HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19383ORDINANCE No. 19383
AN QRDINANCE READOPTING ORDINANCE NO. 19348;
ADAPTING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EIKBRGENCY.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
1. On September 9, 1985, the City Council passed Ordinance
No, 19348, which was approved by the Mayor on the same date,
adopting amendments to the Eugene_Springf field Metropolitan Area
General Plan, and found that:
a. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan Metro Plan} was adopted by the Eugene City Council on
July 28, 1980 and amendments thereto were subsequently
adopted on February 8, 1982 by Eugene Ordinance No. 18927, on
February 15, 1984 by Eugene Ordinance No. 19229, on October
22, 1984 by Eugene Ordinance No. 19293, and on July 17, 1985
by Eugene Ordinance No . 19341,
b. In 1984 the City Council adopted a work program and
citizen involvement process for studying property of the
University of Oregon near the Willamette River. A nine
member committee was appointed to draft a Riverf rout Park
Study.
c. The objectives of the Riverfront Park Study were to
develop short-term and long-term directions far land use
development in the study area. On April 4, 1985 the Draft
Riverfront Park Study issued.
d. On May 20, 1985 the Eugene Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the draft Riverfront Park
Study. Work sessions of the Planning Commission were held on
May 3 0 , June 3 , June 10 , June 11, June 17 , June 2 4 , and July
1, 1985 on issues concerning the Study.
e. On June 24, 1985 the Planning Commission voted to
recommend to the City Council adoption of a modified River-
f rant Park Study and early adoption of an amendment to the
Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro
Plan} changing the designation for University-owned property
within the Study area from "Open Space" and "Government/
Education" to "University Research".
f. On July 17, 1985 the City Council conceptually
approved the draft Riverfront Park Study and initiated an
amendment to the Metro Plan as recommended by the Planning
Ordinance -- 1
Commission.
g. Initiation of the plan amendment prior to comple-
tion of the mid-period review was because economic diversifi-
cation is a high priority for the City of Eugene, early
processing of such an amendment will provide the opportunity
for site development during the 1986 construction season, and
an early amendment .is needed as a prerequisite far forming a
tax increment dlstrlct In the Study area.
h. Findings in support of the adoption of this plan ~...
amendment are set forth in Exhibit A and are incorporated
herein as though fully set forth. Additional findings and
responses to issues raised in the public hearings are set
forth in the draft R iverf rout Park Study of April , 19 8 5 , the
findings contained in Eugene Ordinance 19347 adapted contem-
poraneously herewith, the Memorandum of the Planning Depart-
ment to the Mayor and City Council dated July 8, 19$5, th e
Memorandum of the Eugene Planning Department to Interested
Parties dated July 17, 1985, the Memoranda of the Eugene
Planning Department to the Board of County Commissioners
dated July 23, 1985 and August 12, 1985, and the Memorandum
of the Eugene Planning Department to the Mayor and City
Council of September 9, 1985 with attachments. All of these
findings are adopted and incorporated herein as though fully
set forth.
i. Qn September 9, 1985 a public hearing was held
before the Eugene City Council on the proposed plan amen d-
ment.
j. Based on the above record and findings, the Eugene
City Council concludes that the plan amendment set f orth
below is consistent with Land Conservation & Development
Commmission Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, with the
unamended portion of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Plan, and with other applicable City plans and policies.
Certain issues of Goal conformity, e.g, regulat.ion of toxic
wastes and appropriate height limitations within the River-
frant Park area, can and will be addressed in future more
specific actions of the City such as adoption of implementing
zoning districts, application of those zoning districts to
the subject tracts, allowance of development through site
review and conditional use permits, development of general
legislation on environmental wastes and other matters,
and s it ing and f .financing of public improvements on or near
the subject tracts. Moreover, prior to development of this
property as allowed by this plan amendment, other affected
entities may need to take complementary actions such as
amendment and modification of the North Campus Plan by the
University of Oregon and the State Board of Higher Education.
2. The amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Ordinance - 2
Area General Plan provided for therein were ratified by Resolu-
tion No. 85--3 of the Board of Directors of the Lane Council of
Governments on September 26, 1985. This action was appealed by a
c it i 2en of the community to the Land Use Board of Appeals ~ LUBA ~ .
0n March 21, 1986 LUBA denied seven of the eight assignments of
error and remanded the decision for findings on why the area
used for Open Space and designated as Open Space on affected
plans is not included in the Metropolitan Plan's inventory of
Goal 5 Resource Sites.
