Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Special Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street June 27, 2007 4:00 p.m. PRESENT: PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE Staff: Alissa Hansen, 682-5508 Mr. Hledik, referring to Revised Table 2—Summary of Significantly Affected Transportation Facilities, seconded by Mr. McCown, made a tentative motion that the Planning Commission agreed that A, B, C, D, and I were mitigated to an acceptable level, consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(2). The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that the applicant had met the applicable criteria in OAR 660-012-0060(3). The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Special Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street June 27, 2007 4:00 p.m. PRESENT: PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission meeting. He explained the purpose of the meeting was to continue deliberations on the McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments/Zone Change application. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment offered. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE The Planning Commission continued deliberating on EC 9.7730(3)(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and Goal 12—Transportation. Staff provided responses to questions raised by the Planning Commission at the June 26, 2007 meeting, related to: 2. Do the proposed mitigation (transportation improvements) improve the anticipated v/c or level of service of the significantly affected transportation facilities to an acceptable performance standard, consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(2)? Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. McNeel explained a scrivener’s error on Figure 10A in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), adding the text describing the diagram, had been corrected. He added that the modeling indicated there would be some shift in population for both McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center and Peach Health Medical Center when those facilities were completed. State law required emergency medical transportation to the closest medical facility. Responding to a concern from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel said the North Delta Neighbors (NDN) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 2 used a count of 76 trucks in their informal traffic study during the a.m. peak while the applicant’s TIA projected 153 trucks during the a.m. peak, opining the applicant’s analysis was a safe number. He added the p.m. peak was negligible, attributed to the fact that the amount of truck activity dropped significantly after 4:00 p.m. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. McNeel explained the traffic flow as shown on Table 19 in the TIA. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. McNeel explained the proposed ramp metering system for the eastbound access ramp from River Road to Beltline Road. He said the limited storage capacity and optimum flow rate of the ramp would be addressed with design work. Ms. Brotherton said she had researched and been unable to find useful information regarding the further degradation phrase used throughout the TIA. Ms. Hansen added the context for a Planning Commission decision should be whether the information was reasonable. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Jerome said she wanted an opportunity to talk with a State Department of Justice attorney from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to work out language related to condition number 3, to ensure that the Planning Commission would get the demonstrated performance levels that the applicants provided as well as ensuring that the City of Eugene did not defer a land use decision to a later time, which was not permitted. There were allowances in the land use laws for design review and later design decisions for transportation facilities. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Hansen said flood plain elevation information was included in the record, but the road elevations were not. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome said the City Attorney’s office believed the application could be denied even if the commission felt the mitigation was sufficient due to the use of the word “may” under OAR 660-012-0060(3). Ms. Hansen reviewed five remaining items placed on the “parking lot” at the June 26, 2007 meeting: • Traffic backing up. • Impact of queues along Delta Highway to private driveways. • Ayres Road improvements. • Emergency vehicle access/lanes at the ramp meters. • Access to site related to flood plain, flood plain history. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Jerome said the applicant had identified a trip cap that enabled them to meet the requirements. Ms. Hansen added the trip cap was based upon the square footage used for hospital and medical office building calculations. Mr. McNeel said the trip cap was based on the full build out of the hospital of 198 beds, noting that the proposed first phase due to be completed in 2010 was 148 beds. Ms. Jerome cautioned the Planning Commission that it should not consider a trip cap figure MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 3 higher than that proposed by the applicant because there was no evidence in the record to demonstrate that more would work. Mr. Hledik, referring to Revised Table 2—Summary of Significantly Affected Transportation Facilities, seconded by Mr. McCown, made a tentative motion that the Planning Commission agreed that A, B, C, D, and I were mitigated to an acceptable level, consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(2). Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. McNeel said that ODOT’s evaluation had concluded there was no need to apply a seasonal adjustment factor to the traffic counts, and that the counts were valid as they were taken. The model could take into account operational changes of the trucking companies if those changes were known, but they were not. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel said that the peak hour analysis done for the ODOT traffic count doubled the traffic count number from the NDN. The trucking activity could double between now and 2025 and still be accounted for in the ODOT analysis. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Hansen introduced: 3. If the proposed mitigations are not consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(2), are they consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(3)? Ms. Hansen said the commission had previously reached consensus on subsections A, B, D, and E of OAR 660-012-0060(3), leaving subsection C, Will development resulting from the proposed amendment mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoid further degradation of the transportation facility by the time of the development as the outstanding issue. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. McNeel said typically construction activity triggered the need to go to ODOT for permits, and ODOT would insist that the mitigation measures be in place prior to opening the hospital facility. Ms. Brotherton added that with the proposed amendment, mitigation measures would need to be in place that maintained the current status, that was, already failing, but not failing worse. Mr. McNeel added that the mitigation would keep the transportation facility at the existing performance level. He opined that ODOT would insist on an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), a cooperative improvement agreement that would detail when various transportation improvement elements needed to be constructed, in conjunction with road construction projects. ODOT considered ramp metering a good solution because it looked at Beltline Road and Delta Highway as a statewide significant regional highway, and did not want local trips slowing down the traffic on the regional highway. Mr. Lawless noted the entire system had not been analyzed to serve the broader regional needs that would be less impacted by local traffic. He concluded the data provided by ODOT was currently the most reliable on which to base decisions. Mr. McNeel said it was statistically impossible to accurately predict events 20 years in the future, making it difficult to provide more in depth analysis. He offered a detailed description of how ramp metering was intended to work. One of the benefits of ramp metering was a reduction in MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 4 crashes that occurred during merging. He iterated construction of a bridge across the Willamette River would not happen in the near future. Although adding ramp meters presented a learning curve, people typically learn quickly how to use them. Ms. Kneeland expressed concern that while the ODOT requirements may be met, the proposed amendment further degraded local traffic. Mr. Carroll was comfortable that all of the items in (3) had been met. He opined the questions related to the TPR, but did not answer local government questions related to amending the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission may not want to support the position that the applicant had met the Goal 12 requirements. Mr. Hledik suggested if the commission was reaching consensus with Goal 12 that the TIA and engineering analysis met performance standards and provided acceptable mitigation based upon ODOT standards, the commission could ultimately consider undertaking a refinement plan discussion in the context of the “may” clause under OAR 660-012-0060(3). Mr. Carroll added the commission could discuss how Goal 12 affected future discussions regarding comprehensive plan and refinement plan amendments. Mr. Hledik noted that a professional engineer had prepared the TIA which had been reviewed by professional engineers at the city, county and state levels. The opponents’ engineer had conducted a review of the TIA prior to a re-evaluation of the TIA. Thus, there was no contradictory, constructive criticism from an expert. Mr. Duncan was comfortable that there was enough information for the commission to provide direction to staff on (3). Mr. Lawless agreed that there was sufficient information to take a straw vote, knowing the identified issues would be revisited in the future. Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that the applicant had met the applicable criteria in OAR 660-012-0060(3). The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Hansen distributed duplicate copies of a memorandum dated June 26, 2007, to the Planning Commission, Subject: Eugene Planning Commission deliberations on McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments/Zone Change (City Files MA 06-1, RA 06-1, & Z 06-8). Ms. Hansen iterated the Goal 1, Citizen Involvement key question, Has the process for reviewing these amendments followed the applicable procedural requirements in the City’s land use code (the city’s acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement)? Ms. Hansen directed commissioners to page 23 of the June 26, 2007 agenda packet, Attachment A, Staff Findings, statewide planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement. Mr. Hledik was satisfied that the process complied with Goal 1. He opined frustration of citizens arose because of the lack of outreach to the public. City initiated actions required considerable outreach, but this as a private land use action, did not have the same requirement. Ms. Hansen added that this was a quasi-judicial proceeding initiated by a private party for which MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 5 there were very strict parameters on what could and could not be done. She acknowledged the frustration by citizens who wanted more input into a hospital siting and zone change actions. Mr. Belcher agreed Goal 1 had been met. Responding to citizen concerns, the fact that staff had made a recommendation did not infer that a decision had already been met, but rather followed the required process. Some of the frustration with the process was due to the fact that the applicant had not met with neighbors to their degree of satisfaction, but that was not an appropriate issue for the Planning Commission to address. Finally, in a quasi-judicial process, the decision makers and the recommenders (the Planning Commission) were not allowed to have ex parte contacts without an extensive revelation of those contacts. Ms. Jerome said those legitimate comments from the public and the commission’s responses would be incorporated into the findings supporting the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that Goal 1 requirements had been met. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 2—Land Use Planning. The commission addressed the question: Do the findings and record show an adequate factual base to support the decision recommended by the Planning Commission? Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the draft findings were adequate, with the understanding the work necessary to prepare appropriate findings based on the information in the record, Planning Commission discussions and following the required process. He asked that the issue be brought back to the commission at the end of the review process to allow the commission to confirm that the draft findings were adequate. Ms. Hansen stated the staff opinion and City Attorney opinion was that neither Goal 3— Agricultural Land nor Goal 4—Forest Land were relevant to the McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments/Zone Change requests. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Jerome said although there had been testimony about an appropriate buffer between uses and agricultural land, there was no legal basis for the assertion. The Planning Commission took at break from 5:40 p.m. to 6:05 p.m. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 5—Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. She iterated the staff recommendation that the subject property did not contain Goal 5 resources, and reviewed the staff recommendation on four points. Do the proposed amendments: 1. Create a new list of Goal 5 resources or amend the City’s acknowledged list of Goal 5 resources? Staff thought it was clear that the proposed amendments did not create a new list of Goal 5 resources and there were no Goal 5 resources on the property. Rather the plan amendments were a designation change. Mr. Duncan noted consensus by commissioners with the staff recommendation. 2. Amend a plan or code provision adopted as a Goal 5 protection measure or as part of the City’s Goal 5 program? Staff believed that the proposed amendments did not amend adopted Goal 5 plan or code provisions. Mr. Duncan noted consensus by commissioners with the staff MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 6 recommendation. 3. Amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)? Staff believed that the proposed amendments did not amend the UGB. Mr. Duncan noted consensus by commissioners with the staff recommendation. 4. Allow new uses that could conflict with a particular resource identified in the City’s Goal 5 inventory as a significant Goal 5 resource? Staff believed that the subject property did not contain Goal 5 resources, although significant Goal 5 resources outside of the UGB had been identified in the vicinity, including sand and gravel sites, although not adjacent to the subject property, were located to the southwest and north. Ms. Jerome stated that several sites raised as a concern were sand and gravel (mineral and aggregate) sites in the vicinity of the subject property had been designated on Lane County’s inventory under a Goal 5 process that had been updated and replaced numerous times. Under current Goal 5 rules, if a local government wished to establish or renew a sand and gravel site, it needed to include a determinant impact area for the site, which was a perimeter around the site where others who came to the site in the future may be limited by what they could establish. Goal 5 protected the resource in the ground for mining. When mining sites were established, local government could not allow uses that would be problematic for the mining operation. In determining the impact area under the current rules, there was a maximum of 1,500 feet, except in extreme circumstances. The requirement was often less than 1,500 feet, depending upon what already existed in the vicinity. Under the “old” Goal 5, there was no requirement that an impact area be identified, and there had never been an impact area identified for the subject sites. Although the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff initially asserted there were impact areas associated with the three identified Goal 5 sites in the area, that opinion was withdrawn after Lane County and City of Eugene clarified that no impact area for the sites had been identified, although DLCD still had concerns about the relationship between the proposed use and mining. Ms. Jerome said under the current rules, when considering a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA), local governments shall follow the standard Economic, Social, Environmental Energy Consideration (ESEE) process to determine whether to allow, limit, or prevent new conflicting uses within the impact area of a significant mineral and aggregate site. Since these sites had no identified impact area, the question was would approval of proposed amendments allow new uses that could conflict with particular resource sites identified in the acknowledged Goal 5 inventory as a significant Goal 5 resource. The language in the rules did not match the situation at hand. Ms. Jerome said subsequent to testimony on the issue, the applicant provided an ESEE analysis in regards to the Eugene Sand and Gravel, North Delta Partnership, and Wildish Land Company sites. City of Eugene staff findings stated the proposed site was not in an impact area and did not impact Goal 5 resources. Furthermore, if the proposed site did impact Goal 5 resources, the City would adopt the findings provided by the applicant. Ms. Kneeland noted that all three mineral and aggregate businesses were within 1,500 feet of the proposed development. Ms. Jerome said if a new site was being designated, the impact area would be large enough to include surrounding existing uses, such as housing, and would be limited to 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the mining area, except where factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond that distance. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 7 Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Jerome said in this process, the City of Eugene could not designate the buffer for sites in Lane County. Ms. Hansen added that Lane County had not designated a buffer. Ms. Jerome said the Planning Commission could decide to look at the site for safety or other related issues, and reach a reasonable conclusion. Correspondence with Lane County at the beginning of the process indicated that the county believed there was no impact area. Ms. Jerome added that DLCD had raised a concern that with no impact area identified, the designation zone in the refinement plan may be changed but may prove to be very difficult to develop because future criteria applicable at the time of development may require compatibility that could be difficult to achieve. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Jerome said at this point in time, the protected site was the mining site, and if there was an impact area, the question would be would the amendment process permit something that would have a negative impact on the mine, rather than at the mining operation itself. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome said if the mining operations wanted to expand beyond the designated site they would need to get permission. The application measured from the boundary of the tax lot, including a set back, but she did not know if within those boundaries, the mining operation was able to mine the entire area. Reading from the criteria for establishing the zone, she added that for the purpose of identifying the conflicts, “the impact area shall be large enough to include uses listed…dwellings allowed by residential zone on existing plated lots, and other uses for which conditional or final approvals have been granted by the government” and “shall be limited to 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the mining area except where factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this distance.” Mr. Belcher opined a hospital use was one that could be severely impacted by both sound and dust. Mr. Hledik noted that this was a long established use, in place probably prior to the adoption of Goal 5 Sand and Gravel OAR, and there was no 1,500 foot maximum established, as established by a June 30, 2006 from DLCD, in which the agency acknowledged it had erred. The DLCD letter of September 13, 2006 implied continued belief there was a potential impact on an undesignated, unspecified impact area. He said OAR 660-0123-0180(5)(b) should be of concern, pertaining to uses that were sensitive to noise, dust or other discharges, and asked if the term sensitive was particularly applicable to a hospital use. Furthermore, OAR 660-0123-0180(5)(a) identified the impact on local roads used for access and egress to the mining site which posed another concerning under that OAR. Mr. Hledik averred that in his letter of May 8, 2007, Mr. Clemow adequately addressed clear and objective criteria such as site lines and elevations in terms of not being in conflict with the access and egress issue. However, related to noise, dust and other discharges, it was the responsibility of the applicable jurisdiction to determine if a conflict existed rather than the applicant’s or opponents’ responsibility to evaluate this issue. The applicant relied on the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) contaminant discharge program in conjunction with the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and local noise regulations to ensure continued conformance with standards applicable, therefore minimizing any potential conflicts. Mr. Hledik said a May 8, 2007 letter from Satre and Associates stated the distances, buffers and mitigations required by both county and city codes and the conditional use approvals were MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 8 exceeded by the applicant’s proposal. It further stated that modern hospitals were built to exacting standards and controlled environments, windows, doors, and HVAC would more than adequately filter pollutants. He said the heart of the question was whether the hospital, by moving into this location currently serving as a golf course in a commercial zone and previously designated for residential development, triggered any state or local dust or noise standards that were more stringent than the emissions presently permitted from the sand and gravel operations. If this was the case, a conflict analysis was required. He suggested that staff review DEQ, LRAPA and local regulations to determine if those regulations had any protections for the sensitive uses, specifically for a hospital, such as determining if there were DEQ ambient noise standards that were different for a hospital than for a golf course or residential area. He asked if there were state or local protections for a hospital that increased the dust or noise or other discharges that could create a conflict that did not currently exist between the sand and gravel operation and the golf course. For purposes of developing findings, Ms. Jerome stated it would be useful for the commission to at least acknowledge that if the application was approved, the commission would be allowing a use that could be a conflicting use with a mining facility. Ms. Hansen agreed to provide the information for consideration by the commission. Responding to a question from Mr. Lawless, Ms. Jerome said there had been no gravel sites identified in the City’s Goal 5 inventory. Responding to a question from Mr. McCown, Ms. Jerome said vesting would allow the mining operations to proceed under the provisions that were in effect under Goal 5, and it would not be possible for Lane County to impose a buffer zone before construction commenced, thus negating a conditional use permit (CUP). Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Jerome said imposing an impact zone after the fact would not effect the current hospital proposal, and agreed to research if the imposition could stop construction of future hospital construction phases or other subsequent development in the site. Mr. Carroll was comfortable allowing new uses that could conflict in absence of the required analysis. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll asking for an opinion on the applicant’s assertion that an expanded definition of conflicting use did not apply in this case, Ms. Jerome said staff had not conducted an ESEE analysis beyond what the applicant had provided because it was not clear that the commission would direct staff to do so because of lack of an impact area. She proposed that staff could supplement the applicant’s findings if so directed by the commission. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome said the applicant could waive the right to contest legal use of sand and gravel operations in the future, and the commission could consider the value of that as it determined whether or not there really were conflicting uses, which would eliminate it as a conflicting use. She added that was not in the record. At the scheduled adjournment time of 7:00 p.m., Mr. Duncan noted consensus by commissioners to continue the meeting until 8:00 p.m. Reading from the applicable rule, Ms. Jerome said the PAPA allowed new uses, asserting that the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 9 hospital would be a new use that could be conflicting with a particular Goal 5 significant resource on an acknowledged resource list. Concurring with Mr. Belcher that a number of issues had been identified by commissioners which needed further research by staff before commissioners could take a straw poll, Mr. Nystrom proposed tabling a decision to a future meeting. Mr. Duncan asked that any Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council include a caveat that the issue was a complex one that the commission had studied thoughtfully and intensely. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 6—Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. Commissioners addressed the question: Is it reasonable to expect that waster or process discharges from a future use on the site (if any) could be limited or treated such that the use will comply with applicable state and federal environmental quality standards for such discharges? The staff findings stated nothing in the proposal or the character of the site or potential uses indicated a future development would compromise air, water and land resources. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the commission agreed with the staff findings. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 7—Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Commissioners addressed the question: Is the subject property located in an area known for its risk to people and property due to floods, landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, coastal erosion or wildfires? The staff findings stated that the subject property was not located within known areas of natural disasters or hazards, and was outside the flood zone and not subject to hazards normally associated with steep slopes, wildfires, or tsunamis, and other hazards, such as earthquakes and severe winter storms could be mitigated at the time of developed based upon accepted building codes and building techniques. These amendments were consistent with Goal 7. Following a brief discussion regarding flood plain issues, Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the commission agreed with the staff findings. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 8—Recreational Needs. Commissioners addressed the question: Is the subject property on any adopted list, inventory or map identifying the City’s existing park and open space supply? The staff findings stated that while the City took into consideration the existence of private recreation facilities and open space in it parks planning process, because there was no guarantee that lands owned by private entities would remain in perpetuity as public open space and/or recreation facilities, the City did not, and was not required to, account for private facilities and open space in any list, inventory, or map identifying the City’s existing parks and open space supply. Changing the designation of the subject property would have no impact on the City’s park and open space supply. Therefore, the amendments were consistent with Goal 8. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the commission agreed with the staff findings. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 9—Economic Development. Discussion deferred to a future meeting. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 10—Housing. Discussion deferred to a future meeting. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 11—Public Facilities and Services. Commissioners addressed the question: Are the existing and feasible future level of public facilities and services adequate to serve the needs of future development of the site under the proposed designation and zone? The staff findings stated the area affected by the amendments was located inside the city limits and the existing level of public facilities and service was adequate to serve the needs of existing and MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 10 future development. The provision of these amendments did not affect the planning or development of future public facilities or services. The amendments were consistent with Goal 11. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the commission agreed with the staff findings. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 13—Energy Conservation. Commissioners addressed the question: Is it reasonable to expect that future development on the site could make efficient use of energy? Mr. Belcher averred that placing such a facility on the edge of the community increased the amount of energy expended to get there and was a bad idea. He suggested this needed to be conveyed to the City Council. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the commission agreed to table the issue to a future meeting. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 14—Urbanization. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the commission agreed with the staff findings. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 15—Willamette River Greenway. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the commission agreed with the staff findings. Ms. Hansen introduced Goals 16 through 19—Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the commission agreed with the staff findings. Ms. Hansen stated Goals 5, 9, 10, and 13 would be addressed at a future Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Hansen said staff would advise commissioners on the dates, locations and agendas for meetings in July. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff There were no other items from staff. B. Other Items from Commission There were no other items from commissioners. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:15 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70627.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 27, 2007 Page 11