BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

October 18, 2006

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners’ Conference Room

APPROVED 3/14/07

 

Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present. Bill Dwyer was excused.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

Sorenson asked to pull W 8. C. 2) off the Consent Calendar.  Stewart will give an update on the Wildish property.

 

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Debra Farber, Junction City, stated she has a third generation farm.  She was contacted by the City of Eugene because they want to take a piece of her property to make into a park.   She said the property is not in the city or in the urban growth boundary and she didn’t want to do it.  She stated that according to the letter she received, she has no choice.  She needed help.  She indicated that she hired an attorney.

 

Morrison wanted staff to clarify whether they were given any notification.  She said there were some parcels that were included in the inventory and people were to have been given notice.

 

Farber indicated she didn’t know anything until two weeks ago when she received a registered letter.

 

Stewart wanted staff to review the letter to see if it was a piece of property in their parks plan.

 

Morrison said she sent questions to staff on how many properties there would be in Goal 5 and Goal 6.

 

Sorenson suggested asking the City of Eugene Parks Department to send them a letter on how extensive this is.  He asked what the County could do to provide information to property owners who are getting the same letters.  

 

Morrison wanted the city councilor representing the area to provide comment to the Board.

 

Zachary Vishinoff, Eugene, stated he found out the city is trying to bulldoze a park on Franklin Boulevard without a public hearing.

 

Victor Stathakis, thanked the Board for the extended hours for the Wayne Morse Free Speech area.  He invited the Board to a Wayne Morse birthday party.  He wanted to get on the agenda so they could discuss next year and have a plan in place before April 1.  He brought up a letter to the GSA about youth being in the ceremonies at the federal building.

 

John Dodge, Eugene, stated he received a letter on June 30, 2006 regarding the vacation of Templeton Road.  He noted people want to go to Option 2.  He had a petition that wanted Option 2, page 6, the vacation of Templeton Road from Milepost 2.432 to 3.77.  He wanted the Board to vacate the road.  He said no one is sure where the road goes and it had never been an open road.    He was against a gate and a lock run by someone other than the owner of the land.

 

Cindy Land, Eugene, discussed the livestock arena and horse barn at the fairgrounds.  She commented that the fairgrounds could be a source of revenue and success for Lane County.  She said the fairgrounds should be generating a surplus from the site.  She stated good management, hard work, creative marketing and realistic expectations are needed.  She recalled in 2002 she presented the Fair Board a marketing plan and spoke during public testimony. She added on October 9, 2006 she submitted a marketing plan to the Fair Board asking them to read it and they ignored it.  She estimated that the YMCA would be paying $2,500 per month for the livestock facility and horse barn.  She indicated an average horse show in three days would generate $4,000 to $6,000.  She commented that the purpose of the fairgrounds is a county fair and exhibits.

 

Amy Pendell, speaking about a Measure 37 claim, reported that McDougal had paid Bernheim $3 million for his property.  She noted the paperwork had not been filed.  She added that Bernheim stated he was to hold onto the title in order to have a Measure 37 claim that was valid and he was promised additional money to do so.  Pendell said Bernheim’s attorney failed to produce a written lease on the property.  She stated that Oregon Law does not allow for an oral lease to go on for more than one year.  She noted that McDougal has an option agreement on the property that has no beginning or end and it gives him indefinite control of the property.  She said McDougal has replaced a bridge and she didn’t know if they filed a proper permit.  She said they did road construction prior to their logging permit.  She said they are also drilling wells on the property. She stated that because of the non-enforcement of current land use laws,  they are panicked about this measure going through.  She thought McDougal was the real owner.  She said the neighbors were going to have some say in this matter.  She asked the Board to deny this claim and rescind lots 101, 105 and 106 because they are no longer in ownership control of the Bernheims; they are under the control of  McDougal.

 

Paul Templeton, Cheshire, spoke regarding the Templeton family property.  He indicated that Frank Simas, Public Works, contacted him about vacating this particular section of Templeton Road.  Simas’ proposal was what he had been thinking about for several years.  He said the issue was before the Roads Advisory Committee. He said after considerable discussion by Mr. Verna, (one of the residents on the north end of Templeton Road) his concern was about a turn around for the grader. He noted after the turn around issue was resolved, Verna switched his focus to fire escape.  He indicated the present road, Milepost 2.432 to Milepost 3.77, gated or not is not a viable fire escape.  He added that Verna told him he had another route out Springbrook Drive to the west, which makes more sense.  He said, had the money been spent on the north end of Templeton Road, from Milepost 3.77 to High Pass Road, all of the residents would have had a better fire escape.  He recalled the last time the issue was before the Board, he suggested the County engineer try to find where the old right of way is on the property. Templeton said after seeing the maps and evidence on the ground and reading the background information, he said no one knows where County Road Number 50 is located.  He indicated that it creates two dead end roads.  He was disappointed that the road won’t be vacated, and remain in the same status.  He disagreed with the recommendation that the County lock be installed on the gates at both ends of the road and the County engineer be responsible for the distribution of keys.  

 

Morrison asked who currently has the keys.

 

Templeton responded that the BLM has a separate key that allows them access to some of their property.  He said the Templeton family has a lock and they gave a key to Mr. Verna in case of fire or another emergency.  He added he is within sight of the north gate.    Templeton indicated that Verna started giving keys to other people.

 

Morrison was concerned about the keys and the proposal that had come from staff on who is going to have access to private property.  She stated it is the Templeton property and they do have rights.  She thought this situation had worked for the past 20 years.  She thought it was important that the BLM, the Templetons and Public Works have a key.  

 

Templeton commented that the turn around for the grader could be constructed at the property line and they could put the gate behind it.  He didn’t think they would have problem with donating a turn around area.  He included a photo of the section of the middle of the road right of way.  He indicated that a car hasn’t driven the road in years.

 

Jay Templeton, said she has copies of a draft of information and she can clarify and support earlier statements. She is the eldest of the four Templeton owners.  She said she had personal knowledge of the road and the ranch.  She indicated it is a commercial farm bordered by a subdivision.  She found flaws in Option 2.  She preferred Option 3, to get the road where it should be with the closure of the north gate.  She said the agreement to put the gate where it is now located and has been located for 20 years was done by a previous property owner, not the four present Templeton family members.  She said they did not personally acquire ownership of that property until after her father’s death in 2000.  She thought there was justification to move the gate if they want to close the road and omit the need for keys.

 

3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE  

 

Morrison clarified information that was in an interview in the Oregonian last week.  She said the Oregonian misquoted Sorenson when he said there would only be a ten percent impact regarding the loss of Secure Rural Schools.  She said in reality it is 50 percent of the new Public Works fund that would be lost and between one third and one half of their general discretionary fund money.  She said they were looking at a larger impact on Lane County’s budget regarding the loss of those revenues.

 

Sorenson stated he gave an interview on Radio Station KOPT on the impact of Ballot Measure 48 on the State of Oregon and Lane County.  He noted the measure was copied from Colorado.  He indicated that Oregon voters in the November election are facing the same ballot measure.  He commented that they need to take a hard look at whether going through the experience that Colorado has gone through is something they want to do.  He noted if the measure were in place, it would result in an immediate 24 percent reduction in the overall budget of the State of Oregon.  He urged people to vote no on Measure 48.  He said he took out a page in the Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet to give his views on the measure.

 

Green stated that AOC had taken the position of opposing  Measure 48.

 

5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a. RECOGNITION/Steve Kirkpatrick and Jeff Stinger, Top Gun Winners at the Oregon Skills Demonstration.

 

b. ORDER 06-10-18-1/In the Matter of Endorsing the Nobel Peace Laureate Monument Project.

 

Sorenson read the resolution into the record.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-18-1.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

(Commissioner Green left for a conference call).

 

c. Update on Wildish

 

Stewart recalled that last week he received a call from Steve Wildish who stated that they would have a value on their property to report to Lane County the week of October 23.  Stewart was asked by Chris Orsinger, Friends of Buford Park, to go to Salem on October 24. He has arranged for a meeting of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, state parks and representatives from BPA in looking at what money is available for property acquisition to possibly purchase the property.  He added there was a discussion about the Measure 37 claim.  He said they would try for the last weekend in November. He suggested making a presentation the Tuesday before their Measure 37 claim and then they will have public comment.

 

6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

Van Vactor recalled two months ago the Board executed an order putting the Lane County Human Rights Advisory Committee on hiatus and directed the County Administrator to examine a different alternative with regard to that program.  He said that Eve Terrain, who was hired under the budget for Human Resources had done research.  He added they have ten citizens who have accepted the invitation to be on a County Administration Task Force to examine different alternatives throughout the country.  He said they had their first meeting last night.  He hoped to have a recommendation in March 2007.  He said they want to hear from the Board.

 

7. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. ORDER 06-10-18-2/In the Matter of Direction to Staff Regarding the Legal Status of Portions of Templeton Road, County Road No. 50, in Sections 2 and 11, Township 16 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian.

 

Frank Simas, Public Works, explained that there is not a solution that would make everyone happy.  He recalled the last direction they were given by the Board was to locate the various right of ways in the ground and pursue vacation to legalize the relocated section of roadway and to withdraw county road status from that portion of Templeton Road between Milepost 2.432 and Milepost 3.77.  He began the process of locating where the right of ways were on the ground using GPS technology.  He indicated they initially found where they thought County Road No. 50 was, that is the legalized right of way from 1896.  He noted that is not on the ground anymore.  He said it has been washed out due to weather and lack of maintenance.  He said from 1970 to 1986 the relocated section of the roadway received maintenance by County maintenance crews.  He noted in 1986 a permit was issued to Gerald Templeton to install a gate on the northerly end near the Verna’s property.  He indicated that since that time there hasn’t been general usage of the road as a through route.  It has been used at various times for logging and forestry purposes.

 

Simas explained that once they had determined where they thought the various rights of way were in relationship to the deed restrictions and other recorded surveys, they had several meetings with the residents and stakeholders on the northern end of the project.  He said they thought the right of way should be maintained as an escape route in case of forest fire.  He added they expressed that they utilize the right of way for hiking and biking.

 

Simas said they hadn’t talked to anyone who wanted the road to be open for traffic.  He added that no one expressed wanting to have improvements done to the road.  He noted it was mentioned that if this were to be used for a fire escape route it has areas that are overgrown with grass and those could contribute to a fire hazard.  He said the uncertainty is whether this is the exact location where the road was relocated in the early 70’s.  He noted in any legalization, the burden would be on the County to establish that this was maintained by the County for a period of ten years and there was disagreement as to the exact location.

 

In talking with the Templetons, Simas indicated their preference is that the entire section of roadway be vacated.  He said one of the concerns of BLM was if that were to happen there would be a mutual access agreement between the BLM and the Templeton family as to their being able to reach their approximate 200-acre parcel.  He said the BLM expressed that they would be agreeable to this and the Templeton family would agree to this if that were the option to go with the vacation of the road.

 

Simas stated that based on the initial surveying work and subsequent discussions with various stakeholders, it is their recommendation that the status of the road remains as it currently is.  He said there would be a legal county right of way, a potential road that could be legalized as a County right of way at some time in the future, that the County engineers are responsible for distribution of keys to the gate and the gates remain either where they are or moved back to the north line of the Templeton property.  He admitted that it wouldn’t be a perfect solution and doesn’t satisfy all the interests totally.  He thought it was an interim solution that would be not to damaging to everyone.  He indicated they could still carry out the previous direction that the Board gave as to legalization, but it is likely that this could be contested through the legal process and could be time consuming to bring to conclusion.  He noted another option would be a dedication.  Paul Templeton told him that his family would not be in favor of dedicating the right of way that would establish the relocated road as a County road.  He noted the only other option is to come back to the Board with an order authorizing acquisition of the right of way through the normal right of way acquisition process.

 

(Green back at 10:20 a.m.)

 

Morrison wanted the north gate moved and access to the keys limited.  She said the County, BLM, the fire department and the Templeton’s would have a key.   She concurred with Option 2 and thought it would resolve the issue.

 

Sonny Chickering, Public Works, asked if any of the neighbors to the north should have a key.

