Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1) The applicant argues that the 2004 City Council findings related to the adoption of the Downtown <br />Plan are sufficient to demonstrate Goal 12 compliance for the current proposal (applicant's letter to <br />City dated June 8, 2006). The applicant argues that, since the Downtown Plan contains a policy <br />that specifically directs redesignation of the subject parcel, the same findings made for all <br />Downtown Plan policies can be transferred to this current redesignation action. Staff does not <br />concur with this argument. <br /> <br />The Downtown Plan has no land use diagram, and no redesignations or rezones were approved <br />concurrent with the Downtown Plan adoption. The Plan policy in question is: "Facilitate <br />downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties, such as surface <br />parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such as C-2 or C-3" <br />(Policy 2). Contrary to what the applicant suggests, this policy is not parcel-specific. It applies to <br />a number of unspecified properties downtown that are "underutilized," some.ofwhich may also be <br />surface parking lots at any given time. While this policy does apply to the subject par~el, it did not <br />have the effect of redesignating the site. It is a general policy directing that underutilized properties <br />downtown should be redesignated, but does not itself redesignate those properties. <br /> <br />The applicant notes that the Council findings for the Downtown Plan stated that "No change in the <br />functional classification ofthe.se streets is intended to result from this Plan..." and that "the Plan <br />does not, by its adoption, allow types or levels of land uses which would result in inconsistencies <br />with the functional classification of a transportation facility..." (applicant's letter to City July 24, <br />2006). However, those earlier findings do not obviate the requirement for the current proposal to <br />comply with OAR 660-012-0060(1), which requires a determination of "significant effects" on <br />transportation facilities as a result of the current proposed plan amendment. 'A change from a High <br />Density Residential designation to a Commercial designation can result in allowable uses that <br />would increase the potential number of vehicle trips, and/or change the distribution of vehicle trips <br />(different locations, times of day, etc.), with potentially significant effects on transportation <br />facilities. Transportation effects may be complicated by the potential queuing of vehicles at the <br />adjacent railroad tracks. It is equally possible that the proposed amendment does not significantly <br />affect any existing or planned transportation facility. <br /> <br />Although general Downtown Plan policies were acknowledged as consistent with Statewide goals, <br />that acknowledgement is insufficient to conclude that the redesignation of a specific parcel without <br />further analysis is consistent with Statewide goals. Staff does not agree that 2004 Downtown Plan <br />findings are sufficient for the current proposal, and finds that additional information is needed to <br />demonstrate the proposal's consistency with Statewide Goal 12. <br /> <br />2) Although the subject parcel is within aNodal Development area and Transit Oriented <br />Development overlay zone, and f\lture development will meet the multi-modal goals of these <br />designations (applicant's revised findings August 21, 2006), having those designations in itself is <br />not sufficient evidence that the land use change will have no significant effect on transportation <br />facilities. <br /> <br />3) CATS, an implementation plan, identifies future transit routes and contains policies that promote <br />an improved pedestrian system (applicant's revised findings August 21, 2006). However, these <br />strategies are not specific.to the proposed amendment, and CATS does not evaluate whether the <br />allowable uses on the site would have a significant effect on a transportation facility, nor does it <br />identify specific measures that would mitigate identified impacts stemming from a plan <br />amendment pursuant to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1). <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />