Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Action: Minor Code Amendment Project (Remand) An Ordinance Concerning Building Height in the University Area; Readopting Provisions from Ordinance No. 20418 in Response to Remand; Amending Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date An Ordinance Concerning Parking in the University Area; Readopting Provisions from Ordinance No. 20418 in Response to Remand; Amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date Meeting Date: October 12, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 5 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5508 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council will consider taking action on two ordinances that amend sections of the Eugene Land Use Code (Chapter 9) that (1) lower maximum building heights in a 16-block area in the South University neighborhood, and (2) increase parking requirements for multi-family developments based on number of bedrooms in the South and West University neighborhoods. BACKGROUND On September 21, 2009, the City Council held a public hearing to consider readopting land use regulations on building height and parking in the university area. A total of 24 individuals testified at the City Council public hearing. Written testimony received at the public hearing and prior to the public hearing was forwarded to the City Council, under separate cover, on September 24, 2009. Testimony heard at the public hearing and received in writing has been fairly balanced between those who support and those who do not support the re-adoption of the regulations. Those who supported the regulations commonly noted that they provide interim protection measures for the neighborhoods until a more permanent solution can be adopted. Those opposed to the re-adoption raised policy and practical considerations, particularly related to the parking provision, and encouraged the City Council to instead implement a set of pending proposals on building height and parking rather than re-instate these provisions at this time. Testimony from several individuals also recommended that the findings addressing the relevant policy from the West University Refinement Plan be revised to clarify that this particular policy provides aspirational guidance while other plan policies provide prescriptive guidance. The testimony also stated that these revisions to the findings are needed to avoid unintended consequences in future application of the refinement plan policies. Based on comments from Councilor Brown following the public hearing, staff has prepared alterative findings addressing these concerns. These revised findings are provided in Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091012\S0910125.doc Attachment C for the council’s consideration. The City Council previously adopted these building height and parking land use regulations in one ordinance on August 11, 2008, as part of the Minor Code Amendment Project (MiCAP). The ordinance was adopted with a sunset provision causing the ordinance to expire February 2010, and included an immediate effective date. The ordinance was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by the Home Builders Association of Lane County. On June 12, 2009, LUBA issued a decision remanding the ordinance back to the City, rendering the regulations ineffective. Since the date that the MiCAP ordinance went out of effect, no building permits for multi-family developments (apartments) have been submitted within the area affected by the MiCAP regulations. To readopt the height or parking regulations consistent with LUBA’s decision, the City Council must make positive findings addressing the state’s Transportation Planning Rule. Re-adoption of the parking regulations also requires positive findings addressing a policy from the West University Refinement Plan. The City Council originally adopted the MiCAP height and parking ordinance with the intent that it would serve as an interim measure. This interim period was to allow time for the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) project to conduct a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identify long-term solutions. At this time, the ICS proposals for height and parking are drafted and will come before the City Council at a public hearing on November 16, 2009, with action scheduled for December 12, 2009. The ICS proposals represent a more in-depth analysis of the issues with input from a variety of stakeholders. In particular, the ICS parking proposal is a comprehensive package of solutions including a revised parking ratio (that is less restrictive than MiCAP), allowances for tandem parking, and parking reductions for low-income, senior and disabled housing. The ICS height proposal is similar in many regards to the MiCAP proposal, except that it recommends an even lower building height in the R-4 High Density Residential zones bordering the University of Oregon campus and expands the height limitation into the West University area. RELATED CITY POLICIES Findings addressing consistency with a policy from the West University Plan (Policy 3 of Chapter V), as well as the State’s Transportation Planning Rule, are included as Exhibit A to Attachments A and B. COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may consider the following options: 1.Adopt one or both of the ordinances 2.Adopt one or both of the ordinances with specific modifications as determined by the City Council 3.Adopt one or both of the ordinances with an immediate effective date 4.Take no action on one or both of the ordinances CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends the City Council adopt the ordinance concerning building height in the university area. The City Manager recommends that the City Council take no further action with respect to the ordinance concerning parking in the university area. Given the greater legal, policy and administrative implications associated with the MiCAP parking provision, the City Manager Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091012\S0910125.doc recommends that the City Council defer action and consider adoption of the pending Infill and Compatibility Standards parking proposal when it is brought back before the City Council. SUGGESTED MOTIONS Move to adopt an ordinance concerning building height in the university area; readopting provisions from Ordinance No. 20418 in response to remand; amending section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and providing an effective date and a sunset date. Move to take no further action with respect to an ordinance concerning parking in the university area. ATTACHMENTS A.Draft Ordinance and Findings for Building Height B.Draft Ordinance and Findings for Parking C.Alternative Findings for Parking FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen Telephone: 541/682-5508 Staff E-Mail: alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091012\S0910125.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA; READOPTING PROVISIONS FROM ORDINANCE NO. 20418 IN RESPONSE TO REMAND; AMENDING SECTION 9.2751 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND A SUNSET DATE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection (3) of Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to revise subsection (a) and to add a subsection (c) as follows: 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750. (3)Building Height. (a) Except as provided below, in the R-3 and R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 30 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1. (c) For that area bound by Hilyard Street to the west, Agate Street to the thth east, East 18 Avenue to the north and East 20 Avenue to the south: 1. In the R-3 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 35 feet for that portion of the building located within 160 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1. 2. In the R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 35 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1. It shall be limited to 50 feet for that portion of the building located within 175 feet from land zoned R-3, and shall be limited to 75 feet for that portion of the building located within 176 feet and 225 feet of land zoned R-3. Section 2. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added, amended, or repealed herein. Section 3. The legislative findings to address the June 12, 2009 remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals, attached as Exhibit A hereto, are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 4 . Notwithstanding the effective date of Ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective upon the date that both of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been acknowledged; and (b) at least 30 days have passed since the date the ordinance was approved. Section 5. This Ordinance and the amendments authorized herein shall automatically sunset and be repealed on June 30, 2010. The City Recorder is requested to note the sunset date on appropriate City logs. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this _____ day of________________, 2009 ____ day of ________________, 2009 _____________________________ _______________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Findings Building Height Transition Code Amendment Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following approval criteria (in bold and italics) be applied to a code amendment: (1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Land Use Board of Appeals, in their Final Opinion and Order for the appeal of Ordinance No. 20418, found that “[w]hile it seems unlikely to us that the prior maximum building height limits in the R-3 and R-4 zone played much a role when the city’s comprehensive plan and land use code were acknowledged as complying with Goal 12 and the TPR, we cannot be sure that it played no role in facilitating “transit oriented developments (TODs) on lands along transit routes,” as OAR 660-012-0045(5)(a) requires.” LUBA remanded for findings that address OAR 660-012-0045(5)(a). italic bold The complete text of OAR 660-012-0045(5)(a) is provided below (in text): OAR 660-012-0045 Implementation of the Transportation System Plan (5) In MPO areas, local governments shall adopt land use and subdivision regulations to reduce reliance on the automobile which: (a) Allow transit-oriented developments (TODs) on lands along transit routes; As explained below, the regulations that set maximum building heights in the City’s R-3 and R-4 zones have played no part in the City’s representations or DLCD’s actions regarding acknowledgement for consistency with this OAR. Prior to 2001, the Eugene Code set the maximum building height in R-3 at 40 feet, but did not set a zone-wide maximum building height in the R-4 zone. For both the R-3 and R-4 zones, however, the maximum height was limited to 25 feet for that portion of the building within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, any of land zoned AG, RA or R-1 (the maximum height in the AG, RA and R-1 zones was 25 feet). A comprehensive update to the City of Eugene’s land use code was adopted in 2001. The 2001 update set new building height maximums in the R-3 and R-4 zones of 50 feet and 120 feet, respectively. For both the R-3 and R-4 zones, however, the maximum height was limited to 30 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across the alley from, land zoned R-1 Low Density Residential (the maximum height in R-1 was 30 feet). The current (MiCAP) proposal further limits maximum building heights in the R-3 and R-4 zones within a 16 block area located south of the University of Oregon to provide a more graduated height transition between this R-3/R-4 area and the adjacent R-1 neighborhood. There is no evidence that suggests the height provisions discussed above were adopted or relied upon to demonstrate compliance with OAR 660-12-0045(5)(a). Written findings addressing compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Plan were prepared for the 2001 land use code update (Ordinance No. 20224). Those findings discussed numerous code provisions that demonstrated consistency with Goal 12 - Transportation. The building height maximums were not included in those findings as a basis for consistency with Goal 12. Based on those findings, the 2001 code was acknowledged as complying with Goal 12 and the TPR, with no mention of the building height maximums. The City’s consistency with OAR 660-12-0045(5) was not dependent on the building height maximums. It was actually the City’s establishment of a /TD Transit Oriented Development overlay zone in 1993 under Ordinance No. 19946 that specifically addressed compliance with OAR 660-012- 0045(5)(a). The 16-block area where the current (MiCAP) proposal would apply is not within the /TD Transit Oriented Development overlay zone and leaves DLCD’s acknowledgement of that zone’s consistency with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(a) undisturbed. The current (MiCAP) proposal to require more graduated maximum heights in this 16-block area is consistent with, and does not have any effect on the City’s current acknowledgement for consistency with Goal 12 and specifically OAR 660-012-0045(5)(a). ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING PARKING IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA; READOPTING PROVISIONS FROM ORDINANCE NO. 20418 IN RESPONSE TO REMAND; AMENDING SECTION 9.6410 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND A SUNSET DATE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Table 9.6410 in Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding additional requirements for Multi-Family developments, to provide as follows: 9.6410 Motor Vehicle Parking Standards. Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking Uses Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Residential Dwelling Multiple Family developments in the R-3 and R-4 1 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit zones within the boundaries of the City recognized 1.5 spaces/unit per 2-bedroom unit** West University Neighbors and South University 2 spaces/unit per 3-bedroom unit* Neighborhood Associations. *.5 spaces required for each additional bedroom beyond 3 bedrooms ** Fractions of .50 are rounded up to the next whole number. Multiple Family – all other areas 1 per dwelling Section 2. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added, amended, or repealed herein. Section 3. The legislative findings to address the June 12, 2009 remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals, attached as Exhibit A hereto, are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 4 . Notwithstanding the effective date of Ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective upon the date that both of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been acknowledged; and (b) at least 30 days have passed since the date the ordinance was approved. Section 5. This Ordinance and the amendments authorized herein shall automatically sunset and be repealed on June 30, 2010. The City Recorder is requested to note the sunset date on appropriate City logs. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this _____ day of________________, 2009 ____ day of ________________, 2009 _____________________________ _______________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Findings Multi-Family Parking Requirements in West and South University Neighborhoods Code Amendment Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following approval criteria (in bold and italics) be applied to a code amendment: (1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Land Use Board of Appeals, in their Final Opinion and Order for the appeal of Ordinance No. 20418, found that [I]t seems entirely possible that the prior one off-street parking space requirement for multiple family dwellings played a role when the city’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations were acknowledged to comply with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)(A) requirement that the city have a parking plan which “[a]chieves a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita in the MPO.” Without expressing any view of whether those prior EC provisions were adopted to comply with the TPR or were relied upon to secure acknowledgement, and without expressing any view on whether the disputed amendments adopted by Ordinance 20418 may cause the EC to be inconsistent with OAR 660-012-0045(5), we agree with the petitioner that the city’s decision must be remanded so that the city can address those questions. italic bold The complete text of OAR 660-012-0045(5) is provided below (in text): OAR 660-012-0045 Implementation of the Transportation System Plan (5) In MPO areas, local governments shall adopt land use and subdivision regulations to reduce reliance on the automobile which: (a) Allow transit-oriented developments (TODs) on lands along transit routes; (b) Implements a demand management program to meet the measurable standards set in the TSP in response to 660-012-0035(4); (c) Implements a parking plan which: (A) Achieves a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita in the MPO area over the planning period. This may be accomplished through a combination of restrictions on development of new parking spaces and requirements that existing parking spaces be redeveloped to other uses; (B) Aids in achieving the measurable standards set in the TSP in response to OAR 660-012-0035(4); (C) Includes land use and subdivision regulations setting minimum and maximum parking requirements in appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit oriented-developments; and (D) Is consistent with demand management programs, transit-oriented development requirements and planned transit service. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was adopted by the Oregon Land and Conservation Development Commission in 1991 to implement Statewide Planning Goal 12. To comply with the requirements of the TPR related to ‘land use and subdivision regulations,’ the City of Eugene initiated the Transportation Rule Implementation Project (TRIP) and adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 19946) amending the city’s land use code in 1993. The TRIP ordinance amended numerous provisions of the Eugene Code addressing vehicle and bicycle parking, transit facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle access. The most relevant amendment was one that reduced the city-wide minimum parking requirements for multi-family developments from 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit to 1 space per dwelling unit plus an additional 25% reduction. Although specific findings addressing consistency with the TPR were not adopted as part of the 1993 TRIP ordinance, documentation related to the 1993 TRIP ordinance makes it clear that this 1993 reduction in the minimum parking requirements was adopted to comply with OAR 660- 012-0045(5)(c)(A). However, as explained below, the proposed increase in the minimum parking requirements for multi-family developments in the University area will not cause the Eugene Code to be inconsistent with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)(A). A comprehensive update of TransPlan (the local and regional transportation system plan) was adopted in 2001 and was acknowledged as consistent with the TPR. TransPlan is very specific as to how the City complies with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)(A). Included in TransPlan is a policy and strategies related to parking management. The following excerpt and table is from “Chapter 3: Plan Implementation” under “Parking Management Plan,” to implement OAR 660- 012-045(5)(c)(A): TPR Requirements for Parking Space Reduction The TPR requires a parking plan that achieves a 10 percent reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita in the metropolitan area over the 20- year planning period. For the Eugene-Springfield region, the TPR reduction goal is .514. If the level of parking density (spaces per developed acre) remains constant and the land development and population forecasts are accurate, then the level of parking spaces per capita will be reduced by more than the 10 percent reduction required by the TPR. Estimated Parking Supply 1995 to 2015 1995 2015 2015 TPR Goal Zone/Plan Spaces Capita Spaces Capita Spaces Capita Designation Commercial 51,259 .229 57,865 .194 61,618 .207 Industrial 27,622 .124 30,200 .101 33,205 .111 Institutional 48,692 .218 49,067 .165 58,534 .196 Total 127,573 .571 137,132 .460 153,357 .514 As shown in the above table, when TransPlan was acknowledged as consistent with OAR 660- 012-0045(5), residential parking requirements were not a consideration. The City (with its co- 2 adopters) demonstrated -- and DLCD acknowledged -- a plan that would result in a10 percent reduction in parking spaces per OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)(A) without regard to residential parking. The table showed that the level of parking spaces per capita would be reduced by more than the 10 percent reduction required by the TPR. As such, the currently proposed (MiCAP) increase in required parking for multi-family residential developments in a limited geographic area does not impact the ability of the metropolitan area to meet the TPR requirement of reducing parking spaces per capita by 10 percent, and will not cause the Eugene Code to be inconsistent with OAR 660-012-0045(5). (2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. The Land Use Board of Appeals, in their Final Opinion and Order for the appeal of Ordinance No. 20418, found that the City had not adequately addressed a seemingly relevant portion of West University Refinement Plan Policy 3 when it adopted Ordinance 20418, increasing the required number of parking spaces for multiple family dwellings in the West University Neighborhood. Chapter V, Policy 3 from the West University Refinement Plan is provided below (emphasis added): The City of Eugene will update its Land Use Code and that effort shall particularly take into account the need to: --reduce non-residential uses permitted in the R-3 and R-4 zones. --redefine usable open space. --enable infilling on newly created small lots. --enable alley access as the primary access to newly created lots. --reduce the minimum lot size. --increase the flexibility of development standards (for example to enable more efficient use of open space, shared open space, shared parking, and more extensive use of public rights-of-way). --review parking requirements for residential development with the purpose of reducing the required number of spaces per unit in the plan area. --amend the commercial zoning in the City Code to provide a greater range of commercial zones. WURP, 49. With respect to this policy, LUBA stated: “From the decision and the evidence in the record that the parties have called to our attention, we cannot tell why a decision to increase off-street parking is consistent with a policy that calls for reducing off-street parking. Although we agree with the city that West University Neighborhood Refinement Plan Policy 3 need not be interpreted to preclude the city from adjusting how the city chooses to implement that policy, the city needs to explain how a decision to increase off- street parking is consistent with a policy that calls for reducing off-street parking. Because there are no findings that provide that explanation, we agree with petitioner that remand is required.” 3 The City’s findings in response to LUBA’s remand, including the City Council’s interpretation of the subject policy, follow. The West University Refinement Plan was adopted in 1982. It includes text in the following three categories: “findings, “policies” and “proposals.” In the Introduction section of the Plan, on Page 3, it defines these categories in terms of how each is to be used. With respect to “policies,” the Plan states: Policies are adopted by the City Council as guidance for decision-making related to the plan area. City programs, actions, and decisions, such as zone changes, traffic pattern changes, and capital improvements, will be evaluated on the basis of their ability to implement these policies as well as other adopted City goals and policies. Because they are adopted by the council as the City’s guide for action, policies are the most important statements in the plan. WURP, 3. The use of policies as “guidance for decision-making” is reinforced in a number of places throughout the Plan. For example, prior to the list of policies on Plan page 49, it directs the reader to “[r]efer to the definition of policy on page 3.” With this in mind, the City Council does not interpret Policy 3 as a mandate, prohibiting the Council from increasing parking requirements at this time. Even if Policy 3 were more than a guideline, by its very terms, the only mandate that could have been imposed by Policy 3 was the requirement that eight things be “taken into account” when the City updated its land use code. Of the eight things that Policy 3 lists to be “taken into account,” the one now at issue is most clearly not a mandate for a certain result. Unlike the other seven things on the list -- which begin with terms that direct a certain outcome (“reduce,” “redefine,” “enable,” “increase,” or “amend”) -- the item at issue only directs that the City “review” the existing code text “with the purpose of reducing” required parking. To the extent the Policy did operate as a directive, it only directed that the City Council, when updating its land use code, ‘take into account the need to review current parking requirements with the purpose of reducing the required number of spaces per unit.’ In fact, the City Council did so with the land use code update it adopted in 1993. That approach failed to alleviate the neighborhood’s parking problems and, as discussed below, it is consistent with the Plan to now take a different approach. Even if Policy 3 had been drafted in a way that could be interpreted as a mandate, the definition of “policy” and other Plan text explaining how the Plan is to be used make it clear that it would be erroneous to interpret Policy 3 as a mandate, especially a mandate that still controls in these circumstances. The Plan is now more than 18 years old. Since the Plan’s adoption, the City has tried a ‘one space per unit’ approach to parking in this neighborhood. However, that approach has not been an effective solution to the parking problems in the neighborhood. The Plan was not intended to make ineffective solutions mandatory. In the “Use of the Plan” section, the Plan refers to itself as a “flexible guide for specific decision making” and states that “[a]nalysis and/or testing of proposed solutions to problems may prove that they should become City policy or should be dropped.” WURP, 4. Consistent with this provision, the text of Policy 3 and the other Plan provisions discussed above, the City Council interprets Policy 3 as being a guide, but not a mandate. The Policy served as guidance with the City’s testing of a ‘one space per unit’ approach. The Policy now causes the City Council to be cautious as it increases the parking requirement, but it does not preclude the City Council from doing so. 4 ATTACHMENT C Findings Multi-Family Parking Requirements in West and South University Neighborhoods Code Amendment Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following approval criteria (in bold and italics) be applied to a code amendment: (1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Land Use Board of Appeals, in their Final Opinion and Order for the appeal of Ordinance No. 20418, found that [I]t seems entirely possible that the prior one off-street parking space requirement for multiple family dwellings played a role when the city’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations were acknowledged to comply with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)(A) requirement that the city have a parking plan which “[a]chieves a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita in the MPO.” Without expressing any view of whether those prior EC provisions were adopted to comply with the TPR or were relied upon to secure acknowledgement, and without expressing any view on whether the disputed amendments adopted by Ordinance 20418 may cause the EC to be inconsistent with OAR 660-012-0045(5), we agree with the petitioner that the city’s decision must be remanded so that the city can address those questions. italic bold The complete text of OAR 660-012-0045(5) is provided below (in text): OAR 660-012-0045 Implementation of the Transportation System Plan (5) In MPO areas, local governments shall adopt land use and subdivision regulations to reduce reliance on the automobile which: (a) Allow transit-oriented developments (TODs) on lands along transit routes; (b) Implements a demand management program to meet the measurable standards set in the TSP in response to 660-012-0035(4); (c) Implements a parking plan which: (A) Achieves a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita in the MPO area over the planning period. This may be accomplished through a combination of restrictions on development of new parking spaces and requirements that existing parking spaces be redeveloped to other uses; (B) Aids in achieving the measurable standards set in the TSP in response to OAR 660-012-0035(4); (C) Includes land use and subdivision regulations setting minimum and maximum parking requirements in appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit oriented-developments; and (D) Is consistent with demand management programs, transit-oriented development requirements and planned transit service. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was adopted by the Oregon Land and Conservation Development Commission in 1991 to implement Statewide Planning Goal 12. To comply with the requirements of the TPR related to ‘land use and subdivision regulations,’ the City of Eugene initiated the Transportation Rule Implementation Project (TRIP) and adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 19946) amending the city’s land use code in 1993. The TRIP ordinance amended numerous provisions of the Eugene Code addressing vehicle and bicycle parking, transit facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle access. The most relevant amendment was one that reduced the city-wide minimum parking requirements for multi-family developments from 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit to 1 space per dwelling unit plus an additional 25% reduction. Although specific findings addressing consistency with the TPR were not adopted as part of the 1993 TRIP ordinance, documentation related to the 1993 TRIP ordinance makes it clear that this 1993 reduction in the minimum parking requirements was adopted to comply with OAR 660- 012-0045(5)(c)(A). However, as explained below, the proposed increase in the minimum parking requirements for multi-family developments in the University area will not cause the Eugene Code to be inconsistent with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)(A). A comprehensive update of TransPlan (the local and regional transportation system plan) was adopted in 2001 and was acknowledged as consistent with the TPR. TransPlan is very specific as to how the City complies with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)(A). Included in TransPlan is a policy and strategies related to parking management. The following excerpt and table is from “Chapter 3: Plan Implementation” under “Parking Management Plan,” to implement OAR 660- 012-045(5)(c)(A): TPR Requirements for Parking Space Reduction The TPR requires a parking plan that achieves a 10 percent reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita in the metropolitan area over the 20- year planning period. For the Eugene-Springfield region, the TPR reduction goal is .514. If the level of parking density (spaces per developed acre) remains constant and the land development and population forecasts are accurate, then the level of parking spaces per capita will be reduced by more than the 10 percent reduction required by the TPR. Estimated Parking Supply 1995 to 2015 1995 2015 2015 TPR Goal Zone/Plan Spaces Capita Spaces Capita Spaces Capita Designation Commercial 51,259 .229 57,865 .194 61,618 .207 Industrial 27,622 .124 30,200 .101 33,205 .111 Institutional 48,692 .218 49,067 .165 58,534 .196 Total 127,573 .571 137,132 .460 153,357 .514 As shown in the above table, when TransPlan was acknowledged as consistent with OAR 660- 012-0045(5), residential parking requirements were not a consideration. The City (with its co- 2 adopters) demonstrated -- and DLCD acknowledged -- a plan that would result in a 10 percent reduction in parking spaces per OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)(A) without regard to residential parking. The table showed that the level of parking spaces per capita would be reduced by more than the 10 percent reduction required by the TPR. As such, the currently proposed (MiCAP) increase in required parking for multi-family residential developments in a limited geographic area does not impact the ability of the metropolitan area to meet the TPR requirement of reducing parking spaces per capita by 10 percent, and will not cause the Eugene Code to be inconsistent with OAR 660-012-0045(5). (2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. The Land Use Board of Appeals, in their Final Opinion and Order for the appeal of Ordinance No. 20418, found that the City had not adequately addressed a seemingly relevant portion of West University Refinement Plan, Chapter V, Policy 3 when it adopted Ordinance 20418, increasing the required number of parking spaces for multiple family dwellings in the West University Neighborhood. Chapter V, Policy 3 from the West University Refinement Plan is provided below (emphasis added): The City of Eugene will update its Land Use Code and that effort shall particularly take into account the need to: --reduce non-residential uses permitted in the R-3 and R-4 zones. --redefine usable open space. --enable infilling on newly created small lots. --enable alley access as the primary access to newly created lots. --reduce the minimum lot size. --increase the flexibility of development standards (for example to enable more efficient use of open space, shared open space, shared parking, and more extensive use of public rights-of-way). --review parking requirements for residential development with the purpose of reducing the required number of spaces per unit in the plan area. --amend the commercial zoning in the City Code to provide a greater range of commercial zones. WURP, 49. With respect to this policy, LUBA stated: “From the decision and the evidence in the record that the parties have called to our attention, we cannot tell why a decision to increase off-street parking is consistent with a policy that calls for reducing off-street parking. Although we agree with the city that West University Neighborhood Refinement Plan Policy 3 need not be interpreted to preclude the city from adjusting how the city chooses to implement that policy, the city needs to explain how a decision to increase off- street parking is consistent with a policy that calls for reducing off-street parking. Because there are no findings that provide that explanation, we agree with petitioner that remand is required.” 3 The City’s findings in response to LUBA’s remand, including the City Council’s interpretation of the subject policy, follow. The West University Refinement Plan, adopted in 1982, includes some policies that are mandatory directives for land use decisions in the Plan area and other policies that do not mandate a particular course of action. For example, unlike Policy 3, Policy 21 is a directive for th future city actions. It provides: “All new development in the R-4 zoned land north of 13 Avenue in the plan area shall be subject to site review so that it is efficient, workable, safe, compatible with surroundings, and considerate of historic and natural features.” WURP, 51. The Plan text recognizes that not all of its policies are intended to be prescriptive. It describes its policies as “guidance for decision-making related to the plan area” and states that “City programs, actions, and decisions, such as zone changes, traffic pattern changes, and capital improvements, will be evaluated on the basis of their ability to implement these policies as well as other adopted City goals and policies.” WURP, 3. The City Council does not interpret Policy 3 as a mandatory directive prohibiting the Council from increasing parking requirements. Of the eight things that Policy 3 lists to be “taken into account,” the one now at issue is most clearly not a mandate for a certain result. Unlike the other seven things on the list -- which begin with terms that direct a certain outcome (“reduce,” “redefine,” “enable,” “increase,” or “amend”) -- the item at issue only directs that the City “review” the existing code text “with the purpose of reducing” required parking. To the extent the Policy did operate as a directive, it only directed that the City Council, when updating its land use code, ‘take into account the need to review current parking requirements with the purpose of reducing the required number of spaces per unit.’ In fact, the City Council did so with the land use code update it adopted in 1993. That approach failed to alleviate the neighborhood’s parking problems and, as discussed below, it is consistent with the Plan to now take a different approach. Even if Policy 3 had been drafted in a way that could be interpreted as a mandate, it would be erroneous to interpret Policy 3 as a mandate for this action. The Plan is now more than 27 years old. Since the Plan’s adoption, the City has tried a ‘one space per unit’ approach to parking in this neighborhood. However, that approach has not been an effective solution to the parking problems in the neighborhood. The Plan was not intended to make ineffective solutions mandatory. In the “Use of the Plan” section, the Plan refers to itself as a “flexible guide for specific decision making” and states that “[a]nalysis and/or testing of proposed solutions to problems may prove that they should become City policy or should be dropped.” WURP, 4. Consistent with this provision, the text of Policy 3 and the other Plan provisions discussed above, the City Council interprets Policy 3 as being a guide, but not a mandate. The Policy served as guidance with the City’s testing of a ‘one space per unit’ approach. The Policy now causes the City Council to be cautious as it increases the parking requirement, but it does not preclude the City Council from doing so. 4