Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—99 West 10th Avenue—Eugene, Oregon July 16, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; John Lawless, Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning Division; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 1 Special Meeting  MINUTES Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—99 West 10th Avenue—Eugene, Oregon July 16, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; John Lawless, Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning Division; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office. ABSENT: Ann Kneeland, member. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE Mr. Duncan called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order and indicated the commission would continue its deliberations on the amendments. He noted the absence of commissioners Ann Kneeland. Ms. Hansen noted the commission’s completion of deliberations on the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) amendments, leaving the Eugene Commercial Lands Study (ECLS) and Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) policies to be discussed. Ms. Hansen distributed a memo to the Planning Commission, dated July 16, 2007, that contained a list of outstanding issues, referred to as the “parking lot.” Eugene Commercial Lands Study Ms. Hansen said the staff report addressed the ECLS policies under Goal 9. Staff identified three policies as being relevant or being raised in testimony, policies 6, 10, and 12, and Mr. Hledik had raised Policy 18 in an e-mail to the commission. She indicated that staff did not find Policy 6 mandatory given its aspirational language. ECLS Policy 10.0 10.0 Consider additions to the commercial lands supply to provide sites for uses with special siting requirements to achieve the City’s economic diversification objectives. 10.1 Monitor the amount of vacant commercial and the extent of redevelopment on a regular basis. 10.2 Examine ways to amend the existing zoning ordinance to allow flexibility in the siting of new commercial land that accommodates changes in population, transportation networks, utility extensions, etc. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 1 Special Meeting Ms. Hansen suggested Policy 10, and in particular its implementation strategies (10.1 and 10.2), was created to allow for consideration of whether to create more commercial sites. Mr. Hledik found some relevance in Policy 10 but noted that it also included language such as “consider.” Mr. Carroll recalled his previously expressed concerns about special siting and how it was defined, and noted the statement in the staff report that the applicant’s response to the policy discussing special siting requirements was more than adequate to show consistency with the policy. He was not entirely comfortable with the phrase “more than adequate” and asked that it be “softened.” He did not think the applicant’s response was more than adequate. There was no objection to the change. ECLS Policy 12.0 12.0 Concentrate development in existing commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on the rest of the city. 12.1 Commercially designate and zone properties with sufficient size and lot depth to permit internal traffic circulation. Ms. Hansen said the policy spoke to the concentration of development in existing areas to minimize traffic impacts to the rest of the city. She called attention to implementation strategy 12.1, which provided additional context for the policy. Mr. Belcher asked the nexus between the implementation strategy and policy. Mr. Nystrom perceived the implementation strategy as focused on the more immediate traffic and circulation impacts from larger commercial areas, such as a shopping center with multiple tenants and poor internal circulation. Mr. Belcher perceived the implementation strategy as a follow-up step to the policy; that is, “if you do 12.0, do 12.1.” Mr. Nystrom believed it was an attempt to encourage commercial consolidation and discourage inefficient traffic patterns that arose from disjointed commercial development. Mr. Carroll asked what it meant to be in an existing commercial area, and if there was a precedent regarding distance. Ms. Hansen said no. Mr. Hledik noted two policies in the WAP that pertained to the Delta subarea, one of which called for no more commercial development except in existing areas, and another of which discussed an opportunity site with commercial uses in the unincorporated area. He did not think the type of C-2 development envisioned was anticipated in the WAP. He thought it envisioned only neighborhood commercial, which mirrored the position taken by the North Delta Neighbors neighbors. Mr. Hledik suggested that the amendments would essentially amend those plan policies, and he wanted to have a more holistic discussion of the issues so the commission could reach a balanced recommendation. Mr. Carroll perceived the issue as being broader than the refinement plan; he agreed that to plan for change, the commission would need to examine the larger policy context. The policy was problematic for him because of the distance and what it meant to be in a commercial area. The implementation strategy spoke to the streets adjacent to the site, but the policy itself appeared to refer to the rest of the city. His major concern was that if one drew a circle a mile wide around the site, one would find a considerable amount of commercial development. Mr. Hledik suggested the commission needed to look to the refinement plan for guidance as the ECLS policy in question had citywide applicability. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 2 Special Meeting Mr. Carroll said the commission appeared to be dealing with a policy that appeared to recognize the potential of over-commercialization, and further that the policy in question was not a “consider,” “discourage,” or “encourage” type of policy, but more mandatory in nature. Mr. Belcher pointed out that Delta Subarea Policy 1 specifically called for the City to limit commercial development to the two areas zoned for the purpose. He thought the issue took the commission to the Metro Plan. He asked if the proposal was unanticipated by the other planning documents, as the commission appeared to be running up against things that conflicted with other plans or almost conflicted with other plans. He did not think the community anticipated exchanging hospitals with Springfield, which led him back to the question of whether this was the only site the hospital could relocate to. He did not know. He thought the commission had received information that there were other sites even if they were not the more desirable. Mr. Hledik agreed with Mr. Belcher. He said he also asked if there were other site, but staff continued to remind the commission that the issue was whether the application met the criteria for the site in question. Whether the site was the best was not material. That helped him to focus on the issue of balancing the policies and whether it made sense to revise the refinement plan for this site. Ms. Jerome said it appeared that staff’s reading of the policy was focused on ensuring that the footprints of commercial uses were concentrated within existing commercially designated areas to ensure the provision of good internal circulation; the commission’s discussion was a rejection of that policy interpretation. She asked if the commission agreed that the policy was not speaking to circulation within an existing commercial site, and was rather directed toward a larger issue. Mr. Belcher believed the policy referred to siting commercial development in existing areas for the purpose of minimizing traffic impacts. Ms. Jerome said that appeared to refer to new commercial. Mr. Lawless wanted to keep policies 10 and 12 separate as he believed they “went two different roads.” He thought Policy 12 could be interpreted as calling for intensifying the infill and maximizing the usage of what was in place. He contrasted the growth of an existing commercial area with leapfrog development and asked if the commission would be having the same discussion if what it was discussing was a traditional retail commercial designation for a use such as a shopping center. He said he would look at that differently; was it an expansion of commercial or a higher intensity use of an existing commercial area or merely sprawl? He found Policy 10 to more economically driven than Policy 12, and was having difficulty “leapfrogging” from an existing commercial area as a justification for approving the application. Mr. Belcher concurred with Mr. Lawless. Ms. Jerome suggested that the interpretation depended on the design the commission saw when the applicant came back with a design for a commercial area if the application was approved. She did not think Policy 12 applicable at this stage as it would govern the commercial development in the future. She pointed out the implementation strategy referred to commercial designated and zoned properties of sufficient size and depth to permit internal traffic circulation. If the commission did not read the policy that way, it needed to make an interpretation to read it another way. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 3 Special Meeting Mr. Belcher acknowledged that a full reading of the policy appeared to suggest a post-facto discussion; that is, once an area was commercial, these were things the City needed to consider to mitigate traffic impacts to the neighborhood. Ms. Jerome thought that was a reasonable interpretation. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Jerome said it was difficult to determine how to categorize the use in question; staff believed it was a commercial use, but breaking it down within that category was challenging. She believed a retail health care designation would be useful. Mr. Carroll acknowledged the staff interpretation but he thought the policy was calling for consideration of the location of proposed new commercial centers, and the commission never “got there” under the staff interpretation. Mr. Duncan pointed out the commission was not talking about general commercial, but rather about a specific use. Mr. Carroll had a difficult time using Policy 10 to justify approval of the application as he did not think the applicant had established clearly the special siting requirement. Ms. Jerome said that the ECLS was intended to satisfy the inventory requirements set by the State and it was largely a study of the existing supply with the goal of ensuring an adequate 20-year supply of land. She did not find it surprising that the ECLS did not speak to the issue of adding more land as it was primarily designed to satisfy Goal 9 requirements regarding the supply at a particular point in time. Mr. Duncan determined from Ms. Jerome that the ECLS was still in force and the State had acknowledged the City was consistent with State law in regard to the commercial lands supply through the protracted but recently completed periodic review process. Mr. Carroll indicated that he would be more comfortable if the reference to the distances to Green Acres and Delta Highway were omitted from the staff report, as well as the reference to Goal 12. He also suggested a discussion of the two possible interpretations of the policy be included. Mr. Lawless concurred. Mr. McCown arrived. Mr. Hledik said that Ms. Jerome’s remarks reinforced his understanding that the ECLS did not anticipate what uses could not be trended. He pointed out the sentence that read “The projection did not include land for policy-based uses that trends do not anticipate,” and the commission was being asked to consider a hospital, something that trends did not anticipate. He had reviewed the MOU again and even though it was not site-specific, he thought it was a policy-based decision to find a site for a hospital made by the council. That made the hospital a policy-based use that took the commission out from under the umbrella of the ECLS and argued for a broader discussion. Because the subject was a hospital, he found it a site-specific land use function. Ms. Jerome asked the commission if it believed the applicant met the criteria under either of the two interpretations. Mr. Belcher found Policy 10 to be more relevant than Policy 12. Mr. Hledik agreed. Mr. Lawless said that he could not completely divorce the two; he could not discard Policy 12 because he believed Policy 10 was informed by Policy 12’s criteria and intent in regard to special siting requirements and unanticipated needs. Mr. Duncan concurred. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 4 Special Meeting Ms. Hansen indicated staff would return with revised findings reflecting the discussion. ECLS Policy 18.0 18.0 Identify appropriate areas within the Willakenzie subarea to accommodate office development and address neighborhood commercial needs. In identifying commercial sites, evaluate impacts on traffic patterns and surrounding land uses. 18.1. Consider the following new C-1 Neighborhood Commercial sites: a. About three acres in size at the southwest corner of Willagillespie and Clinton; b. About five acres in size along the south side of Willakenzie west of the Sheldon Plaza. Also consider expansion of General Office zoning west of Sheldon Plaza, north of Cal Young Road; c. About ten acres in size south of the future extension of Crescent and west of the future Shadow View Drive; d. Expansion of the existing neighborhood commercial site near the northerly intersection of Coburg Road and Country Farm Loop to include a total of about 13 acres; and e. About 15 acres in size, on the north side of Ayres Road west of Gilham Road. 18.2 Change the Metro Plan designation along the south side of Country Club Road between Delta Highway and Coburg Road from medium- and high- density residential to commercial. The area is currently zoned GO General Office and is primarily developed with offices uses. This recognizes the conflict between the Metro Plan designation and the zoning and suggests that the area be acknowledged as suitable for commercial development. The area contains about 29 acres. Mr. Hledik asked if the second sentence in the policy, without reference to neighborhood commercial sites, could be interpreted as referring to C-2 and beyond. He pointed out the implementation strategies were focused on neighborhood commercial as was the first sentence of Policy 18. More importantly, the policy spoke to the neighborhood and character of the neighborhood being focused more on neighborhood commercial activities as opposed to more intensively commercial development. While the policy might not be specifically on target, it spoke to the character issue of concern to the neighbors. He suggested that evaluating the impacts of traffic patterns was different than evaluating levels of service. Mr. Hledik said that the hospital had traffic impacts that extended beyond the site itself. Mr. Nystrom suggested that a policy discussion about where to site C-1 uses would be more amorphous than for other zones as the C-1 zone was not as clearly defined as other zones. He thought it made sense to have a policy guiding where new neighborhood commercial would be located without having to have recourse to the Metro Plan, as there was less guidance in the plan to help define how to site those uses. He could perceive the focus in C-1 in the policy and suggested it was so specific to neighborhood commercial and Willakenzie because the City lacked certain tools at the time the plan was developed. Mr. Hledik said that it appeared that C-2 was unanticipated in this area. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 5 Special Meeting Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom said that the text of the ECLS mentioned C-1 on parcels five acres or smaller. Mr. Duncan pointed out that the implementation strategies mentioned parcels of 13 and 15 acres in size, which was confusing as those size parcels were not what he considered typical C-1 parcels. Mr. Nystrom acknowledged that the City did have larger C-1 parcels and clarified that parcels of five acres or less were identified in the Metro Plan as not needing to be identified on the Metro Plan. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome suggested the first sentence in the policy was not applicable to the application as the City was not being asked to accommodate those needs. She said that one could argue that the second sentence modified the first sentence and the entire policy was inapplicable, but she did not think it unreasonable for the commission to consider the second sentence. Mr. Belcher believed the entire policy was applicable and could not be satisfied by the application, as the policy was meant to site the uses in question, office development, and the application did not accomplish that. Mr. Nystrom said staff perceived it as not applicable given that focus. Mr. Carroll perceived the policy as focused on the opportunity area and what would happen when that development occurred. Mr. Belcher said when he considered the size of the subarea it was clear it was not going to be developed solely with neighborhood commercial, so he had to retract his position. Mr. Duncan noted that the ECLS mentioned the WAP was in progress at the time the study was being adopted, and acknowledged that the refinement plan would provide broad direction to guide future growth and development in the area. Mr. Carroll suggested it would be helpful if the commission evaluated surrounding land uses in any case, given the testimony the commission had received and the unanticipated nature of the use being proposed to evaluate how it did or did not fit the neighborhood. He suggested the issue be flagged for future discussion. Mr. Duncan asked if the commission believed the policy applied, adding he did not. Because of the two implementation strategies and subarea background information, Mr. Hledik said he had to believe the focus of the second sentence of the policy was also on General Office and C-1. He believed further discussion of traffic impacts was in order. Ms. Jerome suggested that the findings could indicate the commission found the policy applicable to C-1 and GO was therefore not applicable. If found applicable, the commission could also look to Goal 12 and Goal 5, and staff would flag it for future discussion of residential surrounding uses and impacts. Mr. Hledik endorsed that approach. Mr. Duncan recalled changes made to the C-1 zone as part of the code update. He suggested that Sheldon Plaza could not be considered a neighborhood shopping center, and the acreage mentioned in the policy was being developed more regionally, although still zoned C-1. He said that in the past, C-1 was much more broadly defined than it was today. Mr. Nystrom agreed. Mr. Duncan suggested that some discussion of the fact that the C-1 contemplated in the policy was a different kind of C-1 zoning then the City had today be included in the findings. The commission took a brief meeting break. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 6 Special Meeting Willakenzie Area Plan Ms. Hansen reminded the commission it was considering a change of designation from Parks and Open Space to Commercial, and a policy text amendment limiting the use of the site to a hospital and medical uses. Land Use Element Policies 1. The City shall use the Land Use Diagram and accompanying text and policies of the Willakenzie Refinement Plan as well as other applicable City goals, policies, and plans to provide policy direction for public decisions affecting the plan area. 2. The City shall ensure that future commercial development and redevelopment in the Willakenzie planning area is sensitive to and compatible with existing and planned development in the surrounding area. 2.1 Amend the Eugene Code to ensure that commercial developments are attractive, compatible with surrounding land uses, and reflect recommendations in the Willakenzie Plan, the Commercial Lands Study, and other design studies. 2.2 Apply the \SR Site Review suffix to all parcels zoned or designated for C- 1 Neighborhood Commercial or C-2 General Commercial development in the Willakenzie planning area using the Willakenzie Commercial Siting and Development Guidelines as the review criteria. These guidelines will be used to evaluate commercial development and redevelopment proposals until such times as the City adopts citywide commercial development standards or guidelines. Ms. Jerome noted a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) opinion stating that Policy 2, a policy frequently mentioned in testimony, could not be used in a site-specific, quasi-judicial case such as the one before the commission. Ms. Hansen further noted that the City adopted a new land use code in 2001 with commercial development standards, and the property in question had a site review overlay the property owner proposed to retain. Ms. Jerome suggested the findings be revised to include mention of the commercial standards. Residential Policy 1 1. Maintain the existing low-density residential character of existing Willakenzie neighborhoods while recognizing the need to provide housing for all income groups in the city. Ms. Hansen said that Mr. Hledik had raised Residential Policy 1 as an issue; staff had not addressed the policy in the staff report because it applied to residential development proposals, not commercial development proposals. She referred to the preamble to the section, which indicated the policies listed applied to the Willakenzie planning area as a whole or to generalized land use categories within the Willakenzie area. Mr. Hledik argued that the commission was contemplating a plan amendment that the neighbors testified would have an impact on the residential character. They cited Delta Subarea Policy 1 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 7 Special Meeting and Unincorporated Subarea policies 11, 13, and 17 in support of their testimony. Those policies were not addressed by the applicant or staff. They also cited WAP Land Use Findings 1 and 2, the discussion of the North Delta Subarea, and the discussion of the Unincorporated Subarea in support as well. He said the neighbors were concerned that the residential character of the area would be affected by the proposal, and the commission discussed neighborhood character in its growth policies, but because the policies were not “right on target,” there was nothing to address. Mr. Hledik wanted to know “where do the neighbors get a chance to pitch in on any of this?” Mr. Belcher said it seemed the more unanticipated or unique a proposal was, the less likely the City’s policies applied. Mr. Nystrom called the commission’s attention to the WAP Commercial Policy 2, which referred to the siting and development guidelines, and Ms. Hansen noted that the land use policies called for the use of site review to ensure compatibility. Mr. Hledik referred to the preamble and asked if it would make a difference if the “or” was an “and.” Ms. Jerome did not think the preamble would inform the decision much as she did not interpret the “and” as making much of a difference. Mr. Carroll referred to the discussion of the Unincorporated Subarea and asked if the opportunity areas identified were still opportunity areas for neighborhood commercial and mixed uses. Ms. Hansen said yes, noting the map on page 53 of the WAP showed those areas. Mr. Nystrom confirmed that staff continued to use the policies to evaluate development proposals in the opportunity areas. Mr. Carroll asked if the site’s proximity to those sites, which he thought had the potential for mixed use development, was something the commission needed to consider in terms of impacts to the traffic system and adjacent land uses. Mr. Hledik though the opportunity areas were to be C-1. Ms. Hansen said that some of the opportunity areas were vacant and it was possible the property owners could apply for mixed-use development. Mr. Hledik asked that the findings be clear as to why Residential Policy 1 was not applicable, and asked that the same be done for Land Use Finding 2, Delta Subarea Policy 1, and Unincorporated Subarea policies 11, 13, and 17. There was no objection. Speaking to the concerns voiced by commissioners, Mr. Nystrom pointed out that the City had tools in place created since the development of the WAP to address issues of compatibility, and the WAP itself created the ability to develop a tool kit to help ensure compatibility. He said that it might be difficult to create a connection to between those compatibility issues and a policy or the toolkit. He said that the commission may not feel like the City’s plan policies covered the full range of issues. Mr. Hledik thought it important to discuss the applicability of a policy and the reasons staff did not find them applicable given that they had been raised by opponents of the proposal. At the request of Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome provided an overview of the Knutson case decided by LUBA. Mr. Lawless said a concern seemed to be the order of magnitude of the commercial use proposed, but the WAP anticipated other commercial uses and potential conflicting uses and laid out a number of steps, such as commercial development standards and site review, designed to mitigate those conflicts. He thought the plan clearly intended to deal with that different order of magnitude of what was proposed. The measures related to landscaping, screening, buffering, and MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 8 Special Meeting berms served to mitigate the impact of a commercial development, even a hospital. He thought that the potential off-site impacts, particularly the transportation off-site impacts, of the hospital had still to be addressed in discussion, as well as how the broader scale of the proposal created off-site issues that impacted existing conditions and other anticipated outcomes of the WAP. Mr. Hledik indicated he was confident that the site review and conditional use permit processes would be able to deal with the on-site impacts, but he reiterated the opponents’ concerns about traffic and noise on Ayres and Delta, which were off-site impacts. He wanted to know what criteria addressed those issues. Mr. Belcher noted his concern that the fact the hospital would affect future land use patterns by creating a new kind of demand. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll about the impact of Unincorporated Subarea Policy 2, Ms. Hansen indicated that policy was a directive to the City to require future developments to provide an effective transition between the urban and rural areas. Mr. Carroll indicated discomfort about what he perceived as a lack of information about how the applicant would minimize conflicts. He was not comfortable that the application satisfied City policies in that regard. Transportation Policy 1 1. The transportation network within the Willakenzie Area shall be planned and designed to ensure: a) the preservation of existing neighborhoods; b) an adequate system of arterials and collectors for the efficient movement of through traffic; and c) the preservation of the local streets for local traffic. Mr. Hledik noted the five associated implementation strategies. He suggested the policy was written to ensure that the transportation network system was designed to preserve the existing neighborhoods as they developed. He said his calculations indicated that, without further improvements, the Level of Service (LOS) would be LOS F at both a.m. and p.m. hours at the intersection of Delta and Ayres in 2025. He anticipated a 250 percent increase in traffic through the intersection and suggested the impact of that on circulation and the character of the neighborhood was a concern to residents. When they moved to the area it was planned and designated for low-density residential and parks and open space. Mr. Hledik acknowledged that the intersection was projected to be raised to LOS A or B. He asked the impact of bringing in more traffic into the neighborhood and how the policy applied. Ms. Hansen indicated that staff had not addressed the policy in the staff report because it had not found the policy to be applicable. She pointed out that the policy referred to major streets and she interpreted it as being focused on higher classification streets and keeping traffic on those streets to preserve local streets for local traffic. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) did not call for changes to the street classifications and most of the traffic would remain on collector streets, which included Ayres and Delta. Those streets were intended to accommodate higher volumes. Mr. Duncan recalled that Transportation staff indicated the capacity of the streets in question would not be reached by the project. He noted the opportunity site was envisioned for a higher density project, which he interpreted as having higher traffic flows. The refinement plan had suggested there could be significantly more traffic in the area, based on the development of the opportunity area. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 9 Special Meeting Ms. Hansen noted that one of the implementation strategies also suggested the addition of new collectors to funnel traffic out of the local neighborhood. Mr. Hledik asked if the strategies were all inclusive and, if once completed, Policy 1 would no longer continue to have application. Ms. Hansen did not think so. She pointed out the refinement plan included a statement that indicated the proposed actions were possible ways to implement the policies, but she suggested that they gave the commission an idea of the intent of the policy. Mr. Hledik thought Mr. Duncan’s points were well-taken. He noted that the Parks and Open Space Comprehensive Plan did not recognize private recreation areas and there was no guarantee the golf course would be in place forever. It could convert to another use and create more traffic. He thought if there was a proposal to convert the golf course to low-residential or even medium- to high-density residential, it would be less controversial that the request before the commission. He thought the groundwork for that type of conversion was laid out in the refinement plan given its characterization of the neighborhood as low- and medium-density. The issue then became one of degree; for example, the amount of traffic generated by low-density residential versus the amount generated by the hospital. He said that engineers indicated that the most affected road was currently underused based on its design capacity, and if that was all that counted, the issue was moot. Mr. Duncan asked if the new collector to be located north of Ayres Road to serve the opportunity area was included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Nystrom said no. Mr. Duncan suggested that the northern area of the neighborhood was intended to have heavier traffic flows. Ms. Jerome referred the commission to the Functional Classifications Map on page 84 of the WAP and the indication the exact location of the collector was to be determined. Mr. Lawless asked where the impact of increased capacity on a collector street was measured on local streets. Mr. McNeel said that the point of measurement would be at the intersection of the local street and collector street. Mr. Lawless asked if the record included anything about the anticipated impact when Ayres Road reached “one car short of failure.” He asked what that impact looked like “on the ground.” Mr. McNeel said that staff did not anticipate that, but if it happened the City would consider things like all-way stop warrants and conversion of two-way to four-way stops, or even a signal warrant. He said that nothing like that was anticipated along Ayres Road. Mr. Lawless suggested that it was logical to anticipate that the use of Ayres Road would increase to the point he had suggested in regard to the capacity of the street. Whether that was driven by the application in question or broader transportation issues, he wanted to understand, from the point of view of the neighbor, “how far do you go” in regard to that “decreased convenient access” before there was a real problem. He assumed that transportation systems were designed to work within one car short of failure, and suggested that “gradient in between when all this local traffic that was not part of this investigation” had to intersect and use the system. He wanted to know if whatever happened between the day the road opened and the day it failed was okay. Mr. Hledik said the 2025 projection for Ayres Road was comparable to the current volume on Crescent Drive. There were times when cars on Crescent were constantly turning on or off streets like Cheryl or Chuckanut at peak hours. He noted that Ayres Road had limited access points and most intersections were local street feeders. He anticipated that it was as busy as Crescent, there would be times when vehicles would have to “dodge out” onto or off of Ayres Road. The fact there were not more four-way stops on Crescent indicated to him the warrant had not been MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 10 Special Meeting achieved yet, and the area simply became more congested for residents then they had expected when they moved out near the edge of the urban growth boundary near a golf course. Mr. Hledik asked that staff explain in the findings why the policy was not applicable, and that it mentioned LOS D as the City standard. Mr. Belcher raised the issue of the Unincorporated Subarea and suggested that the text in that section gave the commission a clear indication of what was anticipated for the area, and then the question became, was locating the hospital to this area important enough to override that intent? Mr. Duncan said the text was not referring to the site in question. Mr. Belcher said that it was intended to be parks and open space. Mr. Hledik pointed out that the commission was considering plan amendments that would change that. He acknowledged that there was not a logical place to discuss some of the anticipated off-site impacts. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll about the degree to which the City could interpret Transportation Policy 5 to as a mandate for requiring transportation demand management (TDM) of the applicant, Mr. Nystrom said staff interpreted the policy as a directive for staff to create a climate in which it worked in partnership with applicants on TDM programs. He anticipated that staff and the applicant would work in the application review phase at more fine-grained transportation issues and potential approaches, and a TDM program could be part of that discussion. He did not know if the City would require a programmatic approach. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Carroll, that parking could be addressed through a TDM program, but he could not state what that looked like at this point; there could be alternatives. He assured the commission that there was a process that existed for the discussion to take place. Mr. Carroll believed that some of the things the applicant mentioned, such as carpooling, peak shift changes, and walking and cycling improvements, would be good to pursue. He said that while the policy was directed at the City, “the City’s got to do it,” and he wanted to have something in place that ensured TDM strategies were incorporated into the applicant’s plans. He wanted to see something that forced the applicant to carry forward some of the ideas proposed. Mr. Nystrom responded that the City’s authority was limited to some degree and what it mandated must be within the context of a land use action. Mr. Carroll noted the condition of approval related to trips, and suggested that created a nexus for a mandate. Ms. Jerome noted the City’s strict standards related to parking supply and the provision of bicycle parking, and recalled the City’s work with the University of Oregon on TDM for the Autzen Stadium expansion project when it had difficulty meeting the parking standards. Mr. Nystrom said that TDM was one of many tools the City used to deal with such issues. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Hansen clarified that the Ayres Home was not a designated historic resource. Mr. Nystrom said that the City would address the fact of the potential historic nature of the house through the site review process, but he pointed out the lack of a formal designation and asked the commission to consider that context. Ms. Hansen noted the second criteria for a refinement plan amendment (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. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 11 Special Meeting  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. Ms. Hansen indicated that the staff found the application to be consistent with 2(c) assuming the commission found the application to be consistent with the Metro Plan amendment; the amendment would constitute a new community policy in the context of the criterion. She noted that the applicant also presented findings of consistency with 2(e). Mr. Carroll was not comfortable with the application of 2(c) as he did not think a change in a land use designation constituted a community policy; that was a real problem for him, particularly for this application. He also did not support the application of 2(e). He said the applicant stated that there were two changes, one being the move of Peace Health from the community and the other that a parcel suggested for hospital use did not work out. He perceived a change in circumstances in a substantial manner as requiring a plan amendment, and that had not occurred. Given that the commission was proposing to amend the refinement plan itself and the trouble he believed it had finding relevant criteria, he was not comfortable that the application met those criteria. Mr. Nystrom said that the process was not a perfectly clean one and similar discussions had occurred about other Metro Plan plans in the past. He suggested that the commission consider the issue in terms of hierarchy; if the commission first amended the Metro Plan in a consolidated application and established a new designation through that action and then turned to the refinement plan, it would encounter a conflict to resolve; the new designation called for one thing, while the refinement thing called for another. Staff saw the action taken in regard to the Metro Plan as establishing the adopted policy basis. Otherwise, it would be very challenging procedurally to resolve such conflicts. He thought that 2(c) made the most sense as a way to get at that issue; the commission was establishing a new policy when it adopted a change in a policy document. Mr. Nystrom said there was a practical need to reconcile how to deal with the hierarchy of changes that occurred and still have a system that legally worked. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik about staff’s degree of concurrence with the applicant’s rationale related to 2(e), Ms. Hansen said that staff’s emphasis was on 2(c), and she considered 2(e) to be secondary. Mr. Nystrom said staff was not relying on 2(e) for its rationale. Speaking to the issue of the MOU, Mr. Hledik asked if the change in circumstance needed to be specific to the neighborhood in question. Ms. Jerome said no. Mr. Hledik believed the council-adopted MOU was a policy-driven directive to find a location for a hospital in Eugene that represented a new policy. He asked if Ms. Jerome interpreted the MOU as a policy. Ms. Jerome thought the issue was subject to interpretation. Mr. Hledik pointed to the recitals in the MOU stating the City’s priority for a full-service hospital, and suggested it was more policy-oriented than goal-oriented. Speaking to the applicant’s arguments related to the applicability of 2(e), Mr. Belcher recalled that Peace Health had indicated to the City it intended to build a clinic, not a hospital, on the site in question. He believed that a letter from Peace Health to that effect existed, and suggested that it should be included in the record. Mr. Hledik recalled that the City Council had taken action to turn down Peace Health when it expressed interest in the site in question. Ms. Jerome said that neither that action nor the letter MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 12 Special Meeting mentioned by Mr. Belcher was part of the record. She believed it inappropriate to discuss them at this time. Ms. Jerome recommended that the commission consider the term “policy” in a broader way. She said that the use of the word “policy” in the criterion did not imply an adopted policy. Mr. Hledik asked that the findings also reference Resolution #4778, Exhibit O. Ms. Jerome recalled the council’s adoption of Ordinance 20003 amending the refinement plan, which included findings based on 2(e) that mentioned the unanticipated sale of the Crescent site owned by Peace Health and significant development of the land zoned C-3. She suggested that the things the commission was discussing seemed to fit under either (c) or (e). She believed that the amendment to the Metro Plan could be considered a change in policy even if the commission was taking action on the refinement plan just minutes later. In regard to (e), Ms. Jerome suggested the commission could take into account other changes, such as the changes in circumstances mentioned in the ordinances, which included the sale of land between two private entities, when considering (e). Mr. Nystrom indicated staff would include text regarding the council’s actions as it related to the MOU under the discussion of (e). Mr. Carroll suggested the commission defer to the council in regard to what constituted policy. He indicated discomfort with the direction being contemplated in regard to 2(e) because he did not think the connection was clearly laid out by the applicant. He thought recent precedent argued for a reliance on (c). Mr. Duncan believed the commission could use both criteria. Mr. Nystrom agreed, saying the commission could use either or both in its findings. Mr. Nystrom asked if the commission objected to staff preparing findings for 2(c) as discussed. There was no objection. Mr. Nystrom asked if the commission wanted to include findings for 2(e). Mr. Hledik indicated support for including findings for 2(e) based on the resolution and MOU. He was not prepared to include the rationale related to the former hospital site. Mr. Duncan concurred. Mr. Belcher thought it “seemed unfair” that a Metro Plan policy could override a refinement plan. Mr. Duncan pointed out that was the hierarchy in place. Mr. Hledik pointed out that the Land Use Board of Appeals had ruled that the Metro Plan Diagram trumped the refinement plan. The refinement plan must be consistent with the Metro Plan rather than the other way around. Ms. Jerome indicated she would research to find out if that applied to the text as well as the diagram. The meeting adjourned at 2 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 16, 2007 Page 13 Special Meeting