September 3, 2008
Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Bobby Green, Sr.,
and Peter Sorenson present. County
Administrator Jeff Spartz, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording
Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
a. SECOND READING
AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1252/In the Matter of Amending the Rural
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Forest" to
"Agricultural" and Rezoning That Land From "F-2/Impacted Forest
Lands" to "E-40/Exclusive Farm Use"; and Adopting Savings and
Severability Clauses (File Pa 07-6555; Pfeiffer) (NBA & PM 8/20/08).
Jerry Kendall, Land
Management, reported that the subject property is a lot with 240 acres.
He indicated the lot was split off last year into the subject property:
110 acres plus a small 1.8 adjoining tax lot.
He noted support for the action was from the soils on the subject
property which are good for Douglas fir and grape growing.
He said the purpose for the rezone is to establish a winery on the
property only allowed in the farm zone. He
said historically there has been farm use on the subject 110 acres since the
1930ís, starting with sheep. He
added that 80 acres of grapes were planted in the 1970ís.
He indicated there is Rural Comp Plan policy support: Goal 3, Policy 5
says to implement land use planning techniques that reflect appropriate uses and
treatment of property He added that
Goal 9 Policy 9 supports the tourist industry and gives priority to supporting
Kendall noted there
was a letter of concern by the adjoining neighbor: Seneca Jones Timber that owns property to the west and north
and those concerns have been addressed. He
added last week Mr. Pfeiffer the owner, signed a farm forest management
agreement waiving his common law right to file nuisance lawsuits against the
timber company. He hadnít received any further comment from Seneca Jones.
He noted there is structural fire support coverage on the property.
Kendall received an e-mail from the Junction City Fire Chief that said
they would respond. He added there
are no traffic issues and the facility will generate less than 50 vehicles per
peak hour. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposal by a unanimous 6-0 vote on July 1.
Stewart asked if
there were any ex parte contacts.
There were none.
Stewart opened the Public Hearing.
stated he represents the Pfeiffers. He
said they were happy about the recommendations from staff and the Planning
Commission in favor of this application. He
said the acreage under question had been in agricultural use for 70 years. He said this is an opportunity for the Pfeiffers and the
Oregon Trail Association (a group of 65 rural merchants) to promote better rural
There being no one
else signed up to speak, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public Hearing.
to adopt Ordinance PA 1252.
Fleenor stated that
he was happy about this development. He
said the Pfeiffers will do a good job and there will be a benefit to the
community and the entire county.
supportive as it preserves the land by changing impacted forest to EFU.
He added there is more protection for grapes and open space.
that times are changing and this is allows a use on the land that is appropriate
and meets all criteria.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
b. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 08-9-3-11/In the Matter of Commenting to the Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) on Region 2, Area 5 Earmarks Requests List Priorities.
Celia Barry, Public
Works, explained that this is a Public Hearing and an opportunity to take
testimony and for the Board to provide comment to the Oregon Department of
Transportation, on projects the Board would like to see be put on their official
earmarks list. She noted the
Federal Highway and Transit Bill is coming up for reauthorization in 2009 and
ODOT is preparing to put a list together for earmarks for the reauthorization.
She added that ODOT is requesting comments on surface transportation
Barry indicated the
projects proposed to be submitted to the OTC (page 3 of 5 in
the board order, Exhibit ďAĒ) consist of projects for the Metropolitan
Planning Organization area: Eugene,
Springfield, Metro Plan area and Coburg. She
added there is also a project for the rural area:
Highway 126 West Greenhill to Veneta.
She added the list is based upon priorities established in the past
through the STIP process. She said
it also includes a Franklin Boulevard project for Eugene up to the Springfield
Bridge and it is in the United Front document.
She added there are some projects the Board prioritized as part of the
2010/2015 priorities they took action on. She
noted an unfunded project they wanted the legislature to be aware of previously
was the Highway 126 West Noti to Poterf Creek realignment.
She said ODOT did a preservation project on the realignment but the Board
wanted to keep it on the list of unfunded large projects.
She indicated the Highway 99 upgrade is within Junction City.
She said the Board hadnít co-adopted the refinement plan and it will
require a vacation of the rail line. She noted for the metro area, there has
been a longstanding agreement that the MPO establishes priorities for the metro
Green asked what
project was associated with the West Eugene Collaborative.
Barry said when the
Board contributed funding to that effort, they stipulated the effort must
include consideration of Highway 126 West from Greenhill to Veneta.
Green asked if this
was a study.
Barry stated it was
included in this proposal as a study to contribute ODOT budget money to begin a
study prior to NEPA process starting.
Green asked about
criteria for the OTC project they advanced.
He noted that statewide these projects would have to compete with other
projects around the state from other regions.
He asked if a study should be included as opposed to projects that are
ready. He asked what had a better
chance for funding.
Barry said the list
would go directly to OTC, it doesnít get vetted on a region wide basis.
She said at the most four or five projects from the area would be
included in the earmarks list and Lane County would be competing with other
important projects statewide. She noted a project people are concerned about is the
Columbia Bridge crossing. She said
this would be looked at off the top and will not be considered in the mix with
the other earmarked projects.
ODOT, explained that earmarks are not prioritized based on technical merit, they
are based on what the federal representatives would like to support.
He said ODOT will come up with a list of projects they have on their
earmark list but it doesnít pre-empt local jurisdictions from pursuing other
earmark requests that donít make it on the OTC list or they want to pursue
independent of ODOT. He said in order to get the funding and to spend it, it will
have to meet the criteria.
they have to be consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan and she said Lane County
Green said if they
claim a project they are responsible for it.
He thought they should be careful in what they prioritize. He
added the earmarks will be competitive but they will have to own the project if
they lobby for earmarks.
that as far as the local match, if an earmark project on the OTC list is awarded
funds, then the local match would be covered by ODOT.
He said if one of the projects is not successful based on the OTC earmark
list and the County pursues it independently, then the County would be
Sorenson asked what
the authority was for the MPO to make decisions and who granted them authority.
that the Metropolitan Planning Organization area is based on census data and it
is a federal designation. She said
it is used for federal funding beyond transportation. She indicated for transportation there is a provision in
federal law and it makes their MPO area a transportation management area because
there are more than 200,000 people in the area and it relates to this by
allowing the MPO area to set its own priorities in the STIP process that ODOT
cannot change due to the population level.
that he didnít see a fix on West 11th.
He thought the amount of the fix would be a very expensive project, close
to the cost for the Beltline and Gateway.
Barry recalled the
MPC took action on July 10 and the Roads Advisory Committee considered the
matter on August 27. She added that
they used the public comment period for people to provide comment.
She said they received written comments from Mark Rabinowitz.
She added that Tom Boyatt provided verbal comments and he spoke in favor
of the projects overall and gave description of the Springfield projects. She indicated that the Roads Advisory Committee supports the
proposed list as prioritized but they thought the Springfield Highway 126 at
Main is more important than the Franklin Boulevard project for transportation
needs. She added that they wanted to honor the MPO priorities at the same time.
that the Board could decide not to do this.
She said there could be a disadvantage and the Board could possibly be
jeopardizing funding coming into the area that is needed.
She discussed whether they could use the earmarks as a local match.
She said ODOT responded and eliminated language prohibiting the use of
locally obtained earmarks for federal matches.
She noted the new language states that local agencies can count federal
earmarks toward local contributions only when a project is fully funded,
otherwise the earmark must be used to close the funding gap and any remaining
funds could be applied to the local contribution.
Stewart opened the Public Hearing.
City of Springfield, stated the City of Springfield supports all projects on the
list. He said it is important to make these requests of ODOT, whether they are
funded or not. He added they will pursue the projects through their collective
lobbying effort in Washington, D.C. He
thought it could be a prime opportunity for federal transportation funding in
the area given Congressman DeFazioís position on the Transportation
Subcommittee of Ways and Means. He
stated the Gateway Beltline is a component of the larger I-5 Beltline Project.
He said Springfield and the United Front partners have been lobbying
through two federal cycles for money for Beltline I-5 and collectively they had
brought in $25 million of federal dollars for the project in combination with
state resources and close to $100 million would have been spent on the I-5
Beltline side. He said they have
been working hard to get the awareness that Gateway Beltline needs funding and
needs to be a priority to move forward. He
said the city is close to getting to ďyesĒ with ODOT and federal highways on
building the first phase of the intersection project. He said they have $10 million of non-federal, non-state
revenue to bear on the project and they hope to be in construction in 2010.
He indicated the second project is the Franklin Boulevard project.
He said they were thinking about it from the Federal Courthouse in Eugene
to the Springfield bridges. He said
they have a long range vision of what they can bring to the community in terms
of land use and redevelopment with transportation.
Eugene, discussed oil. He commented
that five years from now the economy will be worse.
He said they need a transportation triage.
He didnít think they should be spending money on any new or widened
roads. He said they have already
reached peak traffic and there will be fewer cars on the roads. He stated they
need some type of electrified mass transit system.
He recalled that Eugene had a trolley car system in the 1920ís.
He said if they spend $100 million to widen the Beltline, it would be a
waste of money that should be spent on an electrified mass transit.
they should be looking for maintenance and safety related improvements.
He noted that more people are injured or killed on Highway 126 every
year, then all homicides or victims of crime put together in Lane County.
He said if they want to be safe as a society, public safety should be
focused on keeping the public safe and having transportation that doesnít kill
or maim people. He wanted to move
forward making roads safer.
they are dealing with road systems in phases that have already been designed and
in place. He commented that bullet
trains are expensive and society is based on different principles.
He stated that the market would drive it.
Eugene, commented that it is not transportation that kills people, it is people
that kill people. He said there is
no requirement that people need to be considerate when they are behind a wheel
of a car. He said the projects the
Board is considering endorsing are not fixing projects, they are expansions.
He said the I-5 Beltline is not a safety fix.
He said the safety fix would be to add a collector distributor lane to
eliminate the weaving problems. He
indicated that ODOT spent over $2 million to study the West Eugene Parkway after
they realized it wasnít going to get built and the money wasnít there.
He said there was no effort to budget for higher gas prices threatening
the local bus system. He noted they
are at a plateau and growth is over. He
stated they need carpools but it is a social issue and not something developers
make money on. He thought
they just rebuilt Franklin Boulevard and was wondering why they want to rebuild
it again. He said he will be
campaigning to vote against the highway measure.
There being no
further business, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public Hearing.
Green asked for a
list statewide of the projects they would be competing against other regions.
He asked if the dollars from OTC were interchangeable
Barry said this is
about the Boardís providing input to OTC and their priorities.
Green stated the
money they get must be used on the projects and they canít put the money to
Fleenor asked how
they change the paradigm from new capital improvements for other types of
Barry said they are
looking at other forms of transportation. She
noted that this item is around surface transportation but there are other
discussions for other modes of transportation addressing the need to lose the
reliance for single occupancy vehicles for travel.
Intergovernmental Relations Manager, explained that this is just a project list
in alignment with ODOT procedures. He
said they are working with other jurisdictions to develop policy recommendations
for the Federal Highway Transportation Bill and these are the appropriated
projects. He said they have the
opportunity to provide policy recommendations.
Sorenson asked if
they could get language about supporting the Western Climate Initiative. He also
asked about the sustainability executive order that state agencies are required
Barry said the
Western Climate Initiative is just starting to meet and they have not yet
Oregon and several western states have been meeting. He said they are ready to
make recommendations regarding greenhouse gases. He said there is the sustainability executive order that
requires state agencies including ODOT to do something to put out materials
about what the sustainability executive order has to do with ODOT.
He wanted to turn it from building highways into transportation and the
overall goals the state is trying to achieve.
Dwyer stated that
they would either spend the money here or somewhere else.
He said they have two choices: to
either follow what ODOT wants or not do it.
He said if they donít do it, someone else is in control and making
decisions. He said they need to decide to move forward.
that Green wanted a list of all the statewide projects and there was a request
by Sorenson about potential wording that could be added to the document.
that this is a placeholder to get the construction solutions.
She added that it will be a multiple phased project.
besides the transportation triage, they should have a comment about how they
need to transition over from a public policy/legislative mechanism that provides
them with a menu of options instead of one project.
that having been at a number of meetings, if the local jurisdiction doesnít
place a priority on the projects, no one else would.
He said if they donít show interest in their own projects by not
participating, they canít expect representatives from other areas to lobby on
their behalf. He thought if they
started utilizing their own dollars to make the policy changes, they have a
better argument because they are making an investment in their own jurisdiction.
Dr. Bob Sing,
Eugene, thinks Eugene would do well to advertise that they were already using
electric vehicles. He said that
Eugene has advanced to that point. He
commented that they will get stronger support for that type of transportation.
that Lane County also has several electrical vehicles.
a. ORAL REPORT/ODOT
Region 2 Area Manager.
ODOT, commented on the cooperation between ODOT and County staff.
He said currently they have a good relationship and have been cooperating
on a number of topics. He said they
have responded to concerns about the safety at Delta/Beltline for Nancy
Nathanson. He said they are trying
to alleviate the situation until larger fixes are identified.
He said Spartz informed him the exit numbers were missing on the Beltline
and they were not aware of that. He indicated that they will be having public
comment for the 2010/2013 STIP. He
said they will have an open house in conjunction with the Roads Advisory
With regard to OTC
participation, Chickering recalled there was an expectation in the past on the
part of local entities that a member of the OTC was assigned to that area. He
added this area enjoyed having a local representative on the OTC.
He indicated there are two new members of the OTC and the OTC has asked
them to pass along the new information that they are no longer assigning
specific representatives to specific geographic areas.
indicated that he is attempting to put together a coalition of agencies to work
on pedestrian improvements along some of their major highway corridors.
He noted one is Highway 126 in Springfield between 20th and 69th
Street. He indicated there is a lot
of pedestrian and bicycle activity in light of people driving less. He added
that Highway 99 has the same problem with pedestrian crossings.
REPORT/Metropolitan Area Transportation System Plan Updates.
Attachment B (copy in file) was the work plan the Board reviewed in July.
She indicated they were not requesting any action today.
She gave a preview of what they would be requested to approve in the form
of a work plan for transportation
on September 15. She said they are
asking the Board to approve it because they have to go to LCDC with the work
program to get their approval. She
added the population forecasting will also relate to this.
Transportation Planning Rule, Goal 12, and SB 3337 are requiring the cities of
Eugene and Springfield to separate their UGB.
She said the Eugene Springfield metro area TransPlan separates them into
individual local TSPís. She added
at the same time in November, the Metropolitan Policy Committee adopted an
updated Regional Transportation Plan(RTP), a federal program document that is
required to be updated every four years in order to bring federal funds into
this area for projects. She said
the Transportation Planning Rule was recently updated to require the local
TSPís be consistent with the
federal program document. She said
in November when they updated the RTP, the West Eugene Parkway was taken out and
there were two projects in Eugene and two projects in Springfield that were
moved from the illustrative list to the financially constrained list.
She noted that it is a federal requirement, not a state land use
requirement. She added at the same
time the Oregon Department of Transportation became concerned with the adoption
of the updated RTP because it had a horizon year of 2031, whereas TransPlanís
horizon year was 2015. She said
they are addressing that concern. She indicated
that the cites are trying to move forward with comprehensive land use
planning and transportation planning that goes with it.
She said in order to do that, they have to address state concerns about
consistency between the RTP and the TPR. Barry recalled at the July meeting, the
Board looked at the short term actions and the cities provided direction for
staff to move forward on those actions.
Dwyer indicated as
a Board they discussed rural reserves. He asked how they would preserve the
integrity of Class 3 and 4 soils high value farm land.
He asked who represented Lane County.
With regard to the
rural reserve concept, Barry stated the Boardís role will be to co-adopt
transportation documents with transportation issues that concern lands outside
of the city limits. She said with
regard to land use, the work program includes land use components that have to
come before the TSP. With regard to
the Boardís priorities, she said when they get to look at anything that comes
outside the city limits, they get to weigh in.
She said they are asking for the Boardís approval to go to LCDC on
October 15. She asked the Board to
adopt the work program, which the cities have already begun working on.
Dwyer wanted a
discussion about what policies the Board of Commissioner want and then have
those policies in the work plan so they know what their goals are.
He wanted the cities to work around their goals instead of the Board
working around the citiesí goals.
Barry said the
Board could provide that direction to have those considerations brought into
play. She said they were not asking
to approve a land use work program, they are asking to approve a TSP update
related to other land use activities. She
noted the rural reserves will come into play when they look at UGB changes.
She indicated the public will be involved with the process.
interested in rural reserves but they hadnít formally adopted it.
He said they need to get something into the plan that the Board is
interested in rural reserves.
that later in the month the Board will have a discussion about long range
planning. He said the priorities
include the Metro Plan polices and goals. He
said that would be a place to
discuss where they want the planning program to expend energy and how they want
to convey whatever policy message the Board has developed to the cities.
He noted in dealing with inconsistencies between the Federal Regional
Transportation Plan and the current TransPlan, while it is being worked on to
bring consistency, there will be HB 3337 work going on for the separate UGB
concept and that might be a place where the Board could direct staff to have
conversations outside the city limits including rural reserves or other Metro
that this program will not preclude the Board from working on the rural reserve
policies. She indicated that this
goes through 2013. She said there
will be a public involvement component upfront.
She said they will be looking to the Board to address their concerns.
Green asked under
the Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment, when the city council recommends they
remove the West Eugene Parkway, if it would be in conflict with the development
in the West Eugene area. He said
they need an arterial or major facility for a plan development or they run into
conflict with the existing plan.
Barry said they
will have to address that issue. She
said in working with ODOT and DLCD staff, local
staff came up with proposed language to address the issue in the short term and
the City of Eugene elected to initiate the amendment to delete the West Eugene
Parkway. She said she has to show
how they are otherwise providing for development.
She said what the city does is require that developers show how their
transportation needs are met.
Stewart said there
is energy among the Board for rural reserves.
He wanted to put together a series of work sessions that discuss this and
to give staff direction to work on it.
Dwyer stated they
need to have all the soil overlays of the existing boundaries so they could make
their decision based on science, not politics.
that conversation be brought to Land Management planning because her focus is
more on the transportation piece and planning has the legal authority to deal
with land use.
recommended that they advance the federal component to be going at the same time
as the state component. He said
LCDC is concerned that if they go ahead and have a Federal Transportation Plan,
they are continuing to implement and plan the roads. He added that after they plan the roads, they plan the land
use. He said they should work with
the federal plan and state plan simultaneously.
He added that issues like open space, energy, food, economic development
and sustainability are not appropriate for any one list.
He noted that this is planning and how they want to see the federal
transportation dollars used over a lengthy period of time.
He thought there could be an opportunity for them to be more creative.
He said they need to determine what type of community they want and then
they could plan the transportation around what they need.
with Sorenson on what this represents. She
indicated that it represents the reverse. She
said that is why they are showing the land use work going on and that will
inform the transportation needs. She
added the RTP work will be going on at the same time.
She said the RTP needs to be based upon land use in the County and what
the community envisions.
c. FIRST READING
AND SETTING SECOND READING & PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1253/In
the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) Consistent With Policy G.3 in Chapter III, Section G.
Public Facilities and Services Element; Amending Table 4, Table 16, and
Map 2 of the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) and Adopting Savings and
Severability Clauses (Metro Plan Amendment) (Second Reading and Public Hearing
to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance
No. PA 1253 for September 17 at 6:00 p.m.
Dwyer MOVED, Green
Fleenor asked if
there was a time sensitivity for this. He
said part of Lane Countyís long term planning from planning staff was to
evaluate the Metro Plan. He
didnít think it was a good time to review this.
Greg Mott, City of
Springfield, said the amendment to the PFSP is being requested now as a result
of an updated Wastewater Management Plan. He
said it is to address the federal requirements for the permit of the MWMC
facility. He indicated that some of
the facilities are outside of the city limits. He said regardless of the outcome of the Metro Plan, they
would be obligated under the law to provide for a projected population within
the urban growth boundary. He said
the public facilities plan does that. He
indicated with the amendment, they will need to make changes to the plan. He
said it has to be about flow infiltration.
Fleenor asked if
they approve this prior to their coordinated population forecast if they were
locked into an already established population forecast that Springfield is using
to project what Springfieldís infrastructure requirements will be in 2025.
Mott explained what
the consultants did when they updated the wastewater plan, was look at the plan
development within the existing UGB and the calculation with the amount of water
that would occur.
Fleenor asked if
they could take this out of the Metro Plan and have an IGA between Springfield
and Lane County.
Mott indicated they
were reviewing the administrative rules that require public facility plans.
Vorhes said the
rule talks about what they have in place is a public facilities plan that covers
the whole region of the Metro Plan. He
indicated that it is a different boundary than the MPO for transportation
purposes. He added it is the same
status as TransPlan. He said it is
a plan refining and describing the public facilities and services for the Eugene
Springfield metropolitan area. He
said it looks at the currently approved and acknowledged Metro Plan for the
designations and potential for build out in the urban area.
He said this plan speaks to public facilities outside of the UGB.
a. ORDER 08-9-3-12/In
the Matter of Adjusting the Compensation of Elected Officials.
Greta Utecht, Human
Resources, distributed information regarding the Social Security cost of living
chart. She indicated that overall
the Social Security cost of living total has been 32.6 percent since 1994 in
comparison to 41.3 percent for the Portland, Salem metro area. She also ran new
information about the Elected Officialsí recommendation.
She said the total if the Board were to approve the entire package is
$52,000 and if the Board were to only approve the two percent COLA plus the one
percent deferred comp, amounts to $21,000.
they should consider the recommendation of the Budget Committee and the Elected
Officials Compensation Committee.
Stewart asked if
there were options that by the end of September if they received Secure Rural
School funding they would have time to revisit this again.
Dwyer noted that
any COLA given to staff cannot be given to the Board of Commissioners until the
Fleenor wanted to
see the elected officials with a CPI or Social Security cost of living, a
separate index from non-represented employees.
He was comfortable with a two percent COLA plus one percent deferred
compensation for all elected officials, with the Social Security cost of living
as the CPI. He wanted a provision
that it would never go above 3.5 percent.
Stewart said the
recommendation from Sorenson was to take this information and come back to the
b. ORDER 08-9-3-13/In
the Matter of Appointing and Establishing the Salary and Benefits of County
to approve ORDER 08-9-3-13.
Sorenson recalled earlier they voted on ORDER 08-9-3-7 and he asked
to change his vote from yes to no. He
said The Register Guard carried a story about the Saturday September 20
conference of Oregon Wild. He
recalled a Deputy was called by Lane Transit District to take away a 25 year old
man who was acting funny on the bus. He said it was remarkable
on the part of the Sheriff to avoid an accident.
Fleenor reported he was having his community dialogue at Daniís Coffee
Stewart announced there will be a Joint Elected Officials meeting on
September 15 and September 17. He added that Day of Caring in September 16.
TO THE BOARD
There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.