3. 0n April 28, 1986, after a public hearing limited to
the issues on remand and consideration of the testimony and staff
notes, the Council adopted the Supplementary Goal 5 Findings and
Conclusions attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, which combined with those developed as part of the
original adoption of the Riverfront Park Plan amendments, meet
the LUBA directive.
NSW, THERBFQR~,
TH$ CITY 4F EIIGENB D4BS ORDAIN AS FnLLQWS:
Section 1. Based upon the above f findings and the f .findings
incorporated therein, and the Supplementary Goal 5 Findin s and
g
Conclusions attached as Exhibit A hereto, which are hereb
Y
adopted, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Ordinance No. 19348 are hereb
y
readopted.
Section 2. That the amendments to the Metropolitan Area
General Plan as set forth in Ordinance No . 19 3 4 $ shall be effected
upon ratification hereof by the Board of D i rectors of the Lane
Counc i 1 of Governments and amended acknowledgment of compliance
Ordinance - 3
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Section 3. That the matters contained herein concern the
public welfare and safety. In order for the Land Conservation
and Development Commission to consider this amendment for an
amended acknowledgment of compliance at the earliest possible
time, it is necessary for this Ordinance to be effective prior to
the expiration of thirty days. Therefore, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, and this Qrdinance shall be effective immedi-
ately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by the
Mayor, and ratification by the Lane Council of Governments Board.
Passed by the City Council this
28th day of April, 1986
~L~
Cit Recorder
Approved by the Mayor his
28th d ,~~1 /f .86
yor
Ordinance -- 4
SUPPLEMENTARY GOAL 5 FINDlN~GS AND CONCLUSIONS
April Z1, 1985
A. After. an extensive public/intergovermental review and hearing
process, ,the Eugene City Council passed .Ordinance Nos, 19341 and
19348 on September 9, x985 which adapted the Ri verf rout Park Special
Area Study and effected an amendment to the diagram and text of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. These actions
were supported by findings .based on Oregon's Statewide goals and
related planning requirements, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area Genera] Plan and applicable ordinances.
B. On September Z~., 1985, the Board of Directors of the Lane Council of
Governments passed Resolution 85-3 which ratified the applicable
text. and map designation amendments to the Metropolitan Plan set
forth i n City of Eugene Ordi Hance No. 19348.
C. Cl ai rni ng ei g~ht assignments of error i n re arati on of the Metro Plan
p p
Amendment and subsequent adoption procedures, a citizen of the
community appealed this action to the State's .Land Use Board of
Appeals ~ LUBA~ . No appeal of Eugene Ordinance No. 19341 was filed.
D. On March 21, 1986, LUBA rendered its opinion on this appeal , denying
seven of the eight assignments of error. However, LUBA decided ,that
"A remand of the decision i s necessary for findings why the area used
for Open Space and designated as Open .Space on affected plans is not
included 1n the Metropolitan Plan's inventory of Goal 5 Resorce
Sites."
E. The adapted diagram for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area --
General Plan designates parks and open space area.
F. The parks and open space designation is defined on Page I~-E-10 of
the Metropolitan Plan. That definition, in part, states that:
"This designation includes existing publicly owned metropolitan and
regional scale parks and publicly and privately owned golf courses
and cemeteries i n recognition of their .role as visual open space.
This designation also includes other privately owned lands in
response to Plan policies such as the Willamette River Greenway, the
South Hills ridgel i ne, the Amazon corridor, the "Q" Street Ditch, an,d
buffers separating sand and gravel designations from residential
land."
G. This desi gnati o~n of a porn on of the property which i s the subject of
these plan amendment policies as "Parks. and Gpen Space" on the Metro
P]an diagram reflects its inclusion in the Willamette Greenway area.,
. Such action was not ~ mended to place all such designated 1 ands on an
LCDG Goal 5 inventory list of needed open space areas. Rather, such
a plan designation was intended to respond, in this particular
instance, to the mandates of LCDG Goal 15 and designate part of the
area which is the subject. of this plan amendment, as subject to the
protections of LCDC .Goal 15 as opposed to the Goal 5 ESEE ro ram.
p 9
H. The Technical Supplement to the Metro P1 an June 1952 conf i rm~s thi s
analyses. It translated the projection of future o ulation into
pp
]and use needs over the then existing land uses. These needs were
expressed into demands for residential, commercial, and industrial
lands. There was no additiona] demand for parks and o en s ace
.beyond those acres a p p
. 1 ready used for such purposes by general purpose
. governments. The green areas in the Metro Plan diagram were not a
reflection of parks and open space needs.
I . LCOC Goal 5 requi r.es an i ventory of the "1 ocati on ~ ~ uai i t and
q y:
quanta ty" of "~ 1~ and needed or desirable for open space. .'~ The
Goal specifies that such areas be "managed so as to preserve their
original character" if no conflicting uses are identified. It
further provides that, "where conflicting uses have been identified
the economic, sa.cial, enviromental, and energy copse uences of the
q
conflicting uses shall be determined and programs deveio ed to
achieve the oa l , " ~ p
9
J.Goal 5 is implemented by administrative rules adopted b LCDC 4AR
660-16-oao to 66016- ~ y '
025, The Goal 5 inventory under these rules
requires an assessment of -the "1 ocati on, qua1 i ty and uanti t " of
Goal 5 resources and q ~ y
a determination of whether' an open space is
"needed" and entitled to Goad 5 conflicts protection. The subject
site far this ion amendme ~
. p nt and its open space value was considered
during the Goal 5 inventory process which occurred rior to
acknowled ment. p
9
K, The Metropolitan Pian i s based partially on a series of worki n
9
papers addressing a variety of subjects which supported. public
review, adoption, and ultimately acknowledgment by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission of the Eu ene-S rip field
g p. 9
Metropolitan Area Generale Plan. The acknowledgment occurred on
August 23, 1982. These working papers represent an im ortant
technical foundation for on p
gong appl~cat~on of the policies and
direction contained in the Metropolitan Plan, The relationshi of
the worki n a ers to the Metro o ' ~ • p
9 p p p 1 ~ tan Plan ~ s descry bed ~ n the Metro
Plan, page Iw7.
L. All land within the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area includin
g
the subject site, was inventoried far potential use to satisf a
number of metro olitan needs in y
p clud~ng open space and other Goal 5
resource areas.
M. The Metropolitan Plan diagram designates 1 and as Park and Q en S ace
which was not included on p p
the inventory of the Parks and Recreation
Working Paper ~e.g., land within Willamette Greenway~Boundaries .
. ~
The inventory ~n the Parks. and Recreation Working Paper became this
jurisdiction's Goal 5 open space 1 and inventor as of 1982 .
Y
N. Table 1 of the Metropolitan Plan working Paper on Parks and
Rec~reati on shows that the metropolitan area has an inventor of about
5, OZO acres of Re i y
. g opal/Metropolitan Park and Open Space in 1918.
This inventory included on]y those sands used for arks
p and open
space purposes ar owned by a general purpose government for existing,
ar ~f uture park and open space purposes. The worki ng~ paper ro 'ected a
p J
need to acquire an additional 644 acres far parks and a en s ode.
p p
PAGE-2
After review of the available sites, the South Hiiis ar
Good asture Isl ea and
p and areas were selected for acquisition based on the
. South Hi11s Study and greenway acquisition oais, Those~ar
identified on Ma , 9 eas are
p 1 of that Working Paper which ~s attached to these
findings.
0. Land which was included on the Park and O en S ace o '
i n entar ~ P P w rk~ n,g Paper
,_ v y was restricted to ex~stTng property owned by a general
purpose government and sand to be acquired by such governments
because of explicit adapted pal i cy direction. This ref 1 ects
that without the fact
control of property by a generai purpose gov.e.rnment
~generaiiy through purchase either from a wiilin sei
g ter or through
condemn~atian proceedings} local governments have no abilit
require ro ert be made Y to
P P Y available for park and recreation or open
.space purposes for the generai pubs i c. Preclusion of al 1 level o meat
by open space designation for rivate -~ P
p ly held land or land not held by
a generai purpose government may work to be an inverse condemnation
of the property. This policy about Goal 5 inventor ~ exclusi '
reaffirmed. There have b Y on ~s
.een.no changes in adapted general policy
which necessitate re-exam~nat~on of the ~nventar criteria.
Y
P. The LCDC, through the acknowledgment rocess for the M '
P etropol~tan
Plan, reviewed the working papers includin the inventor o
laced on th 9 Y f land
. P e park and open space inventory and other inventories of
Gvai 5 resources. These working papers. were art of the ack
P p age of
planning materials which received acknowled meet b LCDC in
1982. Goal 5 a ,g Y June,
cknowledgment was delayed unto] August, 1982 in order
to ~ camel ete Goal 5 analysi s and comply with .the administrative rule:
Q: .Through the inventories of variou
s resources, e.g., vegetation,
wets ands and open space, the DLCD and LCDC determined which ar
would require ESEE analysis. ~ eas
R. Seven areas in the metro olitan area ~' ~ ~~
De P were ~dentif~ed by the
partment of Land Conservation and Development as re ui~r~in ESEE
conflict resolutions. Land i q g
w thin the R~verfront Park Special Area
.Study boundaries was not identified for ESEE anal si s as
acknowled meat Y part of the
g process under Goai 5. The seven areas required to
undergo ESEE analysis became part of the opens ace inventor fo
Eu ene-S ri n fie. P Y r the
9 p g ld metropolitan area.
S • No evidence was submitted as part .vf the on i nai '
the R' ~ 9 hear7ng process on
~verfront Park Special Area Study which allowed the Council to
conclude that the factors used to determine when land should eith
be placed on the inventor of arks er
. Y p and open space ~e.g., ownership
. by a.general purpose government for ark ur oses
mode P P P } should be
feed.
T. The North Campus Plan adapted by the Universit
re re ~ Y of Oregon does not
p sent a change Tn factual circumstances relating to the decision
not to include the ~~subject site on the Goa] 5 o en s ace ar .sceni c
site i nventori es~.. The P P
subject site is still not owned by a general
purpose government. The North Campus Plan does not reflect an
change in the City of Eu ene ]and us y
9 e policy regarding Goal 5. 1t
has not been adopted as a land use tannin dacumen '
Eu ene P 9 t by the City of
g or any general purpose government with land use plannin
9
PAGE•~3
authority, Denomination of a porti an of ~ the subject site i n ~ that
document for university recreatianai uses implies no judgement as,to
the site's value as open space for the general pubs i c i n 1 i ght of the
1 ocati on, quaff i ty, and quantity of other o en s ace resources i n the .
. P P
metropolitan area.
U. As ~ noted i n the Ri verf rout Park . Speci a i Area Study ~ ~ page 25} ,
notwithstanding the fact that the subject site was not i ~ncl uded i n
the Metropolitan Plan's inventory of park and o en s ace land a1i
P P ,
vacant and .undeveloped sand within the area of the Riverfront Park
Area Study comprises 0.9 percent of the metropolitan wide inventory
of 5,020 acres Regi o~nal/Metropolitan Park and Open Space land. Thus,
,this site i s not significantly needed for open space or parks. There
i s an extensive. amount of park lands near the subject site.
V. Dn May 9, 19$3, the. City of Eugene adapted the Parks and Recreation
N~aster Plan. ~C~ity of ~ Eugene Resolution No. 3114}. Thus plan was
adopted as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Generai~ Plan. Ail lands available or used for parks and open space
were reviewed, ~ ncl udi ng the subject .site. The ~ subject site i s shown
in Figure 3.3 as "Existing Parks and Open Space ~Schoois}."
W. After review of all the inventoried land, the Master Plan compared
such i and, including the subject ~ si te, ~agai nst a series of 12
anaiysi s cri tera, including: existing demand for parks and o e.n
P
space, projected demand, level opmen~t/acqui si tivn costs, recreational
opportunities, accessibility, potential cf. loss, opportunity for
point operations, preservation of geographic ~eatures,~compatibility
with surrounding uses, conformation with the Metro Plan, potential
to recover fees, and condition of existing facilities,
x. The Master Plan sets forth acquisition priorities far fi44 acres of
additional parks and open space based upon~its anaiysis~af quantity
and qual ~ ty of open space and park ] ands ~ and the ~ analysis cri teri a
noted above, These sites for acquisition are identified in Figure
5.8 of the.Master Plan. The Riverfront Research Park area was nvt
. identified as needed far neighborhood parks, community parks,
metropolitan parks, or regional parks. "Metrop.olitan Parks' in the
words of the Master P1 an are intended to "preserve unique cuff tural or
natural apes space areas for the recreational and educational
enjoyment of the general public." Master Plan, page: 158} Thus, the
Riverfront Research Park area was inventoried, analyzed, and
determined not to be needed for metropolitan open space ,needs.
Y. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was submitted to D.LCD under ORS
197.fi10 on March 25, 1983, Pursuant to DRS 191,fi15 the Master Plan
was submitted to DLCD on May 11, 1983. No notice of intent to a eal
PP
was filed ..pursuant to ORS, 197,525 .and the submitted plan was
therefore acknowledged.
Z. These supplementary .findings satisfy questions concerning open space
pre~servati~on aspects of Goal 5 because:
1. The Metropolitan Plan's Park and Recreation Working Paper did
not identify this property as a significant Goal 5 resource or ~ ~~
needed open space,
PAGE-4
2. No evidence or contradictory information has been sub '
matted
which warrants modification to that inventor or th
Y e
inclusionlexclusion criteria for inventories and it shoul
d
continue to guide land use and Goal 5 inventory decisions
concerning open space and scenic views within the mete '
opol ~ tan
area,
3.~ The original inventory was updated throw h the Park
9 s and
Recreation Master Plan. The subject site was anal zed a
y nd
determined not to be needed for open space and arks. Th'
analysis further sat' P ~s
~ sf~ es the Goal 5 ~ nventory requirement,
4. were the Goal 5 inventor inclusion •
fy deci soon far the s site bey ng
made at this time or, if such a dec~s~on were re wired as art
of this lan amen • q P
• p dment proceeding, the subject site would not be
el ~ g~ bl a far ~ ncl use on an the open space inventory because of
reaffirmation of the criteria used in this initial
determination and lack of change of any significant factual
circumstances or contradictory information su estin a
different deli si on~. ~ gg g •
In ,particular, the des. gnats on of a ports on
of the. property for recreational use i n the North Cam us P1 an of.
the Una verse t of are o p•
Y g n ~s not a s~gn~f~cant change ~n factual
circumstances. Such designation may indicate a recreational
need. for the University of Oregon but i t does not affect the
inventory of open space available for ublic use or the Goa
. P 15
open space inventory criteria. The land is still not owned by a
general purpose government and capable of dedication to eneral
public use. Its intensific .,g
at~on of use, to the contrary, only
suggests its 1 essened ova i l abl i ty for open space preservation .
5. Even with different criteria far inclusion of the subject site
on an inventory of needed open space land, this site would not
be included on any .such i nventory. The analysis em 1 o ed i n the
Parks and Retreat' P y
. ion .Master Plan ~s re-affirmed. The
availability of park lands and o en s ace in im '
ra p p mediate
p x~mlty to the site Alton Baker Park, Autzen Stadium
fac~l~t~es} and the lack of space far the University to ex and
suggests that this site is P
needed more for Un i ve~rs i ty-related
purposes rather than for. open space. Money spent for
.~condemnatian of the site for park land or other ublic use
ac uisition could be bet P
q ter spent in acquiring land already on
the Gaal 5 inventory .] i sts, adjacent to exi sti n ark and
9P
recreation facilities, or identified in the Master Plan
acquisition priorities list. The City of Eugene presently and
for the foreseeable future, lacks funds for acquisition of thi s
site . Thus, the 1 ocati vn of the site ~ near other rotected o e
P pn
. space uses;. adjacent to the University of Oregon and needed for
expansion} and the guant~ty of other open space in the
metropolitan area preclude its inclusion on a Goa] 5 open s ace
inventory. ~ P
5. What open space value exists for the subject '
~ site can be
protected through the developmental restraints outlined in the
Riverfront Park Study setbacks, riparian stri develo ment
P p
preclusions, greenway conditional use permit .processes ect. .
PAGE-5
.. ~ ~
7. The issues in this proceedin are limited to the sub'ect matter
9 ~
of the remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals, . i , e, , the Goal
5 open space inventory process for the Metro Plan. No ~ ,
consideration of any other issue has been given, .Any evidence _'
submitted during the public hearings on any other Goal 5, other ~'
LCDC Goal , Metro Plan, or any other issue relevant to this plan
amendment is rejected and has not been considered. This
includes, but is not limited to, issues raised concerning flood
hazards, scenic sites, and natural assets.
AA. Based on these supplemental findin s combined with those de ~~
9 ~ veloped
as part of the original adoption of .the Ri verf ront Park Special Area
Study, the di rectian from LUBA cantai ned i n its March Z~, 1986 remand
to the City of Eugene is met. These findings are adapted based upon
the prior record, .administrative notice of the .working ,papers ~ n
connection with the Metro Plan acknowledgment, and evidence relevant
to Goal 5 open space inventory processes. No findings are adopted or
evidence considered on any subjects besides the issues relevant to
this remand proceeding,
Pl Pd~suP
PAGE-6