September 16, 2009

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 10/28/2009


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




Stewart requesting pulling item 6 F3 from the Consent Calendar.




Carol Berg Caldwell, Eugene, said she has concerns about transparency.  She said an Executive Session (where the general public is not allowed to attend) cannot be anyone’s notion of transparency.  She added it is ironic the public funded capacity based release program at a publicly funded jail and it will not be aired publicly, but discussed in private.  She indicated that the media can attend and they are not allowed to inform the public.  She understood that County employees are being sued by lawsuits and she thought that was the rationale for holding another secret Executive Session.  She thought there could be a reason to share some public response with the community about the capacity based released program.  She said they need to know how the capacity based release program functions.  She stated that specifics are what is needed.    She commented that restoring public trust is transparency. She asked the Board to share the Executive Session results with the community.




Fleenor said he is concerned about transparency.  He said they are moving the jail capacity release issue forward as quickly as they can.  He indicated that it takes time to get to the truth.  He added that they don’t want to do this unnecessarily fast and cause significant problems with the public trust.  He indicated that as soon as possible they will make the information available.


Sorenson noted the Lane County Sheriff’s Office has done a 70 page report on the aspect of the jail and the releasing of inmates.  He asked if the report was public.  He thought before they take other action they should read it and if the public is interested they should be able to get a copy.


Richardson indicated that the document is available to the public.  She added that they released it to The Register Guard yesterday.  She noted there are several attachments and those are also available to the public and will be put on the website.


Handy reported that they had a productive meeting at EPUD last night.  He said that yesterday afternoon Stewart, Sorenson and he were involved with the OTC in Eugene for their monthly meeting.




a. ORAL REPORT/H1N1 Update.


Betsy Meredith and Dr. Sarah Hendrickson gave a power point presentation on H1N1. (Copy in file).








A. Approval of Minutes:

October 17, 2007, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA

July 22, 2009, JEO, 5:30 p.m.

August 4, 2009, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

August 4, 2009, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

August 5, 2009, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

August 18, 2009, Regular Meeting, 10:00 a.m.


B. Assessment and Taxation

1) ORDER 09-9-16-1/In the Matter of Approving the Cancellation of Personal Property Uncollectible Taxes in the Amount of $336,261.92).


C. Health and Human Services


1) ORDER 09-9-16-2/In the Matter of Awarding a Subcontract Amendment to Center for Family Development in the Amount of $100,000 for Treatment Services to Individuals with a Dual Diagnosis for Alcohol/Drug Addiction and Mental Illness.


D. County Administration


1)        ORDER 09-9-16-3/In the Matter of  Amending Order 09-8-25-1 Accepting a $301,701 Community Development Block Grant Fund for the Regional Housing Rehabilitation Program (RHRP) and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Grant Agreement Documents.


E. Management Services


1) ORDER 09-9-16-4/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property for $2,000 to Grant and Jamie Reese (Map No. 17-06-30-00-00102, Adjacent to 22306 Hwy 126, Noti).


F. Public Works


1) ORDER 09-9-16-5/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of a Parcel of Surplus County-Owned Road Fund Real Property to Herbert V. Bohl Located on the Northerly Side of Cottage Grove-Lorane Highway at MP 2.31.


2) ORDER 09-9-16-6/In the Matter of the Alteration of a Portion of Cottage Grove-Lorane Road (Portions Of County Roads 118, 288, 445, 532, 767, 858 And 1048) (20-03-19, 29 & 30 And 20-04-14, 23 & 24).


3) ORDER 09-9-16-7/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 60 of the Lane Manual to Establish Fees for the Release and Dedication of Access Control Strips, and Making Other Fee Adjustments (LM 60.854).


4) ORDER/In the Matter of Recommending Bridge Repair and Replacement Projects and Requesting Authorization to Submit Applications for Funding Under the 2014-2015 Federal Highway Bridge Program.


MOTION: to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.


Fleenor MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0.




Stewart stated his concerns were regarding recommendations of fees.  He noted one fee is for road renaming and the other is the withdrawal from County road status.  He thought the fees were excessive for road naming.  He added that they have only had a road naming twice since he has been a commissioner.  He thought because the fees were high that it wouldn’t happen again.  He asked if the Board could waive a fee if they find it is a public safety hazard.


Michael Jackson, Surveyor, responded that the Board has the ability to waive a fee.  He noted the fees are for the work done when someone comes to them to make the change.  He added that the fee is for notifying the public through the statutes and for bringing it to the Board.  He indicated that those are the true costs.


With regard to withdrawal of County road status, Stewart asked if they did it often.


Jackson stated that they don’t do withdrawals often.  He recalled in the past there was no fee, but it is expensive and without the money they used to have in the road fund, they found it was best to charge full recovery cost.


Stewart asked if they should factor in what the savings cost would be if it were not in County road status.


Jackson responded that they could do that, but he said it is about the amount of work to make a withdrawal with the paper work, notification and meetings.  He added that it will still cost $4,800.


Stewart wanted to find out more about road maintenance and if there is a savings that would warrant the offset of the cost.


Jackson stated that they do few of these and it didn’t cost them anything so they wouldn’t be saving money.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 09-9-16-7.


Handy MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0.




a. Announcements


Spartz reported there was a request made regarding the situation with the Oregon Youth Authority contract at Lane County.  He noted the Department of Youth Services has consulted with Richardson and Bolinger about how to deal with this.  He added it is a financial audit, not a performance audit and it will take place in about a week.  He didn’t think there was a cause for alarm


b. DISCUSSION/Outreach.


Amber Fossen, Public Information Officer,  reported there are several outreach activities where the Board had expressed interest.  She noted that currently they have the “Working for You” video series and they are working on their last video this month. She indicated there were a total of 12 videos made and it was a pilot project.  She added that it was made possible through one-time cable franchise fees.  She stated that the Board has expressed interest in continuing this project.  She wanted to create eight additional “Working for You” television videos to be aired on Metro T.V.  She added that they wanted more of a board presence.  She hoped to do a monthly commissioner update as part of the video outreach component.  She said they want to continue distributing and advertising the videos through the remainder of this fiscal year. 


Fossen explained the other outreach component is more complicated with options available to the board.  She noted there has been interest in publishing a report to constituents.  She provided different options. (Copy in file).She indicated that the costs would depend on the scope of the project.  She added that for timing of sending out information to constituents from printing to reaching residents’ doors is four weeks, but she thought it might take longer than seven weeks.


With regard to e-mail sign up, Fossen stated that staff has looked at different options to automate the service, with the goal being able to provide the new service within existing staff resources.  She worked with Information Services staff and they looked at different public sites to see what they did with an automatic e-mail sign up for information.  She indicated they chose a company called Constant Contact that allows them to send a mass e-mail and it allows for an opt in option.  She explained that the benefit of this service is that they can create different types of content.  She stated that the cost would be $450 for the rest of the fiscal year, depending on the e-mail list size.  She added that they would also be doing an external news letter, publishing it quarterly.  She said that it will primarily be an e-newsletter to go out to neighborhood groups and their own lists.  She indicated there would be costs for some of the projects.  She thought the most pressing project was the “Working for You” video project.


Fleenor commented the e-mail sign up and external newsletter is connected.  He thought they should ask other government entities and non-profits to share their e-mail list with them.  He thought there could be an advertising aspect and be linked to their websites in exchange for using the e-mail list.  He thought that could get them a greater clientele.  He thought they needed to gather up as many e-mail lists as possible and then let people opt out.  He was still in favor of moving forward with the e-mail sign up for up to $1,350 and the external newsletter up to $8,500.


Fossen noted a consideration with the opt out approach is that there is a potential for it to not be effective.  She said they could get an e-mail list and sign people up but they have to do it manually if they don’t opt in and don’t sign themselves up and select the information. 


Spartz stated that he resents receiving e-mails he did not request.  He thought they needed to be careful.  He added that if they are creating a quality product, the word will get around and people will opt in.


Sorenson said that he was in favor of expending the $800 and the other smaller monies discussed.  He believed that it would improve their outreach. 


Handy wanted to put a link on the County’s new web page and with a direct link to each of the commissioners’ e-mail addresses and their own websites.  He was supportive of the money for the e-mail sign up and the external newsletter, but he wanted to wait until after goal setting.  He thought for each meeting they should have a sign in sheet so constituents have the option to sign up manually for the e-mail newsletter.


Stewart wasn’t opposed to any of the projects.  He agreed that it might be more appropriate after goal setting to move forward on specific items if the Board chooses them as a priority.  He commented that the problem with the public is the Board doesn’t spend enough energy in trying to communicate with them.  He said he sees value in the “Working for You” videos.  He asked if people were really watching them and at what number.


Fossen said she will send the report from the August breakdowns of viewership.  She reported that they were able to get more interest once they started advertising the show.  She indicated there is a disconnect for how long they keep people watching.  She thought the average time spent is three to five minutes.


Stewart asked as they move forward what the checks and balances will be.  He didn’t think it was appropriate that if the commissioners were running for office to send out these letters.  He wanted to make sure that behind these items there is policy to make sure they don’t cross any lines.


Fleenor was adamantly opposed to having a county maintained website for his calendar and for his outreach. He thought as long as it was cleared through County Counsel, it would be for informational purposes only.  He reiterated that the Board has agreed to the e-mail sign up costs, the external newsletter and the possibility of looking at acquiring e-mail lists from other organizations.


Sorenson was in favor of having more options.  He was in favor of being under $10,000 range for services.  He wasn’t in favor of making a financial commitment on this item today.  He thought they have major financial challenges and he doesn’t want to make a big financial decision without a bigger discussion of money.  He was okay with using other companies’ e-mail list but he has concerns that sending unsolicited e-mail to people can result in a negative reaction.  He wanted to see written material and he wanted to explore promoting the ability to get this information by having sign up sheets.


Fleenor asked if they could put all e-mail lists into a central database and have one person dedicated to keeping it current so they have a higher level of efficiency.


Spartz said they could do that but there is no appropriation to pay for the time required.  He thought this needed to be automated to the greatest extent possible so they don’t have to have staff spending their time doing this.  He added that feature will be coming on line.


Fleenor said he was interested in moving the “Working for You” videos, the three television sets for the jury room and the e-mail outreach and external newsletter.  He added that would be under $20,000 and he thought they should go forward. He thought the higher items should be postponed until after goal setting.


Sorenson stated he was also willing to go up to $20,000.


Handy said he would be willing to go up to $20,000 with the items that were previously mentioned.  He thought there was a resource at the front desk that could enter e-mail addresses.  He wanted to make sure they had links to individual commissioner e-mail addresses on the left side of the page that would go to the commissioners’ personal websites. 


Stewart stated they haven’t had any guidance or policy with the request about the personal commissioner websites.  He asked if it opened the Board up to liability if there are inappropriate things on the website the County is not able to monitor.


Richardson said she has gone to the websites of the commissioners when they were first established.  She added that after they have been up, she hadn’t gone back for review because she doesn’t have the time.  She thought there could be comments on individual websites that could be attributed to the entire Board. She suggested put things in the APM or Lane Manual that if there are external websites that are not being reviewed on a regular basis, that the person putting the website out is the one who is liable.


Fossen reiterated that there was consensus with the e-mail sign up and the external newsletter.  She thought her next steps would be to work with IS to get it established on their website.  She said that Fleenor was interested in certain components of the “Working for You” video.  She also thought there was consensus to move forward with the monthly commissioner updates and the purchase of three televisions.  She also thought the Board wanted to wait and have more of a discussion on the bigger ticket items.




a. REPORT AND WORK SESSION/Adopting the Coburg/Interstate-5 Interchange Area Management Plan as a Refinement to the Lane County Transportation System Plan and Co-Adopting the Plan as a Refinement to the City of Coburg Transportation System Plan; and Adopting a Severability Clause (File No. PA 09-5027, City of Coburg) (Third Reading: September 23, 2009).


Celia Barry, Public Works, recalled there was a First Reading on July 22 and on August 5 there was a Second Reading and Public Hearing.  She noted at that time the Board raised issues and asked them to come before them today with additional staff to answer questions prior to the Third Reading on September 23.


Barry indicated in the Board’s packets there are written responses to issues raised on August 5: general information about population forecasting, a memo from Land Management Division describing possible options for adoption; a letter from DLCD proposing changes to the IAMP and a memo from the city of Coburg responding to concerns about land use within the city.  She said in the past few days there have been questions from Handy and she put them into the record and they were distributed.  She added there were legislative format errors identified by Legal Counsel in DLCD’s proposed changes and DLCD responded with a correction.  She said Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark provided comments about the DLCD proposed changes.


Ed Moore, DLCD, reported that they have been involved with review of the IAMP for the Coburg I-5 interchange from the beginning.  He said they provided comment when it was going through the PAPA process with Coburg.  He stated that unfortuantely something happened to the correspondence so their letter in January never made it.  He apologized for that.  He said it created more drama than would have occurred had the letter made it into the record and Coburg could have responded.  He said DLCD is in favor of the project and they are interested in seeing the earmarked funds gets spent on this project and not lost.  He understood that this is time sensitive and they don’t want to create unnecessary delay in the process so the project can move forward.  He commented that the project is beneficial to the city of Coburg and ODOT in addressing some congestion concerns and beneficial to the overall metro area.


Moore explained that the purpose of the IAMP is to protect a long range facility investment of the state.  He noted in this case the OTC came up with policies and a requirement that for improvements for interchanges that an IAMP be prepared.  He said they look at it being a document to protect the long term functionality of the interchange, making sure the interchange doesn’t build out in five or ten years. He noted IAMP puts in place policies that are to put those protections in land use documents at the local level.  He reported in this case because the IAMP encompasses both Coburg city proper and the County outside the urban growth boundary, the document requires adoption by all affected agencies.  He said when they looked at this they wondered if the IAMP was going to protect the long term function of the interchange.  He noted in this case the improvements proposed do exceed what is required to serve as the existing comprehensive plan for the city of Coburg.   He said in the IAMP they state the purpose is in projection of anticipated growth in Coburg.  He added in that vein they have established alternate mobility standards that are lower.


Moore recalled as their original letter in January stated, they were concerned that while there was an alternate mobility standard, they weren’t sure it would protect the long term function of the interchange.  He thought they might see some unintended consequences without having the proper language.  He said that initiated their original letter.  He said unfortunately Coburg didn’t see the benefit of seeing that letter or having a dialogue with them.  He was asked to research why they never heard back and found out that no one ever received the letter. 


Moore said it sounds like they are splitting hairs.  He stated that ODOT and the city both believe they have put in place protections that will protect the function of the interchange, but he thought there is still the possibility that might not be true.  He added at the request of Handy wanting them to explain what they meant by the language in their original letter, they reviewed the IAMP and prepared alternate language for the provisions.  He said this is an ODOT plan and it is not a Coburg plan because they adopt the ODOT IAMP into the Comprehensive Plan and their TSP.  He thought there might be a co-adoption element to it but he believes that it relates to the co-adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and TSP amendments within Coburg’s urban area and outside the UGB. 


Moore reiterated that DLCD supports the project and they are in agreement with 99.9 percent of the IAMP.  He said their concern is in three places where they think it could be strengthened and enhance the overall protection for the interchange.  He added that they are not interested in seeing anything done that could delay or lose the funds for the city of Coburg and the metro area.


John Fields, city of Coburg, read a letter into the record from Mayor Judy Volta regarding this issue.


Petra Schuetz, city of Coburg, commented that they answered Handy’s question about the specific protections that validate the fact that they don’t’ believe they need to go through another adoption process at the city level.  She recalled in April the city adopted the plan as it was submitted by ODOT and they think if ODOT feels confident that their facility is being protected with the language that is in the plan and it amply reflects the existing adopted land use, then there is no need to split hairs on three or four words in the document to strengthen the language.  She indicated that the strength is already in the document.


Schuetz understands there is a concern on the land use side that there is an opening for a regional commercial center at the interchange with existing land use code and comprehensive plan policies.  She disagreed because the existing zoning code already has a commercial element to it and they are listed as primary uses in the attachments to the memo.  She indicated there are economic development opportunities   and several constraints.  She commented that the last thing the city wants is a big box store or regional distribution center even though the economists have told them it would be a perfect location.  She added that the city has come back through the Coburg Crossroad process, the periodic review process and the amendment process of their code to say otherwise.  She indicated that there is a 50,000 square foot limitation per lot, but it is not just that limitation that would allow for a second story.  She stated there is a 20 percent open space requirement for all commercial property.  She added there are other constraints based on the wastewater system they are developing that would not allow for structures as large as they might be with a traditional gravity system.  She said they have landscape and set back requirements and minimal commercial design standard requirements.  She indicated that the standards are part of the local element of the plan and up to the local land use decision making process on how they conduct the element of the reflection.  She didn’t believe that the IAMP is the place to address some of the concerns.  She added that it is the TSP that they are not able to start until the IAMP is complete and the Comprehensive Plan update they need once wastewater is in place.  She said they can’t go back to suggest to their planning commission and city council that they want to have the changes made without going through a public process.


With regard to the policy, Schuetz indicated they have a Comp Plan policy 36, Goal 12 that states that a city shall not expand the urban growth boundary east of the interstate until the city has sufficient clarity on the configuration, timing cost and the interchange upgrade to include the adequate transportation facilities will be in place to serve future development.  She said they have policy constraints from moving forward with any future land use and development decisions until they have this in place.  She stated they believe the protections are place and ODOT also believes the protections are in place.  She added that they have already completed their local adoption process and the issues raised would be couched better in a local process.  She stated they also have policies that protect the draft document.


Don Schuessler, city of Coburg, stated they have code and controls in place to control what development and land use happens within the area.  He said it is the city’s sole authority to determine its land use within its urban growth boundary, not the County’s and he said that is the crux of the issue regarding development.  He indicated that the money has not been spent for five years and he was concerned that any delay could put the multi-million dollar earmark in jeopardy.  He added if that happens, it won’t just be for that section of the project, but for the whole interchange.  He understands there is a motion to change the IAMP.  He thought the purpose of this work session was for discussion, but he stated that there has already been a motion out for change.  He said it sounded like decisions have already been made.  He added that has been a concern to him and the city.


Schuessler didn’t think it was right to ask the city to readopt this is multi-thousand dollar task as they have little planning money.  He added the delay would be a minimum of 60 to 90 days and it would put it past the end of the federal fiscal year when they could lose the money.  He stated that their plan meets legal findings and state expectations.  He commented that any delay could put the whole project in jeopardy.  He thought the only way to avoid the delay is to have the IAMP adopted as written.  He thought the amendment was attempting to put County control on land use within their urban growth boundary.  He added that they have the sole authority to determine that within the city.  He said if the amendment goes forward, he believed their only option would be to appeal to LUBA and that would delay things more and would postpone the regional transportation planning.


Terry Cole, ODOT, indicated that he has been the project manager of the Coburg IAMP project.  He understands DLCD concerns.  He noted there is language in the document that interpreted in a particular way could create the kind of pressure that DLCD describes, but they believe the protections they put in the current IAMP and the protections the city already had in place through its own code and policy are more than sufficient to protect the interchange while the city goes through its comprehensive land use plan update process.  He said they don’t want to pre-determine the outcome of the process with future land use prior to them having the opportunity to go through it legitimately.  He said they put into place an interim set of protections to try to preserve capacity at the interchange as it might be created prior to the Comprehensive Plan update or in the event the Comprehensive Plan update is completed ahead of them, being able to provide capacity.  He stated there is language that limits the mobility standard to what is currently in the Oregon Highway Plan.  He added that any deviation from that or allowance of more intensive development will have to come through negotiations that occur as they go through their comprehensive land use update process.  He said the Department of Transportation is comfortable going through the process with the city and thinks there is minimal risk that anything contrary to what the city’s desires are and anything that would be detrimental to the highway system would occur in the meantime.  He supported adoption of the plan as written, understanding DLCD’s concerns but believing those could be addressed subsequently.  He said there is policy in the IAMP that says as the city’s Comprehensive Plan is updated and Transportation System Plan is updated, they fully expect to come back and amend the IAMP to take account of what the city does in the subsequent process.


Fleenor wanted to make sure there are safeguards in place to preserve the existing political will.  He asked if they had an IGA with respect to urban transition agreements.  He asked how they were going to roll out annexation into the UGB.


Howe responded that they only have urban transition agreements with the cities of Eugene and Springfield.  He added that they do not have urban transition agreements with the other ten cities in the County.  He indicated that they have agreements for coordination where they send referrals for proposals that will amend the plan outside the cities so they are aware of the things the County is proposing.  He added that they send referrals to the County for proposals they are having in the city that might affect the County.  He explained that the purpose of the urban transition agreement with Eugene and Springfield is that they delegated them the authority to do the permitting process for building and planning inside the urban growth boundary of those two cities.  He recalled in 1986 when the agreement was made, they were the ultimate provider of urban services and it made sense for them to provide the planning and building permitting review of those areas. 


Handy commented that he wanted to get a motion ahead of time because it was important that they don’t impact the funding and earmark.  He wanted flexibility today to address this.


MOTION: to move Ordinance No PA 1258  for a Second Reading with the following modifications to the proposed Coburg IAMP.  That all the specific language submitted by DLCD regarding all applicable code and policies that address limiting the proposed Coburg interchange improvements to not include the commercial development not related to highway uses. be incorporated into the revised Ordinance No. PA 1258.  The Third Reading and Public Hearing on September 23, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.


Handy MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


Handy commented that the interchange improvements are not intended to support commercial development unrelated to highway uses.  He added that gas stations are okay but shopping malls are not. He said that Moore’s letter makes the point.  He said the current draft IAMP allows such uses as a secondary purpose and that is not acceptable.  He stated that the purpose of the improvements is to address existing traffic congestion and to support family wage industrial jobs.  He said the DLCD language gets them there where the current draft IAMP does not.  He commented that it is merely a clarification to make explicitly what he believed everyone wanted.  He said today if it is determined they must act or risk losing funding, he will indicate the Board of Commissioners will be prepared to adopt the DLCD language on the spot and if Coburg is anxious to get the funding, they should be prepared to act as quickly as well.


Stewart didn’t share the same concerns.  He believed that ODOT and Coburg have addressed the concerns.  He asked why these concerns weren’t made earlier.  He understood Moore’s position is to work with the smaller entities as they go through the process.  He asked where Moore was in this process for the past eight or nine months.  He hoped in the future to avoid what happened that Moore would engage sooner into the process.  Stewart stated that this is costly and timely for an agency that has no money.  He was also concerned that they were trying to write in additional protections for already protected items.  He said he wasn’t able to find anywhere in the state land use laws that if they build a bridge, it automatically changes the land use laws and allows future expansion.  He thought they were being overprotective.  He commented to put additional restrictions in is an additional burden they are trying to bear.  He added that they heard the transportation will get approved by the commissioners so there is another chance to review this.  He stated that this process has been taking place for the past 15 years.  He said it was his understanding that Coburg needed to act on this.  He asked if DLCD came to the Coburg City Council meeting to express their concerns.


Schuetz responded that they saw the DLCD letter after Coburg completed their local adoption process. 


Stewart asked why Moore didn’t attend the Coburg City Council meeting to consider these items.  He was concerned about the process, what it projects to the citizens and how they are working with the current land use laws in place.


Moore said they are concerned.  He recalled the Coburg adoption went through a Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment process.  He said they assigned a PAPA number to review it and provide comment.  He indicated that they completed their review, drafted a letter and sent it but it didn’t get to Coburg.  He didn’t think at that time it was a big deal, they just identified what their concerns were and expected Coburg would contact them.  He admitted that this fell through the cracks.  He stated that he didn’t receive anything back from Coburg.  He said at that point he did investigating and found out that the letter went missing.


Fleenor commented that no money is not an excuse for making bad policy.  He agreed with Handy that if time is of the essence, they should move this forward with the amendment.  He added that it is not a substantive change because it has already been addressed.  He said they want to make sure it is clear.  He asked if this was a substantive change.


Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark stated it is a substantive and significant change.  He understood that the current zoning and Comp Plan designations for Coburg and for County land currently does not allow the sort of development the proposed language seeks to prohibit.  He said therefore the land use protections are already there.  He thought the bigger issue in the policy is the language could be read to impose additional land use restrictions on top of the land use language already in the Comp Plan and zoning code.  He said this would impose additional restrictions on what is already there.  He didn’t know what Coburg or ODOT would do if the Board voted for the proposed changes.  He said the bigger policy question for the Board is whether this Board wants to impose itself within the city as dictating what its land use limitations can be.


Bob Courtright, ODOT, commented that a major interchange raises questions that go beyond the scope of existing plans.  He said the OTC created the device of an IAMP out of frustration that they make the investments and only later begin to deal with those affects.  He added the objective of the plan is to think ahead about what future land uses the interchange is intended to support.  He said based on their experience with all of the other IAMP’s that have been prepared, they know the pressure is there and the policies that need to be in place to assure there is additional review of those amendments of what they recommended.  He added that it doesn’t preclude Coburg in its UGB process talking about different options.  He thinks it triggers the obligation if Coburg proposes something different to talk about the function of the interchange investment and if they want to change the IAMP to allow more development.  He said they try to keep land use and transportation separate when they are inextricably linked and they need to be dealt with together.


Stewart was concerned with what Legal Counsel brought up, the Board trying to impose themselves into someone else’s jurisdiction.  He was not supportive of anything that would interject the County into that.  He was also concerned that all of the bodies have talked about the restrictions in place and their intentions.  He commented that there are no guarantees that 15 years from now something will change.  He asked if it was the intent of the state land use laws in place today to account for that.  He asked if a $40 million bridge would really be built in Coburg in the future.  He didn’t think that it would really get built within the next ten years.  He thought they placed a lot of concern about something that might not happen.  He thought they have a perfect document with the restriction on the size of the buildings. He indicated that and he has attended some of the Coburg community meetings and their community doesn’t want a strip mall along the freeway.  He said these documents will be on the record and he thought if five years from now Coburg changes its mind and does something different, there will be proof they would be acting outside of good faith.  He said they are crying wolf when they really don’t need to.  He thinks they are trying to impose something on Coburg that is wrong legally.


Fleenor said they are not trying to hold things up, they are trying to get it right.  He commented that this is an extraordinary circumstance that requires extraordinary caution.  He said it is a once in a lifetime situation for Coburg and Lane County.  He noted that anything done by ordinance could be undone by ordinance.  He commented the ordinance is only as good as the board majority wants it to be. He added that they can address this in the future at the appropriate time.


Barry asked if the change is going to result in a need to move the reading out another two weeks.


Sorenson said this doesn’t affect the September 23 hearing.  He said what it affects is whether they can approve it on September 23.  He indicated the motion is direction on what the hearing is about and not on whether or not they could adopt it on September 23.


Clark said it would be arguable whether or not it would be procedural error to adopt this on September 23.  He said they could have the Third Reading on September 23 and schedule a Fourth Reading.  He said the change proposed if it is adopted by the County will require Coburg and the TPC to do additional work.  He didn’t know if that would create issues with the earmark.


VOTE: 3-1 (Stewart dissenting).



There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting at  12:00 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary