CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Harris Hall Main
Mayor Kitty Piercy presided with Eugene City Councilors George Brown, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor; Mike Clark. Andrea Ortiz was excused. City Manager John Ruiz was also present.
Commissioner Pete Sorenson presided with Commissioners Rob Handy and Faye Stewart present. Bill Fleenor and Bill Dwyer were excused. County Administrator Jeff Spartz and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1264/In the Matter of
Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. (Metro Plan)
Land Use Diagram; Amending the Corresponding Willakenzie Area Plan Land Use
Diagrams; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (Applicant: City of
Eugene). (File No. PA 09-5465) (Second Reading and Pubic Hearing October 27,
2009) (NBA & PM 9/30).
HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Land Use
Diagram; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Pursuant to Section 9.7750(4) of the
Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective
Date. River Ridge, Eugene file MA 09-3 and Lane County File PA 09-5465
Kitty Piercy opened the Public Hearing for the city of Eugene.
Peter Sorenson opened the Public Hearing for the Board of Commissioners.
asked if any councilors needed to disclose any conflict of interest or ex parte
noted that since the property is partly in his ward, he had occasion to speak
with the property owner over time but not on this matter specifically.
asked if there were any commissioners that had any conflict of interest or
needed to declare any ex parte contacts.
believed the different contacts he had in this matter had been documented in the
minutes and there are no further conflicts or additional meetings.
declared that Dwyer and Fleenor are excused and they will play no role in this
matter until they have read the record.
explained that the hearing is to consider a proposed change to the Metro Plan
diagram into a map in the Willakenzie Area Plan.
He noted that the proposed change would return the 63 acre River Ridge
site to its original plan designation of Low Density Residential.
He recalled that the City and County changed the site’s Metro Plan
designation to a Parks and Open Space designation in 2004, as part of a
programmatic update to the plan diagram. He
indicated that the plan amendment was initiated by the Eugene City Council and
the property owner urges its approval. He
noted that approval of the proposal would result in plan designations that are
consistent with site’s current R1 Low Density Residential Zoning.
He added that the site is located entirely within the urban growth
boundary (UGB), partially within the city limits and partially within the urban
growth area. He indicated that the
proposed change requires Lane County’s approval only for that portion of the
site located in the urban growth area but requires the City’s approval for the
entire site. He said to be
approved; the City and County must find that the proposal is consistent with the
Metro Plan applicable refinement plans and the statewide planning goals.
reported that pursuant to adopted City and County codes, the Eugene City Council
and the Lane County Board of Commissioner will limit the review to the evidence
that was presented to the Planning Commissions along with any arguments about
that evidence presented to them through written testimony or are at this Public
Hearing. She stated that testimony
presented must be directed toward the approval criteria, or other criteria the
speaker believes to apply to the decision.
She said the failure of anyone to raise an issue accompanied by a
statement or evidence sufficient to afford the Eugene City Council, the Board of
Commissioners and parties an opportunity to respond will preclude appeal on that
issue. She stated that failure to
raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of
approval with sufficient specificity to allow the City Council and Board of
Commissioners to respond to the issues precludes an action for damages in
Jeffries, Eugene, said she
was speaking on behalf of River Ridge Limited, owner of a portion of the subject
property: Tax Lot 304 and 306.
She added that she is representing Eric Jeffries and herself as joint
owners of a portion of the subject property:
Tax Lot 305, also included in the proposed Metro Plan amendment and is
their home. She said the purpose of
the amendment is to return the subject property to the land use designation
prior to the 2004 Metro Plan Periodic Review housekeeping amendment as was
introduced. She stated the
testimony is in support of the Metro Plan amendment with minor clarification
pursuant to DLCD’s recommendation: the condition requiring future
transportation planning goal analysis should be eliminated.
She stated that the only way to return the property to its pre-existing
condition prior to the housekeeping amendment is to remove the TPR condition.
She explained that the TPR condition places a unique burden on her
property that is not shared by an existing low density residential property in
the Metro Plan area. She added that
all the property in the proposed ordinance is inside the existing UGB. She indicated that no Measure 56 landowner notice was sent by
Lane County who had jurisdictional authority in 2004, notifying River Ridge
Limited or the Jeffries of the change in the Metro Plan designation from Low
Density to Parks and Open Space. She
added that the 2004 housekeeping amendment also changed a similar size, 53 acres
in the Jefferson Westside neighborhood. She
indicated that the area was changed from low density to medium density without a
State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) analysis or County TIA analysis.
She commented that since no State TPR analysis or County TIA analysis was
required to adopt the 2004 housekeeping amendment, either for the change of her
property from low density residential to Parks and Open Space or for the
upzoning of the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood from low density residential to
medium density residential, then no State TPR or County TIA analysis should be
required to restore the prior Metro Plan designation for their property.
She requested the elected officials adopt the proposed ordinance to
restore her property to the condition it was prior to 2004 and that it is done
without imposing any additional State TPR or County TIA requirements that do not
apply equally to other similarly situated properties designated Low Density
Mitchell, Eugene, President,
Cal Young Neighborhood Association, stated the association’s Executive
Committee adopted what was in the public record.
She indicated the transportation impact is the major concern with the
proposal with increased traffic congestion on already overloaded Delta Highway
and Beltline. She noted a City
staff report stated that in excess of 300 single family homes could be allowed,
but under Low Density Residential, there could be up to 14 units allowed per
acre or 850 dwellings. She stated
this volume far exceeds the 100 vehicle trips that initiate the City’s traffic
impact analysis. She added a Lane
County staff memo dated August 4, stated that pursuant to Lane County 15.697 (c
) that such a plan amendment proposal is subject to traffic impact analysis
requirements. She said in this
proposal, no traffic analysis is called for until a future development
application. She commented that
because this is a Metro Plan amendment, the required criteria of consistency
with relevant statewide planning goals must be met.
She noted that Goal 12 on transportation is implemented through the TPR.
She stated the proposal is to postpone the required TPR analysis to the
development application. She
recalled in the July 14 letter from Ed Moore, DLCD, he stated the TPR requires
the applicant, (the city of Eugene) to undertake an analysis at the time of plan
amendment, not as part of a subsequent development proposal.
She said he concluded the postponement is not consistent with the TPR.
She added that since then in an e-mail he retracted the conclusion
deferring to City staff’s view that the LUBA appeal decision allows
postponement. She was familiar with
the LUBA because the Goodpasture proposed development is also in the Cal Young
neighborhood. She noted the Goodpasture appeal was not final, it is before
the Oregon Court of Appeals and the appeal concern zoning density and cases
cited are zoning related. She
thought instead of postponing the TPR analysis, it was better public policy for
future planning to study the impact of increasing traffic on Delta Highway at
the unsafe interchange with Beltline.
Mitchell, Eugene, stated that
he is a member of the Beltline Highway Stakeholder Advisory Committee. He said these were his own comments and they did not reflect
the position of the committee. He
said he was speaking as a resident of the Cal Young Neighborhood.
He reported that according to recently gathered data by ODOT, the Delta
Beltline Interchange has “one of the highest rates of crashes of all ODOT
facilities statewide.” He said those who drive the area know the dangers associated
with the Beltline corridor from Coburg Road to River Road. He recalled from a recently completed survey by the Cal Young
Neighborhood Association, of those residents responding, 64 percent identified
“improved traffic congestion” as the most important neighborhood need.
He commented that if the “Low Density Residential” designation
is approved for 63 acres, more than 850 residents could be allowed at 14 per
acre. He noted the traffic
generated by this many households would significantly add to the existing
transportation problems. He
recalled when McKenzie Willamette Medical Center applied to build on part of the
same property, insufficient traffic mitigations were proposed by the hospital.
He noted on August 13, 2007 the Eugene Planning Commission recommended
denial to the City Council citing as one reason of inconsistency with Metro Plan
Policy F10. He said on page 30 of
its report the commission stated “Allowing these incremental fixes without
committed funds for permanent fixes would be inconsistent with the City’s
responsibility to protect and manage existing infrastructure.” He indicated that the city of Eugene needs to conduct a
transportation analysis at the time of a Metro Plan amendment.
He urged the joint elected officials to insist the requirement be met now
and not accept postponing the TPR to occur concurrently with city required
traffic analysis at a later time with a development application.
Biggs, Eugene, said he was
opposed to the plan change because the Willakenzie area is deficient in parks
and open space and he thought it would be detrimental.
He didn’t think the applicant sufficiently argued all the points to the
state goals. He said the amount of
change that would take place (should development occur) would impact the
stormwater significantly. With
regard to traffic, he stated that it needs to be calculated as to the air
impacts and to the stormwater runoff. He
didn’t see how those aspects could be deferred.
Matthews, Friends of Eugene,
President, stated that the Friends of Eugene is against the Metro Plan
amendment. He commented that
there is an up side for the landowners. He
said this site is important and sensitive.
He added that it is a high impact site.
He explained that it is on an isolated far northern lobe of the UGB and
changing from Parks and Open Space designation to Low Density Residential
designation has the potential to put hundreds of houses and many hundreds of
residents in a place where their long term geographically driven vehicle miles
traveled is significantly higher than the metropolitan average. He commented that this is a classic example of a
peripheral edge site, the development of which will bloat their carbon
footprint. He said if they allow
increasing density outside Beltline and at the edge of the UGB, they are locking
in future increases in their carbon footprint that they will regret.
He thought this was the wrong way to do transportation and environmental
planning. He noted the tax lots in
question border on the Willamette Greenway near the confluence with the McKenzie
River. He commented that it is
almost inconceivable that development on the site would not have endangered
species impacts. He added the
stormwater implications of 63 acres of development with several hundred houses
would have problems. He noted the
sum total of environmental findings in the record from staff find that there are
no Goal 5 resources in the application footprint; therefore their environmental
concerns are met. He didn’t think
it was consistent with the policies in the Metro Plan.
He said the Friends of Eugene have previously entered testimony in the
record and have listed several state goals for which they feel are boilerplate
and non-site specific used for the findings.
He added that they are insufficient to justify this impact.
He noted that Attorney Jerome stated in the August 4 Planning Commission
records, page 6 that the Willakenzie Area Plan (the local refinement plan) chose
a Parks and Open Space designation because a golf course was located in the area
at the time the plan was developed. He
said the landowner has presented this as a simple redress of a housekeeping
change. He commented that there is
no obligation to roll back the “housekeeping” change.
He said the amendment deserves to be judged on its merits from an
environmental and transportation planning point of view according to the
policies in the Metro Plan and local
policies. He asked what process has taken place to investigate
the change of 63 acres from Parks and Open Space from an existing golf course
use to a potential development of hundreds of residences. He indicated that had not been reviewed.
He said there has been no public process to involve the neighborhood
around the refinement plan and the impacts of the change.
He said the record shows that staff interpretation is that making this
Metro Plan amendment would automatically force a change on the local refinement
plan. He thought the City Council
wanted this looked into and staff followed through and brought back a package
that did not analyze any of the impacts with transportation, environment or
planning. He said the City Council
should say that this is not how Eugene in 2009 should plan.
He thought the City Council needed to look at the implications of opening
the golf course for hundreds of new
houses. He commented that they are
putting hundreds of houses in the high VMT of the urban growth boundary. He
thought the elected officials should send the message that they want to do fact
based planning and they need to turn down this Metro Plan amendment as it stands
now. He thought they could bring
this back for something the community could understand.
Simas, Eugene, stated that she represented the North Delta Neighbors.
She recalled for over two years the North Delta Neighbors contested the
building of a hospital at the end of North Delta Highway.
She said their primary concern was increased traffic on North Delta,
Beltline, Ayres, Gilham, Green Acres Road and Crescent Avenue.
She noted to date the traffic has increased and nothing has been done to
ease the horrible congestion in that area.
She said that ODOT’s projections for any improvements are 20 years out.
She commented that before the elected officials is a proposal to amend
both the Metro Plan and the Willakenzie Refinement Plan to allow for development
that will increase traffic to a degree that will likely surpass the estimations
in the hospital proposal. She
commented that altering the plans to allow for land currently designated as
Parks and Open Space to Low Density Residential should be considered from
several different directions. She
stated that first and foremost is the traffic issue.
She noted that for over 300 residential lots (if the land were to remain
Low Density Residential in the future) moderate estimates of two vehicles per
household with a minimum of six peak hour trips daily would result in the daily
increase on North Delta of 3,600 vehicle trips.
She recalled on July 19, 2006, Lakeridge residents conducted an informal
traffic count from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on North Delta at Ayres Road. She reported that a total of 4,686 vehicles traveled North
Delta during that time including 457 heavy haul trucks going to and from the
sand and gravel operations at the end of the road.
She commented that given the zoning climate in Eugene, it is not
improbable to speculate that the Low Density zoning would eventually be changed
to either Medium Density or High Density Residential.
She asked the elected officials not to circumvent Statewide Goal 12 to
push the inconsistent plan amendment proposal.
She said it was incumbent upon the Eugene City Council and the Lane
County Commissioners on behalf of their thousands of constituents in the North
Delta area to delay the action until a full and current traffic impact analysis
is conducted and completed on all of the involved roadways.
She added that following the completion of a TIA, they would request
another public hearing to allow residents to state their final thoughts and
concerns on this proposed plan amendment or make the TIA a moot point and abide
by ORS 197.010 “To assure that all public actions are consistent and
coordinated with the policies expressed through the Comprehensive Plan.”
She asked to leave the designation of Parks and Open Space intact as it
was designed to be in the first place.
asked how many homes could be built on the property.
Hansen, City of Eugene, responded that the subject property is approximately 63
acres. She said assuming it was all in the city limits, they would
allow a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre.
She thought there could be 630 homes.
asked if the subject property was classified as Low Density Residential from
1981 to 2004.
indicated it was classified Low Density Residential in the Metro Plan from 1982
asked if most of the properties in the area were developed Low Density
responded that they were.
indicated the homes would not be an outright permitted use in this area.
She noted there is a site review overlay and it would require subdivision
and site review approval to establish any more than two or three houses on the
property, at which time a transportation analysis and further review of the
particular impacts would be examined.
asked if assumptions of park land in this neighborhood have been made. He also
asked what would happen if they pull the park land out of the neighborhood and
how it would be reconciled.
explained that this property has been designated Parks and Open Space, but has
never been public property and has never been counted as a city park.
She didn’t think any findings would have relied on it for park land
available for citizens.
asked about the connection between what they do in this area and an impact on
the transportation system on the overall planning efforts.
He asked if there was more analysis that was intended at this stage or if
the County had to look at a transportation impact analysis to get that
responded that Goal 11 covers public facilities that do not include
transportation. She added that the
transportation analysis is under Goal 12. She
noted under Goal 11 the state requires they ensure they don’t approve anything
that cannot be served. She
explained that they have to show that lines are available for future development
to connect to. She indicated that
they have made findings to that effect to this particular site before.
She added that it relates to water, sewer and stormwater.
She said at the time of a future development proposal it is likely that
if there is an intense development proposal, the City would require that the
development show that it is doing what is necessary to serve what it is
proposing. She said at that time
developers install additional lines and the facilities are there for that to be
possible. With regard to the
environmental impact, she said it is a big subject of state concern, as there
are no statewide planning goals that get to that. She noted Goal 13 is the closest one to energy.
She said that transportation comes close to addressing the number of
asked if there were any development plans projected for this site.
said she didn’t know of any plans.
asked for purposes of inventory if
comprehensive land assessments within the UGB,
is currently considered Parks and Open Space.
He also asked if it is zoned residential, where it would wind up in the
indicated that it can’t be relied on to be available for public use even
though it is designated Park and Open Space.
She didn’t believe the City would count it as park land for purposes of
future planning or for residential lands in its current state.
asked how Laurel Hill Golf Course is categorized.
responded that the Laurel Hill Golf Course is publicly owned and it is zoned Low
asked if there was another property for comparison that is designated Parks and
indicated there are a couple of cemeteries within the city limits that are
designated Parks and Open Space.
asked about the weight of the Willakenzie Refinement Plan.
He asked how it operates within the land use laws.
He asked how much input was from the neighbors and the Jeffries.
He recalled that eventually it was enacted by ordinance of the City
Council and at the same time the Metro Plan was not changed.
explained that there has been a change in the way they are able to use
refinement plans in this area. She
recalled there was a time that people viewed the Metro Plan not as clear and
specific. She said refinement plans were adopted to have more specific
uses and policies. She added the
idea at that time was that they would control.
She said they have been told by LUBA that in fact the Metro Plan
controls. She stated that over time
newer refinement plans captured the hierarchy better than older ones.
She indicated that it would take some research to determine what the
thinking was when this was adopted. She
stated that it is an adopted refinement plan and the policies in it carry
significant weight. She noted the Metro Plan procedures the elected officials are
under tonight specifically capture the relationship and the County and City have
both adopted provisions that state when a Metro Plan amendment is enacted that
requires an amendment to a refinement plan for consistency, the Metro Plan
diagram amendment automatically amends the refinement plan.
She added that it was derived in language from the Metro Plan.
She stated that this is the public process for considering the refinement
plan change. She said the materials
that have gone out have been clear that it is also a refinement plan change.
She said the understanding was that a golf course and open space use in
the refinement plan was consistent with the Low Density Residential designation
in the Metro Plan zoning. She noted
at that point in time there was an understanding that it was a Low Density
Residential designation for the site.
asked why it was changed to Parks and Open Space.
responded that since that time it has become clear that it is important there
not be a conflict between the two. She
recalled there were thousands of properties in 2004 when the City digitized its
Metro Plan map. She said it
went from a “blobular” map to digital and there was an effort at that point
in time to be more precise where the lines would be drawn from the blobs to
parcels. She indicated there was an
effort to determine where those blobs would end and begin with different
designations. She said that was
done by looking at what the refinement plan designation was and what happened on
this site. She noted the property owner didn’t intend for that to
happen. She said the question needs
to be asked if the City Council meant for it to happen.
asked if they have granted these types of waivers where they would require the
traffic impact analysis to be done later.
responded that they can’t grant waivers.
She said the proposed ordinance would postpone the analysis until a
specific development proposal is in front of the City Council.
She noted that has become the City’s practice.
She added that it was affirmed by LUBA and it is currently on appeal.
She indicated that they are waiting for the Court of Appeals to affirm
that it is a good practice. She
said the reason staff preferred to do it that way was because if it is done when
a plan is changed, they have to do a worst case scenario for a site and when the
site comes in later for development, it may not be proposing a worst case
scenario. She said they may have to
deny a plan amendment and prohibit uses that may be allowable. She indicated the preference is to postpone.
With this case she said because of the history, DLCD has taken a closer
look at this particular proposal and DLCD who writes the rules has said they
don’t think it can be required here. She
said the 2004 change happened without the need for more transportation analysis
and they shouldn’t require it now. She
stated that in any case, future development of this parcel will require a
transportation analysis under the City’s TIA provisions.
explained that each single family lot would generate ten trips per day and the
peak hours for residential are in the morning between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
and in the afternoon between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.
explained that the triggers for the TIA in Eugene’s code would generate 100 or
more vehicle trips during any peak hour, using a trip generation manual that is
standard in the state. With
developments involving land division, she indicated the peak hour trips are
calculated based on the likely development that will occur on all lots resulting
from the land division. She added
another trigger would be increased traffic resulting from the development. She
indicated that it will contribute to traffic problems in the area based on
current accident rates, traffic volumes or speed that warrant action under the
City’s Traffic Calming Program and identified locations where pedestrians and
bike safety is a concern. She said
the City has performed or reviewed traffic engineering analysis that indicate
approval of the development will result in levels of service of the roadway
system and the vicinity do not meet adopted level of surface standards.
commented that arguably this is the worst place in the County or in the state in
terms of accidents.
thought it was possible that in this area, (given the testimony they heard) that
any of these could be triggers in the future.
She added that it is possible this land could sit until massive
improvements are made in the transportation system.
asked if there was a TIA or any other matter of transportation study required
when the planning department recommended the 2004 City Council change from Low
Density Residential to Parks and Open Space.
said they did not require any study.
noted that Jeffries asked when the Jefferson Westside upzone occurred that it
was part of the same housekeeping amendments.
He asked why there was no TIA or TPR for the upzone.
said she would look into that and get back to Clark.
wanted to know if it was changed at the same time for similar reasons and why
the standard for one property would be different than the standard for another.
asked what the current use was directly west of Tax Lot 306 and for Tax Lot 304.
responded that to the west of Tax Lot 304 is a portion of the golf course and to
the west of Tax Lot 306 is three parcels that are single family residences.
asked about the land application in 1988 for a special use permit from the
County. He also asked about the
explained that for the land use applications that were approved, the special use
permit from the County for a golf course in an Exclusive Farm Use Zone was made
when their application was approved for the golf course.
He added that a greenway development permit was also required. He noted conditional use permits for the golf course were
required for the portions that were inside the UGB. He added that site review is required by the city of Eugene
and a floodplain special use permit was required from the County for the golf
course. He indicated those were the
development applications required in 1988 for establishing golf course uses.
stated the entire golf course is inside and outside of the UGB so some of the
land use applications only apply to the property that is outside the UGB.
She noted the property under consideration tonight is not in the
floodplain or the greenway.
asked who was paying for the public facilities and Goal 12 issues and the public
benefit. He asked what could be considered for approval around how
they weigh public benefit and approving an amendment from the County.
responded that Goal 11 would be provided to the site.
He added that it will be limited to the annexation process of the city of
Eugene, providing sewer, stormwater and water.
He indicated the traffic aspect will be dealt with depending upon the
use, the site review and what actually goes in.
He noted there are amenities like bike paths that would come along as
development as it is implemented, but it isn’t part of the Goal 11 public
facilities and services that are automatically dealt with upon annexation for
sewer, water and stormwater.
asked if there was public benefit that would be directly realized from the
condition of an approval process and how they would consider it in their
County Counsel Stephen Vorhes indicated the area that was considered back when
the County processed permit applications for the golf course is in the area
outside of the area that is subject to this plan designation change proceeding. He wanted to hear the articulation of the connection to the
criteria for approval as it relates to that issue and he hadn’t heard anything
about that in any of the testimony. He
added to the extent they have planning interests in looking at bike path areas,
it is a larger scope different issue planning activity than the impact of
approval of this plan designation from a transportation standpoint.
He heard most of the concern around automobile traffic and nothing on how
it would impact bicycle traffic.
said given that Goal 5 would address some of the Willamette River Greenway
concerns, if this is something they should look at in conjunction with the city
of Eugene with a possible condition to explore.
responded that the Goal 5 issue (as he heard it explained earlier) is dependent
upon inventory Goal 5 resources on the subject property and that is not
something that is in front of the Board.
asked if any board member wanted to hold the record open for testimony or to
continue the hearing to another time.
was no response to keep the record open.
closed the record for testimony for the Eugene City Councilors.
closed the record for testimony for the Board of Commissioners.
indicated that staff would get him an answer by memo at a future time.
He asked if that would become part of the record.
indicated that the record is closed for testimony.
She said they could respond to Clark’s questions referring to findings
that have been adopted.
wanted to know about the input for the 1992 Refinement Plan and what had
transpired including the issues of change.
suggested keeping the record open for the purpose of staff responding with no
new evidence. She explained that no new evidence can be presented.
She indicated that the Willakenzie Area Plan is already in the record and
a lot of the information they think the City Councilors are looking for would be
in there. She indicated that she
will look for the answers with the record closed.
Piercy adjourned the meeting for the Eugene City Council at 7:40 p.m.
Sorenson adjourned the meeting for the Board of Commissioners at 7:40 p.m.