 

Morrison’s didn’t think there was a need for that to take place.  She said if there was an adjustment that had to be made that they could review it at that time.

 

MOTION: to approve Option 2 of ORDER 06-10-18-2, with the moving of the gate.

 

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Chickering noted the County would still have liability as there is still the County right of way through there.  He said they wouldn’t actively perform road maintenance activities with the County.

 

Stewart wanted to vacate it and move the gate up to the property line.  Before they actually vacate it, he wanted a mutual access agreement with the BLM.  He wanted to make sure the BLM has access rights and to move the gate where it needs to be so there are turn arounds.

 

Simas asked if the direction is to refer it to the County surveyor for a vacation process.

 

Stewart indicated the motion before them was for Option 2, moving the gate up at the County’s expense to the property line.

 

VOTE: 2-2 (Stewart, Sorenson dissenting)  MOTION FAILED.

 

b. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1238/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene/ Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Revise the “Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory”; Designate from “Agriculture” to “Sand & Gravel”; Rezone from “E30/Exclusive Farm Use Zone” to “SG/Sand, Gravel & Rock Products Zone” and Allow Mining on 72.31 Acres of Land Pursuant to the Goal 5 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 660-023); and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 05-6151; Delta Property Co.)  (Second Reading & Public Hearing: November 1, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Harris Hall).

 

MOTION:  to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1238 for November 1, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in Harris Hall.

 

Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

c. DELIBERATION AND ORDER 06-10-18-3/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA05-5735, Edgar Roberts).

 

Howe recalled that the Board originally heard the claim on November 8 and it was postponed to today’s date.  He noted since that first hearing, the applicant has provided the deeds and the information regarding the trust. He said they know now the trust is a revocable trust and Edgar Roberts is the trustee and the trust is not considered a new ownership.  He added on October 6, they received an appraisal for the claim and they have a complete application and it appears to be a valid claim to Edgar Roberts.

 

Van Vactor commented the appraisal was the absolute minimum.  He said the appraiser was not good at articulating the relationship of the land use regulations value.  The appraiser did a calculation of what the small parcels would be worth and came up with the amount of  $70,000.  He thought it met the standard.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-18-3.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE : 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

d. DELIBERATION AND ORDER 06-10-18-4/In the Matter of Amending Order No. 06-6-14-8 to Include Property Inadvertently Omitted from  a Ballot Measure 37 Claim Decision to Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (Bernheim/PA05-6581) (NBA & PM 10/4/06).

 

Howe recalled that the Board had determined that this was a valid claim.  He noted there were issues about activities that were occurring on site and the Board wanted to wait to determine what was happening.  He said a bridge has been built and it is being treated in the Land Management Division as an as built compliance effort.  He explained that is a standard procedure when people build structures without taking out the building permits.  He said at this point Bernheim made an application and will come in for a building permit review appointment next week.

 

Stewart asked if ownership of the property changed that might affect this waiver.

 

Howe replied that they weren’t aware of a change.  He added the applicant for the building permit was Bernheim.

 

Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes said he hadn’t seen anything that reflected an actual conveyance of all of the Bernheim interest to any other party.  He said the status was similar to what the Board had when it first came to them.  He indicated that the latest public record at the County shows that the Bernheims have an interest in the property and they are the applicants for the building permit.  With regard to Measure 37, Vorhes indicated the Bernheims are still the owners or have an interest in the property sufficient to process the Measure 37 claim.  He said when this was before the Board previously and they approved the order, it became part of that proceeding that all of the property in the claim, including tax lot 100 was owned by the Bernheims and should be part of the Board’s action.  He said it was not reflected in the final order signed by the Board.  He said it was due to the Scribner’s error that clarified the previous claim that was filed for all of the property is covered by the order of the Board that waives the land use regulations as to the Bernheims under Measure 37.  He indicated they didn’t catch it before the order was signed.  He said the evidence indicates that the Bernheims own the property and they are pursuing development on the property.  He said the order the Board adopted waived County land use regulations currently in place and applicable to the property, and restrict the property in a way not restricted when the Bernheims acquired their interest in the property.  He added the waiver is only to the Bernheims.  He had not seen evidence on the transfer of the Bernheim interest.  He said the building permit indicates that the Bernheims continue to have an interest in the property and are the property owners.

 

Sorenson thought they should consider if there is “funny business” or “unclean hands” conduct on the part of these people.  He thought they should look further into it.  He thought they should look into whether or not there has been a transfer of the property and the transfer had eliminated the rights of the Bernheims. He commented that the idea that they would make a correction in a previously past order and do it with the knowledge that there is other things going on is an abrogation of their responsibility.  He wanted to wait until they get further information before they take action.

 

Stewart asked if they were in violation of the 180-day time line.

 

Vorhes responded they were beyond the 180-day time line.  He said they were close to it when they had the original hearing on the claim when the Board took action.

 

Howe noted the claim was received on October 19, 2005.  He stated on January 17, 2006 the applicant placed the claim on hold and on May 17 extended the hold to June 14.  He thought they were beyond the 180 days.

 

Sorenson asked if, since they had already approved this, they had acted within 180 days.

 

Vorhes explained that the order didn’t include tax lot 100. He said they had not  approved or done anything as to regulations on that tax lot.  He said as far as information he had seen and heard today, it appears the Bernheims have interest in the property.

 

Howe indicated that the County is unaware of any County land use regulations that have been violated on the property.  He stated there is a building permit that is necessary for the bridge that is constructed and they have made an application for a building permit.

 

MOTION: to approve 06-10-18-4.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

e. DELIBERATION AND ORDER 06-10-4-12/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-6834, Wilbur34) (NBA & PM 10/4/06).

 

Howe explained that there were five of these claims near the community of Deadwood.  He said the dates of acquisition varied from 1964 to1978 and at the time most properties were unzoned.  He indicated they were transferred to the Don Wilbur, LTD partnership in 2001.  He said there was information provided by a real estate broker with an opinion of the value reduction but that was applicable only to Wilbur 33.  He recalled the Board acted on that last time and the remaining claims reference the same value reduction.  He said they needed the applicant to come back and provide the information on the value reduction that would be relevant to others than the Wilbur 33.  He said with the additional information the applicant has provided, they find it is a valid claim and that a waiver could be made to the land use regulations in effect in 2001.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-4-12.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

f. DELIBERATION AND ORDER 06-10-4-13/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-6835, Wilbur35) (NBA & PM 10/4/06).

 

Howe indicated that this claim had the same issues with the additional information provided and it appears to be a valid claim to 2001.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-4-13.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

g. DELIBERATION AND ORDER 06-10-4-14/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-6836, Wilbur36) (NBA & PM 10/4/06).

 

Howe said they have an issue with this claim.  He said this was transferred into the partnership in 2000 to a non-family member.  He indicated that would create a new date of acquisition.  He said they can’t determine the reduction of value as today the land is zoned F1 and it was zoned the same in 2000.  He didn’t think they had a valid claim.

 

Sorenson asked if this was a reason to deny the claim.

 

Howe responded with the new date of acquisition, they couldn’t find the test was met under Measure 37.  His recommendation was to deny the claim.

 

Vorhes said the recommendation is to determine that it is not a valid claim and to direct the County Administrator to issue the final action denying the claim.  He said the claim is on behalf of the limited partnership and that acquisition date could not be traced back to an earlier family member.  He said the acquisition date leaves it in the position of not having any change to the regulations that would reduce the value and restrict the use in any way.

 

MOTION: to deny the claim.

 

Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

h. DELIBERATION AND ORDER 06-10-4-15/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-6837, Wilbur37) (NBA & PM 10/4/06).

 

Howe explained this was similar to the first three claims.  He said they find the waiver of the land use regulations could go to 2001.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-4-15.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

i. ORDER 06-10-18-5/In the Matter of the Vacation of a Portion of Central Road (aka R.B. Hayes Rd., Co. Rd. #323), Located in the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 17, Township 18 South, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian, in Lane County, Oregon, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (18-05-17).

 

Bill Robinson, Land Management, reported this is a County road known as Central Crow Road, near Perkins Peninsula.  He noted there is a 250 frontage with 60 feet in width in front of tax lot 312 that is being petitioned for to be vacated.  He indicated there were 100 percent signatures from the adjoiners.  He stated that tax lot 400 had a concern that there was a problem with access to their property.  He added they hired a surveyor who had given a statement.  He said that tax lot is accessed from Crow Road and is not affected by this proposed vacation.

 

Robinson recalled that this road had been existence since 1876.  He noted there had been vacation actions along it but this part was not vacated.  He said Susanne Holmes (tax lot 400) asked that they have the statement in the order about the survey and it be included that she has access.  He said they want this vacation so they could do some slope maintenance and have more pasture for their livestock.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-18-5.

 

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

j. THIRD READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1237/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Agricultural" to "Marginal Land" and Rezoning That Land From "E-40/Exclusive Farm Use" to "ML/SR Marginal Land with Site Review", and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 05-5985, Ogle) (NBA, PM 8/30/06 & 9/13/06).

 

Jerry Kendall, Land Management, reported the Board held their public hearing on September 13 and kept the record open until October 11, 2006 for new materials,  responses and final rebuttal.  He indicated the record is now closed.  He said supplemental materials were given to the Board.  He stated that staff thinks the applicant has met the 1997 Board guideline for marginal lands.  He said they performed the 50-year cycle and hired an onsite forester to make onsite conservations. He said they used 1983 prices and discussed in length the merchantability factor.  He indicted they met the income and productivity test and staff is recommending approval of the action.  He noted that Farthing in his rebuttal added two pages that he wanted as an addendum to the findings.  Kendall added since it is Farthing’s to defend at LUBA, staff recommended to the Board if this is going to be approved to add those two pages to the findings that were originally attached to the ordinance.

 

Stewart asked if there were ex parte contacts.

 

Green stated he received letters from Mike Farthing.

 

Stewart indicated he missed the public hearing but he viewed the meeting through the webcast.

 

Morrison also watched the webcast.

 

Sorenson asked  how the Planning Commission voted.

 

Kendall responded that the Planning Commission voted a majority against it.  He didn’t recall the vote.  He noted the Planning Commission didn’t list any findings in opposition to the application.  He said they expressed some frustration with information between the consultants, and there was an issue of credibility raised.   He said he couldn’t tell why they voted against this.

 

Sorenson asked if the Planning Commission recommended that the Board deny the application.

 

Kendall said they did.

 

Sorenson asked the amount of time that was spent on this by the Planning Commission.  He asked if the Planning Commission held a public hearing.

 

Kendall said they held a public hearing and continued it for two more readings before they deliberated on it.  He said the applicant was there to testify, as was the Goal 1 Coalition.  He added there were neighbors who testified.  He recalled this application was first submitted in 2003 and then cancelled by the applicant.  He noted there was more neighbor input in the 2003 testimony at the Planning Commission.  He didn’t recall a large amount of opposition to this application   other than the Goal 1 Coalition.

 

Morrison commented that this was an example of the recommendation that came forward from the Planning Commission about the disregard of fact from fiction and what their role actually is.  She stated they are supposed to deal with what the laws say and interpret them appropriately, buy not let their personal biases intervene.  She said in listening to the tapes from the Planning Commission, they weren’t dealing with their role and responsibility.  She commented the Planning Commission was dysfunctional regarding their responsibility to make recommendations to the Board.  She said they have to pay the cost of defending whatever their decisions are.  She commented that the delay on this was unfortunate and the applicant had to go through the expense and time they did regarding their application.

 

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1237 with the two-page supplement.

 

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Green indicated that this was not the first time they had a recommendation from the Planning Commission where they were asked not to approve a claim.  He said they have to go by the findings and criteria and what is on the record.  He added they have to determine if it is of countywide significance.  He asked how the Planning Commission could make a recommendation without any findings.

 

Kendall thought he possibly had to press the Planning Commission harder when he is listening to them to come up with findings.  He heard from the Planning Commission that they didn’t accept the soil study or the foresters and that is what he had to relay to the Board.   

 

Green said when he read the Goal 1 rebuttal, they were not producing scientific evidence.  He thought they were voting on their opinion and not actual facts.  He didn’t think they could make a recommendation without the added costs of defending this at LUBA.

 

Vorhes noted that part of the difficulty is articulating (with reference to the criteria) what the concerns are and what the Planning Commission is gleaning from evidence on both sides.  He said the Planning Commission is given the task to find the material facts that address the criteria and it is sometimes difficult if there are competing scientists.  He said their job is to sift through in the way of evidence and proposed findings that address the criteria.

 

Sorenson thought they needed to be clear that when the Planning Commission or the Board of Commissioners makes a decision that is tentative, that they have the applicant’s attorney write up findings.

 

Kendall recalled that Mr. Just provided facts but he sorted through them.  He noted  the applicant’s team  refuted them to staff’s satisfaction.

 

Stewart shared the same concerns.  He said in reviewing the tapes of the Planning Commission deliberation, there was a certified professional in the field that had been doing it for 30 years.  The planning commissioners claimed they didn’t believe he was telling the truth with no facts to back it up.  He said there are measures that are standard that need to be met.  He thought the application was correct as recommended for approval.   

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

8. CONSENT CALENDAR

 

A. Approval of Minutes:

April 19, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

April 26, 2006, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

August 23, 2006, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

August 30, 2006, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA

September 19, 2006, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.

 

B. County Administration

 

1) ORDER 06-10-18-6/In the Matter of Authorizing $2,000 From the General Fund Operational Contingency for the Food for Lane County Gardens Program Grass Roots Garden Big Boy Greenhouse.

 

C. Management Services

 

1) ORDER 06-10-18-7/In the Matter of Award of Bid LCB 2006-10 for a Construction Contract for the Re-Roofing of Two Existing Buildings at the Lane County National Guard Armory Facility, Including Providing and Installing New Rooftop Mechanical Equipment, in the Amount of $499,180.

 

2) ORDER 06-10-18-8/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property Identified as Map No. 16-45-24-00-01002 Located at 53270 McKenzie Hwy., Blue River, and Commonly Known as the Kaufman Property, for $300,000.

 

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar with C. 2) pulled.

 

Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

C. 2)

 

David Suchart, Management Services, reported they have a piece of property in surplus that the Youth Services Department has been overseeing for a number of years.  He said the sale is for $300,000.  He recalled there had been alternatives in dealing with this.  He said in talking to Lisa Smith, Youth Services,  both she and he would recommend the sale of the property.  They believed it is a good price.  He also wanted to get this property back on the tax roll.  He said if they choose not to sell this piece of property, he wouldn’t know if they could sell it again or if they could get this good a price.  He indicated that if they could not sell the property, they had a fall-back position where the youth could do projects.   

 

Suchart indicated he had done preliminary land use exploration on this and there are no guarantees on what could happen on the property.  He said for the reasons he had outlined, he recommended selling the property to the people who had made the offer.  He also recommended that the $300,000 go into the Juvenile Justice Center Construction Fund to be used for the armory project when it comes up in 2008.

 

Van Vactor  recalled that the Department of Youth Services has been responsible for the property since 1968.  He noted if the money were to be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Construction Fund, the board order would need to be amended.

 

Suchart indicated if the Board goes ahead with this recommendation, he would have to redo the order.

 

Van Vactor recalled that Dwyer had concerns about this.  He recommended that the money go to the Juvenile Justice Construction Fund because of the annual costs that DYS incurred where they had management responsibilities for this property.

 

Sorenson didn’t think selling the property was a good idea.  He thought there was an opportunity to get more money in the long run by realizing it is public property on the McKenzie River.  He thought by saving the property it would go up in value.  He also wanted to get someone with money that would want to protect river front property for public access purposes.  He didn’t think it was fair that the money go to DYS, as it is County owned property.

 

Green said he had no problem with the money going into the general fund, but DYS had been taking care of the property.  He thought the youth program would help with the kids.  He was supportive of this.

 

Van Vactor asked if the Board wanted the board order to be amended to say the money would go into the construction fund.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-18-8 with the money to go into the construction fund.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

Stewart was in favor of the motion.  He visited the property and had concerns whether they could recover or put enough money into it to make a profit.  He thought it was an opportunity to help kids and provide a program that could pay for itself.

 

VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 11:50 a.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary