Item 3: PH on Ordinance Regarding State Motor Pool Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change

Home Browse Search

Plan contains a policy that specifically directs redesignation of the subject parcel, the same findings made for all Downtown Plan policies can be transferred to this current redesignation action. Staff does not concur with this argument. The Downtown Plan has no land use diagram, and no redesignations or rezones were approved concurrent with the Downtown Plan adoption. The Plan policy in question is: "Facilitate downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties, such as surface parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such as C-2 or C-3" (Policy 2). Contrary to what the applicant suggests, this policy is not parcel-specific. ; It applies to a number of unspecified properties downtown that are "underutilized," some of which may also be surface parking lots at any given time. While this policy does apply to the subject parcel, it did not have the effect of redesignating. the site. It is a general policy directing that underutilized properties downtown should be redesignated, but does not itself redesignate those properties. The applicant notes that the Council findings for the Downtown Plan stated that "No change in the functional classification of these streets is intended to result from this Plan..." and that "the Plan does not, by its adoption, allow types or levels of land uses which would result in inconsistencies with the functional classification ofa transportation facility..." (applicant's letter to City July 24, 2006). However, those earlier findings do not obviate the requirement for the current proposal to comply with OAR 660-012-0060(1), which requires a determination of "significant effects" ort transportation facilities as a result of the current proposed plan amendment. A change from a High Density Residential designation to a Commercial designation can result in allowable uses that would increase the potential number of vehicle trips, with potentially significant effects on transportation facilities. Although general Downtown Plan policies were acknowledged as consistent with Statewide goals, that acknowledgement is insufficient to conclude that the redesignation of a specific parcel without further analysis is consistent with Statewide goals. Staff does not agree that 2004 Downtown Plan findings are sufficient for the current proposal, and finds that additional information is needed to demonstrate the proposal's consistency with Statewide Goal 12. 2) Although the subject parcel is within a Nodal Development area and Transit Oriented Development overlay zone, and future development will meet the multi-modal goals of these designations (applicant's revised findings August 21,2006), having those designations in itself is not sufficient evidence that the land use change will have no significant effect on transportation facilities. 3 ) CATS, an implementation plan, identifies future transit routes and contains policies that promote an improved pedestrian system (applicant's revised findings August 21, 2006). However, these strategies are not specific to the proposed amendment, and CATS does not evaluate whether the allowable uses on the site would have a significant effect on a transportation facility, nor does it identify specific measures that would mitigate identified impacts stemming from a plan amendment pursuant to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1). To meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060 it is necessary to evaluate the proposed amendment relative to criteria outlined in the TPR used to determine "significant effect." According to City of Eugene Public Works Engineering, this requires data such as trip generation, trip distribution and assignment (or similar data, depending on uses, traffic patterns, surrounding streets, etc., that describes existing and anticipated traffic levels) and comparative analysis of each of these under existing plan