Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street April 24, 2007 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Anne Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE: McKenzie Willamette (MA 06-1, RA 06-1, Z 06-8) Assessor’s Map: 17-03-07-00 Tax Lots: 305 and 306 (northern portion) Location: 3790 North Delta Highway, northwest corner of North Delta Highway and Ayres Road Applicant: McKenzie Willamette Medical Center (MWMC) Property Owners: Eric and Debbie Jeffries/River Ridge LTD Representative: Rick Satre, Satre Associates P.C. Lead City Staff: Alissa Hansen, Senior Planner (541) 682-5508 Nature of the Requests Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 06-1) to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Land Use diagram from a designation of Parks and Open Space to a designation of Commercial for the subject property. Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-1) to amend the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) land use diagram from a designation of Parks and Open Space to a designation of Commercial for the subject property and amend the text by adding a policy to limit the use of the subject property to hospital/medical. Zone Change: (City file Z 06-8) to rezone the subject property from R-1 Low Density Residential with /SR Site Review overlay to C-2 Community Commercial with /SR Site Review overlay. Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to leave the record open for 30 days. Mr. McCown and Mr. Belcher accepted the proposed language revising the motion, leaving the record open to 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 1  Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street April 24, 2007 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Anne Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission at 5:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE: McKenzie Willamette (MA 06-1, RA 06-1, Z 06-8) Assessor’s Map: 17-03-07-00 Tax Lots: 305 and 306 (northern portion) Location: 3790 North Delta Highway, northwest corner of North Delta Highway and Ayres Road Applicant: McKenzie Willamette Medical Center (MWMC) Property Owners: Eric and Debbie Jeffries/River Ridge LTD Representative: Rick Satre, Satre Associates P.C. Lead City Staff: Alissa Hansen, Senior Planner (541) 682-5508 Nature of the Requests Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 06-1) to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Land Use diagram from a designation of Parks and Open Space to a designation of Commercial for the subject property. Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-1) to amend the Willakenzie Area Plan land use diagram from a designation of Parks and Open Space to a designation of Commercial for the subject property and amend the text by adding a policy to limit the use of the subject property to hospital/medical. Zone Change: (City file Z 06-8) to rezone the subject property from R-1 Low Density MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 1 Residential with /SR Site Review overlay to C-2 Community Commercial with /SR Site Review overlay. Planning Commissioners introduced themselves. Mr. Duncan stated the purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan Amendment, refinement plan amendment and zone change. He said the Planning Commission would deliberate on the issue at a future date and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would make the final decision at the local level. Mr. Duncan asked that the meeting be orderly and respectful to all present. He asked members of the public to contain their comments to testimony at the podium. Members of the public could not ask questions of commissioners or staff. Mr. Duncan explained how the public hearing would be conducted. The public hearing must allow for all opinions to be expressed. The commission would listen carefully to all people offering testimony. Mr. Duncan explained that procedures for the meeting. This was a quasi-judicial hearing and there were state laws and local codes that needed to be followed. The purpose of the hearing was to receive relevant testimony on the three proposals before the commission. All testimony should be directed to relevant criteria. The Planning Commission was required to conduct the public hearing according to the statutory procedures for quasi-judicial hearings, and others set forth in Eugene Code and state law. He emphasized testimony not relevant to the criteria would not be considered. Mr. Duncan said both the applicant and organized opposition had agreed to a 30 minute time limit to present their testimony, followed by a 20 minute time limit for applicant rebuttal. Others wishing to testify would be limited to three minutes. Speakers were encouraged to submit written testimony. He further explained that in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in the Eugene Code and state law, the failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the other parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precluded an appeal based on that issue. The Planning Commission was required to conduct the public hearing according to the statutory procedures for quasi-judicial hearings, and others set forth in Eugene Code 9.7065 through 9.7095. Mr. Duncan asked Planning Commissioners to disclose any ex parte contacts, conflicts of interests, biases, or challenges to impartiality. Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, Duncan, Kneeland, Lawless and McCown had nothing to disclose. Mr. Hledik stated he had lived and worked in this part of town for 28 years. He and his wife owned a home in the area. He was employed by Wildish companies, and was acquainted with the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 2 current owners of the property at issue. Mr. Duncan asked Planning Commissioners to acknowledge any site visits. Commissioners Belcher and Kneeland had made no site visits. Commissioners Carroll, Duncan, Hledik, Lawless and McCown had visited the property on at least one occasion. Planning staff introduced themselves. Ms. Hansen offered the staff report. The purpose of the public hearing was to hear testimony on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan, amend the applicable refinement plan and approve a concurrent zone change for McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center (MWMC) for property owned by Eric and Debbie Jefferies/River Ridge LTD. The property subject to this request, identified as tax lots 305 and 306 (northern portion) of Assessor’s May 17-03-07-00, was a 29 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of North Delta Highway and Ayres Road and was within the Eugene city limits. Ms. Hansen stated that the applicants were requesting the following: 1. Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 06-1) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram from a designation of Parks and Open Space to a designation of Commercial 2. Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-1) to amend the Willakenzie Area Plan land use diagram from a designation of Parks/Open Space to a designation of Commercial and amend the text of the plan by adding a policy to limit the use of the subject property to hospital and medical. 3. Zone Change (City file Z 06-8) to rezone from the existing zoning of R-1 Low Density Residential with /SR Site Review overlay to C-2 Community Commercial with /SR Site Review overlay. The approval criteria from sections 9.7730(3), 9.8424 and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code were considered in staff’s evaluation of these proposals. Based on the available information and materials in the record, staff recommended approval of the proposal, subject to the conditions of approval identified in the staff report. Ms. Hansen said that testimony provided should be directed towards the relevant approval criteria, as the Planning Commission’s review will be focused entirely on whether or not the proposals comply with these approval criteria. EC 9.7730(3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following criteria shall be applied by the City Council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application: (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC); and (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. EC 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 3 The Planning Commission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the criteria set forth below, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall decide whether to act on the application. If the City Council decides to act, it shall approve, approve with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval, or approval with modifications shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following: (a) Statewide planning goals. (b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. (c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan. (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan. (b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. (c) New or amended community policies. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. (e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria. (1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. (2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinements plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. (3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in (a) EC 9.2150 commercial Zone siting Requirements. (5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the City to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years. Ms. Hansen said over 60 new pieces of testimony had been received after completion of the staff report and prior to the public hearing from the following which she submitted for inclusion in the public record. 1. Written testimony from O.E. and Louise Lroy, received April 16, 2007 2. Written testimony from Elizabeth Boram, received April 17, 2007 3. Written testimony from Carol McBrian, received April 17, 2007 4. Written testimony from Gail Galloway, received April 17, 2007 5. Written testimony from Diane Jones, received April 17, 2007 6. Written testimony from Thomas J. Repman, received April 17, 2007 7. Written testimony from Diane J. Lindley, received April 18, 2007 8. Written testimony from Dennis Lawrence, received April 18, 2007 9. Written testimony from Paul Wilson, received April 18, 2007 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 4  10. Written testimony from Michael Speth and Cynthia Speth, received April 18, 2007 11. Written testimony from Beverly Andrews, received April 18, 2007 12. Written testimony from Noonah Lee, received April 18, 2007 13. Written testimony from Dick Walker, received April 18, 2007 14. Written testimony from Muriel Kurtz, received April 19, 2007 15. Written testimony from Stanley Smith, received April 19, 2007 16. Written testimony from Kirk Engdall, received April 19, 2007 17. Written testimony from Tom Widmer, received April 19, 2007 18. Written testimony from Karen Alvarado, received April 19, 2007 19. Written testimony from BJ Helms, received April 19, 2007 20. Written testimony from (Not signed), received April 20, 2007 21. Written testimony from Elizabeth Terry Beyer, received April 20, 2007 22. Written testimony from Fred Felter, received April 21, 2007 23. Written testimony from John A. Mackey, MD, received April 22, 2007 24. Written testimony from Rich Olson, received April 22, 2007 25. Written testimony from William Van Vliet, received April 22, 2007 26. Written testimony from Greg Smalley, received April 22, 2007 27. Written testimony from Jane Thomas, received April 22, 2007 28. Written testimony from Betsy Ovitt, received April 22, 2007 29. Written testimony from Richard Abraham, MD, received April 22, 2007 30. Written testimony from Wallace D. Carothers, received April 23, 2007 31. Written testimony from Roger Tami, received April 23, 2007 32. Written testimony from Letty W. Morgan, received April 23, 2007 33. Written testimony from Alexander K. Morley, MD, received April 23, 2007 34. Written testimony from Roz Slovic, received April 23, 2007 35. Written testimony from Jeff Seldom, received April 23, 2007 36. Written testimony from Gail Winterman, received April 23, 2007 37. Written testimony from Robert Lundgreen, received April 23, 2007 38. Written testimony from Roger Lyseng, received April 23, 2007 39. Written testimony from Mike Phillips, received April 23, 2007 40. Written testimony from Graham H. Lewis, received April 23, 2007 41. Written testimony from Andy Monticelli, received April 23, 2007 42. Written testimony from Heidi Sachet and Paul A. Sachet, received April 23, 2007 43. Written testimony from Marc Schnapper, MD, received April 23, 2007 44. Written testimony from Rita Stafford, received April 23, 2007 45. Written testimony from Colleen Donnelly, received April 23, 2007 46. Written testimony from Judie Borg, received April 23, 2007 47. Written testimony from Terry McGee, received April 23, 2007 48. Written testimony from Jill Ritchie, received April 23, 2007 49. Written testimony from Ronald B and Gloria C. Duber, received April 23, 2007 50. Written testimony from Craig Skortman, received April 23, 2007 51. Written testimony from T. Louise Anderson, received April 23, 2007 52. Written testimony from Rich Dohemann, received April 24, 2007 53. Written testimony from Gayle & Pat Ware, received April 24, 2007 54. Written testimony from Jeff Bandow, received April 24, 2007 55. Written testimony from Warren Logan, received April 24, 2007 56. Written testimony from Gail Phillips, received April 24, 2007 57. Written testimony from Judi Baumgarner, received April 24, 2007 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 5  58. Written testimony from Art Willey, MD, received April 24, 2007 59. Written testimony from Gary and Anne Millhollen, received April 24, 2007 60. Written testimony from Robert Voss, received April 24, 2007 61. Written testimony from Henry Bretthauer, received April 24, 2007 Ms. Hansen submitted written comments from the City of Eugene Fire and Emergency Services Department for inclusion in the record. Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing and asked for public testimony from the appellant and others in support of the appeal. Maureen Cate, 1460 G Street, Springfield, identified herself as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of McKenzie Willamette Medical Center (MWMC). She spoke as a representative of 729 employees of MWMC and as a new member of the community. She found members of the community to be welcoming and warm, and the community an incredible place to live. Ms. Cate said the proposed facility had been in the planning stages since 2003, during which time dozens of possible locations had been studied, and close to $4 million had been spent on the process of identifying the site and more recently on the state and local regulatory requirements to build a new medical center at Delta Ridge. MWMC had held over a dozen community open houses, consulted with traffic planners, and City of Eugene and Lane County staff in moving forward to construction of a facility to serve generations to come. MWMC was approaching the project with the desire to build a medical facility that would be a vital part of the community. The current hospital was over 50 years old, and although over $16 million had recently been invested in new equipment and facility improvements, it was not sufficient to keep up with demands of community health care and the needs of the local medical community. Local doctors who worked in partnership with MWMC were committed to a new MWMC, but they would not wait forever. In order to stay in existence, serve the community, and maintain quality of care and family wage jobs, a new facility was needed now. After investing millions of dollars and several years looking for a site that met community requirements and MWMC needs, the Delta Ridge site was optimal. To remain a viable hospital, MWMC absolutely needed to relocate to Delta Ridge. Ms. Cate acknowledged that the site was not without controversy. Traffic issues needed to be addressed with or without a hospital at the site. Residents were concerned about quality of life issues. Others were disappointed that a different site had not been chosen. MWMC was listening to neighbors concerns related to design, siting and traffic mitigation. Fifteen months were spent addressing all of the State of Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) traffic requirements, and MWMC was prepared to fully fund, with no public tax dollars, $12.8 million in ODOT approved traffic solution. MWMC had met with emergency responders to ensure the facility plans met their needs. A design committee consisting of neighbors and others had been established to ensure their concerns and questions were understood. Ms. Cate the Delta Ridge site worked well for a community hospital because it offered easy access to the River Bend site via the Beltline Highway. Both sites were almost an equi-distance apart compared to the current McKenzie Willamette Hospital and Peace Health Medical Center Hilliard Street site. This was a critical concern for the 500 physicians and allied professionals practicing at both hospitals, not only for convenience, but also to allow them to respond quickly to the needs of their patients in different locations. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Cate acknowledged the representatives from the North Delta Neighbors. She assured them that given the opportunity, MWMC intended to be an exemplary neighbor and responsive to their concerns now and in the future. Their input had helped understand what MWMC needed to do to fit into the neighborhood and had changed the design of the proposed medical center. She thanked the members of the Planning Commission and others who had taken time to participate in the public hearing. Rick Satre, 132 East Broadway, spoke as the applicant’s representative. He offered a PowerPoint presentation, a digital copy of which was submitted for inclusion in the public record. Mr. Satre submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. The PowerPoint presentation consisted of three slides: • Slide 1: An air photo from 2004 of the north central area of Eugene, including the site of the proposed MWMC. • Slide 2: A closer view of the proposed 29-acre MWMC site. • Slide 3: The proposed hospital and medical office building located on the site. Mr. Satre said MWMC was asking for permission to build a hospital in Eugene. Although hospitals were not permitted outright in any plan or zone designation in Eugene, that could be conditionally permitted on commercially designated and zoned land. MWMC was asking for approval limiting the use to hospital and associated medical activities through a publicly recorded restrictive covenant. The commercial approval would be rescinded should the hospital not be constructed. Mr. Satre stated MWMC had demonstrated compliance with applicable criteria that the plan amendments were consistent with Statewide Planning Goals, would not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent, and would remain consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and remaining portions of the refinement plan. He added that the zone change was consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable refinements plans, and consisted of uses and densities that could be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. MWMC believed, and the City of Eugene and state reviewing agencies (ODOT, State Land Conservation and Development Department (DLCD)) concurred that compliance had been demonstrated. Mr. Satre said Eugene City Council resolution 4778 said the City Council of Eugene found that the City Council supported and welcomed the siting of a major hospital anywhere in the city. He said the City Council reinforced this perspective with a Priority Issue in 2006 that stated “to facilitate development of a full service hospital in Eugene.” On March 1, 2006, Eugene City Manager Dennis Taylor, with the approval of the City Council, signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the MWMC, which reiterated the council’s intent to have a prioritized location of a full service hospital in Eugene as important to the health, safety and welfare to the city and its residents. Chris Clemow, 1515 Southeast Water Street, Portland, Oregon, identified himself as a transportation engineer and the applicant’s representative. As part of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) preparation analysis, Mr. Clemow met with City of Eugene, Lane County and ODOT staff over a 16 month period to develop transportation solutions that worked for MWMC and long term solutions that worked for the community. The agencies had evaluated the MWMC MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 7 proposed improvements that resulted in a recommendation of approval from ODOT and City of Eugene, supporting the MWMC assertion that the proposed $12.8 million of improvements met the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements. The work completed for the analysis far exceeded that necessary to meet TPR requirements to address the plan amendment and zone change application under consideration. The analysis also met the requirements for a specific development application and a site development. The application and analysis would meet operating standards when the medical center opened in 2010 through 2025. The TPR also required the analysis to acknowledge planned and funded projects identified in the adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP), TransPlan for the City of Eugene, and to ensure that the proposed mitigation fits with the TSP projects. As identified in the analysis, a substantial amount of infrastructure improvements were proposed to meet the land use requirements. It was necessary for MWMC to construct a significant amount of improvements a majority of which were to the Delta/Beltline interchange and Beltline Highway. The Delta/Beltline interchange was designed in the 1960’s and was outdated. While improvements were not currently planned for the interchange, ODOT was planning a Beltline Highway corridor study. Prior to MWMC’s efforts, there was no agreement between the agencies regarding the specific nature of the improvements. The lack of agreement had resulted in projects not being constructed in the interchange area. After 16 months of effort by MWMC and agency staff, a set of improvements had been developed that could be agreed on by all parties. Additionally, the MWMC improvements fit with the future planned improvements identified by the agencies, and those improvements had been integrated into the planning effort. He offered a PowerPoint presentation that highlighted the proposed improvements to support the MWMC at Delta Ridge. Maureen Cate, summarized the MWMC presentation. She said MWMC welcomed the process and was here to answer any questions about the application. She said MWMC was owned by several partners: Triad Hospitals, Cascade Health Solutions, and Oregon Medical Group. One of those partners, Triad Hospitals was merging with Community Health Systems, which would result in the largest operator of acute care hospitals in the United States. Because the transaction was regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), there was little she could say about the transaction. As the new CEO of MWMC, she wanted to be sure this was the best site and the best decision. MWMC was committed to this site and this process, and felt the site worked for a community hospital. MWMC had spent $4 million to date and was committed to fully funding the $12.8 million in traffic improvements previously iterated. This meant no tax dollars would be spent to fund the improvements. Consideration of any other site at this point was not an option. Physicians had indicated they were not willing to support MWMC without definitive plans for replacement of the existing facility. The Delta Ridge site was chosen because it was large enough to support future expansion, it was located within the UGB on a major transportation system, it was accessible from the east, south, and west, was not located in the 100 or 500 year flood plains. It was supported by physicians who wanted to practice at both facilities. It was offered by willing sellers at an affordable price. It was “shovel ready”, and no condemnation was needed to remove existing businesses or homes. It was more than 300 feet from the nearest residential neighborhood and surrounded by lush, green acreage, supporting a healing environment. The request included a 148 bed full service hospital with capacity to expand to 200 beds, and a 100,000 square foot medical office building to provide ancillary medical services, an investment of almost $250,000,000. Ms. Cate submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Mr. Duncan called for questions from the commission. There were no questions. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Duncan announced that the McNutt Room had been opened to provide additional seating for public hearing attendees. Mr. Duncan called for testimony in support of the application. State Representative Chris Edwards, Lobelia Avenue, represented Oregon House District 14, West Eugene and Santa Clara. He supported having two independent, viable hospitals operating in Lane County that would allow for basic choice as long as traffic concerns of his constituents were adequately addressed. He supported the proposed Delta Ridge location. The transportation mitigation plan submitted by MWMC and approved by ODOT appeared to improve traffic flow at Beltline Road and the Delta Highway. Construction related and hospital jobs would be positive for the local economy and contribute to the tax base. Larry Mills, 24579 Ormond Road, Elmira, was the president of the MWMC hospital auxiliary, but was speaking only on his own behalf. He supported approval of the request because the area needed two viable hospitals. Volunteers liked the MWMC staff, the facility and administrators, and the manner in which they treated their patients. Leroy Marney, 3460 Avalon Street, spoke in support of the request as a field representative of the local Laborers’ union in Eugene and Springfield. Representing over 800 union construction and craft laborers, he said the owners had agreed to use contractors that were responsive to the community by providing apprenticeship programs, good family wage jobs with family health insurance and retirement benefits, which provided cornerstones to the sustainability of the whole community. Patrick Smith, 5035 Barger Drive, spoke in support of the new hospital. MWMC has been a good partner with the community in providing living wage jobs and had committed to doing so in the future, beginning with the construction phase. Cheryl Boyum, 1414 Victoria Way, testified in support of the request as a member of the community and as CEO of Cascade Health Solutions. Two hospitals provided choice, increased access to health care services, and provided competition that helped manage rising health care costs for employers and patients. The proposed location provided excellent access and close access to River Bend for physicians who practiced at both hospitals. MWMC would continue to foster positive relationships with homeowners, churches and businesses as it had in the past. Approval of the request would be an investment in the current and future health care of the community. Maureen Weathers, 2650 Suzanne Way, spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors of Cascade Health Solutions. She read a letter dated April 22, 2007 into the record from the Board strongly encouraging the Planning Commission to support the proposed site for the MWMC, and submitted a written copy of the letter for inclusion in the record. Michael Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, spoke in support of the MWMC requests as good for the community and the residents. As one who worked extensively with the EC, he said the application met the approval criteria, was consistent with statewide planning goals, and Metro Plan and refinement plans in place. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 9 Dave Jewett, 854 Fairway View Drive, was a resident of the area of the proposed site and was one of several lawyers who had represented MWMC for 50 years. He was speaking on behalf of himself and not his firm. The continued existence of MWMC virtually guaranteed choice, competition and enough competition to meet the needs of local families. MWMC was partly owned and controlled by a locally owned non-profit organization. MWMC was committed to meeting the community benefit standard that all non-profit hospitals have to meet even though the entity itself was for profit. Dr. Zena Monji, 1403 F Street, Springfield, spoke in support of the MWMC application. Speaking as a practicing obstetrician, she said MWMC could not continue to operate in its 50 year old facility and must have a new location. She said most physicians in the Eugene/Springfield area supported a two-hospital system. From a physician perspective, for a two-hospital system to work, they needed to be within close proximity to provide efficient and competent coverage at both hospitals, especially at night and on weekends. The Delta Ridge site met the physician requirements of proximity and commutability, and was the physician site of choice. Traffic and growth were inevitable and MWMC had committed to spending over $12 million on road improvements. Most hospital traffic did not occur during the peak rush hour commute, with doctors and staff arriving before the morning commute and leaving after the evening commute. The new hospital was designed to be energy efficient, environmentally sound and esthetically pleasing. Physicians supported the location as it was within the UGB and near major transportation systems. Most importantly it provided patients a choice. She was one of eleven local obstetricians who gave her patients the option of delivering at MWMC or at Sacred Heart Medical Center (SHMC). Dr. Paul Chavin, 869 Fairway View Drive, expressed surprise that MWMC was being viewed as Goliath when it had always been viewed as David compared to SHMC. He spoke in support of the MWMC application, and the choice and options that two hospitals had traditionally provided patients. As a obstetrician, it was important for patients to have choice. He supported both hospitals in the community. Dr. Leo Cytrynbaum, 1200 Hilyard Street, would soon begin to provide patient care at MWMC, as an important part of the Eugene community. For years, physicians had relied on SHMC to take care of Eugene patients, but that was changing. With SHMC moving out of Eugene, there would be fewer beds in the new hospital, and the retrofitted Hilyard Street location would not provide surgeons. The emergency room would be staffed mainly by urgent care doctors and there would be no place to provide hospitalization for sick people. It was very important that the hospitals be close to each other because there were not enough doctors to fully staff two hospitals and it was not safe for sick patients when doctors had a long commute between hospitals. He supported the MWMC proposal to build a new and larger facility. Dr. Jay Chappell, 86270 Lorane Highway, was a member of cardiology physicians’ group that cared for patients at both MWMC and SHMC. He concurred with the statements of previous speakers. He expressed concern that the only cardiac care in the community was being moved to a relatively remote location from the main population center in north Springfield. He supported development of a second cardiology program at the Delta Ridge site, as centrally located with good access to River Bend. The proposal would provide an opportunity to have two phenomenal new health care campuses in the Eugene/Springfield area. The proximity to River Bend would MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 10 help alleviate the problems created by the nationwide shortage of doctors, nurses, allied health care professionals and administrators. Dr. John LeBow, 1755 Coburg Road, spoke in support of the MWMC proposal. There was a need for two hospitals in the community. The SHMC Hilyard Street site would not be adequate to serve the needs of the community when SHMC vacated to River Bend. The remaining services at the Hilyard would not serve as a hospital as it did not have surgical capabilities and there would be none for the SHMC Hilyard Street site. Assigning the designation of hospital to the SHMC Hilyard Street site was erroneous and would seriously blunt the Planning Commission’s perception of how Eugene’s health care needs would be met. The new locations of both SHMC and MWMC would work in a mutually complementary paradigm which would translate into better patient care. Mike Bradbury, 1214 Q Street, #5, Springfield, represented the construction craft laborers’ union, and spoke on behalf of MWMC as being a good steward in the community by offering family wage jobs in the construction crafts for the proposed project. The project would provide approximately one million construction hours, involving 200 construction personnel in various trades. MWMC had agreed to be a responsible owner and use a responsible contractor that would provide family wage jobs with family insurance and an opportunity to participate in retirement plans and apprenticeships. The family wage jobs were a cornerstone in the community. He recommended supporting the proposal to the City Council. Dr. Andrew Gilchrest, 1460 G Street, Springfield, was a hospitalist, or hospital based physician at MWMC. The role of the hospitalist team was to provide a physician presence at the hospital 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He fully supported the stated plan and goals offered by MWMC to have a state-of-the-art, patient-friendly, physician-friendly hospital at Delta Ridge. He focused his testimony on the proposed location providing access to two medical facilities and asked the Planning Commission to recommend MWMC’s application for approval. Dave Hauser, 2168 Elkhart Drive, represented the Eugene Chamber of Commerce (ECC). He said the ECC supported the request to amend the Metro Plan, applicable refinement plans and zoning change for MWMC. ECC’s 28 member local government affairs council had studied the project and met with hospital officials, staff and consultants several times over a two year period, to better understand the transportation and land use impacts associated with the proposed project. The ECC’s support came from the following areas: it met the medical needs of the region; the $200 million project meant a investment, family wage jobs, and an increased tax base for the area; state and local land use laws provided for an open, transparent process with clear criteria for making changes to land uses. MWMC had responsibly addressed those criteria and had every right to expect approval of the proposed changes. The ECC had maintained for many years that the Eugene/Springfield area did not have an adequate supply of land to meet the needs of a growing economy. The Delta Highway/Beltline Road interchange was in desperate need of improvements. This project was proposing something no one in Lane County had been able to do, develop tangible projects to make the intersection safer. Julia Munkvold, RN, MS, 1490 West 40th Avenue, was the Coordinator of the Nursing Program and CWE Coordinator, and was representing all of the health care programs at Lane Community College (LCC) School of Nursing. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the need for increasing the number of health care workers in Lane County. MWMC had been an excellent MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 11 community partner for the program and the program needed them to expand and grow to provide more clinical health care sites. Heath care could not be learned in the classroom, but needed to be implemented at bedside. There was already a shortage of clinical sites as LCC had made a commitment to increase the number of health care workers, especially in the nursing program. She recommended approval of the MWMC request. Annie Sakaguchi, 135 West 52nd Avenue, spoke as a master prepared, former nursing administrator, a Springfield business owner, and a Eugene resident. She supported the MWMC Delta Ridge site. She read from a prepared statement, a copy of which she submitted for inclusion in the record. Lonnie Bivins, 300 Country Club Road, representing the Lane Workforce Partnership, read from a prepared statement submitted by Chuck Forster, Executive Director of the Partnership, in support of MWMC’s land use request. She submitted a written copy of the testimony for inclusion in the record. Dan Campbell, 1016 Elkay Drive, agreed with previous speakers who spoke in support of the MWMC. He emphasized the importance of family wage construction jobs that would be generated by the project, family wage jobs that would be created at the medical facility, the proposed traffic flow improvements, and health care choices for the community. Gary Wildish, 2424 Quince Street, said it was important to protect the value of predictability. If people follow the rules and meet all of the requirements, they should be allowed to continue with their project. This was the case with MWMC. Traffic issues had arisen before in the community with other employers for mitigation measures had successfully implemented. With MWMC’s willingness to mitigate traffic issues, they will not be as bad as others suggest. He urged the Planning Commission to support the application and move forward with the project. Mr. Wildish stated he was not associated with the Wildish companies. Dr. Denise Waugh, 3814 Mirror Pond Way, was an emergency room physician at MWMC. She thought there were few places where the hospital could site itself and had spent a lot of time, money and effort to identify an appropriate location. As the first physician responder at the Thurston High School shooting, she iterated that with approximately 30, many critically wounded people, she was able to ensure that one-half of the critically injured were transported to MWMC and one-half transported to SHMC. The community of physicians acted admirably and was able to minimize losses because of the proximity to both medical facilities. Change was always frightening to everyone, and the Delta area neighbors were responding emotionally to a normal fear of what might happen. Debbie Jeffries, 3790 North Delta Highway, represented herself and her husband, Rick Jeffries, and River Ridge, Ltd. She spoke in support of the proposed amendments and zone change application for MWMC. Responding to some concerns expressed in the community, she said the subject parcel was not on the Willamette River, had no river frontage, and could be accessed by Ayres Road and Delta Highway. The subject property was not in the 100 or 500 flood plains. The RiverRidge Golf Complex currently included approximately 150 acres. The proposed project would leave a significant portion in golf use. She noted the designation did not prohibit commercial development and the CC&Rs for the Ashley Estates Subdivision adjacent to the golf MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 12 course property stated a golf course may be developed, but they did not guarantee existence or continuance of a golf course. She iterated written testimony previously entered into the record. The Planning Commission took at break from 6:50 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Mr. Duncan called for testimony neither in support of nor in opposition to the application. Andy Vobora, P.O. Box 7070, Eugene, Director of Service Planning, Accessibility and Marketing at Lane Transit District (LTD), provided background comments regarding meetings LTD staff had held with MWMC staff and consultants. From a transit perspective, any sizeable transit development was best located along existing transit corridors. However, this could not always be accommodated, due to limited land in the area. A shift was occurring as organzations such as Symantec, Royal Caribbean, and the SHMC moved out to the periphery. Those moves put pressure on services like public transit, and LTD recognized that those moves would reshape existing bus services in the future because there were not enough resources to serve those areas well. MWMC staff had asked good questions and expressed interest in employee group pass programs, and in purchasing bus service. The results of three or four meetings over the last couple of years had been beneficial for both sides, helping LTD staff to understand the demand that could be generated at the proposed location. The meetings had been beneficial in helping MWMC to understand what bus services existed within the vicinity of the Delta Ridge site, and to understand the cost of purchased bus service, whether it was deviations from the existing service or point-to-point service purchased from a park and ride in the community. LTD was happy to have an opportunity to speak with developers to discuss proposed site plans, noting that MWMC had been responsive to LTD interests and desires in accommodating bus movements and bus stops in the site plan. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Vobora said LTD had no current plans to provide service to the site, since a development plan had not been approved. LTD, in its five-year transportation development plan, would consider those needs through its annual plan evaluation process. Randy Prince, 2534 Kincaid Street, said Goal 7 compliance, in conjunction with Eugene/Springfield Hazard Mitigation Plan adopted by the cities of Eugene and Springfield in 2002, identified major risk from failure of Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) dams due to earthquake risks. Both the MWMC and SHMC sites were in the inundation zones of major upstream reservoirs. This was new information since planning documents were developed and put in place. In light of Goal 7, he asked: if the state had provided an inventory of newly identified hazards; and, if the local authorities were relieved of evaluating the hazards if the information had not been provided. He asked if the implementation guidelines in section 2 of Goal 7 stood apart or if they were dependent on other criteria, and if high hazard projects needed to be subject to thorough studies. Mr. Duncan called for testimony in opposition to the application. Ann Simas, 3635 Waterbrook Way, represented North Delta Neighbors (NDN). Regarding Goal 1, she said the quasi-judicial process contradicted Goal 1, which stated, “The general public should have the opportunity to review and make recommendations on proposed changes in comprehensive land use plans prior to the public hearing public process to formally consider the proposed changes. The governing body should clearly state the mechanism through which the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 13 citizens would receive a response from the policy makers.” She said if she if she could not talk to elected officials and decision makers, who was left to talk to. Ms. Simas said although MWMC claimed it had involved citizens in the process, it had not. Although MWMC held several open houses, citizens were told what was going on rather than asked for input. When NDN were asked to be included in the MWMC design advisory committee, they were advised by the MWMC CEO that the meetings were not public, although government first responders attended. The NDN believed the MWMC application did not comply with Goal 1. Regarding Goal 2, Land Use Planning, she said no where in the process had MWMC been required to account for the full build out of the North Delta property. This was the most important and ignored aspect of the proposal. One of the criteria MWMC had to meet in the certificate of need process was that they had room to expand. The only way this could happen would be if MWMC purchased other property or worked with other developers to do so. The MWMC would have under 500,000 square feet on about 29 acres which was not sufficient land to operate a medical complex and ancillary businesses. MWMC should be required to consider those ancillary developments, and by doing so, would not be in compliance with Goal 2. Regarding Goal 6, Natural Disasters and Hazards, quoting from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) internet web site regarding the 100 and 500 year flood plains, she said an uncommonly big flood could occur any year. She had photographs showing floods in the project area in 1964. Floods would preclude access and egress to the proposed site. She said NDN did not believe that MWMC’s application complied with Goal 6. Regarding Goal 12, Transportation, she focused on traffic crashes. She had a table illustrating the 26 top crash sites in the Cal Young Neighborhood Association (CYNA) area in 2006, which showed that 54 percent or 244 crashes occurred in the Delta/Beltline area, contradicting information contained in the MWMC traffic impact analysis. Increased traffic on the Delta Highway/Beltline Road area would move traffic onto secondary roads, into residential areas, and through school zones, creating safety issues for residents and students. Ms. Simas said the scope of the traffic study should have been expanded, citing examples including traffic counts for Friday, peak hours, Saturdays, mid-day, and a collection of heavy use days, as well as peak shopping days in November and December due to the large commercial development at Green Acres and Delta Oaks. Schools, churches and neighbors, in addition to government agencies should have been contacted for the traffic study. She said NDN did not believe that MWMC’s application complied with Goal 12. Ms. Simas said a “pro/con” article in today’s Register Guard included a graphic illustrating a Glenwood rather than Delta Ridge site plan. She said if MWMC was not serious about the Delta Ridge site, she hoped the Planning Commission would not be swayed by a threat of locating in Glenwood from making a recommendation against the MWMC proposal to keep them in Eugene. She suggested other sites in Eugene that should be considered included the Riverfront Research Park, Second Avenue and Chambers, the fairgrounds, downtown, West Eleventh Avenue, Thirtieth Avenue near LCC, and International Way. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Simas agreed to make the materials she used in her presentation available for Planning Commission deliberations. She added she would submit additional materials. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 14 Doug DuPriest, 777 High Street, identified himself as an attorney representing NDN. He submitted a letter dated April 24, 2007 with accompanying documentation for inclusion in the record. He said the NDN did not oppose two hospitals in the Eugene/Springfield area nor MWMC locating a hospital in Eugene. They did oppose this particular site. According to the Metro Plan, large institutional uses such as universities and hospitals presented complex planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility expansion plans, housing needs. The applicants were seeking two plan amendments and a zone change from residential to C-2 Commercial. He provided a packet of information for commissioners that identified partial criteria. The burden was on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with all criteria, and they had not done so in all cases. The proposed C-2 zoning was not appropriate for a regional hospital. The applicant had indicated at the certificate of need hearing that its service area was Lane County and claimed it was a regional facility. The purpose of C-2 zone was to implement the Metro Plan by providing areas for community commercial uses for a support population area smaller than the metropolitan area but larger than the neighborhood. This facility was intended to serve an area larger than the metropolitan area. C-2 was not the appropriate zone for the proposed use. The application was inconsistent with an existing conditional use permit (CUP) that applied to all of the River Ridge property. A copy of a LUBA land use decision, Wiper versus the City of Eugene, was provided to commissioners, supporting this contention. He said the WAP called for: maintaining the residential, low-density character of the existing neighborhoods while recognizing the need to provide housing for all income groups in the city; minimizing potential conflicts with adjacent agricultural and sand and gravel operations; limiting commercial development and discouraging future rezonings of the area. Mr. DuPriest said there were serious traffic and transportation problems, including problems with the TIA and the TPR, such as: traffic counts were too low and not seasonally adjusted; the number of crashes was understated; failure to address emergency response times; and, use of 2025 rather than 2015 for the end of the TIA planning period. ODOT had expressed reservations regarding the proposed mitigation standards in a March 7, 2007 letter. He said the area contained seismic issues, and had insufficient recreation sites. Requirements for affordable housing and existing mobile home parks in the area were jeopardized by potentially rising property values in the area due to the MWMC project. Jim Spickerman, 975 Oak Street #800, identified himself as an attorney representing NDN and the Lake Ridge Mobile Home Park, a 192 unit senior citizen park for people 55 years and older. Although the owner wanted to keep the park in its current use, he had acknowledged the value of the land would increase if the proposed site was used for a hospital. Mr. Spickerman directed commissioners to letters he had submitted that were included in the record as exhibits 48 and 156, which addressed Goals 5 and 9, and the WAP. Although the proposal was for a hospital, the real issue was a larger planning issue of changing use from open space to commercial. The proposed rezoning and redesignation raised Goal 9 and the Commercial Lands Study issues. The inventories of the existing lands study, whether they were or were not realistic, were what were available. If land was not designated commercial, it needed to remain in its current designation until the Commercial Lands Study was updated. Case law was clear that anecdotal information could not be used, nor could studies that had not been adopted and acknowledged be used. He said the supply and demand were addressed in the Commercial Land Study and could not be made up. He asked commissioners to read his letter previously entered into the record. Mr. Duncan called for testimony in opposition to the application. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 15 Bobby Green, Sr., Lane County Public Service Building, 125 East Eighth Avenue, stated he was not speaking as a Lane County Commissioner, but as a private citizen, noting that Lane County was not a party to the procedure. He had served as a member of an ODOT advisory committee and traveled the area many times. There was something fundamentally wrong with the traffic patterns and this project was being forced on the neighborhood. He asked that the project be scoped again for cost and the traffic patterns be independently reviewed, rather than trusting the applicant’s and opponents’ attorneys. He said ODOT should be asked if the proposed changes would be done if the impetus had not been provided by the MWMC proposal. He said he had asked for these changes in the past, but they had not been done. He said ramp meters had specifically been rejected due to cost. He asserted if ODOT had to spend its own money, the recommendation would be different. He asked commissioners to listen to the neighborhood residents who would have to deal with the impacts over the long term and would suffer the traffic and congestion through the neighborhood by people looking for alternative routes. Frank Simas, 3635 Waterbrook Way, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing, on Goal 12. He referred to a letter dated April 24, 2007 during his testimony a copy of which he submitted for inclusion in the record. Fred Masarie, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the application Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries. He referred to a document entitled¸ Oral Testimony to the Eugene Planning Commission—24 April 2007 during his testimony a copy of which he submitted for inclusion in the record. Celeste Ulrich¸3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 10 and Goal 12. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Jean Rubel, Lakeridge Manufactured Home Park, spoke on behalf of herself, John and Deloris Smolnisky, for Bill and Charlene Bell, and Anne Reynolds, in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Land Use Policy #2 of the WAP. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Barbara Mitchell, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 5 and the Metro Plan and WAP. The proposed changes would be inconsistent with Goal 5. The applicant’s analysis was incomplete and inaccurate, and the staff report based on this information needed to be reexamined. Tom Mitchell, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 12. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Beverly Andrews, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 2. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 16 Theresa Chipps, 3520 Meadow View Drive, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 1. Jim Chipps, 3520 Meadow View Drive, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 12. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Ann Schar, 655 Ayres Road, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 5. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Jason Schar, 655 Ayres Road, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 5. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Melissa Zimmer, 3735 Waterbrook Way, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries. She said she had had a conversation with former MWMC CEO Roy Orr, who claimed he would not want to have a house in very close proximity to a seven story hospital building. She addressed Goal 12, saying local roads could not handle emergency vehicle traffic. This showed her that the hospital and the neighborhood were incompatible. Lloyd Zimmer, 3735 Waterbrook Way, identified himself as vice president of the Cal Young Neighborhood Association, but not speaking on their behalf. He spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goals 1, 6 and 10. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Brian Bell, 3266 Lake Wood Drive, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on the possible acquisition by MWMC by Community Health Systems and the financial viability of the project under new ownership. Fred Merten, 1833 Lake Creek Avenue, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goals 2 and 12. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Brad Boyd, 3660 Meadow View Drive, spoke in opposition to the application Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 12, Metro Plan and the WAP. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Pat Riley, 3104 Northridge Way, spoke in opposition to the application Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goals 1 and 2. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Donna Burke, 2261 Marie Lane, spoke in opposition to the application Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 17 transportation and open space issues. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Darlene Harper, 1703 Lakeshore Drive, spoke in opposition to the application Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on hospitals from an emergency perspective. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Cheryl Gribskov, 3977 Shantiko Court, Southeast, Salem, speaking on behalf of her mother, a resident of Lakeridge Manufactured Home Park spoke in opposition to the application of Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change, focusing on Goal 10 that required the City of Eugene to plan for and accommodate housing for senior citizens. Her mother deserved a place she could live in for the rest of her life without loosing the value in the house to development. Donald Gudehus, 3835 Meadow View Drive, in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on Goals 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 15. He said the MWMC proposal did not meet the above cited goals. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. William J. Phillips, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on EC 9.0020(4) and identified earthquake hazards. Use of highway bridges would lead to catastrophic failure in the event of an earthquake. Frank C. Rock, 3858 Mirror Pond Way, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on transportation issues. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. The Planning Commission took at break from 8:50 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. Michael Phillips, P.O. Box 71305, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on transportation and open space issues. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Gail Phillips, 1685 Sand Trap Lane, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on transportation and open space issues. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on helping downtown and honoring refinement plans. He suggested the City of Eugene should say no to bad projects and use its power of eminent domain to acquire the Eugene Clinic site, in support of City infill and opportunity siting goals. Namihira Bolton, 3878 Meadow View Drive, identified himself as president of the River Pointe Neighborhood Association, but not speaking on their behalf. He spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 18 Beate Galda, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on transportation issues. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Scott Olmos, 3765 Meadow View Drive, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on access issues related to public safety and emergency response times. He questioned building a hospital on a dead end road at the edge of the city with limited access and potential of being isolated from the community. David Bradley, 3880 Mirror Pond Way, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on traffic issues. He said he had offered MWMC 25 acres for the hospital on Greenhill Road which had not been accepted. Shane Giese, 3840 Mirror Pond Way, speaking on behalf of himself and his wife, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on transportation issues. They had purchased their home based on the current zoning and the traffic would only be exacerbated. Greg Smalley, 3281 Lakeside Drive, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on Goals 1, 2, 6, 10, and 12. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Garnet Harris, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on transportation issues. He asked if the City of Eugene would be subject to Ballot Measure 37 claims due to decreases in property value at the manufactured home park. Janis Gaines, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on Goal 7, Goal 10 and Goal 11. She said potentially two manufactured home communities could be uprooted if the proposed rezoning resulted in the park owners petitioning for rezoning. No other parks had room to accept the 400 manufactured homes for relocation and none accepted homes older than two years. Rezoning could result in discrimination against needed housing types for our most vulnerable citizens. Displacing homeowners from their rented sites would compromise diversity in age and economic steps in neighborhoods. Mary Hoover, 3355 North Delta Highway, spoke in opposition to the application Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change for property owned by E. and D. Jeffries, focusing on transportation issues. Colleen Donnelly. 3975 Gilham Road, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on transportation and housing goals, and the Metro Plan and WAP. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Bob Donnelly. 3975 Gilham Road, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on transportation and housing goals, and the Metro Plan and WAP. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 19 Jeff Lang, 1690 Canoe Ridge Way, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on Goals 2, 5, 7 and 8. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, speaking on behalf of the Friends of Eugene and as a private individual, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change. He protested scheduling community wide hearings in conflict with the Neighborhood Leaders Council. He said it was time to take global warming into account, based on Goals 6 and 13. Bev Schenler, 3340 Fillmore Street, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on Goals 7 and 12 and global warming issues. The hospital needed to be functional and accessible. Harold Peters, 3314 Talon Street, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on Goals 2, 6, 8 and 12. He submitted a written copy of his testimony for inclusion in the record. Mike Weaver, 3620 River Pointe, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on EC 9.8424(1)(c). He said the proposed zoning change was not consistent with the policy in that siting the hospital at the site would place 24 per day, 52 week per year operations in direct proximity to a R-1 residential zone. Nancy Scott, 3735 Gilham Road, spoke in opposition to the application Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on Goals 12 and 15. She submitted a written copy of her testimony for inclusion in the record. Majeska Seese Green, P.O. Box 1214, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on Goal 7. She said the possibility of dams being damaged by earthquakes concerned her. Tom Burke, 2261 Marie Lane, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing on hospital, bowling alley and restaurant parking, and earthquake concerns. Jim Korth, 3892 Mirror Pond Way, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change focusing. He had served as legal counsel to the Eugene Planning Commission for 36 years. He recognized the need for a second hospital, but saw the MWMC proposal as the most fundamentally flawed zoning application he had seen for many years. The Planning Commission could refuse to endorse it on many grounds. The application was not in the interest of the community. Patricia Hoover, 2020 Lake Wind Drive, spoke in opposition to the Triad/MWMC land use plan amendments and zone change. She built her home having been assured by the builder— developer that there was no planned development for the golf course area. It was important for the Planning Commission to represent her and uphold the current zoning. Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 20 Mr. Duncan asked for a staff response. There was no staff response. Mr. Duncan reopened the public hearing and asked for rebuttal testimony from the applicant. Applicant Rebuttal Testimony Jack Orchard, 101 South West Main Street, #1100, Portland, offered rebuttal testimony for the applicant. Mr. Orchard addressed three issues: • Commercial land supply—the request for the rezoning and plan amendments was confirmed to specific uses, that of a hospital and associated medical uses. If the hospital was not constructed by a date certain, the use would revert to the current use. MWMC had accepted the conditions recommended in the staff report. Other sites had been carefully considered with the proposed site determined to be an optimal location for a full service hospital. • Traffic—the City of Eugene, Lane County and ODOT had conducted independent reviews of the traffic study. The letter from ODOT made it clear that the proposal related to analysis, methodology, and mitigations complied with the TPR, the principle implementation of Goal 12. He acknowledged there would be disagreement, but no evidence had been offered on why the analysis, methodology and mitigations did not comply. • MWMC intended to be sensitive to the neighborhood. MWMC had been a good neighbor in its current location and had very high standards it needed to comply with at a new location. Completion of the CUP and site review overlay process would ensure compliance with compatibility issues. Hospitals had to continually comply with transportation, sanitation and other issues, which MWMC would adhere to. No sites had been made available to MWMC, but it was left to MWMC to determine, in collaboration with the City of Eugene, while asking for no public dollars nor condemnation authority, to locate a site. This was a workable and optimal site. Chris Clemow summarized the transportation and crash history. He acknowledged unsafe conditions existed in several locations, many of which would be eliminated through the MWMC mitigation plans. Referring to a graph used by the NDN, he pointed out that many of the 9-1-1 or incident calls counted in the figures were duplicated counts for individual incidents, not all of which were crashes. Referring to Table 2 in the mitigation report summarizing significantly affected transportation facilities, all of the volume capacity issues had been addressed with ramp meters or completely eliminated. For trip generation issues, it was always better to use local rather than regional or national data. The proposal limited the size of the development to cap the number of trips that would be generated. The regional transportation plan identified 2025 as the appropriate planning because it provided more conservative estimates and it was consistent with the federal funding planning period. Rick Satre said change and policy that supported change were part of the planning process. State law required that local governments “ensure that plans address changing local conditions.” The Metro Plan stated that a major update of the plan be initiated every five years “to reflect the fact that plans must be adaptable to the changing needs and circumstances” that occur. He said if plans were not meant to change, there would not be an amendment process. Since January 1, 1990, there had been 423 amendments to the Metro Plan. Since the 1992 adoption of the WAP, MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 21 there had been 12 amendments. Change happened. Several of those changes included additions to the commercial lands supply. The City’s commercial land supply study said to “consider additions to the commercial land supply to provide sites for uses with special siting requirements.” Additionally, “Any new commercial sites added to the inventory should be based on a policy decision that reflects the desire to address broader economic objectives within the community.” In response to a question from Mr. McCown, Mr. Clemow explained the volume to capacity ratio was the measure of the volume in an intersection versus the theoretical capacity. In response to an earlier query from Mr. Hledik, the volume could change, depending upon the base assumptions. In general, over saturation occurred when the volume exceeded 1.0, when the volume began to exceed theoretical capacity. Mr. Clemow added when the methodology was devised, the term used was demand to capacity ratio, when there was an unmet need that could not be served. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, the applicant agreed to make the materials used this evening available to the Planning Commission for use during deliberation. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Clemow said any mitigating improvements such as signalizing an intersection or increasing the number of travel lanes, increased the capacity of the road, thus requiring the need to remodel the data. Mr. McCown expressed concern that the ratio data may not be reliable measures and asked for the actual numbers. Ms. Hansen said staff had prepared a table that included the volume to capacity ratios that would be made available to Planning Commission that would provide the requested information. Mr. Clemow stated that ramp meters would increase the volume and capacity by improving the quality of traffic flow. Mr. Duncan opined the Planning Commission needed to raise traffic related issues with the City traffic engineer. Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to leave the record open for 30 days. Following a brief discussion by commissioners, Ms. Jerome offered clarifying language for the motion. During the first two week period, ending on May 8, 2007, anyone who attended or did not attend the April 24, 2007 public hearing, the applicant, the opposition, neutral parties, could submit anything in writing. The following two weeks, ending on May 22, 2007, was a period of time for rebuttal testimony, argument only, no new evidence, responding to issues raised by any party during the first two weeks. The following one week, ending at 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2007, was reserved for the applicant only to provide argument only in response or rebuttal to testimony received prior to that time. Mr. McCown and Mr. Belcher accepted the proposed language revising the motion, leaving the record open to 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 22 Mr. Belcher stated he had forgotten his partner was a member of the MWMC citizen advisory committee. He asserted this would have no affect on his decision in any way whatsoever. Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing and thanked everyone for participating in the public hearing. Mr. Nystrom suggested Planning Commissioners submit questions to staff via e-mail. Ms. Jerome said staff just like the public, was confined to the timeline of the adopted motion. If members of the public wanted additional evidence, they needed to ask for it in a timely manner. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:50 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc070424ph.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 24, 2007 Page 23