Preview:

FILED: June 9, 2004
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
ROBIN JAQUA
and JOHN JAQUA,
Petitioners - Cross-Respondents,
1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON,
Cross-Respondent,
LANE COUNTY,
Intervenor below,

v.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD and PEACEHEALTH, Respondents - Cross-Petitioners.

COALITION FOR HEALTH OPTIONS IN CENTRAL EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD,
ANNE S. HEINSOO, LINDA MAUREEN CHENEY,
FRED FELTER, and 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON,

Cross-Respondents, LANE COUNTY, Intervenor below,
v.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD and PEACEHEALTH, Cross-Petitioners.
2003-072, 2003-073, 2003-077, 2003-078; A123624 Judicial Review from Land Use Board of Appeals. Argued and submitted March 16, 2004. Allen L. Johnson argued the cause for petitioners - cross-respondents. With him on the opening brief were
Corinne C. Sherton and Johnson & Sherton, P. C., and William G. Wheatley, and Jaqua & Wheatley, P. C., and William G. Wheatley and Jaqua & Wheatley, P.C. On the reply and post-oral argument briefs were Allen L. Johnson and Johnson & Sherton, P.C.
Meg E. Kieran argued the cause for respondent - cross-petitioner City of Springfield. With her on the answering brief and the cross-petition, response brief, and rebuttal/reply brief were Joseph J. Leahy and Harold, Leahy & Kieran.
Stephen L. Pfeiffer argued the cause for respondent - cross-petitioner PeaceHealth. With him on the response brief and brief on cross-petition and response brief were Michael C. Robinson, Steven P. Hultberg, Roger A. Alfred, and Perkins Coie LLP. With him on the supplemental brief were Steven L. Pfeiffer, Steven P. Hultberg, and Perkins Coie LLP.
William H. Sherlock filed the briefs for cross-respondents Coalition for Health Options in Central Eugene-Springfield, Anne S. Heinsoo, Linda Maureen Cheney, and Fred Felter. With him on the briefs was Hutchinson, Cox, Coons, Dupriest, Orr & Sherlock, P. C.
Michael K. Collmeyer argued the cause for cross-respondent 1000 Friends of Oregon. With him on the briefs was Mary Kyle McCurdy.
Glenn Klein, and Harrang Long Gary & Rudnick P.C. filed the brief amicus curiae for League of Oregon Cities.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim and Schuman, Judges.
EDMONDS, P. J.
Reversed and remanded on Jaquas' petition; otherwise affirmed.
EDMONDS, P. J.
Robin and John Jaqua, owners of nearby affected land, petition for judicial review of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision regarding two City of Springfield ordinances. In addition, the City of Springfield (city) and PeaceHealth, the developer of a proposed regional hospital complex on the subject
lands, cross-petition for judicial review of LUBA's decision. (1) The challenged ordinances amend a regional land use plan and a refinement of that plan, and they facilitate the future rezoning of 99 acres within the city for purposes of PeaceHealth's development. We reverse on the Jaquas' petition and affirm on the city's and PeaceHealth's cross-petitions for review.
We take the facts from LUBA's opinion Jaqua v. City of Springfield , ___ Or LUBA ___ (LUBA Nos. 2003-072, 2003-075, 2003-077, 2003-078, January 5, 2004):
"Intervenor-respondent PeaceHealth (hereafter PeaceHealth) wishes to construct a hospital on approximately 66 acres of land and construct related commercial development on 33 acres of land. The area where this disputed construction would take place is located within the acknowledged regional urban growth boundary (UGB). The property that is at the center of [the] dispute is subject to (1) a regional plan (the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area General Plan (Metro Plan)); (2) a refinement of the Metro Plan (the Gateway Refinement Plan (GRP)); and (3) city land use regulations that have been adopted to implement those plans (the City of Springfield Development Code (SDC)).
"The GRP area is an approximately 1,000-acre area in the northwestern part of the City of Springfield lying east of Interstate Highway 5 and south of the McKenzie River. Approximately 180 acres of the GRP area is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) by both the Metro Plan and the GRP.
"The challenged decisions adopt the Metro Plan and GRP map designations for up to 33 acres to Community Commercial (CC). The challenged decisions authorizes a change in city zoning for those 33 acres from MDR to Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Finally, the challenged decisions authorize application of the city's Medical Service (MS) zone to the 66 acres where the hospital is proposed. The existing Metro Plan and GRP maps for the 66 acres are not changed, and those 66 acres retain their MDR Metro Plan and GRP map designations.
"To summarize, the plan map and zoning map changes adopted by the challenged decisions apply to a portion of the 180-acre MDR-designated portion of the GRP area. The decisions
(1) change the Metro Plan map, and GRP Plan map designations for 33 acres to CC; (2) authorize future rezoning of those 33 acres to [MUC]; and (3) authorize future rezoning of 66 acres to MS.
"In addition to the above-described map changes, one of the ordinances also adopts a number of changes to the GRP text. Among other things, those changes require development of a large hospital on the MS-zoned area and require a master plan review process to consider any application to develop the hospital and related commercial and residential development on the 99 acres. Both ordinances adopt a number of conditions that, among other things, are intended to limit traffic impacts and to ensure provisions of needed supporting public facilities to the development proposed for those 99 acres."
(Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.)
After the city adopted its ordinances, the Jaquas, CHOICES, Lane County and 1000 Friends of Oregon appealed its decisions to LUBA. LUBA remanded the matter for findings of compliance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals 9 (Economic Development) and 12 (Transportation) but otherwise affirmed the city's planning decisions. Thereafter, the Jaquas sought review by this court of LUBA's decision, and the city and PeaceHealth filed cross-petitions for review. The Jaquas make three assignments of error: They assert that (1) LUBA erred by ruling that the ordinances do not violate the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area General Plan's (Metro Plan) limited authorization for "auxiliary" uses on land designated for residential use; (2) LUBA erred when it ruled that the proposed hospital complex and related non-residential uses do not violate statewide planning goals and statutes; and (3) LUBA erroneously interpreted the Metro Plan not to require the participation of Lane County and the City of Eugene, the other participants in the plan.
The city and PeaceHealth make two assignments of error on cross-appeal. First, they argue that LUBA erred when it concluded that the city's findings did not demonstrate that the ordinances were consistent with the Springfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS) and with Goal 9. Under those rules, local jurisdictions are required to demonstrate compliance with local Goal 9-related components of local comprehensive plans. Second, they contend that LUBA erred when it concluded that the city incorrectly interpreted the Transportation Planning Rules (TPRs) in OAR chapter 660, division 12, by construing it not to require the resolution of transportation issues until the end of the planning period in 2018.
We turn first to the Jaquas' third assignment of error, which raises the issue of whether the city could unilaterally amend the Metro Plan and the GRP without the consent of Lane County and the City of Eugene. A decision on that issue adverse to the city could operate to nullify both ordinances. The parties do not appear to dispute the basic requirements for amendments to the Metro Plan and the GRP. All three jurisdictions--the city, the City of Eugene, and Lane County --adopted the Metro Plan and the GRP, but unilateral amendments by a single jurisdiction are contemplated by the plans if certain conditions are present. Under the plan, any "Type I" amendment generally requires the participation of all jurisdictions. Springfield Development Code (SDC) 7.070(1). A Type I amendment is defined as
"[a]ny change to the Metro Plan which (1) changes the urban growth boundary or the
jurisdictional boundary of the Plan; (2) requires a goal exception not related to a UGB
expansion to be taken under statewide planning goal 2; or, (3) is a non-site specific
amendment of the Plan text."

SDC 7.030; see also Metro Plan, Plan Amendments and Refinements, Policies 3. On the other hand, Type II amendments regarding an area inside city limits may be made unilaterally by a member of the plan. SDC 7.070(2). A Type II amendment is
"[a]n amendment to the Metro Plan which is not otherwise a Type I plan amendment and which: (1) changes the Plan diagram; or, (2) is a site-specific Plan text amendment."
SDC 7.030.
The parties disagree as to whether the city's amendments to the Metro Plan in the ordinances are Type I or Type II amendments. Their disagreement turns on the meaning of the words "site specific" in the plan. Those words are not defined in the plan and should therefore be given their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning within the text and the context of the plan itself. See, e.g. , Department of Land Conservation v. Lincoln County, 144 Or App 9, 14-15, 925 P2d 135 (1996), rev den, 324 Or 560 (1997). The city held that the amendments apply only to property wholly within the city after annexation occurs and entirely within
the GRP area. (2) It reasons that the amendments therefore were "site specific" within the meaning of the plan. The city also points out that the Metro Plan applies to the entire Eugene metropolitan area and that some of the objectives of the plan are applicable to the entire geographic area. In contrast, it says that the identification of the McKenzie/Gateway MDR site in the plan and the GPR is sufficiently definite to be considered "site specific" with the meaning of those words as used in the plan. The Jaquas, on the other hand, argue for a more restrictive interpretation of the term. They contend that the "site-specific" requirement requires the designation of a specific site and not of a general area such as "up to 33 acres" or "up to 66 acres" as challenged in the ordinances.
LUBA concluded, and we agree, that the Metro Plan operates as a general plan and that it contemplates that it will be supplemented, as the plan states, "by more detailed refinement plans, programs and policies." The GRP is one such plan that operates to refine the Metro Plan. For instance, the GRP maps are more detailed than the Metro Plan maps and show particular lots and parcels. Also, the GRP explains that its purpose with regard to residential lands "is to provide site-specific application of adopted Metro Plan residential land use designations, to resolve plan/zone conflicts, and to resolve land use conflicts as they relate to the livability of residential neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) Thus, it appears from the text of the Metro Plan that the amendments to the GRP are the kind of actions affecting particular properties that the Metro Plan contemplates as "site-specific" implementing measures; in other words, the amendments are an example of the site-specific measures that the Metro Plan authorizes individual jurisdictions to take without the participation of other plan participants. Accordingly, we conclude that the city's ordinances are site-specific amendments within the meaning of a Type II amendment to the Metro Plan.
We return to the Jaquas' first assignment of error. At issue is the meaning of the following language in the Metro Plan regarding the designation of land use as "residential": (3)
"This category is expressed in gross acre density ranges. Using gross acres, approximately 32
percent of the area is available for auxiliary uses, such as streets, elementary and junior high
schools, neighborhood parks, other public facilities, neighborhood commercial services, and
churches not actually shown on the diagram. Such auxiliary uses shall be allowed within
residential designations if compatible with refinement plans, zoning ordinances, and other
local controls for allowed uses in residential neighborhoods."
Before LUBA, the Jaquas argued that the above language authorizing 32 percent of the area to be available for auxiliary uses has the effect of limiting auxiliary uses to neighborhood commercial uses and public facilities scaled to serve neighborhoods and that it does not authorize a large regional hospital facility with supporting commercial development, which is what the city's challenged ordinances contemplate. The city argued in turn that the "auxiliary uses" language expressly recognizes that nonresidential public facilities can occupy residential land and that refinement plans, such as the GRP, are available to implement such a policy.
Apparently, LUBA was concerned about the breadth of the city's argument. It commented that, if the question "were whether the above-described Metro Plan provisions, viewed alone, can be interpreted to
permit locating a regional hospital and supporting uses on 66 acres of a 180-acre MDR

Download A123624.pdf

Oregon Law