BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

August 26, 2009

1:00 p.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 4-27-2011

 

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

 

8. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1262/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Text to Include an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 (Willamette Greenway) to allow Construction of a Bicycle/Pedestrian Viaduct Under the I-5 Bridge and Adopting a Severability Clause. (File No. PA 09-5472) (Second Reading/Public Hearing September 22, 2009).

 

Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, said this will be a Joint Elected Officials Hearing.  She added that approval of this exception would allow for construction of the bicycle pedestrian scaled bridge connecting the two metro cities on the south bank of the Willamette underneathe the I-5 bridge that would complete another section of the Willamette River Loop Bike Path.  She noted the Joint Elected Officials will be conducting a public hearing on September 22, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. to take testimony and consider this type 1 Metro Plan Amendment.  She said it was necessary because the Oregon Administrative Rules allow only water related and water dependent uses in the Willamette Greenway setback.  She added the rule also requires the goal exception to be included within the applicable comprehensive plan that is the Metro Plan.  She noted the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions will conduct a hearing on September 1 at 6:00 p.m. to review this item and provide a recommendation.

 

MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1262 for September 22, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

b. FIRST READING AND SETTING THE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1261/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) by Adding New and Separate Coordinated Population Forecasts for Eugene and Springfield and an Urbanizable Area for Each City and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (File No. PA 09-5471) (Applicant: Springfield) (Second Reading/Public Hearing September 22, 2009).

 

Schulz explained that this is following the June 17, 2009 adoption of Ordinance PA 1255  that amended the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by adding the new population forecasts for Lane County and all cities in the urban areas in Lane County for the period of 2010 through 2035.  She noted on July 16, 2009 the cities of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County (submitting a notice of proposed amendment to DLCD) stating the intention to amend the Metro Plan by adopting this coordinated population forecast prepared by Lane County.

 

MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. PA 1261 for September 22, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

c. FIRST READING AND SETTING THE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 4-09/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt Amendments to the Springfield Development Regulations for Application to Urbanizable Lands Within the Springfield Urban Growth area (LC 10.600-15) and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (Applicant: City of Springfield) (Second Reading and Public Hearing: September 16, 2009).

 

MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance NO. 4-09.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

d. DISCUSSION/Lane County Applications for Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) Funds in the Metro Area for FY 10, and Match.

 

Celia Barry, Public Works, distributed a copy of LCOG’s memo that went to the Metropolitan Policy Committee on this item.  (Copy in file).  She indicated this is an informational item on the service transporation funding in the Metropolitan Planning Organization area: Eugene, Springfield and Coburg. She said it is part of the statewide CIP. She indicated that today they are only looking at the first federal fiscal year of a four year STP cycle. She indicated the money is estimated at $1.6 million for the first fiscal year. She noted the projects recommended should be ready to go. She requested funding for 30th Avenue and for traffic signal replacements and upgrades. She indicated that they have not voted on this yet at the MPC, they are voting in October. She said since this item only involves the MPO area and the MPC gets to sets its own priorities, the Oregon Transportation Commission does not get to change them.  She added if the Board were to comment, it wouldn’t have any effect.

 

MOTION: to approve the recommendations for the STP U funds to MPC with the addition of the MLK roundabout bike ped enhancements, as earmarked for $50,000 for the city of Springfield and subtract $50,000 from the arterial and collector slurry seal item so it reads $350,000.

 

Handy MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Stewart asked if this decision jeopardizes the process or if it is a recommendation, if the Board chooses something different than MPC.

 

Barry responded that it is a recommendation and it is going to the Board’s MPC representatives to carry back to the MPC vote.  She indicated the vote is unknown and the Board is not jeopardizing any of the process.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

e. WORK SESSION/Ordinance No. PA 1260/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 6, Table 18, Table 19, Map 3 and Map 8 of the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP); and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Metro Plan Amendment) (Applicant; Springfield) (NBA & PM 7/8/09; 7/22/09 & 8/5/09).

 

Schulz recalled that on August 5, 2009 the Board conducted the Third Reading, held the record open and set this Fourth Reading of Ordinance PA 1260.  She stated at that reading the Board requested the city of Springfield to respond to issues and questions from the Board and provide further background information to inform the Board about establishing the required land use consistency between the Metro Plan, the Public Facilities and Services Plan, the city specific 2008 Stormwater Facility Master Plan and the  Stormwater Management Plan. 

 

Sid Leiken, Mayor, city of Springfield, stated that the city of Springfield takes seriously its responsibility to be a good steward of the land and to protect the rivers and streams.  He noted for the past ten years they have developed a stormwater management program of practices that protect citizens and the environment.  He noted in 2008 their city council adopted an updated Stormwater Master Plan.  He said the Plan addresses new development that will occur within Springfield’s current urban growth boundary, yet provides for some facilities outside the UGB to address the downstream impacts of that development.  He said they need to update their land use plans to incorporate the important changes.  He commented that current land use planning and projects are out of date and they are ill suited to address the needs of development within the existing UGB.  He said the PFST amendments before the Board are part of the tools to help Springfield continue to improve the way stormwater is managed for the benefit of the whole community.

 

Suzie Smith, city of Springfield, gave a presentation (Copy in file).  She indicated that the city of Springfield has already sent a 45 day notice to LCDC for their development code amendments that would incorporate making sure the stormwater management plans are implemented through development reviews.  She said that Springfield staff will be returning to their city council on September 14 to review the proposed Stormwater Management Plan policy they just developed with adoption on the 21st.  She indicated she would be back to the Board on October 20 or October 21, after Springfield demonstrates its commitment to adopt these policies to improve their stormwater management for downstream property owners before coming back to the Board.  She thought they could finalize this in November if everything works out.

 

Schulz asked to keep the record open.

 

MOTION: to approve a Fourth Reading and setting a Fifth Reading and Deliberation for Ordinance No. PA 1260 for October 21, 2009, with the record to be kept open until that time.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

f. DISCUSSION/Work Session -Rural Reserves.

 

Howe explained that the purpose of this work session is to provide the Board with information concerning the use of rural reserves or other possible conservation strategies to protect farmland in Lane County as cities grow. He distributed a letter from Goal One, and Landwatch Lane County (copy in file) and the direction that the Joint Elections Officials gave on June 1 regarding the issues to address in a Metro Plan work program.

 

Howe commented that this is a big topic and he asked for the Board to provide scope for the item if it is something they want to add to the Long Range Planning Work Program.  He recalled at the June 1, 2009 Joint Elected Officials meeting, staff was directed to work on the issues identified by the Joint Elected Officials Committee and subcommittee and develop a Metro Work Program to address the issues, one of which is rural reserves.  He recalled that the city of Springfield met in July to see if they had any additional items to add to the list and they did not.  He indicated that Eugene is planning to meet in September to see if they have any additional items.  He stated this would be the time for the Board to raise any additional issues.  He said they plan to report back to the Metro Joint Elected Officials in December with a proposed work program and direction the Board could provide regarding this topic.  He added that it will help development of the work program and position the Board with an informed strategy on dealing with the implementation of HB3337 and any resulting UGB expansion proposals.

 

Howe recalled in 1984 when they had the Rural Comprehensive Plan acknowledged; everything outside of an urban growth boundary was to be designated farm or forest land.  He said the state said if the land is already developed to a certain critical mass, or it is an area surrounded by development, (such that it is committed to a non-resource use) they can take a developed and committed exception and designate it as either Rural Residential, Commercial, Industrial or Public Facility.  He noted that the Statewide Planning Goal governs urbanization. to ensure the efficient use of land and to provide for livable communities.  He said the lands needs section is the first step.  He said if the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the urban growth boundary is inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20 year need, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency by either increasing the development capacity already inside the city or by expanding the urban growth boundary or both.  He added that prior to expanding the urban growth boundary; a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB.  He added if the local government determines there is a need to expand the urban growth boundary, changes to the UGB must be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with Goal 14 and the Urban Growth Boundary Rule.   He said alternative boundary locations must also be consistent with ORS 197.298.  He said the priority of land is to be included with a UGB.  He noted the first priority is urban reserves.  The second is developed and committed exception areas and non-resource lands, the third priority is marginal lands and the last land to add is farm and forest lands.

 

Howe indicated that they need direction on the term rural reserves.  He indicted that the legislative term is limited to the Portland metro area and involves a complex lengthy process that after three years is still under discussion.  He stated that it is a broad concept for protection of agricultural and forestland and natural landscape features.  He noted in this legislative model, both urban and rural reserves are designated at the same time. He added a Rural Reserve Program would involve legislation to make it available state wide or to this area.  He asked if the Board wanted to scope it down to just a farmland protection effort.  He noted it could be achieved through a PAPA with local policies in the Rural Comprehensive Plan, Metro Plan and small city plans that focuses on conservation of farm land and would provide local interpretation of statutory priorities for proposed lands to be included within a UGB.  He said benefits of conserving targeted lands could be achieved through designation of either urban reserves or conservation reserves and had several advantages such as improving the process of a UGB expanstion by providing greater predictability to farmers, landowners and cities.  He said an urban reserve or conservation designation wouldn’t change the underlying land use or zoning designations and wouldn’t restrict the uses currently allowed on the targeted lands.  He wanted the Board to answer if this is a Eugene and Springfield Metro Area Program only or for all Lane County urban areas.  He said if the chosen stragy is to designate rural reserves or conservation areas, if the Board’s direction is for a broad, rural reserve concept that would require legislative changes or for a more focused conservation effort, then they could enact locally through a PAPA process.  He asked if this would be a voluntary or regulatory conservation strategy.  He asked if the Board’s direction is to work with the cities to identify and establish urban reserves that would achieve the conservation of the resource lands.

 

Sorenson didn’t think they should use the term rural reserve because of the state legislation.  He would rather use Farm Land and Open Space Protection Plan.  He thought it was a regulatory effort and an incentive effort.  He stated they would use the PAPA process to amend their plan to designate these areas, but they would also build in incentives for those communities that want to approach them for PAPA process for purchse of development rights and conservation easements.  He wanted it to be countywide, through the PAPA process and it would be voluntary and regulatory and it wouldn’t involve approaching the cities because the focus is protecting open space outside of cities.

 

Dwyer said they need to get rid of the terms developed and committed in their code.  He said they need to define the doctrine of reasonable expectation.  He said it is if a person could expect to do with a piece of property at the time they bought it that was both reflected in the zoning and the purchase price.  He wanted to save the prime farm grounds for production of food

 

Fleenor asked what they are trying to do, and how are they going to do it.  He concurred with Sorenson’s approach using a PAPA.

 

Handy agreed with Sorenson.  He also wanted to drop developed and committed from their code.  He thought they could do it as a rider to Chapter 13 and 14 work.  He thought they were successful with their good governance approach of partnering with people who have interest as stakeholders.

 

Stewart was concerned about this.  He was afraid it was going to be a time consuming expensive process.  He thought they could be more fruitful if they focused on certain areas instead of the whole county and then use it as a template to expand it to the County over time.  He thought dropping the rural reserves was appropriate.  He thought this should be treated like annexation. 

 

Howe said he will work with the Planning Commission and they will develop a work program and bring it back to the Board.

 

9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

Spartz indicated that Handy has been talking to staff about having a public forum on H1N1.  He noted that Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, suggested the Board might want to host an entire forum with a panel of experts that could be video taped and replayed.

 

Fleenor agreed to hold a forum with a panel of experts to discuss H1N1 and to have it videotaped.

 

b. REPORT BACK/Aerial Pesticide Drift Off Private Forest Lands.

 

Alex Cuyler reported back on aerial spraying. (Copy in file).

 

10. COUNTY COUNSEL

 

a. Announcements

 

None.

 

ORDER 09-8-26-9 Authorizing and Approving the Office of Legal Counsel Prosecuting Appropriate Actions Regarding Lane County Circuit Court Case No. 20-09-12920

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 09-8-26-9.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Stewart dissenting).

 

11. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

None.

 

12. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Stewart announced the invitation on September 2 for the swearing in of Senator Edwards.

 

Fleenor announced he would be having a Community Dialogue at the Eagles Lodge in Santa Clara.

 

13. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

None.

 

14. OTHER BUSINESS

 

Tiger Funds

 

Barry asked for letters of support from Eugene and Springfield.  She stated it wouldn’t commit the Board to any funding decision, other than supporting their applications.  She said Tiger Funds are grants for transportation investment generating economic recovery.  She said it is a federal program, part of the economic stimulus or ARRA funds. She indicated that the state of  Oregon will get up to $300 million.  She met on June 3 with several of the division managers in Public Works.  She said they were looking for funding for Terrirotrial Highway.  She said they decided that was the project they would apply for.  She recalled in talking with ODOT staff they advised that the project probably wouldn’t meet the criteria.  She distributed a fact sheet and a copy of an e-mail from ODOT (copy in file) that states what projects might be eligible for funding.  She indicated the city of Eugene project that was originally an ODOT project was shelved because they couldn’t come up with enough funding.  She stated it was the reconstruction of Highway 99 from Garfield to Roosevelt, adding a left turn lane at Roosevelt, adding bike and pedestrian facilities and some access management.  She said in addition the city of Eugene added a shelved project of Fifth Avenue, encouraging more traffic in line with the West Eugene Collaborative to move traffic elsewhere.  She added by repaving Fifth, adding sidewalks and a roundabout at Fifth and Seneca, it is almost 60 percent designed and it is more likely to meet the requirements for the grant.  She indicated that the city of Springfield is putting forth the Franklin Boulevard multi-way/conventional arterial.  She said they are asking for $50 million and they have support from Merkley and DeFazio. She added that they are putting in $2 million of urban renewal funds and they are counting it as match.  She commented that this was a missed opportunity for the County in not putting a project forward.  She said they are asking the Board to allow Sorenson to sign letters of support for the city of Eugene and Springfield’s projects.

 

Dwyer stated he was in support of the Tiger grants for the cities, but he was disappointed in the politics with ODOT and how they choose projects.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary