Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue March 19, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Mark Hoyt, representative for the appellant; Lisa Warnes, Jack Moran, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: GREEN VALLEY GLEN PUD Staff: Alissa Hansen, 682-5508 Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to tentatively find that the Hearings Official erred in her findings based on the analysis in the March 9, 2007 memorandum. The motion passed 6:1, with Ms. Kneeland voting in opposition. Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to uphold the Hearings Official denial of the application based on the Second Assignment of Error. The motion passed 4:3, with Mr. Duncan, Mr. Hledik and Mr. Lawless voting in opposition. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue March 19, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Mark Hoyt, representative for the appellant; Lisa Warnes, Jack Moran, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one wishing to offer public comment. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: GREEN VALLEY GLEN PUD Mr. Duncan explained that the Planning Commission had tabled a motion on the Third Assignment of Error at its March 12, 2007 meeting. He opened the floor to comments from Commissioners. • Appellant’s Third Assignment of Error: Ms. Kneeland expressed concern on how quickly the Planning Commission had moved through the issue in terms of a meritorious concern about wildfire. Both the Hearings Official and the applicant in its statement of appeal referred more to the wildfire issue than the issue of emergency access. She said the issue was that of a wildfire safety issue. According to the Fire Marshal proposed mitigations were adequate to address emergency vehicle access. The Eugene/Springfield Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared to identify wildfire hazards and appropriate mitigation measures, should be considered by the Planning Commission. Eugene’s south hills had been identified as a higher risk area for wildfire, and the fire risk was particularly identified by high risk load areas, topographical areas with potential chimney effect, higher slopes, compromised access, and fuel breaks or the lack thereof. She concluded this was an area that presented a significant wildfire risk. Finding it hard to believe in the applicant’s statement that the area posed no wildfire risk, Ms. Kneeland expressed concern about the seriousness of the applicant’s mitigation measures. She agreed with the Hearings Official that the applicant overlooked the idea of a human caused, high MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 1 risk fire starting within the development opposed from outside of the development. She said this had not been addressed by the Fire Marshal. Tom Haferty was the only expert in the case who described the issue from a professional standpoint. She said although the Fire Marshal called for mitigation measures such as road widening, reducing the steepness of the slope, and construction materials used in the houses were good measures to address vehicular access, they did not address the seriousness of wildfire. Wildfire concerns were inherent to the property, the vegetation, the slopes, and road design. She cited a memorandum from City Attorney Emily Jerome asserting that the applicant had the burden of proof, and that the Planning Commission had to be satisfied where an issue was raised by the opponents, the applicant took adequate measures to remedy the concern. The wildfire risk had not been adequately addressed. Ms. Hansen stated the Eugene/Springfield Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was a planning document rather than a regulatory document, thus did not apply directly as would a refinement plan or codified land use criteria. Ms. Kneeland asserted the Eugene/Springfield Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan had been submitted as evidence of risks on the land. Ms. Jerome stated the document provided background and information on the conditions in the area, and could be used to analyze the site. It was intended to address Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements that local governments had to have such a plan. It could be called upon to implement specific criteria but did not contain land use criterion that applied. Mr. Lawless said developing the property added one component of a potential fire. He was concerned about finding balance between what could happen naturally or artificially in its undeveloped state, and how it would compare to the overall risk if the property were developed. He asked if there was evidence that there was more or less hazard of a fire starting, and how did the provision of the roads and fire protection system cited by the Fire Marshal go towards mitigating the hazard. Ms. Kneeland said it was the applicant’s burden to address the adequacy of the wildfire mitigation, and she did not believe that burden had been satisfactorily addressed. She found Mr. Haferty’s letter persuasive, adding the applicant should have brought in a fire expert to support their position. The Fire Marshal information regarding the road was insufficient. Agreeing with Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Carroll averred that the risk for fire was not if but when there would be one. However, he was unsure on how to weigh the burdens of development versus of no development, and the criteria was whether the PUD would be a significant risk to public health. He could not state affirmatively that the development itself posed significant risks. He said the CCRs prohibited irrigation to protect natural values and encourage the establishment of natural plants which was a progressive measure. Conversely, without irrigation in July, August, and September it would be risky. The residents of the PUD were at greater risk than the general public due to the topography, fire breaks and road cuts, reducing the public health risk to the general population. Responding to Mr. McCown, Ms. Jerome said Commissioners could take official notice of maps and other resources that had been adopted by the City Council. Ms. Hansen noted there were no maps included in the record. Mr. Belcher understood the concern about the wildlife—urban interface being an area of danger, MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 2 and while in the future there may be regulations that PUDs in the area would be required to adhere to, this was an evolving issue. It was a stretch to interpret the words public safety to say that the applicant had to deal with an evolving issue that had not yet been codified, and for which appropriate mitigation requirements had not been developed. Mr. Belcher asked what mitigation measures were currently available, and were they in conflict with other things the City was trying to do in the south hills. One of the ways of dealing with the danger in the interface was by decreasing the space between trees to reduce the possibility of canopy fires while at the same time attempting to preserve the maximum vegetation in the area. Individual buildings would need to comply with the building code, and the developer had agreed to install fire resistant roofs. He said the Planning Commission should flag the issue for further study to deal effectively with it in the future. It was unfair to expect this applicant to deal with such an ambiguous issue. Mr. Hledik asserted the day the property was zoned for residential development was the day the introduction of extra fire hazards were introduced into the mix. The proposal was not achieving the City of Eugene density goal of six units per acre, and 94 percent of the buildable sites in the south hills was already developed. In the absence of adopted criteria, he hesitated to impose new criteria on the remaining 6 percent of the available sites. Ms. Kneeland said wildfire was a known potential hazard and should be carefully scrutinized. Some of the land may not be suitable for development if tradeoffs were constantly identified. She iterated that the burden was on the applicant to prove that the riskier choice should be selected. Mr. McCown asked if the scrutiny was merited if it had not been codified through criteria. The document in place allowed and directed Commissioners, but the Planning Commission had not made the step to require codification. The Commission was not erring on the side of danger but rather on the side following the standards that had been practiced for decades. The applicant had not been presented a standard of meeting the Eugene/Springfield Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The applicant’s burden of proof in the appeal was to say to what they had done with the Fire Marshal, what had been in other similar developments, and what had occurred in similar developments and with roofing materials. These possibly exceeded currently adopted standards. The Planning Commission could not require the applicant to meet a higher standard. Mr. Hledik called the question and iterated the motion on the table: Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to tentatively find that the Hearings Official erred in her findings based on the analysis in the March 9, 2007 memorandum. The motion passed 6:1, with Ms. Kneeland voting in opposition. • Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error: The Hearings Official incorrectly concluded the evidence submitted by Applicant’s engineering geologist did not demonstrate the Applicant can construct road improvements within the proposed areas of impact. Ms. Hansen said there were two criteria related to the Second Assignment of Error, Eugene Code (EC) 9.8320(2) and EC 9.8320(6), and directed Planning Commissioners to the policy in the agenda packet under which the Hearings Official made findings. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. McNeel explained the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) Permits program. He said under PEPI agreements all work was closely monitored by Public Works staff, including completion of a construction agreement, collection of a contractor’s MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 3 bond to assure work would be completed according to City standards. Under the PEPI for this PUD, the only requirement was installation of a wastewater system in the roadway that would be closely monitored and inspected by City staff, as it was the only public improvement proposed. Other work, consisting of private improvements, including retaining wall systems, actual roadwork, and cut and fill slopes, was self-certified by the engineer that designed the roadway, and would not be inspected by the City. Responding to Mr. McCown, Mr. McNeel said typically on a private roadway, the City of Eugene did not want to incur additional liability by reviewing the plans and/or inspecting the roads. As long as the developer met the applicable codes, there was no reason for the roads to be public. They did not connect two public roadways and they met the connectivity standard with loops. He noted in the past the City had never taken on the responsibility of those agreements to actually conduct peer reviews or inspection work above and beyond that required. There had been a request by the PUD developer to consider such a review but the City Engineer had been adamant that the City would not perform that function. Mr. McNeel stated the standards applied to private roads were very similar to those applied to public roads, and must meet City standards in terms of the grade, width, depth, surface and foundation work. He said there would be a higher level of concern due to placement of public wastewater in the street than if it was a private road with no wastewater. There would be a higher level of scrutiny than normal for a private road because there was a public sewer in the roadway. Ms. Jerome said liability was a question surfacing through the courts because there were increasingly more people suing not only the developer but the entity that approved the PUDs. Whether or not the City of Eugene had a higher risk by looking or not looking could not be answered at this time. The Planning Commission had to make the most responsible decision it could. In response to Mr. Carroll’s question regarding condition six, Ms. Jerome said the criterion used to impose this condition was not under appeal. Mr. Lawless said the roadway system under private development was for the sole benefit of the homeowners in the PUD, and they were the owners of that private system. What they were buying in the self-certification process was their guarantee of the level of quality and final condition of the roadway for private, not public use. In response to Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Lawless said it was important to differentiate the discussion of who was inspecting what on whose behalf and for what purpose. It was purely for a group of homeowners who were purchasing the roadway system, within the self-certified engineering parameters, to the extent that public scrutiny was involved, but not to the extent that public systems were scrutinized for the public good. Mr. Belcher opined it was a lot to ask homeowners to see the inspection standards of the roads they drove to get to their property. He added if the roads failed, they would not necessarily stay within the confines of the subdivision, and could considerably damage homes outside of the subdivision. Mr. Lawless stated the homeowners bought all of the private improvements when they purchased the house. In response to Mr. Duncan, Mr. McNeel said the applicant would build a wastewater system to public standards in the public utility right-of-way easement, which would also house the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) water line. Mr. McNeel added there was a warranty period on MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 4 all PEPI improvements of at least one year, during which time, the City would monitor the system, with the premise that a catastrophic failure would occur in the first year. After one year, any failure would be the obligation of the City of Eugene to repair. Responding to Mr. Hledik, Mr. McNeel said generally for projects such as bridges, the design process typically required borings. However, PUDs did not typically require borings but used test pits instead. Ms. Jerome said it would be helpful if the Planning Commission provided an interpretation of what it meant to have adequate review of both on-site and off-site impacts, which it then should apply to the facts in the record. Ms. Jerome, in response to Mr. Carroll, said what the Planning Commission needed to determine with respect to any criterion from a legal standpoint was whether the applicant had shown that the criterion would be met, or could feasibly be met. Often when addressing whether or not criterion could feasibly be met, a decision making body would impose conditions to ensure that it happened. In situations such as the one before the Commission, the tendency was to look toward feasibility opposed to more quantifiable measures. Mr. Belcher explained his understanding of the record: • The applicant submitted their initial application and acknowledged there was slipping occurring along Dillard Road. The applicant’s interpretation was that slipping was occurring by the filling of the land to produce Dillard Road, and there was not a significant land flow. The opponents hired a consultant who provided LIDR information that both the applicant and the opponents agreed indicated there were land slides occurring on the site. The applicant realized that to protect the development, they needed to find out how far down it was to the bedrock to design a sufficient structure to deal with it. The applicant tried to bring on site boring instruments to do that work and was prevented from doing so by the opponents pointing out that in this point in the process because of the wetlands, the applicant could not put boring machines on the property. The applicant then said he could complete the process without the borings and was asking the Planning Commission to take that on faith without knowing how far down it was to bedrock. This would not allow the Planning Commission to be reasonably certain that the process could succeed. • The applicant proposed construction of a feature that opened up a significant space in the side of the hill, above which there were water features they were trying to protect. Mr. Belcher saw no analysis addressing whether the water features could maintain their hydrologic integrity. • For these two reasons, Mr. Belcher felt the Planning Commission did not have sufficient evidence about the geotechnical and hydrologic features to allow the project to move forward. Mr. Hledik did not believe the engineering geologist was asking the Planning Commission to accept things on faith. In the rebuttal, the geologist admitted borings in addition to those in the Squire report needed to be made and he was prepared to make those prior to final design. As Mr. Hledik interpreted the geologist’s report, despite the LIDR and review by two other engineering geologists, they did not present anything to the developer that told him conceptually he could not do what he outlined while staying within the parameters of the tree fencing. The geologist was confident he could engineer the work with completion of the borings before final design. Responding to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Jerome said the Planning Commission had been appointed to MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 5 make a decision because it was felt they were reasonable people, and reasonable minds may differ. LUBA would look at the Planning Commission decision and determine if a reasonable person, based upon the evidence in the record, would find that there was substantial evidence to support the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Duncan asked if the Planning Commission sided with the applicant and the applicant was allowed to do the additional testing which subsequently demonstrated that the project could not move forward as anticipated, would the application be voided? Ms. Jerome said if the Planning Commission was heading in a direction that would reverse the Hearings Official, staff would need to understand the Commissioners’ concerns well enough to draft conditions to make sure the application would not receive additional approvals to move forward and would likely need to reapply. Mr. Nystrom added if the conditions could not be met in the final PUD, the process would end. He said while phasing of PUDs could take place, the fundamental issues that made the entire project work needed to be addressed up front to ensure that not only the initial but all subsequent phases could take place. Ms. Jerome said the public involvement process could not be shortchanged through conditions of approval. Those conditions could not have a later discretionary element where staff determined whether the condition had been met and having to exercise judgment. Exercising judgment in the developments, there would have to be opportunity for public involvement. She said if questions rose to the level of additional study and evaluation of that study, she could not comfortably draft conditions of approval. In response to Mr. Lawless, Ms. Hansen said the final PUD would require substantial conformance with the tentative PUD. Mr. Nystrom the nature of the decisions would be the guideposts for establishing the parameters of substantial conformance. Mr. Carroll expressed discomfort with the lack of certainty regarding potential technical solutions and their effects. The Hearings Official found the opponents’ testimony credible enough to determine that the applicant did not meet the standard. He found the testimony equally credible on both sides regarding the engineering issues. The opponent testimony pointed out some factual inconsistencies and made some points about the potential engineering issues that there was no factual basis on which to deny. He credited the applicant for preserving natural resources. Within the proposed limits, although not an issue on appeal, it was unclear how the true protection limits and the proposed limits put forward by the applicant, were what the Planning Commission should be looking at given the huge impact roadways had on developments. He questioned if the road limits were sufficient when determining whether to dig up soil. He did not find there was sufficient evidence to show that the Hearings Official erred. Mr. Hledik said despite the fact the tentative PUD standard was test pits, recognizing borings were necessary, the applicant had attempted to do borings, but the EC stopped that process. The Hearings Official, who had the authority to allow an applicant to do borings but did not, recommended that should the Planning Commission could overturn the Hearings Official’s decision, the Commission direct the applicant to do borings. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 6 Looking at the conditions imposed, particularly condition 1 requiring more site specific geotechnical analysis, Mr. Hledik read from the January 11, 2007 letter from Shannon and Wilson to Mr. Hoyt. Mr. Hledik opined the Planning Commission could enhance condition 1 based on requiring borings to refine the sheer key mitigation concept, holding the engineer and applicant to being able to engineer and design a plan that stayed within the prescribed impact area, including additional language as needed. He said the applicant had gone beyond the standard and was willing to go further to provide additional assurances. Mr. Belcher said the applicant had not submitted what was needed to illustrate the feasibility of the project by demonstrating that they could engineer a satisfactory solution to the landslide concerns. Ms. Kneeland said it appeared the Planning Commission was attempting to find a way to address conditions which was appropriate if the feasibility question was met first. She asserted the Commission did not have enough information to know, and addressing conditions of approval were irrelevant. Mr. McCown said although the opponents used LIDR which provided wonderful information, the standard was borings and the applicant was not allowed to do the borings. The Commission could make doing the borings a condition which the applicant had indicated a willingness to do so. By denying the applicant the opportunity to show the project was feasible, the Commission was applying a higher standard than had been required for other PUDs. Mr. Duncan said there was considerable discussion at the public hearing about standard of care. It appeared that whatever the City of Eugene had determined was the standard of care in previous PUDs seemed to be elevated to a higher standard of care depending upon the characteristics and location of the property. This was a growing process that provided useful information. However, the applicant had provided more than would have been expected. Furthermore, the opponents claimed more information was necessary, and the applicant had agreed to provide that information as they learned more about the land and its characteristics. Mr. Duncan said while it was prudent to expect the applicant to do that, it was difficult to continuously ask the applicant to have every answer before they had an opportunity to explore potential problems that could arise. Mr. Hledik said one of the reports indicated that the failures on Dillard Road were due to the embankment failure consisting of manmade structural fill that the road sat on rather than based upon the underlying geologic formation. The geologist said the underlying geologic formation was tens of thousands of years old and although soil creep was evident, it was a slow moving downward process rather than a catastrophic landslide condition. Thus, Dillard Road was an embankment failure rather than geologic failure. To expect the developer to do a design at this point in time where the Fire Marshal directed the developer to widen the road, and to expect the developer to do borings when the Hearings Official and the Planning Commission might impose conditions that would change the design was an unrealistic and unwarranted level of requirement to place on anyone attempting to complete a PUD. The developer already had to address over 30 conditions in the final PUD. It was unreasonable to expect the developer to incur additional expenditures up front for tentative approval. Mr. Belcher viewed the situation differently. The applicant failed to see a significant geotechnical hazard, and misinterpreted the available data. The opponent had gone to great expense and effort to demonstrate there was a significant geological hazard on the site. The applicant had been playing catch up and asked the Planning Commission to trust that they would take care of the problem in a timely manner. It was the responsibility of the Commission to MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 7 exercise due diligence and determine that the applicant had not responded adequately to the opponents’ concerns. Until the applicant did respond adequately, the Planning Commission could not move forward. Ms. Kneeland averred she was not comfortable that there was not sufficient information to demonstrate that the applicant could ensure the safety of the development. It would be irresponsible to move forward without more information. While he agreed that the level of review completed by the applicant was substantial and could not be discounted, RM. Belcher stated that having a question about one aspect was not the same as requiring a high level of evidence that was unfair. He saw nothing that would justify overturning the Hearings Official’s decision. Mr. Belcher said although the applicant had acknowledged there were problems they did not know existed when they started the process, but they have not shown sufficient evidence that they could deal with the problems, but asked to be trusted that they would do the right thing. Ms. Jerome said the applicable statute said if reasonable conditions could be imposed to get to yes, those conditions needed to be imposed. She said a condition was not reasonable if it involved discretion. Mr. McCown asked if a condition requiring borings was reasonable, and asked how that could be achieved without allowing for discretion. He further asked if the Commission did not approve with conditions that required borings, how would borings be done when the code did not allow for it. Ms. Hansen said the borings could be done in the absence of an active application. Ms. Kneeland said she was not convinced the borings would demonstrate that the project was feasible. Mr. Hledik iterated test pits rather than borings were the typical standard for demonstrating feasibility. The EC precluded the applicant from making soil borings. He concluded soil borings were not necessary to determine feasibility. Asking if there was enough information in the record to determine the proposed mitigations were feasible, and that the related cut and fill activity could be contained in the proposed limits, he agreed that the applicant may not have anticipated and answered all of the geologic questions on the initial application. He added the opponents did a stellar job of using LIDR and other techniques to raise questions. But time after time in all of the responses, the applicant’s engineer responded to all new information provided in the evolving process, and maintained the position that based upon the available information, the applicant could do what they claimed they could do. The applicant was asking for an opportunity to go to design to illustrate they could abide by the conditions imposed. There was enough information to show that the mitigations were feasible and was prepared to enhance condition 1 to strengthen the requirements. Mr. McCown asked what would happen to the application if post approval borings brought forth information that precluded the ability to complete the project as submitted, requiring major alterations to the original PUD design. Ms. Hansen said either a modification that was a Planning Director decision and did not require a public hearing, could be required, or a new PUD process would be required. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Lawless said it would be unreasonable to require a thorough, final engineering result, and felt there were adequate safeguards in place. Mr. Belcher said the applicant had failed to demonstrate feasibility at the time of the application and tried to catch up. He said the applicant needed to start over. Ms. Jerome said the findings she would draft would address two criteria: • Was there adequate review of both onsite and offsite impacts. • Did they show the PUD would not be a significant risk to public health and safety. Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to uphold the Hearings Official denial of the application based on the Second Assignment of Error. Mr. Lawless said he appreciated all of the work done by both the applicant and opposition, adding there would always be new information. He was convinced there was enough information to demonstrate feasibility and would oppose the motion. Mr. Hledik said there was a difference between feasible and constructible. Tentative approval with conditions would allow moving to final design. He would oppose the motion. Mr. Duncan said the process pointed out the more difficult times ahead in recognizing the sites available for development in Eugene would continue to be more and more challenging. It may be necessary to define better ways to define a process that did not allow applicants or opponents to have large gray areas that needed to be discussed when there was no avenue to publicly discuss those areas before review processes occurred. He said he would oppose the motion because an enormous amount of information had been provided and the applicant had agreed to act in good faith to help resolve the issues. There was sufficient information to support the applicant’s idea that they could feasibly construct a solution. Mr. Belcher said the applicant failed to demonstrate technical feasibility on the geotechnical issue and had failed to catch the issue. The opponents went to great expense and effort to demonstrate the project was not feasible. He would support the motion. Mr. McCown said it was not possible to impose conditions to adequately address his concerns. The motion passed 4:3, with Mr. Duncan, Mr. Hledik and Mr. Lawless voting in opposition. Ms. Jerome summarized the staff understanding of the Planning Commission’s conclusions and said draft language would be circulated to Planning Commissioners. She said the March 26, 2007 meeting date should be held in the event the Commissioners needed to meet to discuss the issue. She cautioned the Commissioners to not deliberate the issue on email. • Appeal Issue One: The Hearings Official failed to properly evaluate the application. The Planning Commission would reverse the Hearings Official’s decision. Staff would revise the findings throughout the Hearings Official’s decision to address all the standards and criteria in place on September 26, 2005, and only those standards and criteria. Staff would bring back to the Commission its findings on the Metro Plan, and other applicable policies for incorporation into a decision for the Commission’s MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 9  consideration. • Appeal Issue Three: The Planning Commission would reverse the Hearings Official’s determination that the application did not respond to opponents’ comments concerning wildfire. Additionally, staff would revise the findings to explain that the applicant did show that wildfire concerns could be adequately addressed. • Appeal Issue Two: The Planning Commission would affirm the Hearings Official’s decision, and staff would modify her decision to provide an interpretation to include additional findings reflecting the Commission’s deliberations. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:40 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\pc070319.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 19, 2007 Page 10