August 6, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 9-1-2010


Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Fleenor, Bobby Green, Sr. and Pete Sorenson present.  Bill Dwyer was excused.  County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1248/In the Matt er of Adopting the Cottage Grove 2007 Transportation System Plan and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (File No. PA 08-5142, Applicant: City of Cottage Grove ) (NBA & PM 7/23/08 ).


Stephanie Schulz, Land Manager, explained that this is an opportunity for the Board to gather testimony for consideration of co-adopting the Cottage Grove 2007 Transportation System Plan, the Refinement Plan to the Cottage Grove Comprehensive Plan.  She noted the Cottage Grove 2007 Transportation System Plan identifies future transportation facility and service needs through the year 2025. She indicated Statewide Planning Goal 2 requires effective governmental units with land use planning responsibilities to coordinate all plans that guide land use decisions.  She said because Lane County has jurisdictional responsibility for lands between the city limits and the urban growth boundaries of the small cities, the Boardís concurrence is required for the policies and regulations contained in their comprehensive plans to be consistently applied to future decisions.  She said the cityís updated TSP retains relevant policies and regulations from the previous plan as well as adding new goals, objectives and policies in response to recent initiatives within the state and County as they relate to transportation facilities.  She indicated the TSP addresses all modes of transportation, motor vehicles, public transportation, bicycles, pedestrian, air, waterways and railroads.  She added that local government coordination was achieved during this process by the participation of County transportation planning staff on the TSP Technical Advisory Committee during development of the plan.  She recalled March 10, 2008 is when the city adopted their TSP update.  She noted on February 6 they submitted it to the county for co-adoption.  She noted on April 4, the DLCD notice of proposed action was sent. On April 30 notice and referral was sent to interested parties and a legal ad was published in The Register Guard notifying the public of the Planning Commission hearing.  She said they held a Planning Commission work session on May 20.  She indicated the vote at the Planning Commission was to unanimously recommend co-adoption of the Cottage Grove 2007 TSP to the Board.  She noted on July 16 they provided a notice and referral for the board hearing today.


Schulz reported the TSP study area for developing the conclusions goes outside the urban growth boundary for purposes of transportation planning within the UGB and the number of trips generated within the UGB is a larger number than the population that lives within the UGB.  She noted there were questions at the First Reading regarding population households and the relationship to transportation planning developed by the city of Cottage Grove.  She stated that applicable criteria are found under Lane Code 12.050.  She noted Ordinance No. PA 1258 is the adopting ordinance.  She added under 12.050(2)( c) and (d) criteria are found to be applicable to this application.  She indicated the changes adopted by the Oregon Legislature have become law since the adoption of the 1998 Cottage Grove Transportation System Plan. She noted the cityís response in this change in policy is to update their plan and staff concurred with the ordinance findings that show the TSP update responds appropriately to transportation public policy changes and provides guidance for expected transportation needs in Cottage Grove through the year 2025. She indicated the Cottage Grove 2007 TSP identifies plan changes in response to public needs based on the re-evaluation of the community in Cottage Grove and the TPR changes.   She said the city through a public process analyzed the needs of the public but consideration for the changing state regulations are the primary guiding factors.  She said the evaluation of those needs was initiated by the opportunity to update the city TSP and staff finds the updated Refinement Plan as compliant with and does not impair the purpose of the Lane Code Rural Comp Plan.


Schulz said Lane Code Chapter 16.400 6(h)(iii)(aa) further requires the Board to make findings that the proposed amendment meets all applicable requirements of state and local law, statewide planning goals and Oregon Administrative Rules.  She noted that Exhibit C to the ordinance addresses all applicable criteria found in the statewide planning goals and OARíS and staff concurs with the findings and recommends the Board co-adopt the Cottage Grove 2007 Transporation System Plan for application within the Cottage Grove urbanizable area.


In response to questions by the Board at the first reading, Schulz provided a supplemental memo with attachments that address the difference in the population forecast for the Cottage Grove urban growth area as described in population and households and how the calculations were done.


Sorenson asked how the Transportation Analysis Zone applied to this.  He asked who created them.  He said by looking at the data LCOG provided on the number of people in Cottage Grove according to their population, they are planning for a large population relative to what the LCOG population data shows.


Celia Barry, Public Works, explained that it is more about households than population.  She distributed information about the trip generation manual (Copy in file).  She indicated that it is prepared by an international group of sceientists and engineers that are experts in this field.  She said they use households instead of population. 


Stewart requested that they keep the record open for two weeks.


MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation for Ordinance PA 1248 for August 27 and keeping the record open to August 20.


Fleenor MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Sorenson asked who established the boundary for the Transportation Analysis Zone.   He asked if there was any way to resolve the problem of looking at LCOG and other population studies that show numbers of people within an urbanizable area outside of the city within the UGB.


Vorhes responded the legal effect of TAZ is a tool.  He added that it doesnít establish anything other than a study area for trip generations within the population within the urban area and households outside the UGB.


VOTE: 4-0.




Green announced that on August 12 he will be holding a townhall meeting on jobs, challenges and employment at the Peterson Barn.








ORDER 08-7-6-5  Coordinated Population Forecast


Fleenor recommended changes that more accurately reflected what they wanted as a board.  He read the proposed amendments.


MOTION: to make changes to the board order and bring it back on the Consent Calendar.


Sorenson MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0.


Letter to Hynix


Stewart indicated the third paragraph was changed as recommended earlier today.


Sorenson indicated he had concerns about the letter.


Green wanted Sorenson to write the letter and see if it meets with the Boardís expectations. 


Sorenson thought that maybe they wouldnít come to an agreement for the letter.


Green thought they could ask for cooperation from Hynix.  He was upset the way they learned about Hynix closing. 


Stewart said they will have a further discussion on this matter in two weeks.


Vorhes indicated that an appeal was filed on the population forecast.  He said the Planning Director has two days to review an appeal to determine whether it will be accepted or whether there is a basis for acceptance of the appeal.


Kent Howe, Land Management, explained the notice for the Planning Director decision was sent out on July 22, and the appeal period for that decision expired at 5:00 p.m. on Monday August 4.  He said the appellant left a message on the staff phone line at 3:00 p.m. on Monday afternoon on August 4 requesting information regarding the decision.  He said staff returned the phone call in a timely fashion on Tuesday morning.  He said the electrical problems in the County Public Service building didnít affect the ability for the appealant to access information regarding the Planning Director decision.  He indicated  staff was available until 5:00 p.m. on August 4 and could have provided information or records of the Planning Directorís decision if asked.  He noted on August 5 the appellantís representative, Goal One Coalition submitted a written appeal on the Planning Directorís decision.  He said pursuant to the code, within two working days the Planning Director needs to review the written appeal to determine if it was received within the 10 day appeal period.  He indicated that pursuant to Chapter 14, it requires an appeal to be submitted in writing and received by the department within the ten day appeal period.  He indicated the written appeal was not submitted in a timely fashion because it was submitted the day after the expiration of the appeal period for the Planning Directorís decision.  He said the appeallant argues ď Due to the electrical problem of the County, staff was unavailable to provide pertinent documentation concerning the pending decision.  For this reason they are asking for a one day extension of the August 4 deadline.Ē


Howe said he would come to the conclusion that this was not filed in a timely fashion.  He didnít think the fact the electrical problems the County is having had anything to do with his appeal.  He said the appeallant didnít come into their office on Monday.  There was a phone call at 3:00 p.m. , two hours before the appeal period expired.  He said if they had come into the office, they could have pulled the property files and documents and provided them with any information they wanted, but they didnít.


Fleenor said it looked like the County was shut down.  He thought a one day extension under these circumstances would be warranted based that they donít have power outages all the time and they are not creating a precedent.  He would allow the appealant to file the appeal one day late.


Vorhes said there is risk in terms of what the code says and what happened and whether the facts back up to support a decision that says they will process the appeal.   He said if it is challenged, they could determine it wasnít right.


Spartz indicated that at no time did the website go down.


Sorenson thought this was an extraordinary circumstance. He asked who made the decision if something was timely filed.


Howe said he makes the decision.


Sorenson asked when he is supposed to make the decision.


Howe said he has two days from 5:00 p.m. Monday.


Vorhes indicated they have two days from the day they received it. 


Stewart asked what kind of information was requested on the phone message.


Howe said they called at 3:00 p.m. and the deadline was at 5:00 p.m.  He said the staff person who received the phone call returned it the next morning and didnít get the message before 5:00 p.m.  He said they returned the phone call on Tuesday morning and gave the appealant the information they inquired about


Stewart said that would have been the response whether there was power or not.  He didnít support the request.


Green asked how much time was required to appeal.


Howe responded the decision was mailed on July 22 and there is a ten day appeal period within which anyone can place an appeal.


Green said they had ten days to file, not the day the power went out.


Howe said they called the day the power went out at 3:00 p.m.


Green thought they had enough time to do it.


Stewart said there was a split and no clear guidance


There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary