Ttip Generation: 7th Edition
1687
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Specialty Retail Center
(814)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 5
AVerage 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 69
Directional Distribution: 44% entering, 56% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
E~- A~~i~~!. R a~_~ . Range of Rates
2.71 2.03 5.16
_..~--_.._--
Standard Deviatio~ __'_______00--1
i
1.83 .u_.~
Data Plot and Equation
Caution. Use Carefuffy - Small Sample Size
600 _.m_____.____.oooo__uoo
I
. . .... ..... .:///:,/!... .-m_mml
i"
../"/"/ .
/
///.....
/</
/ ,,/
//
....."/.... .'
tj)
'0
C
111
$-
~
Q)
(3
:c
Q)
>
Q)
en
<\l
C3
>
<(
II
r-
500 --I'
I
'1
i
!
~I
I
I
300!
1
2001
1
I
I
!
./
/;,,>/
/,;/,
/.'
/.'
/,./'
".i'.<'
/
/
x
.<:
/
100 l' xXO//
~ :{
I
I
o ..r....u.uu---.___m.__.oooooo. ,
o
.._..___;___n_uu-nn___.~"""""""'nunh'______ru.nn___nunn___.u.+._____~u.-
100
200
300
X:= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross leasable Area
:.< Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
- - - - - - AVErage Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T:::: 2AO(X} + 21.48
R2 = 0.98
Tr~D Generation, 7th Edition
1339
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Single-Family Detached Housing
(210)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traf!ic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 302
Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 214
Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 37% exiting
Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
r==-=~- Average Rate - -
L___ 1.01
Range of Rates
0.42 2.98
Standard Deviation
_J
1.05
Data Plot and Equation
l/)
"0
I:;
ill
n.
-I:;
l-
ll)
Q
:E
<ll
>
<ll
0)
~
C)
~
II
r-
3,000 1
i
!
j
I
I
I
2,000 l' - ,
....---.---,
, :
"
xl
!
/1
--I
1
x
///
. - , . - . - -. - "/...-.. . - .
//
/
//
//
x
///
//
, ///
:--
//,
///.
/
/
1,000
./././
//
,,I' //
'>,:' X /.... //"
/ .?--...
- . -. .."" ~.//
x,.... /'
/.<'
/.///'
X
x
..::y('/'
,x .~' V
Y."'-/ .',
J&-:::<
x ::::.''.-:{ X'
'x~~' X
,"",,'>;:;'v/
f: f(^/
o
.__n____________n.__n._.......___.___uuu..
, ,
o
1000
2000
3000
x '" Number of DlI\fe!!ing Units
I ;< Actual Data Points Fitted Curve
~ Curve Equation: Ln(T}:: 0.90 Ln(X} + 0.53
- - - - -. Average Rate
R2 :: 0.91
Trip Generation, 7th Edition
271
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Elementary School
(520 )
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 32
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 55
Directional Distribution: 43% entering, 57% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
1_____ Av~~ge Rate Range of !2~tes
_ 3.13 0.94 6.06
.St~ndard Deviatio,"- I
2.19
Data Plot and Equation
!I)
~
ill
0-
.;:
r-
(!)
'0
1:
(l)
>
(l)
Ol
cc
~
<:(
II
r-
500 r---
I
i
400 J.
I
I
J
~j .......
x
-----:---------1
..I
xi
i
!
~'1
100 l'
J
.Xi_. .
,x.
'- x. - ~.,
_~/'x !
/'1
/'/ !
~///////~ i
'x'. -, -.x. - j
I
", j
i
'x
:x
x
" ,
.... , .......-
'-;....... -. -;,........-:
~'x ././, x,
.......-'".......-...---.-
x'
v
"
>::
x
. . <.",>.-::('
.................
..>~:;;;.>/
"-".y.~"
"/
x
./":'
x
.~'i-",,,,-y>//'
/.~;'::~-:: X
X
>:'
:x:
o T..----,-.---..l'-......T-~--'-----....i----....,..-
o
1
40
,----;--------'---------:--._--hrA
---.-e......---,....---I
10
20
30
50 60
70
80 90
100
X::: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
>< Actuaf Data Points
'- Fitted Curve
- --.... -- Average FlatG
Fitted Curve Equation: Lo{T)::: 0.89 Ln(X) +- 1.49
R2 '" 0.55
~~X-O':lXii-...,...
-- ~- ~- - ~
Trip Generation, 7th Edition
910
Institute of Transport:'1t1011 Engineers
Apartment
(220)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
On a:
Dwelling Units
Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies:
Avg. Number of Dwelling Units:
Directional Distribution:
90
233
65% entering, 35% exiting
Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
f .-,\~~~~~ate
Range of Rates
0.10 1.64
0.82
Standard Deviation
J
Data Plot and Equation
(/)
"0
C
ill
,9-
~
(!l
(3
'r:
Q)
>
())
Cl
(\l
....
\D
>
<t:
II
f-
700'J __m.....m_ .m....___.___'" . .___.m_'--~l:,i,
I
:1 ..... ........... ....... ...... .. ................ .//~~~'.:>/]
1 x ..></ ...1
400 i . . . . . . . . - '. . . . . ~ . .... - . . ,"- /"':
I ...... ? ./"
I ;...-- //
! : x x./ .//
1 * /~/
:/" ,//
300 .-1,,' .. ... .. .. <./ ,.
: x >:: _,y./ .
. s: ,'...x
'x "" .,/ ;--/ X
i x :.7<' x
200 Ix)?:/X x ';
i /~ .;:~~~:~ ~ x
100 'j' x~1f~; x
I ;f~<X
I x' x ;;
o T-_~_m'_;_'-----'-----T.u.m',"-u I
300
I
I
......I
I
o
--,...--.1-.----;.--.-r-.
500 600 700
1100
_-----;m---...J
tOO
200
400
800
900
1000
X", Number of Dwelling Units
;< Actual Data Points
--- Fitted Curve
-- -- -- --.. -- Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = O.55(X) + 17.65
R2 = 0.77
Trip Generation, 7th Edition
308
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Shopping Center
(820)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
On a:
Number of Studies:
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA:
Directional Distribution:
1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
407
379
48% entering, 52% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
I Average Rate - Range of Rates ._......_.........._Stal1<f"'.!! Deviation
,3.75 0.68 - 29.27 2,75
,.
Data Plot and Equation
L
<fJ
^O
r-
ill
.Q..
~
Q,)
u
';::
Q)
>
m
01
~
Q,)
>
<(
!I
I-
9 000 ,______________m___________
8:~1.........................
7,000 -f
I
i
i
6,000 1- - - - - - - - ,
5000 1
4,000 --i '
>~
;:
.x _ ." ,_
>::
/
/
/
x
//x
i
i
i
I
- " "I
,
!
i
I
'I
, -I
I
!
o
1000
, ,
o : ::..::.......:--n.~_~.--.-----....------.--------n---.--I--------n--_._n_________________;_______________u__u.u__u___u_;uu.un_uuu_un,_,,_,uuT~._~___-----------i
3000
.,
/',X X
x , '^ X
3,000 i ,x ,,/ x" /':;;~~~:/x~/ x
i x 0x?---x, x
2~ i;~ ~#",.?~t~(> x .
1000i X'" <':ft/: x
. - "/
X ;,/
x
''>(- - ,-
x
x
_ x
, - /_~, /,////"//"/--
-- - -, -, - -x-
/
~~
/
......--
2000
X:::: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasa~!e ;l\Jsa
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 3.40
Trip Generation, 7th Edition
Fitted Curve
-- -- -- -- - - Average Rate
R2 = 0.81
1453
Institute of Transportation Engineers
APPENDIX
G
OHP MOBILITY STANDA~D
"
_._-------~_.._~---------......_------_.
1999 OREGON HIGHWAY PLAN
J>oIicy Element
Non~MPO Outside Non-MPO NOll~MPO
of STAs where outside of where Don-
non-freeway STAs where freeway
posted speed non-freeway speed lil~it I
<= 35 mph, or a speed> 35 >= 45 mph I'
Designated liRA mph ,
:~~---~i ~.~~ !=6J-j
080 1 075 ~~o_ I
0.S5 1__080 _ I 0 "-~r
. I
0,85 . 0.80 0.75 I 0.75
I
I
I
...u
.0.70 0.70
0.70 0.70
-----
0.70 0.70 i
0,75 a.70
-- -----
to 70
Interstate Highways F. N/)\ 0.80
Statewide Expressways N/A 0.80
------
Freight Route on a 0.85 0.80
Statewide Highway
---
Statewide (not a Freight 0.90 0.85
Route)
_.._---~.
Freight Route on a
Regional or District 0.90 0.85
High~vay
Expressway on a
Regional or District N/A 0,85
Highway
Regional Highways 0.95 0.85
....._-~-
District I Local Interest 0,95
Roads
__nn_____
N/A 0.80 0.75 0.75 I 0.70
~-----
0.85 0.80 0.75 0.75 0,70
0.90 _ ~~8<=J 0.80 0,80 0.75
Table 6: .'Maximum volume to capacity ratios for peak hour operating conditions
Notes for Table 6
A OHP Amendment 00--04 establishedaltemative mobility standards for Portland i\1etro and the Rugue Valley MPO (RVMPO)...
For Metro, see Table 7, below. For RV MPO see note B, below and the 0 HP amendment establishing the RVMPO alternative
standards located on the web at: hrtp://wv..w.oregoll.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/orlrv.yplan/I'egis:ryI0004.p4/. Where there
is a connict between the Table 6 standards and the established altel11ative mobility standards, the more tolerant standard
(bigher vlc ratio) applies.
i! The maximum volume to capacity ratio at the Northbound and Soutllbound oiI:ramps ofthe South Medford Interchange
is> 1.0 for four hours daily until the new South Medford Interchange is constructed. The maximum vie ratio at Highway
99 at Stewart Avenue is >1.0 for two hours daily. \\'hen the new interchange is completed, tbe mobility standards for the
ramps will be those in Table 6.
C For the purpases oftbis policy, the peak hour shall be the 30'b highest annual hour, This approximates weekday peak hour
traffic in larger urban areas.
. c' Interstates and Expressways shall nat be identified as Special Transportation Areas.
E National Highway System (NtIS) highway design requirements are addressed in the Highway Design J\lanual (HDM).
17 Table 6 was replaced in August 2005, part ofOHP Amendment 05-16.
83
APPENDIX
H
INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE
CALCULATIONS
River road at Hunsaker Lane
3: Int
2007 'No build'
8/24/2007
".
-+
"").
f
+-
4....
~
t
r
\.
~
~
K~R~m~m~~'~;i:!~i.iI~::~~!ii*jtW;~~fiiii1imm~6.~!;:;ii:::f~~!~mir~'::':~~;n~~mt~i~~lWfill;fill~I1miI~:jli~~~f;~~E~;~m1~l~Nt~N~im!lM~m~~::::1m:if!f!:::!!~~t1fWii~tI$~f:@r~!W::ii~B.
LaneConflgurations 4' f 4' ., , 1-1'+ ~ 1-1'+
Volume (vph) 85 22 220 87 136 444 273 1091 57 23 876 41
!deaIFfow{vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 A>:
'"t......
LaneUti!. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0:99 1.00 0.99
FltProtected 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. FlolV (pro!) 1697 1500 1131 1500 1676 3328 1676 3331
FltPermitled 0.67 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1186 1500 1490 1500 353 3328 353 3331
Peak -hourfactor ,PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 88 23 227 90 140 458 281 1125 59 24 903 42
RTORReduction(vph) 0 0 136 0 0 125 0 6 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 111 91 0 230 333 281 1178 0 24 939 0
TurnType Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
PermiltedPhases 4 4 8 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G (s) 20.0 20.0 W.O 20.0 24.0 20.0 24.0 20.0
EffecttveGreen, g( s) 20:0 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 24.0 20.0
Actuatedg/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.42 0.35 0.42 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane GrpCap (vph) 416 526 523 526 241 1168 241 1169
v/sRatioProt cO.08 0.35 0.01 0.28
v'~ Ratio Perm 0.09 0.06 0.15 cO.22 cO.41 0.03
i~
v!cRatio 0.27 0.17 0.44 0.63 1.17 1.01 0.10 0.80
Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 12.8 14.2 15.4 15.1 18.5 11.7 16.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.7 2.7 5.7 110.2 28.3 0.8 l:;q
v.v
Delay(s} 14.8 13.5 16.9 21.1 125.3 46.8 12.5 22.6
- Level of Service B B B C F D 8 C
ApproachDelay(s} 13.9 19.7 6i.9 22.4
Approach LOS B 8 E C
HCMVolumetoCapacityratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
InterseclionCa pacityUti !ization
Analysis Period (min)
cCriticaiLaneGroup
570
80.2%
15
Sum of lost time (s)
ICULeve!ofService
125
D
Baseline
%user_name%
Synchro 7 -Report
Page1
River road at Hunsaker lane
3: Int
2008 'Build' Existing
8/24/2007
..J-
-+
"').
f
+-
'-
~
t
~
\...
~
./
MiV~~lm1tlm[::f!1i1!i::iW;1@~~iI;~:ni:i::::iif::;~;::::~1~~~1~~~i!mJ~a1t~!1i~:~~j~~~ff~~1~\1j:\I~~:i':li~~mi!i!I::::::;&W~R1~:l~.'1iiit1:~mim::ll1~~i[&ili~1%1~j~~g~'1~:~~:~1;~~I:;];i1[j:l~i~m:~~iWi$~g
LaneConfigurations 4' 'f 4 nf "l +1+ tt +1+
Volume (vph) 87 29 234 127 147 476 288 1136 86 40 919 42
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Total Losttime(s) 4;5 4,5 4;5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5
LaneUtil.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
FftProtected 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 tOO 0.95 1.00
Satd.. Flow (prot) 1701 1500 1725 1500 1676 3317 1676 3331
FltPermitted 0.65 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00
Sald. Flow (perm) 1154 1500 1412 1500 353 3317 353 3331
Peak-hourfactor,PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 90 30 241 131 162 491 297 1171 89 41 947 43
RTORReduction(vph) (} 0 133 0 0 124 0 10 (} (} 6 0
LaneGroup Flow(vph) (} 120 108 0 283 367 2Q~ 1250 0 41 984 0
vi
Canfl. Peds. (#/hr) 3
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6
ActuatedGreen, G( s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 24.0 20.0
Effective Green. 9 (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 24.0 20.0
Actuatedg/CRatio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.42 0.35 0.42 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 4,5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5
LaneGrpCap(vph) 405 526 495 526 241 1164 241 1169
vIs Ratio Prot cO.09 0.38 0,01 0.30
visRatioPerm D.10 0.07 0.20 cO. 24 eO.43 0.06
vie Ratio 0.30 0.21 0.57 0.70 1.23 1.07 0.17 0.84
UniformDelay.d1 13.4 12.9 15.0 15.9 15.3 18.5 12.4 17.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 tOO 100 1.00 1.00 100 1.00
IncrementalDelay.d2 1.9 0.9 4.7 7.5 135.2 48.7 15 7.4
Delay (s) 15.3 13.8 19.8 23.4 150.5 67.2 13.9 245
LevelofService B B 8 C F E 8 C
Approach Delay (s) 14.3 221 83,1 24.0
ApproachLOS B C r- C
r
HCMA verageConlrolDela y 47.4 HCMLevelofService
HCM Volume to Capacity ralio 0,98
ActuatedCysleLenglh( s) 57.0 Sumoflosttime(s) 12.5
lntersection Capacity Utilization 85.1% ICU level of Service r:
.....
AnalysisPerlod(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Baseline
%user_name%
Synchro 7 -Report
Page1
River road at Hunsaker Lane
3: Int
2022 'Build' EXisting
8/24/2007
LaneConfigurations
Volume (vph)
IdeaIFlow(vphpl)
Total Lost time (5)
LaneUtil.F actor
Frt
FItProtected
Satd. Flow (pret)
FltPermitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hourfactor,PHF
Adj . Flow {vph)
RTORReduction(vph)
lane Group Ftow(vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
PermittedPhases
Actuated Green,G (5)
EffectiveGreen,g( s)
Actuatedg!C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v!sRatioProt
vis Ratio Perm
vlcRatio
Uniform Delay, d1
ProgressionF actor
incrementa! Delay, d2
Delay(s)
Level of Service
ApproachDelay(s)
Approach LOS
..J-
123
1800
0.97
127
o
o
Perm
--... 't
4
-4 r'
38 327
1800 1800
4.5 4,5
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
0.96 1.00
1700 1500
0.44 too
785 1500
0.97 0.97
39 337
0 121
166 216
Perm
4
4
20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.35 0.35
4.5 4.5
275 526
0.21 0.14
0.60 0.41
15.2 14.0
1.00 1.00
0" 2.4
v.o
24.7 16.4
C B
19.1
8
164
1800
0.97
169
o
o
Perm
-('"
+-
"-
~
t
111
1800
0,97
114
o
o
r
'.
+
./
59
1800
0.97
61
o
o
HCM Average
HCMV olumetoCapscityratio
Actuated Cycie Length (s)
IntersectionCapacityUtilization
Analysis Period (mini
cCriticalLaneGroup
15
8
4" (I "l 1'1+
205 664 404 1598
1800 1800 1800 1800
4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
1.00 0,85 1.00 0:99
0,98 1.00 0.95 1.00
1726 1500 1676 3320
0.78 1.00 0.20 1.00
1374 1500 353 3320
0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
211 685 416 1647
0 119 0 9
380 566 416 1752
Penn pm+pt
8 5 2
8 2
20.0 20.0 24.0 20.0
20.0 20,0 24.0 20,0
0.35 0,35 0.42 0.35
4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
482 526 241 1165
cO.12 0.53
0.28 cO.38 cO.50
0.79 1.08 1.73 1.50
166 18.5 28.8 18.5
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
12.3 61.4 343.6 231.2
28.9 79.9 372.4 249.7
C E F F
61.7 273.2
E F
12.5
H
'1 tt+
49 1290
1800 1800
4.0 4,5
1.00 0.95
1.06 0,99
0.95 1.00
1676 3331
0.20 1.00
353 3331
0.97 0.97
51 1330
0 6
51 1385
pm+pt
1 6
6
24.0 20.0
24.0 20,0
0.42 0,35
4.0 4.5
241 1169
0.01 0.42
0,D7
0.21 1.18
25.4 18.5
1.00 1.DO
2.0 92,1
27.4 110.6
C- F
107.7
F
Baseline
%useUlame%
Sum of lost time. (8)
ICULeve!ofServic8
Synchro 7 -Report
Page1
River road at Hunsaker Lane
3: Int
2008 'Build' Proposed
8/24/2007
('" +-
Volume (vph) 87 39 226 128 148 473 289 1144 58 65 898 42
IdeaIFiow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5
LaneUtil.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 ,tOo 0.99
FllProtected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow (prot) 1706 1500 1725 1500 1676 3329 1676 3331
FltPermitted 0.67 1.00 0.79 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1178 15001403 1500 353 3329 353 3331
Peak-hourfactor,PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 90 40' 233132 153 488 298 1179 60 67 926
RTORReduction(vph) 0 0 134 0 0 124 0 6 0 0 6
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 130 99 0 285 364 298 1233 0 67 963
TumType Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1
PermittedPhases 4 4 8 8 2 6
ActuatedGreen,G (5) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 24.0
EffectiveGreen,g(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 24.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 035 0.35 0.35 0.42 0.35 0.42
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 413 526 492 526 241 1168 241
v/sRatioProt cO.09 0.37 0.02
v!sRatioPerm 0.11 0.07 0.20 cO. 24 c0.43 0.10
v/cRatio 0.31 0.19 0.58 0.69 1.24 1.06 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 13.5 12.9 15.1 15.9 15.2 18.5 12.4
ProgressionFactor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.8 4.9 7.3 136.8 42.2 2.9
Delay(s) 155 13.6 20.0 23.2 152.0 60.7 15.3
Leve! of Service B 8 B t F E B
AppmachDelay(s) 14.3 22.0 78.4
~proochL~ BeE
..J-
-+-
t
-\..
"\
t
r
\..
+
~
0.97
43
o
o
6
20.0
20.0
0.35
4.5
1169
0.29
0.82
16.9
1.00
6.6
23.5
C
23.0
C
HCMV olumetoCapacityratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
IntersectionCapacityUtil ization
Analysis Period (min)
cCriticalLsneGroup
44.9
0.98
57.0
84.7%
15
HCM Level of Service
D
Sum of lost time (s)
ICULevelofService
12.5
E
8aseline
%user_name%
Synchro 7 -Report
Page1
River road at Hunsaker Lane
3: Int
2022 'Build' Proposed
8/24/2007
..J-
-+- t
....
>lit-
-\..
"\
i
!"
\..
..
.;
M~~~!l.l;m~~~~i~miil~ii::ft~\~~il~~~'~w;~lIlm;il';:W~~ii~11~~I[@a*mil&1~;~a~~j~(~;i~B~:;i:::j:ii1i:::'W$~1i~%ti~l~l?lj:ii~::;:j'if{a'fNl~~~jl,ijm~~;!jii:':::ii!i::IDa~i::;ll'i:'i$Wl':';'l:';;~:'~$l~$$:~~S:Sg
LaneConfigurations 4' 'f 4' (l "i t1+ "i +1+
Volume (vph) 125 45 320 165 210 665 410 1605 85 75 1270 BD
IdealFlow(vphpll 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4;0 4.5 4.0 4,5
LaneUtil.Faetor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
FltProtected 0,96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd,Flow (prot) 1702 1500 1727 1500 1676 3328 1676 3330
FllPermitted 0.44 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00
Satd.Flow (penn) 777 1500 1370 1500 353 3328 353 3330
Peak-hourfactor,PHF 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97. 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 129 46 330 170 216 686 423 1655 88 77 1309 62
RTORReduetion(vph) 0 0 121 0 0 119 0 6 0 0 6 0
lane Group Flow (vphj 0 175 209 0 386 567 423 1737 0 77 1365 .0
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
PermittedPhases 4 4 8 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G (s) 20.0 20,0 20.0 20.024.0 20.0 24.0 20.0
EffectiveGreen,g(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 24.0 20.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.42 0.35 0.42 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 4,5 4,5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 273 526 481 526 241 1168 241 1168
vis RatioProt eO.12 0.52 (1.02 0.41
vis HaHo Perm 0.23 0.14 0.28 eO.38 cO.61 0.11
v/eRatio 0.64 0.40 0.80 1.08 1.76 1.49 0.32 1.17
Uniform Delay. d1 155 14.0 16.7 18.5 28.8 18.5 25.8 18.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 11.0 2.2 13.2 62.0 356.4 223.6 3.5 85.4
Delay(s) 26.5 16.2 299 80.5 385.2 242.'1 29.3 103.9
level of Service . - C B C F F F C F
ApproachDelay(sj 19.8 62.3 270.1 100.0
ApproachlOS B E F F
F
HCMVolumeloCapacityra tio
Actuated Cyde Length (s)
IntersectionCapacityUtilization
.1I,na!ysis Penod (min)
cCritica!LaneGroup
1.43
57.0
114.20/0
15
Sum of lost time (s)
ICULevelofService
12.5
"
Ii
Baseline
%user_name%
Synchro 7 -Report
Page1
River road at Hunsaker Lane
3: Int
2022 'Build' (Proposed + Mitigated)
7/25/2007
/'
-to- ....
,f
+-
'- "\
t
r
\.
*
~
MgY~m~lj~ii~~1iitii;~:f~:~]i~i:!~~~ji:@:[fii!li~!:~~:i[~~j,~I~;:liil:j!:!~~J~1W!~aelztfli~~!:~ji~i~ii~~Ji]:::~:~*:.Ri:I:)(1ij:ii!:rifsjijli:~I~;!1!!!:N~1'[~lf~):iimg:ii:ll:::@!~I~J~i'M:[$~ffi]:i]:!ili~l1mSg
LaneConfigurations 4''' "i t f ~ +1+ ~ 1-1+
Volume (vph) 125 45 320 165 210 6.65 410 1605 85 75 1270 60
ldeaIFlow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Total lost time {s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4,5
laneUtil.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt . 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
FllProtected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1702 1500 1676 1765 1500 1676 3328 1676 3330
FltPermitted 0.56 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.09 1.00
Satd. Flow(perm) 991 1500 1033 :1765 1500 146.3328 159 3330
Peak-hourfactor,PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Fiow (vph) 129 46 330 170 216686 423 1655 88 77 1309 62
RTORReduction(vph) 0 0 201 0 0 54 0 3 0 0 3 0
lane Group Flow (vph) 0175129 170 216 632 423 1740 0 77 1368 0
TumType Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.54.1.5 69.5 61.5 48.5 44.5
EffectiveGreen,g(s) 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 69.5 61.5 48.5 44.5
Actuated gfC Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.58 0.51 0.40 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5
lane Grp Cap (vph) . 343 519 ...357 610 519 352 1706 115 1235
visRatioProt 0.12 c0.21 0.52 0.02 0.41
visRatio Perm 0.18 0.09 0.16 cO.42 c0.49 0.25
vicRatio 0.51 0.25 0.48 0.35 1.22 1.20 1.02 0.67 1.11
UniformDelay,d1 31.2 28.1 30.7 29.3 39.2 5U 29.2 29.1 37.8
Progress/on Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 1.1 4.5 1.6 114.3 114.8 26.9 26.9 60.6
Delay(s) 36.5 29.2 35.2 30.9 153.6 166.5 56.1 56.0 98.4
Level of Service D C D C F FEE F
ApproachDelay(s) 31.7 110,1 77.7 96.1
Approach LOS C F E F
85.1
1.19
120.0
114.2%
15
HCM Level of Service
F
HCM .twerage Control Delay
HCMVolumetoCapacltyra tio
Actuated Cycle length (s)
tntersectionCapacityUtilization
Analysis Period (min)
cCriticallaneGroup
Sum of lost time (s)
ICULevelofService
8.5
H
Baseline
%usecname%
Synchro 7 -Report
Page1
]\vo-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
'-
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Cindy Pulone intersection
1>.gency/Co. Branch Engineering Jurisdiction City of Eugene
Date Performed 6/2912007 Analysis Year 2007 Existing 'No BUild'
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Project Description Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment
East/West Street: Green Lane INorth/South Street River Road
Intersection Orientation: North.South IStudv Period (hrs)~ 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (vehlh) 9 1386 22 11 1127 9
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1428 22 11 1161 9
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 -- -
~'v1edian Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R I
Volume (vehih) 4 0 17 21 0 29
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate. HFR 4 0 17 21 0 29
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0 t
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LTR LT R
.. ..
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NOlil1bound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L LT R LTR i
!
! (veh/h) 9 11 21 29 21
C (m)Jveh/h) 599 469 123 367 335 i
vic 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.08 0.06
95% queue length 0.05 0.07 0.59 0.26 0.20
Control Delay (s/veh) 11.1 12.9 40.2 15.6 16.5
LOS B 8 r0- C r-
t: v
t..,pproach Delay (s/veh) -- - 26.0 16.5
IApproach LOS -- - D C I
Copynght ':s; 2005 University of Florida, Ail Rights Reserved
HCS+TM Version 5.21
Generated: 8/24/2007 4:27 PM
file:/!C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\Local Settings\Temp\u2k266.tmp
8/24/2007
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information )ite Information
Analyst Cindy Pulone ntersection
V\qency/Co. Branch Engineerina uris diction Citv of Eugene
Date Performed 8/24/2007 A.nalysis Year 2008 'Build' Existing
!Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour
-
Project Description Santa Clara schoof site redevelooment
EastlWest Street Green Lane INorth/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
ajor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
l T R L T R
Volume (vehlh) 9 1449 59 40 1193 9
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1493 60 41 1229 9
vehlh)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - --
Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
(Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 4 0 17 55 0 56
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I
4 0 17 56 0 57 I
(veh/h) I
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade ('Yo) 0 0
-
Flared Approach N N -
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delay, Queue length, and Level of Service
IApproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound j
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I
Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR i
v (veh/h) 9 41 1/3 21
C (Ill) (veh/h) 565 428 163 290
v/e 0.02 0.10 0.69 0.07
95% queue length 0.05 0.32 4.10 0.23
Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 14.3 66.0 18.4
LOS B B F ("
y
Approach Delay (s/veh) - -. 66.0 18.4
Approach LOS -- -- F c ._______..-.J
-.- .-
COfJy;-ight @ 2005 Universrry of Florida, All Rights Ressrved
HC$+fM Version 5.21
Generated: 8/24/20Q7 3:30 PM
file:! Ie: \Documents and S ettings\cindyp \Local S ettings\ Temp \u2 k 1 F 5. tmp
8/24/2007
Two-\Vay Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
'-'
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analvst CindY Pulone Intersection
Aaenev/Co. Branch Engineerina Uurisdiction City of Eugene
Date Performed 8/24/2007 Analvsis Year 2008 'BUild' Proposed
Analvsis Time Period oM Peak Hour
Protect Description Santa Clara schoof site redeveJoDment
EastlWest Street: Green Lane INorth/South Street River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudY Period 7hrs ~ 0.25
'Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments I
MaioI' Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h} 9 1484 45 11 1194 9
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1529 46 11 1230 9
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Jostream Siana! 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume iveh!h) 4 0 17 68 0 30
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 0 17 70 0 30
veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
1,..., N - N
tared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
anes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR ~
- -
Delav, Queue Length, and level of Service
ti,pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L LiR LTR
v (veh/h) 9 11 100 21
~Ji}1) (veh/h) 565 420 132 312
vie 0.02 0.03 0.76 0.07
195% queue length 0.05 0.08 4.44 0.22
!control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 13.8 88.5 17.4
LOS Q B F I C
'-'
.L\pproach Delay (s!veh) -- -- 88.5 17.4
Approach LOS -- -- F C
Copyright @ 2005 University of Fiorida. All Rights Reserved
HCS+ ™ Version 5.21
Generated: 812412007 2:28 PM
fl1e:!IC:\Documents (md Settings\cindyp\Local Settings\Temp\u2kl BD.tmp
8/24/2007
Two- \Vay Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalyst Cindv Pulone Intersection
\oencv/Co. Branch Enqineering Uurisdiction City of Eugene
ate Performed 6129/2007 Analvsis Year 2022 'Build' Existing
Analvsis Time Period IpM Peak Hour
Proiect DescriPtion Santa Clara school site redevelooment
EastlWest Street: Green Lane INorth/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
!Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
lVolume (veh/h) 13 2035 68 45 1670 13
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 2097 70 46 1721 13 I
veh/h)
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0 - -. 0 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane
RT ChanneHzed 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Uostream Sional 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R !
Voiume (vehlh) 6 0 25 63 0 68
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 0 25 64 0 70
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach - N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 I
Configuration LTR LTR I
i
Delav, Queue LeoQth, and Level of Service
.Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound i
I
Movement 1 4 "7 8 9 10 11 12
I
Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR
v (veh/h) 13 46 1'0/1 31
v"+
C (m) (veh/h) 365 248 7~ 155
,0
vie 0.04 0.19 179 0.20
95% queue length 0.11 067 11.68 0.72
Control Delay (s/veh) 15.2 22.8 494.4 33.9
LOS C G F D
.~proach Delay (s/veh} -- - 494.4 33.9
Approach LOS .. -- F D
Cop)'Tight@ 2005 University of Fiorida. Ail Rights Reserve.j
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 8124/2007 4.17 PM
file://C:\Documents and Scttings\cindyp\Local Settings\Temp\.u2k223.tmp
8/24/2007
Two- Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO~WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalyst Cindy Pufone ntersection
\oencv/Co. Branch Enqineerina Jurisdiction City of Euqene
ate Performed 6/2912007 Analvsis Year 2022 'Build' Proposed
AJ1alysis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Proiect Description Santa Clara school site redevelofJment
East.~est Street Green Lane North/South Street: Ritter Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h ) 15 2075 50 15 1670 15
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 2139 51 15 1721 15
veh/h)
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0 - - 0 -- -
Median Type Two Way Left Turn UlI1e
RT Channelized 0 0
3nes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Uostream Sional 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veM/h) 5 0 25 75 0 40
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 25 77 0 41
vehfhl
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade {%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT ChanneHzed 0 0
Laf1es 0 1 0 Q 1 0
ConfiguratiDn LTF? LTR
Delav, Queue Lenath, and Level of Service
.t>,pproach NOlihbouf1d Southbound Westbound Eastbound i
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
L.ane Configuration L L LTR LTR
, (vehlh) 15 15 118 30
C (m) (veh!h) 364 243 58 190
vie 0.04 0.06 2.03 0.16
5% queue length 0.13 0.20 11.39 0.55
Control Delay (sNeh) 15.3 20.8 633.0 27.5
LOS G C F 0
Approach Delay (slveh) -- .. 633.0 27.5
Approach LOS -- -. F D
---- __ c.....___._.__~.____
Copyright@ 2005 University of FlorIda, A~l Right.s Reser'.fed
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 8/2412007 4:17 PM
file://C:\Documents and Settings\cind)rp\Local Settings\Tcmp\u2k238.tmp
8/24/2007
Two- \-Vay Stop Control
Page I of I
TWQ-WA Y STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalyst Cindy Pulone ..---- ntersection
ganey/Co. IBranch Engineering urisdiction City of Eugene
ate Performed 6/2912007 ~nalysis Year 2022 Build
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour !Proposed+Mitiqated
- .-
Proiect Description Santa Clara school site redeveJooment
astMfest Street: Green Lane INorth/South Street: River Road
Jntersection Orientation: North-South' IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
-
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
lVolume (vehll1) 15 2075 50 15 1670 15
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 2139 51 15 1721 15
veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 0 -- -
Median Type Two Way Left rum Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
'. ~~
Upstream Siqnal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh!h) 5 0 25 75 0 40
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 25 77 0 41
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent-Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
C on fig ura tion LTR LT R i
-- ,
Delay, Queue LenQth, and Leve! of Service
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L LT R LTR
v (vehih) 15 15 77 41 30
C (m) (veh!h) 364 243 -42 209 190
vlc 0.04 0.06 1.83 0.20 0.16
95% queue length 0.13 0.20 7.99 0.71 0.55
Control Delay (s!veh) 15.3 20.8 603.6 26.4 27.5
LOS C C t- D D
Approach Delay (s!veh) - -- 403.0 2/.5
lc\pproach LOS -- -- F D ~.
----
Copyright@ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserveti
HC$+ TMVerslon 5.21
Gene'ated: 512412007 4:18 PM
fjle://C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\Local Settings\Temp\u2k23C.tmp
8/24/2007
T\vo-\Vay Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information fSite Information
nalvst Cindy Pulone ntersectfon
_genev/Co. Branch Engineering uMsdiction City of Eugene
ate Performed 8/24/2007 t..nalysis Year 2008 'Build' Existing
!Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Proiect Description Santa Clara school site redevelopment
EastlWest Street Green Lane INorthfSouth Street: Site Access
intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 56 34 51 14
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0..97 0.97 097
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 57 35 0 0 52 14
veh!h)
1Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- - 0 -- -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
l T R L T R I
Volume {veh/h} 13 53
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 13 0 54
(vehfh)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 !
Percent Grade (%) 0 0 1
Flared Approach N N -
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration L R
Delay. Queue Lenj:Jth. and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (veh/h) 57 13 54
C (rn) (veh!h) 1549 - -~- 748 1002 I
vie 0.04 0.02 0.05
95% queue length 0.11 0.05 0.17
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 9.9 8.8
LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.0
Approach LOS - -. A
- -
Copyright@20DS University of Florida. f..f; Rights Resen.'ed
HCS+ ™ Version 5.21
Generated: 8/24i2007 2:27 PM
tlle://C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\Local Settings\T emp\u2k 1 A8.tmp
8/24/2007
Two- \Vay Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
-
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analvst Cindy Pufone ntersection
\aencv/Co. Branch Enaineering lJurisdiction City of Eugene
)ate Performed 8/24/2007 IAnalysis Year 2008 'Bwld' Prooosed
nalvsis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Project Descriotlon Santa Clara schoof site redevefoDment
East/VVest Street: Green Lane INorth/South Street: Site Access
fntersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (Yeh/h) 10 34 51 10
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 35 0 0 52 10
veh/h}
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Tvpe Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 Q
Config uration LT TR
Uostream Siona! 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (ven/h) 6 0 2 10 40
Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 097 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, Hr-R 6 0 2 10 0 41
vehih)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N - N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 1
Configuration LTR L R
Delav, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration Lf LTR L R
I (veh/h) 10 8 10 41
':; (m) (veh/h) 1541 843 840 un .0 994
v/e 0.01 0.01 0.01 004
95% queue lengt'l 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.13
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 93 9.3 8.8 t
LOS A . . A !
1"1 1-\
Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.3 8.9
A.pproach LOS - -- A A
---..-- .-.---.--
Copyrfght @ 2005 University of Florida. AH Rights Reserved
IYCS+™ VersicHi 5.21
Generated: 8124/2007 2:28 PM
tlle:/!C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\Loca! Settings\Telnp\u2klB5.tmp
8/2412007
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analvst Cindy Pulone Intersection
Aoencv/Co. Branch Enaineeril1g Jurisdiction City of Eugene
Date Performed 6/2912007 Analvsis Year 2022 'Build' Existino
i\na!vsis Time Period PM Peak Hour
-
Project Description Santa Clara school site redevelooment
East/West Street: Green Lane INorth/South Street Site Access
Intersection Orientation: i::8st-West IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 56 48 . 73 14
Peak-Hour.Faetor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 57 49 0 0 75 14
(veh!h\
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0 - -- 0 -- -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 - 0
lConfig uratio n LT TR
Upstream Siona! 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 13 53
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.9/ 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 13 0 54
(veh/h)
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0 0 0 0 f) 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N I
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration L R
Delav, Queue Lenqth, and Level of Service
!Approach Eastbound Westbound NOlihbound Southbound
['v1ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
, (veh/h) 57 13 54
C (m) (vell/h) 1507 - 704 963
vie 0,04 0.02 0.06
95% queue length 0.12 0,06 0.18
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 10.2 9.0
LOS A 8 ,ll.
.A.pproach Delay (s/veh) -- - 9.2
iApproach LOS -- -- A
.-- -
Copyright @ 200,5 Umversity of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HGS+Tf-A Version 5.21
fi1e:i/C:\Documents and Setbngs\cindyp\Local Settings\Temp\u2k20F.tmp
Generated: fV24;200;r 4: 16 PM
8/24/2007
Two- \hI ay Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
It\nalvst Cindy Pulone Intersection
Aaenev/Co. Branch Enoineering Jurisdiction City of EUQene
Date Performed 6/29/2007 I\nalysis Year 2022 'Build' Proposed
lAnalvsis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Proiect Descnotion Santa Clara school site redevefoDment
East/West Street: Green Lane INorth/South Street: Site Access
Intersection Orientation; East-West Istudv Period (hrs); 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement. 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (vehlh) 10 50 75 10
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 . 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 51 0 0 77 10
(vah/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- - 0 - -
[v1edian Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
ILtlfleS 0 1 0 0 1 0
Confiouration LT TR
Upstream Slonal 0 0
-
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R i
Volume (veh/h) 5 0 5 10 40
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 10 0 41
(veh/h)
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flarea Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
al1es 0 1 0 1 0 1 I
ConfiQuration LTR L R
- -.-
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I
I
f\l1ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I
Lane Configuration LT LTR L R
v (veh/h) 10 10 10 41 i
C (m}(lJeh/h) 1509 858 787 963 !
v/e 0.01 ~ 0.01 0.01 0.04 I
i
95% queue length 0.02 0.04 0.04 013
Control De!ay (sJveh) 7.4 9.2 96 8.9 !
LOS ,A, A A A
!~ppraach De!ay (s!veh) -- -- 9.2 9.0
IApproach LOS -- -- A A ~
Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida, .6,!! Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Gene:--ated: 8/24/2007 4: "17 Pk~
fjle:!/C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\LocaJ Settings\Temp\u2k234.tmp
8/24/2007
Two- Way Stop Control
Pagelofl
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalvst Cindy ptJ/one Intersection . -. . .. -.
~qencv/Co. Branch Engineering Uurisdiction City of Eugene
)ate Performed 8/2412007 !Analvsis Year 2008 'Build' Proposed
\nalvsis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Prolect Description Santa Clara school site redevefooment
EastIWest Street: Site Access North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
lVehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 1455 63 1252
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1499 64 0 1290 0
veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -. 0 -- -
Median Type UndMded
RT Channelized 0 0
lanes 0 2 . 0 0 2 0
Configuration T TR T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 35
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 36
'vell/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
Delay, Queue lenqth, and Level of Service
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Ivlovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (veh/h) 36
C (m) (veh/h) 333
vie 011
95% queue length 0.36
Control Delay (s/veh) 17.1
LOS C
iApproach Delay (slveh) -. -- 17.1
Approach LOS -- -. C
.-- -----~_.
CQP}'rigrlt (~ 2005 Unrversity of Fiorida. AU Rights Reserved
HCS+-™ Version 5.21
Generated: 8/24/2007 2.31 PM
fi1e:i/C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\Local Settings\Temp\u2kl C5 .tmp
8/24/2007
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
.,
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
lGenerallnformation Site Information
Analyst Cindy Pufone Intersection
Mency/Co. Branch Enoineering Jurisdiction City of Euoene
'Date Performed 6/2912007 A.nalvsis Year 2022 'Build' Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hoar
roject Descriotion Santa Clara schoof site redevelopment
EasttWest Street Site Access lNorth/Sbuth Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South /Studv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume {veh/h} 2055 65 1755
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate. HFR 0 2118 67 0 1809 0
veh/h )
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - . -- 0 .- -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0
Configuration T TR T
Upstream Siqnal 0 0
--
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (vehfh} 35
Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 36
(veh!h j
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N -
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
ConfiquraUon R
Delay, Queue Length, and level of Service
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 '7 8 9 10 11 12
J
Lane Configuration R
v (veh/h) 36
C (m) (veh!h) - 208
vIe 0.17
95')0 queue fength 0.61
Control Delay (s/veh) 25.9
LOS D
A.pproach Delay {s/veh} -- .- 25.9
Approach LOS - -. 0
Copy;ight @ 2005 University of Flonda, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 8/2412007 4:"17 PM
fiIe:i/C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\Local Settings\Temp\u2k22C.tmp
8/24/2007
T\vo-\Vay Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO.WA Y STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
~alYst Cindy Pulone --
Intersection
~aencv/Co. Branch EnGineerina Jurisdiction Citv of Eugene
Date Performed 8/24/2007 Analysis Year 2008 'Bui/d' Existing
lAnalvsis Time Period PM Peak Hour
- --
Proiect Descriotion Santa Clara schoof site redevofpment
EastlWest Street: Hunsaker Lane North/South Street: Site Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hI'S): 0.25
--
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 105 50 13 684
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 .0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 108 51 13 705 0
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 -" 0
I
Conllquration TR LT
UDstream SiQna! 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
volume (vehfh) 67 17
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 69 0 17 0 0 0
veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N - N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
lL..anes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Iconfiquration L R
Ioelay, Queue Len~th. and Level of Service !
~pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
1'v1ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (vehfh) 13 69 17 !
901 I
C (01) ('/~h!h) 1421 317 i
vie 0.01 0.22 0.02
95% queue length 0.03 0.81 0.06 !
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 19.5 9.1
it-OS A C A !
Approach Delay (s/veh) - -- i7.4 i
Approach LOS -- -- C !
