HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4: Ordinance Concerning State Motor Pool Site
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action: State Motor Pool - Plan Amendment and Zone Change
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Map 17-03-3044 Tax Lot 8900
(Oregon Motor Pool Site) from High Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development
Designation to Commercial/Nodal Development Designation; Rezoning the Property
From I-2/TD Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal
Development Overlay Zones to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with Transit
Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay Zones; and Adopting a
Severability Clause
Meeting Date: February 26, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 5
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Ann Siegenthaler
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5452
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council is scheduled to take action on this request.
BACKGROUND
The City Council held its public hearing on this item on November 20, 2006. No public testimony was
received other than the applicant's. The council closed the public record, and had several additional
questions for staff. Staff responses are provided in the attached memorandum, dated February 20, 2007.
The proposed zone change is being reviewed concurrently with the proposed Metro Plan amendment.
When the City considers a zone change concurrently with a Metro Plan amendment, the City is to use
the applicable procedures for the Metro Plan amendment (EC 9.7305). In accordance with the single
jurisdiction Metro Plan amendment procedures, the City Council's decision on the request must be based
on the record created before the Planning Commission; no new evidence is allowed at the council
hearing (E.C. 9.7735(4)). Councilors who were not present for the public hearing may review the record
in the agenda packet for the November 20, 2006, public hearing.
Eugene Code requires that the City Council take action on a proposed Metro Plan amendment within 30
days of the public hearing, which, for this request, would have required action by December 20, 2006.
However, at the request of the applicant, council action on this item was postponed to allow staff and the
applicant an opportunity to discuss the questions posed by the council. City Council action at tonight's
meeting will give the applicant a decision on the request within approximately 90 days of the public
hearing.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070226\S0702265.doc
The Measure 37 impacts of the proposed plan amendment and zone change are unknown. While
approval of the request does not appear to be likely to generate future claims under Measure 37, the
council should be aware that any change in land use designation or zoning has the potential to be the
basis for such claims.
Because of the time that has elapsed between the November 20 City Council hearing and the date of
council action, certain background information is repeated in this Agenda Item Summary for the
council's convenience.
The State of Oregon, as applicant, requests a Metro Plan amendment and zone change for a 1.7-acre
downtown parcel currently used as a surface parking lot. The request is to change the current plan
designation of High Density Residential/Mixed-Use to Commercial, and to change the existing zoning
of Light-Medium Industrial to Community Commercial. No development is proposed at this time.
No public
On September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request.
testimony other than the applicant’s was received during the public comment period or the public
hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the
request.
The only issue that raised a question for the Planning Commission was initially identified in staff’s
September 12, 2006, Findings. Staff concluded that there was insufficient information in the original
application to demonstrate compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, which requires
the applicant to identify the impacts of the proposed plan amendments on transportation facilities. There
was a majority agreement among Planning Commissioners that additional data would be needed to
demonstrate compliance with Goal 12. As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant
submitted trip generation estimates on October 10, 2006. On October 30, 2006, the Planning
Commission determined that the proposal complied with all applicable approval criteria, including Goal
12, and voted to recommend approval of the request as revised by the applicant.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Eugene Code requires that a Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change be consistent with Metro
Plan and adopted refinement plan policies. In addition, the Metro Plan amendment must be consistent
with applicable Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the State.
Several policies in the Metro Plan support the site's current plan designation of High Density Residential
(Policy A.11, Metro Plan) ,(Policy A.19, Metro Plan), ("Living Downtown" Policy 1, Downtown Plan).
However, because residential development is allowed under a Commercial designation, a Metro Plan
change to a Commercial designation is also consistent with Metro Plan policies related to residential
land use.
Other adopted policies support the requested Commercial designation/zoning ("Strong Regional Center"
Policy 2, Downtown Plan, Policy 6, 1992 Eugene Commercial Lands Study). The Downtown Plan, in
particular, supports the requested re-designation in the following policy: "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" ("Building a
Downtown" Policy 3, Downtown Plan).
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070226\S0702265.doc
Exhibit A of Attachment A, Staff Findings, included in the November 20, 2006, council packet,
evaluates the request relative to all of the applicable Metro Plan and refinement plan policies. Those
findings conclude that the applicant's request is consistent with adopted City policies, and consistent
with Statewide Planning Goals.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council may consider the following options:
1.As recommended by the Planning Commission: Approve the Metro Plan amendment to change
from High Density Residential to Commercial and approve the zone change from Industrial to
Commercial by approving the draft ordinance and findings;
2. Approve the Metro Plan amendment and zone change with modified findings; or
3. Deny the Metro Plan amendment based on conflicts with Statewide Goals, Metro Plan, or refinement
plan policies. (Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram
amendment.)
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation
that the request complies with all applicable approval criteria, and that the Metro Plan amendment and
zone change be approved.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and proposed zone change as consistent
with all applicable approval criteria under EC 9.7730(3) and EC 9.8865.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Memorandum to City Council dated February 20, 2007, with staff responses to council questions.
B. Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A: Staff findings (revised October 16, 2006)
Exhibit B: Map showing proposed changes in Metro Plan designation and zoning
For additional background material related to this item, please see Attachments A through M in the
council packet for the November 20, 2006, public hearing.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Ann Siegenthaler
Telephone: 682-5452
Staff E-Mail: ann.siegenthaler@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070226\S0702265.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Planning & Development
Planning
City of Eugene
M
th
99 West 10 Avenue
EMORANDUM
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date:
February 14, 2007
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Ann Siegenthaler, 682-5452
Associate Planner
Subject:
Staff response to City Council questions regarding State Motor Pool Metro Plan amendment
and zone change
This memo provides staff comments on the questions raised by City Councilors on November 20, 2006,
regarding the State Motor Pool requests for a Metro Plan amendment and zone change.
Public notice:
1. Council asked what notice was provided to surrounding properties and neighborhoods.
Staff response: The Eugene land use code requires that notice of proposed plan amendments be
provided to surrounding property owners and neighborhoods. Such notice was provided in
accordance with the Eugene Code, as follows (summarized here):
- August 2, 2006, a request for comment ("referral") was sent to the Downtown Neighbors
Association.
- August 17, 2006, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was posted at the property in
accordance with EC 9.7415(5).
- August 18, 2006, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to owners and -
occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject property, the Downtown Neighborhood
Association, Chamber of Commerce, Goal One Coalition, and other parties who had requested
notice.
- August 30, 2006, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Register-
Guard.
- September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and left the record open for 3
weeks.
- November 5, 2006, notice of the Eugene City Council public hearing was published in the Register-
Guard.
- November 9, 2006, notice of the Eugene City Council public hearing was mailed to the Downtown
Neighborhood Association, Chamber of Commerce, Goal One Coalition, and other parties who had
requested notice.
No comments were received in response to these public notices. Any development proposal in the future
that will generate significant traffic volumes will require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Review. During
the TIA review, public notice is provided to surrounding properties within 300 feet, and to affected
neighborhood associations, providing an opportunity for additional public input.
Measure 37:
2. Council asked whether this pending item would be subject to the proposed Measure 37
value-added charge.
Staff response: If the council approves this Metro Plan amendment and zone change on February 26,
2007, the request will be approved before a value-added ordinance is adopted. At the time this question
was posed, a draft ordinance was before the council. As the ordinance was drafted, the value-added
charge would apply to applications pending when the value-added charge takes effect (normally 30
days after passage), but the charge would not apply to applications that had been approved prior to the
effective date of the value-added ordinance.
Trip generation estimates:
3. Council asked whether the trip generation estimates provided by the
applicant might actually underestimate the potential volume of traffic potentially generated by the
proposal, which specific uses were used in the estimates, and whether other uses were more likely.
Staff response: The applicant's estimates assume that allowable uses under a High Density Residential
(HDR) designation would likely be ground floor retail with 2 additional floors of residential uses; and
that allowable uses under a Commercial designation would likely be ground floor retail with one
additional floor of office. These are relatively modest development scenarios. However, staff found
that these are reasonable assumptions, given site characteristics and the land uses most likely to occur
on the site.
In the applicant's assumptions of development scenarios, the most likely retail uses to occur are
"specialty retail uses." The definitions and rates used in these assumptions are based on trip rates from
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The rate
used for calculating retail trips is based on the ITE's "Specialty Retail Center” (land use 814) which is
described by ITE as follows: “Specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers that
contain a variety of retail shops and specialize in quality apparel; hard goods; and services, such as real
estate offices, dance studios, florists and small restaurants." A "Shopping Center" (land use 820) is a
related use. However, such uses are typically characterized by at least 100,000 square feet of single
story gross leasable area. There are also more intensive retail uses that could display higher trip
generation characteristics (e.g. fast food, convenience store); however, such uses rely on significant
volumes of pass-by traffic. The staff findings (Exhibit A of the ordinance) and the applicant's
submittals note the site constraints which limit development of this size and intensity, such as the size
of the parcel, its configuration, its relatively isolated location away from major travel corridors,
ingress/egress limitations (frequent train service disrupts the High and Pearl Street accesses), and the
space requirements for parking, landscaping, etc. Based on this, staff concluded that the applicant's
assumptions are reasonable, given the site's characteristics.
In addition, although these are modest development scenarios, the estimated traffic volumes are still
high enough to trigger review under E.C. 9.8670, Traffic Impact Analysis Review (TIA). The assumed
development scenario under High Density Residential would generate 119 pm peak hour trips, as
compared to 155 pm peak hour trips under a Commercial development scenario. One threshold for a
TIA is the generation of 100 or more pm peak hour trips. Therefore, both of the applicant's assumed
development scenarios reflect the greatest intensity of development that could occur without further
City review of traffic impacts. Through the TIA process, the City can require mitigation of impacts to
transportation facilities to avoid any reduction in functional classification or performance standards.
For these reasons, the change in Metro Plan designation and zoning would not result in levels of traffic
that would reduce the functional classification or performance standards of adjacent transportation
facilities.
Relationship to adjacent properties and EWEB master planning process:
4. Council asked what
relationship this proposal has to, or what impact it may have on, the EWEB master planning process:
Staff response: The Oregon Motor Pool site is located across High Street from the EWEB riverfront
site. Both the Motor Pool site and the EWEB parcels are identified in the Downtown Plan as adjacent
"Development Opportunity Areas." However, the Downtown Plan treats the Oregon Motor Pool site as
unrelated to the EWEB site. For instance, the Motor Pool property is not subject to the Downtown Plan
requirement for a master plan, as is required for the EWEB property. If the council approves the
proposed plan amendment/zone change in February, the change will likely take effect before any
decisions have been made regarding the disposition of EWEB parcels. A change to a Commercial plan
designation and zoning is not likely to preclude future redevelopment of the Oregon Motor Pool site in
a manner that is compatible with the EWEB master planning process. There is not currently a
development proposal for this site. (See also the response to Question #5 below.)
"Right of first refusal:"
5. Council asked whether public agencies have the right to acquire property
from the State before the State can sell the property to private owners.
Staff response:When a state agency decides it no longer needs real property, the agency first must
check to determine if other state agencies need it. If not, then state statutes require the State to give
local governments the first opportunity to acquire, purchase, exchange or lease real property to be sold
or disposed of by the State of Oregon. The state agency responsible for selling or transferring the
property may require at the time of the sale or transfer that any state real property sold or transferred to
a local government be for use for a public purpose or benefit, and not be for resale to a private
purchaser. This parcel has not yet been declared surplus by the State.
Riverfront Urban Renewal District:
6. Council asked whether the parcel falls within the Riverfront
Urban Renewal District.
Staff response: The parcel is not within the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. That boundary starts
just to the east, across High Street. The parcel is not located within Downtown Urban Renewal
District.
Relationship of approval criteria to "public benefit" criteria:
7. Council asked whether it might deny
the request if it had no benefit to the public.
Staff response: Eugene Code specifies the approval criteria applicable to this request. The criteria for
approval of the Metro Plan amendment are found at EC 9.7730(3), while criteria for the zone change
approval are found at EC 9.8865. Essentially, these approval criteria require that the request be
consistent with Statewide Goals, adopted Metro Plan policies, and refinement plan policies. Findings
in the November 20, 2006 City Council packet addressed the required approval criteria, and concluded
that the requests meet all applicable criteria. However, it is within the purview of City Council to
evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed change relative to all Metro Plan and refinement plan
policies, and to amend the findings as needed.
Additional Information
For additional information, please contact Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner, at 682-5452 or via email at
ann.siegenthaler@ci.eugene.or.us.
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE PROPERTY
IDENTIFIED AS MAP 17-03-30-44, TAX LOT 8900 (OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE)
FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE/NODAL DEVELOPMENT
DESIGNATION TO COMMERCIAL/NODAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION;
REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM I-2/TD LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL WITH
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE TO C-2/TD/ND
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND
NODAL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONES; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A
. On April 21, 2006, the State of Oregon Administrative Services submitted an
application for a Type II Metro Plan diagram amendment and concurrent zone change to
redesignate and rezone property identified as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900, referred to as the
Oregon Motor Pool site. The applicant requested a Metro Plan designation change from High
Density Residential / Mixed Use / Nodal Development to Commercial / Nodal Development
designation. The zone change requested would change the site’s zoning from I-2/TD, Light-
Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone to C-2/TD/ND,
Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay
Zones.
B.
Following receipt of the City’s completeness review comments the applicant
provided supplemental materials on June 8, 2006, July 14, 2006, and July 24, 2006. On July 28,
2006, at the applicant’s request, the application was deemed complete without submission of
additional requested information. On August 21, 2006 the applicant submitted additional revised
findings for Goal 12.
C
. This proposal came to the City of Eugene for action pursuant to procedures for
amendment and refinement of the Metro Plan described in the Metro Plan and Chapter 9 of the
Eugene Code, 1971 (EC), which establishes the Eugene City Council as the approval body for
Type II Metro Plan diagram amendments located within the incorporated city limits of Eugene.
D.
On August 3, 2006, notice of the proposed Metro Plan amendment and zone
change was mailed to the Department of Land Conservation and Development as required by
provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 and in accordance with state statutes.
E
. Referral comments were requested on July 27, 2006 after receipt of the initial
application, and on August 2, 2006 after supplemental materials were received, from the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), the City of Springfield, Lane County, the Downtown
Neighbors Association, and to City departments.
F
. Notice of the September 19, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject
property, the Downtown Neighborhood Association, and other interested parties who had
requested notice on August 18, 2006. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was
Ordinance - 1
also posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5) on August 17, 2006 and published in the Register
Guard on August 30, 2006.
G
. On September 19, 2006, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing
on the application and left the record open for additional information.
H
. On October 30, 2006, the Eugene Planning Commission continued its
deliberations on the application and voted to recommend approval of the request as revised by
the applicant.
I.
On November 9, 2006, notice of the Eugene City Council public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, neighborhood association, and those who had requested to be placed on
the interested parties list for the Metro Plan amendment. Notice was also published in the
Register Guard, and the notice and text of this Ordinance posted on the City’s web site on
November 5, 2006.
J
. The Eugene City Council held a public hearing on the request on November 20,
2006, and is now ready to take action on the requested amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The above findings, and the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference are hereby adopted.
Section 2.
The Metro Plan Diagram land use designation for the property identified
as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900, referred to as the State Motor Pool site, is amended from
High Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development designation to Commercial/Nodal
Development designation as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 3.
The zoning for the property identified as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900,
referred to as the Oregon Motor Pool site, is rezoned from I-2/TD, Light-Medium Industrial with
Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with
Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay Zones, as depicted on Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and that
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
_____ day of February, 2007 ____ day of February, 2007
___________________________ ____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 2
EXHIBIT A
Attachment A
Staff Findings
(Revised October 16, 2006)
Oregon State Motor Pool Site (MA 06-2, Z 06-9)
Metro Plan Diagram Amendments
The proposed amendment would change the current Metro Plan land use designation of High Density
Residential/ Mixed Use/Nodal Development to Commercial/Nodal Development. The High Density
Residential designation is intended for multi-unit developments of typically over 20 units per acre.
The Mixed Use designation is typically applied within a designated Special Area Plan, however, the
subject parcel is not located within a Special Area. There is no corresponding zoning that implements
this designation. The Nodal Development designation has been applied to all the downtown area to
recognize Eugene’s central business district as a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center, pursuant to
OAR 660-012-0060(7).
Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria be applied to a Metro Plan diagram
amendment:
(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.
As discussed below, after review of additional materials submitted by the applicant, staff finds that the
Metro Plan diagram amendment criteria in both EC 9.7730(3)(a) and (b)are satisfied by the proposal.
bolditalics
Staff findings relative to the amendment criteria in EC 9.7730(3) (with criteria in ) are
presented below.
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
The applicant states that at the time of adoption of the Downtown Plan that "Goal findings were made
on all applicable Statewide Goals and the Downtown Plan, including the specific policies that called
for redesignation of particular parcels..." and that, therefore, "the direction of the Downtown Plan with
regard to this parcel is not conditional upon any additional findings of need or land use inventory
considerations" (applicant's letter to City of Eugene June 8, 2006). Staff does not concur with the
applicant's conclusion that Statewide Goal findings have already been made supporting the specific
proposed Plan amendment. Below are staff findings relative to the proposal's consistency with all
Statewide Goals.
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
In its land use code, the City has State-acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and that set out
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 1 of 13
requirements for such involvement. The proposed action does not amend these citizen involvement
provisions. The process for reviewing the proposed amendment complies with Goal 1 since it complies
with, and surpasses the requirements of, the State-acknowledged citizen involvement provisions.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of
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 September 19,
2006. On August 3, 2006, the City mailed notice of the proposed plan amendments and zone change
to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required by the Eugene Code and in
accordance with State statutes. Referral comments were requested on June 27, 2006, after the initial
application and on August 2, 2006, after supplemental materials were received. Referrals were sent to
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of Springfield, Lane County, the Downtown
Neighbors Association and to City departments, consistent with the Eugene Code. On August 18,
2006, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to the applicant, and owners and
occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject property, the Downtown Neighborhood
Association, and other interested parties who requested notice, in accordance with the Eugene Code.
On August 30, 2006, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Register-
Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. On August 17, 2006, notice was also posted in
accordance with EC 9.7415(5). In addition to public meetings and mailed notices, printed materials
related to these proceedings were made available to the public at Planning and Development
Department offices. An additional public hearing before the Eugene City Council will be scheduled
following Planning Commission action. Notice to interested and affected parties will be provided for
that hearing.
The process for adopting this amendment is consistent with Goal 1 since it complies with, and
surpasses the requirements of the State’s citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy 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 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 governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination
requirement, the City coordinated the review of the proposed amendments with all affected
governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the State Department of Land Conservation and
Development, Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane County, and the City of Springfield. There
are no Goal 2 exceptions required for this amendment. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to this amendment as the subject property and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban growth
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 2 of 13
boundary from the definition of agricultural lands. Since the subject property is entirely within its
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendment does not affect the
area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to this amendment as the subject parcel and actions do not affect any forest
plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries; therefore it does not
apply to the subject property, which is within Eugene's UGB (OAR 660-006-0020). Therefore, Goal 4
is not relevant and the amendment does not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal
4.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open space and
protect natural and scenic resources.
OAR 660-023-0250 does not require local governments to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a post
acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. The subject
property does not include any Goal 5 resource site. The proposed amendment does not create or
amend a list of Goal 5 resources, does 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, and does not amend the
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
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.
Therefore, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from 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 relatively flat in the midst of an urban area, and is not located
within known areas of natural disasters or hazards. The subject property is outside the FEMA flood
zone and is not subject to hazards normally associated with 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, this amendment is consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreational 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
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 3 of 13
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 State Motor Pool site. Therefore, the proposed amendment
will not impact the provision of recreational facilities, nor will it affect access to existing or future
recreational facilities. Therefore, the 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.
The proposed Plan designation for the subject 1.7-acre parcel is Commercial. The Administrative Rule
for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to evaluate the supply and
demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives. The 1992 Eugene
Commercial Lands Study is acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and its
Administrative Rule. As discussed below, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Eugene
Commercial Lands Study. It will have little real effect on the supply of commercial land. The
proposed amendment would change the property's plan designation from one that supports limited
commercial use (High Density Residential/Mixed Use) to another that supports a wider range of
commercial uses (Commercial). Both designations would also allow high density residential
construction. The additional designation of Nodal Development, which does not change the base zone
or densities, would not change. As a result, the potential change in the level of commercial use on this
1.7 acre parcel would have a relatively insignificant impact on the total supply of commercial land.
The Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study (1991) addresses the industrial land supply. The
subject site was not part of the industrial lands inventory; i.e., it was not counted as a potential site for
future industrial development or as needed to satisfy the city’s 20-year industrial land supply. Lands
considered available for industrial uses are typically those which have an Industrial plan designation.
The subject parcel does not currently have an Industrial designation (but has an I-2 zoning). Therefore,
the proposed plan amendment (residential to commercial) would have no effect on the supply of
available industrial land as predicted by the Industrial Lands Special Study.
The Eugene Commercial Lands Study contains several policies applicable to the proposed amendment.
The applicant concludes that that Policies 2.0, 8.0, 17.0 and implementation strategies 17.1 and 17.3
apply (applicant's letter to City July 24, 2006). While the proposal is not inconsistent with those
policies, staff does not agree that those policies apply. However, a number of policies in the Study do
support a Commercial designation of the subject parcel. Applicable policies are discussed below.
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by
encouraging businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. (Policy 6)
The proposed amendment to Commercial would not actively further the reuse and
intensification of existing commercial sites, as it opens up a new site to commercial
development. However, to the extent that the amendment maintains compact urban
development in the downtown core, as anticipated in the Downtown Plan, the proposal is not
inconsistent with this policy. The amendment may encourage reuse of a parking lot (a low
intensity “industrial” use) into a more compact urban uses, such as retail, commercial, housing,
or a combination of these uses.
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 4 of 13
Promote neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities and community commercial areas rather
than additional major retail centers. (Policy 11)
The proposed amendment would encourage centralized commercial development in the
downtown area rather than in outlying major retail centers, and could promote the development
of other commercial areas downtown, such as the adjacent 5th Street Market. On its own, the
subject site, at 1.7 acres, is not large enough to support an “additional major retail center.”
Concentrate development in existing commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on the rest
of the city. (Policy 12)
The subject parcel is located in the downtown core, an area that both the Metro Plan and
Downtown Plan refinement plan envision as an area of compact, high density commercial and
residential development. The proposed amendment furthers this policy.
Eugene Downtown Plan policies also support a Commercial/Nodal Development Designation for the
subject parcel (see findings under criterion (3)(b) below for further discussion of applicable Downtown
Plan policies. Specifically, Policy 2 in "Building a Downtown" states:
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)
The existing parking lot is arguably an underutilized area. In addition, the Eugene Downtown
Plan identifies the subject property as a "Downtown Development Opportunity Area" (Map 1).
Approval of a plan amendment to Commercial/Nodal Development is supported by the policies in the
Eugene Commercial Lands Study and the Downtown Plan. Based on the above discussion, the
amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for
needed housing units. The property affected by the proposed amendments was not included in the
supply of land available for residential development, as documented in the adopted 1999 Residential
Lands and Housing Study (Ordinance No. 20159, 1999). That study excluded from consideration as
"buildable land" vacant land that was owned by a public agency and not intended for residential
development. The subject property has been in the ownership of the State of Oregon since 1980,
according to the applicant. Therefore, changing the land use designation from residential uses will not
affect the adopted residential lands inventory.
Based on fact that the amendment would have no effect on the adopted residential land supply, the
proposed amendment is 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 a framework for urban and rural development.
The area affected by the amendments has long been located inside the city limits (annexed between
1864 and 1900). Adequate access to the City's stormwater system, public wastewater lines, water and
power are available to the site. The existing level of public facilities and service is adequate to serve
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 5 of 13
the needs of existing and future development. The provision of this amendment does not affect the
planning or development of future public facilities or services. Therefore, the amendment is consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
As discussed below, based on additional transportation information submitted by the applicant, staff
finds that the proposal is consistent with Statewide Goal 12.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0060. The TPR states that when land use changes, including
amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect transportation facilities,
measures must be put in place to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function and
capacity of those transportation facilities. Several streets border the site affected by the proposed
amendments. Those streets are: Pearl Street, High Street, and 4th Avenue. On the south is the
Southern Pacific RR right of way. Pearl and High streets are classified as Major Collectors on the
City of Eugene Street Classification Map, adopted in 1999. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. Implementation of transportation system improvements specific to the
downtown area are accomplished through the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS).
A determination of potential impacts on local transportation facilities is a prerequisite to approval of
the proposed amendment from High Density Residential to Commercial. Pursuant to OAR 660-012-
0060(1), the State TPR requires a determination of which transportation facilities will experience a
"significant effect" as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and defines what constitutes a
significant effect. A plan amendment is considered to significantly affect a transportation facility if,
for example, the amendment will reduce the performance of the transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance standard (often described in terms of Level of Service standards or
vehicle/capacity ratios). If a local government determines that an amendment would significantly
affect a transportation facility, the local government must put in place measures to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified "function, capacity and performance standards" of
the facility ((OAR 660-012-0060(1)). An example of such a measure is a minor street improvement.
OAR 660-012-0060(3) describes additional circumstances under which the City could approve the
amendment, including instances in which the applicant demonstrates that the existing transportation
facility is already performing below minimum acceptable performance standards and that the
development resulting from the proposed amendment mitigates the impacts in a manner that avoids
further degradation of the transportation facility.
The applicant maintains that additional transportation information is not needed to demonstrate
compliance with Statewide Goal 12 (applicant's letter to City dated October 10, 2006, pg. 2), because
the proposal complies with Goal 12 based on: 1) earlier Council findings for the Downtown Plan
adoption; 2) the Nodal Development/Transit Oriented Development zoning of the area; and 3) the
Central Area Transportation Study (CATS).
1) The applicant argues that the 2004 City Council findings related to the adoption of the
Downtown Plan are sufficient to demonstrate Goal 12 compliance for the current proposal
(applicant's letter to City dated June 8, 2006). The applicant argues that, since the Downtown
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 6 of 13
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 of a 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" on 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
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 7 of 13
designation(s) and proposed plan designation(s). Empirical data on a wide range of land uses is
available from the Trip Generation report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
which is the industry standard utilized nationwide to determine traffic impacts of development. Once
the local government has determined “significant effect,” there are a number of remedies for
applications that to enable plan amendments to comply with the TPR.
The applicant's original application materials were revised with additional transportation data
(submitted on October 10, 2006). The data submitted includes trip generation estimates for allowable
uses under the existing HDR designation and for allowable uses under the proposed Commercial
designation. These estimates assume the following: that allowable uses under a HDR designation
would be ground floor retail with 2 additional floors of residential uses; that allowable uses under a
Commercial designation would be ground floor retail with an additional floor of office; and that up to
one-half of the parcel area could be covered in structures (with remaining area absorbed by parking,
circulation, landscaping, etc.). Staff concurs that these are reasonable assumptions based on the site,
current market conditions, and typical zoning requirements. The applicant's trip generation analysis
estimates that less than 200 additional weekday trips would be generated by a change from a HDR to a
Commercial designation, and approximately 36 additional weekday peak hour trips would be
generated under proposed designations. Based on City engineering staff's knowledge of existing traffic
volumes and existing roadway capacity, surrounding streets are currently operating at between LOS A
and LOS C. Given the traffic volumes anticipated in the applicant's trip generation analysis, staff
believes that the proposed designations will not result in a significant impact on the function, capacity
or performance standards of these transportation facilities. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed
change complies with the State TPR Statewide Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
The proposed plan amendment does not specifically impact energy conservation. Therefore, the
proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use.
The amendment does not effect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the subject property is
already within the City limits. 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 lands along the Willamette
River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The subject property is not within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 8 of 13
Goals 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 amendment 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 1.7 acres of land from High Density
Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development to Commercial/Nodal Development will not create an
internal conflict with the remainder of the Metro Plan. No text or other diagram changes are necessary
to ensure internal consistency with the proposed diagram amendments; adoption of this amendment
will not make the Metro Plan internally consistent.
Consistency with Metro Plan policies:
The applicant concludes that "...findings were made at the time of adoption of the Downtown Plan.
The change of the Metro Plan map, when that change is only to make it conform with the text of the
adopted refinement plan, and now the Metro Plan, should not require new findings of Metro Plan
consistency" (applicant's letter to City June 8, 2006). Staff does not concur with the applicant's
conclusion. That the refinement plan was earlier found to be consistent with the Metro Plan is not
sufficient evidence that the specific plan amendment proposed is consistent with the Metro Plan. Staff
presents findings below as evidence that the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent
with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan. The following Metro Plan polices are applicable
to the requested amendment:
Residential Land Use and Housing Element:
Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in
proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient nodes. (Policy A.11)
Encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities. (Policy A.19)
The current Metro Plan designation of the parcel is High Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal
Development. The Metro Plan also contains the following cautionary statement related to the
residential land supply: "While all medium and high density allocations shown on the Metro Plan
Diagram may not be needed during the planning period, there protection for these uses is important
because available sites meeting pertinent location standards are limited" (pg. II-G-3). However, the
proposed amendment has been found to have no actual effect on the buildable residential land supply
(as noted in findings for Goal 10 under EC 9.7730(3)(b) above). In addition, the proposed designation
of Commercial/Nodal Development would accommodate both multi-unit residential and commercial
uses.
The applicant claims that a High Density Residential designation is not appropriate for the subject
parcel. This is due to the fact that:
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 9 of 13
1) The parcel is surrounded by commercial, industrial and office uses (applicant's letter to City July
24, 2006 pg. 5). Staff does not agree that this makes the site unsuitable for High Density
Residential Uses, which are anticipated in the Downtown Plan and often located within compact
commercial centers and next to office uses. The site is also proximate to other housing, parks,
and other amenities for residents.
2) The applicant states that the parcel is also not suited for residential uses due to the parcel's
configuration . The parcel is only 130 feet deep on the west (Pearl Street) side, with the longest
boundary along the railroad (written statement April 13, 2006 pg. 3). It is not clear how this
configuration makes the site difficult to develop in high density housing. The site is substantially
larger than that accommodating the TATE Condominiums on Olive Street or the Aurora Housing
th
building at 11 Avenue and Oak, for examples.
3) The case is made that the subject parcel is unlikely to develop into high density housing due to its
location adjacent to the railroad tracks (written statement April 13, 2006 pg. 3). Noise and
vibration from the rail use would conflict with residential use. The application materials also
state that affordable housing would be the most likely high density residential use for such a site
and, as such, it would not qualify under HUD rules since the noise levels would be deemed
unacceptable for residences (State of Oregon letter July 16, 2003 submitted as background). In
addition, the applicant concludes that the corresponding high density residential zoning (R-3 or
R-4), which would require the development of 30 units on the site and on-site parking, would be
difficult for that site. Under the Eugene land use code, a high density residential designation
would typically require minimum densities of 20-30 unit/acre (however, on-site parking would
not be required by the land use code, as the parcel is located in a Parking Exempt Area (Map
9.6410(4)(a)). Staff concurs that noise mitigation for residential development in such a location
could be costly, particularly the per/unit cost for lower densities. The applicant states that the
only commercial development that would be allowed under R-3 or R-4 zoning is neighborhood
commercial (C-1) development, which would not be financially feasible (written statement April
13, 2006 pg. 3). Under the land use code, R-3 or R-4 zoning allows limited, typically C-1-style
development. A Commercial designation with commercial zoning would allow a much wider
range of commercial uses.
Whether or not it is likely that the subject parcel would be redeveloped to High Density Residential
uses, or how financially feasible it is to do so is not made clear the application. Nonetheless, a diagram
change to a Commercial/Nodal Development designation is not inconsistent with Metro Plan policies
related to residential land use.
Economic Element:
Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and commercial uses correlating
the effective supply in terms or suitability and availability with the projects of demand. (Policy B.6)
The subject parcel, a small City of Eugene-owned parking area to the northwest, and the EWEB
property immediately east of the site are the only sites zoned Light Medium Industrial (I-2) in this area.
None of these are in active industrial use. On the north and west side, adjacent properties are in office
use. The 5th Street Market commercial area is to the south. Given these adjacent uses and zoning, it is
more likely that there will be a demand for commercial uses, rather than industrial uses, on these
properties.
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 10 of 13
Consistency with applicable refinement plan:
The proposed amendment is also internally consistent to the extent that it is consistent with applicable
refinement plans. Policies in the Downtown Plan encourage both high density residential and
commercial development in the downtown area, as noted in the staff findings related to Zone Change
criterion 9.8865(2) (discussed below). A change to a Commercial designation for this parcel would
accommodate both commercial and residential uses, and would be internally consistent with the Metro
Plan and its refinement plan policies.
Zone Change
The proposed zone change is from Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development
overlay zone ( I-2/TD) to Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development overlay zone
and Nodal Development overlay zone (C-2/TD/ND). The proposed zoning of C-2 allows
neighborhood commercial development, community commercial development and residential
development (no minimum or maximum densities specified).
bold and italic
Eugene Code Section 9.8865 requires that the following criteria (in ) be applied to a
Zone Change.
(1) The proposed change is consistent with 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.
Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram amendment from
High Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development to a designation of Commercial/Nodal
Development. The findings related to consistency with the Metro Plan 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.
The applicable refinement plan is the Eugene Downtown Plan (adopted April 2004). The Downtown
Plan does not provide a land use diagram, instead relying on the Metro Plan diagram. Therefore, the
land use designations between the two plans are consistent. The following policies from the Eugene
Downtown Plan are applicable to this amendment:
"Strong Regional Center" policies:
Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and
diversity to create a downtown, urban environment. (Policy 2)
Existing use of the subject property is low density surface parking, which does not have the
qualities of density, vitality, etc. envisioned for the downtown area. The proposed change from
Industrial (I-2) to Commercial (C2) could promote redevelopment with these characteristics. In
addition, the Eugene Downtown Plan identifies the subject property as a "Downtown
Development Opportunity Area" (Map 1).
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 11 of 13
"Building a Downtown" policies:
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)
The proposed zone change furthers this policy direction. Currently, the property is a surface
parking lot zoned Industrial (I-2). It is the type of "underutilized" downtown property that this
policy was specifically crafted to address. A zone change to Commercial (C-2) would support
implementation of this policy.
"Living Downtown" policies:
Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core and on the edges of downtown for a variety
of income levels and ownership opportunities. (Policy 1)
The current industrial zoning of the site does not allow multi-unit housing. A zone change
from Industrial (I-2) to Commercial (C2) makes multi-unit housing possible at this site,
furthering this policy goal. The parcel is included in the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption
Area Boundary (MUPTE) and in the Vertical Housing Tax Exemption Zone Area (Map 2),
where development qualifies for incentives for high density housing downtown.
Reinforce residential use in neighborhoods abutting the commercial core to help contain
commercial activity in downtown and maintain the historic character and livability of adjacent
neighborhoods. (Policy 2)
The proposed zone change would have a neutral to positive effect on neighborhoods abutting
the commercial core. In making additional land available downtown for higher density
development, the proposal promotes the containment of higher density housing and commercial
uses to the downtown area, preserving surrounding neighborhoods. In doing so, the zone
change would be consistent with this policy.
The policies in the Downtown Plan arguably support both high density residential and commercial
development of the subject parcel. However, while residential uses on this site would be supported by
the Plan, there is strong policy basis for a commercial designation, as noted in B-D Policy 2:
"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." A C-2 zone does not mandate residential development, but allows a mix of commercial and
residential development. Based on the above discussion, staff finds that the proposed zone change to
C-2/ND is consistent with the policies in the Downtown Plan. Further, the zone change will not
remove the Transit Oriented Development overlay zone from the subject property, and will add the
Nodal Development overlay zone anticipated in the 2004 adoption of the Downtown Plan, all actions
that support the compact, mixed use land patterns envisioned in the Downtown Plan.
(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.
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, stormwater service, 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. Details related to
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 12 of 13
how/when/where those facilities and services are provided remain to be resolved in the context of any
future development proposal.
In regards to transportation, the findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a) under Statewide Planning Goals 12,
above, are incorporated herein by reference.
(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.
For this proposed zone change, there are no applicable siting requirements as referenced in the above
criterion. The commercial zone siting requirements at EC 9.2150 only affect properties proposed for
C-1 or C-4 zoning. There are no siting requirements in the Eugene Code for the Nodal
Development/ND overlay zone.
(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.
The above criterion is not applicable, as the proposed zone change does not include application of the
NR zone.
Oregon State Motor Pool - Revised Findings, October 16, 2006 Page 13 of 13