..-----..--.. --- ------
Copyright (\C, 2005 University of Fiorida, All Rights Reserved
HC'S-jo ™ VSfsbn 5.21
Generated: 8(24i2007 2:27 PM
file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\cind}-v\Local Settings\T emp\u2k I AD .tmp
8/24/2007
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analvst Cindy P%~~ne ntersection
Aaencv/Co. !Branch Enoineedng Jurisdiction City of Euaene
Date Performed lB/24/2007 ~f1arvsis Year 2008 'Build' Prooosed
Analvsis Time Period IbM Peak Hour
--
roiect Descriotion Santa Clara school site redevolpment
East/West Street: Hunsaker Lane "INorth/South Street: Site Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period{hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 " 3 4 5 6
,
L T R L T R
Volume (vah/h) 105 57 22 684
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 108 58 22 705 0
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles" 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Confia uration TR LT
Upstream Siqnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 66 25
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 68 0 25 0 0 0
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1
Percent Grade (%) _ 0 0 I
I
- N
Flared Approach N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Confiouration L R
Delay, Queue LenQth, and Level of Service
,n,pproach Eastbound Westbound NOlihbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L F?
y (veh/h) 22 68 25 t
C (m) (veh/h) 1412 306 897
vie 0.02 0.22 0.03 !
95% queue length 0.05 083 0.09 !
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 20.1 9.1 !
I r)(" 11 '"' A
,-v.:.:> A Iv
Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.1
~P_e::~~c:h LOS -- -- C
___u
Copyright @ 2005 UniverSITY of Florida, An Rights Reserved
HCS+ 1M Versior'l5.21
Generated: 8!2.~!2007 2:28 Ph.1
fiJe://C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\LocaI Settings\Temp\u2kl B9. tmp
8/24/2007
T\vo-\Vay Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analvst Cindy Pulone Intersection
AOencv/Co. Branch Engineerina Jurisdiction City of Euaene
Date Performed 6/29/2007 Analvsis Year 2022 'Build' Existina
Analvsis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Project DescriDtion Santa Clara school site redevelopment
astlWest Street Hunsaker Lane NorthfSouth Street Site Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudY Period {hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 148 50 13 966
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 152 51 13 995 0
(vehfh)
Percen-t Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Uostream SiQnat 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (vehfh) 67 67
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate. HFR 69 0 69 0 0 0 I
Ivehlh)
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0 0 -0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0 !
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration L R
.-
Delav, Queue Lenqth. and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (vehih) 13 69 69
C (m) (veh!h) 1369 200 852
vie 0.01 0.34 0.08
95% queue length 0.03 1.45 0.26
Control Delay (slveh) 77 32.2 9.6
LOS ,Ll, D II I
n
Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.9 !
Approach LOS -- -- C I
-.--
Copyright cr, 2a05 UnIversity of Florida. Alf Rrghts R'3s.:;rved
HCS+ ™ Version e..21
Generated: 8/24/2007 4:16 Pfv1
tJ!e://C:\DOCHments and Settings\cindyp\Local Settings\Tt.'1np\u2k2IF.tmp
8/24/2007
Two-Way Stop Control
Paue I of 1
~
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information :)ite Information
nalyst Cindy Pu/one Intersection
\qencv/Co. Branch Enoineering Jurisdiction City of Eugene
)ate Performed 6/29/2007 Analysis Year 2022 'Build' Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Project Descriotion Santa Clara school site redevelopment
EastlWest Street: Hunsaker Lane lNorth/South Street: Site Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 150 55 20 970
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
lHourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 154 56 20 999 0
veh/h) I
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
lanes 0 1. 0 0 1 0
ConfiQ uration TR LT
Upstream Stonel 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
VOlume (veh!h} 65 25
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 67 0 25 0 0 0
(veh!h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
R I Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Confiquration L R
--.
Delay, Queue LenQth, and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
fv10vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I
i
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (veh/h) 20 67 25 I
C (m} (veh/h) 1361 193 848
vie 0.01 0.35 0.03
95% queue length 0.04 1.46 0.09
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 33.3 9.4
LOS A D .4
ApprDach Delay (s/veh) - -- 26.8
Approach LOS -- -- D I
-..
Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. Ali Rights Reserved
HCS+ ™ Version 5.21
Generated: 8/24:2007 4: 17 PIJ.
file:!!C:\Documents and Settings\cindyp\Local Settings\Temp\u2k228.tmp
8/24/2007
Attachment M
(
o
o
;- :n
a ~:
5- ~ 0: '"
g~ 8 ~ ~
~; ~ ~ 0 ~
~@ ~~ g Q d
oa!. ~'7' ~ (-0'-
~o ~~ 0 z-
~~ :~ ~ ; ~
'20 B~ ~ 0........
!;a iE~ ~
r
';\:,
.
r
-en
c:
'-'
""
""
o
r...
\...J
C
r...
C
\...J
~
--.,;
~
<>J
c:
'"
"'"
<>J
~
=
<>J
c...
'"
c-
<>J
c:
<>J
"'"
:::>
.........
'"
~
'"
'-'
'"
c:
'"
'-""'
c
-
c:
C
""
r~7..
,-:. ."-
~....--....~
Ii \\}~ (- .:-1
L, t!f I'" "..'1
_....___'"',.._ :.~;;; 1 ~:. I
~ : t ~ ~
- 5 2008
. ,
, , . <
i'
_.. ,... <! T" . \
j
r
:-
II
.,'
.;'IJ~
,.,# 1;\
...
r
r
o
o
>- '"
a::::
~~ ~ ~:
~; E ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ 5 Q '"
0"': <;'7' ~ E-o'-
::sO :;:~ 0 z-
~~ in ~:
.
'0")
c
'-'
""
""
o
'- c:
'--' ~ -::
'"
~
~
-~
c =
'-
c
'--'
'"
c...
o
~
"'-
'"
c:
'"
"'"
::>
'-+-'
c
~
~
'-'
c
c:
c
'-'"
c
-
c
C
""
(
r
r
~
'" "
c
]
Ji
--""
j
~
~
"g
j
ell!
c
]
Ji
"J!
i
ell!
1
~
'"
....
1
ell!
--""
]
~
19
&==
~i
=l!!.=
--""
j ~-
~
Ji<
-:;;;
~
j
('
..i''"'"
:g
~
j
l
r"'I
r
oJ
J]
r!'
r:..
If
'l~l\~
OJ
~
~
E
..3
....
-e
~
j
8
""~ i
:!;;;:=;; -
=o~
~ i~j
~ ~i:f
~ ~~
;!!n
~~J
~ E
..s>
~1.lO
~~~!
..@i-"=8-
Ji8_is
-~ "
j ~:s~
--s-
s;:
~ <:>
~ ~
~ '"
~ ~
I 2!5
-g> ~
~ ~
:g
~
j
]