February 10, 2010
1:30 p.m.
Harris Hall Main Floor
APPROVED 6/23/2010

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


a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1257/In the Matter of Adopting the Junction City Highway 99 Refinement Plan as a Refinement to the Lane County Transportation System Plan, Amending the Lane County Transportation System Plan to Incorporate the Refinement Plan by Reference, and Co-Adopting the Plan as a Refinement Plan to the Junction City Transportation System Plan, and Adopting a Severability Clause (Second Reading and Public Hearing: 2/10/10).

Mark Barnard, Public Works, explained that the Board is being asked to amend the Highway 99 Refinement Plan, the Transportation System Plan and the ODOT Facility Plan.  He said the Lane County TSP is a special purpose plan, of the Lane County Comp Plan.  He added the Refinement Plan includes lands  within the city limits of Junction City, outside the city limit, inside  the Junction City UGB and outside the Junction City UGB on rural Lane County land.  He said Lane County participated with counsel, state agencies and stakeholders in the development  of  the Refinement Plan. He said several alternative scenarios were made for improving Highway 99 thru Junction City.  He said DKS Associates provided analysis and conducted public outreach leading up to a preferred alternative. He noted they selected the Ivy Holly Couplet.  He recommended approval of the Refinement Plan.

Kay Bork, Junction City, presented a power point presentation. (Copy in file).

Commissioner Fleenor opened the Public Hearing.  There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.

Handy commented that this had good components for what the challenges are that Junction City is facing.  He said he has seen historic attempts to build bypasses to communities to relieve congestion while trying to keep traffic flowing to the businesses.  He recalled that recently some of the commissioners participated with the OTC.  He said it was suggested that as they move into transportation planning.  that ODOT needed to be more than a highway division.  He said they have to do work with their partners including Junction City and the MPO looking at a more vigorous approach to integrating land use and transportation and looking at reducing greenhouse gas emission and alternative transportation  He stated that he sees components that are helpful but he sees parts that are lacking.  He thought the plan needed more work.  He said they need to address issues with the super siting of the state prison, the hospital and Grain Millers.  He commented that the pressure on Junction City is they will have growth and more transportation.  He said what is missing is public transportation.  He thought the LTD, Junction City and ODOT needed to be more aggressive leveraging the public transportation component in the plan.  He added if LTD does decide to locate there, that certain things may happen. He stated that the TSP needs to be updated to make it a modern cost effective plan.  He commented that these are components to him that are not integrated but need to be for be a cost effective plan that he could be  supportive of.

Sorenson asked what the consequences were if the Board moves to other alternatives instead of approving this.

Bork responded that the funding is available for this.  She said this was through a grant.  She added to reopen the Refinement Plan would cost more funding.  She indicated they have an opportunity through ODOT to redo a Refinement Plan.  She stated that by not adopting the plan, it slows the opportunity to seek funding for the  project itself.

Sorenson asked if they could implement this within their city or if they needed the County to implement the plan within the city.

Bernard indicated that lands within the Junction City UGB outside the city limits, have not been annexed so County co-adoption is necessary.  He said Junction City and the County are wedded in the process because there are unannexed lands.  He said they would need to co-adopt the plan. 

Celia Barry, Public Works, said a similar situation came up with Coburg Interstate Management Plan.  She said the IAMP in that case was within the city limits.  She said if the Junction City UGB were co-terminus, they wouldnít have to co-adopt because they wouldnít have any jurisdiction within the city limits.

Stewart believed that this is a good plan.  He said it went through the Planning Commission and was recommended for adoption.  He stated he was prepared to move forward with the recommendation for adoption. He commented that it is hard to start imposing additional requirements. He added that when the County started the process, they knew about the requirements and now they are throwing in additional things.  He said if they were going to have requirements, they should have done that at the beginning of the process, not at the end.  He stated that it is not right to jeopardize funds. He asked that those things be considered in the future so people know the boundaries when they start and not causing detriment to the process and the citizens. He believed in the criteria.  He commented that this would be a better improvement and safety for the citizens to improve access to their businesses.

Handy recalled the Planning Commission had a discussion about feasibility.  He commented that the north couplet is a good component of the plan.  He added that the south couplet has challenges with the railroad track and leases being negotiated.  He commented that it is problematic on farm land.  He thought it needed more vetting.  He said a conversation needs to happen with Junction City, the County and LTD about the supersiting component.  He added that they need to leverage transit service into the plan and it hasnít been leveraged to date. He commented that by breaking down the phases to approve some and not others will give them a more Comprehensive Plan.  He said his desire is to integrate land use and transportation.  He said the proposed plan before us is about accommodating growth.  He wanted to manage growth for Junction City and Lane County as being co-partners.

Bernard noted that phase 2, page 7, the last two paragraphs of the analysis section of the memo discusses transportation facilities that are outside the UGB of Junction City that addresses serve urban uses that address congestion anticipated to occur at First Avenue and Highway 99.  He said a discussion as an exception to Goal 3 may be necessary.  He noted that should an exception be necessary, there will be additional analysis conducted with congestion of First Avenue and Highway 99.  He said it would require an additional land use process with notice and opportunity to appeal.

David Clyne, Junction City, stated that it is important that farm lands are preserved.  He was interested in bolstering agriculture in the community.  He concurred with Stewart that it is difficult to have one set of rules and be held with different standards at the end.  He recalled that this was adopted two years ago and he didnít think the criteria had changed for the state.  He added that greenhouse gas reduction was not part of the criteria.  He said this plan will bring down greenhouse gases, not increase them.  He stated that he would be willing to talk to Handy so that they could move forward with Phase 1.  He wanted Handy to take a personal role in this.  He said that this has been put off for two years.

Fleenor asked if they could do a phased ordinance.  He asked what would be involved.

Bernard responded that given the earlier discussions for the necessity under statewide planning laws to co-adopt the plan, it isnít necessary because of unincorporated lands.

Terry Cole, ODOT, indicated that the question to him is whether his commission would take limited adoption when it came back as a Facilities Plan  He wanted to speak to the Department of Justice.  He said if they were looking to take a step back to pull out certain pieces and if Junction City were to concur and puts emphasis on those or change adoption, he was not sure what would have to happen.  He said they could start over, but Junction City would have to take additional action.  He added that Junction City will be examining these issues as it is a step beyond the current Refinement Plan.  He said they will have to come back when the TSP comes back with changes to the land use plan in Junction City.  He noted the railroad tracks was an obstacle.  He thought there were steps that needed to be solved through the Transportation Plan. 

Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark stated that the city piece has been there.  He noted that they have already adopted this plan within the city limits.

Fleenor asked if Clyne wanted to work with a workgroup.

Clyne said if that is what it takes to move it forward, he would be interested in a phased approach.  He said they know they are in the 15 year cycle for funding.  He said they were anxious to move things forward.

Handy thought the Planning Commission is where this should be sent to.  He commented that they all share an interest in moving forward.  He noted the TSP process is coming up and some issues being identified will  need more technical input from attorneys.  He said they could get analysis in seeing what they can move forward and send it to the Planning Commission. 

Barry noted that currently the city has adopted this.

Fleenor wanted to find out from the OTC if they would accept this type of work.

Cole said they would ask him to talk to Department of Justice. He said the city has already taken their action within their jurisdiction boundaries. He said it comes down to whether the OTC formally adopts this as a Facilities Plan or waits until findings are incorporated into the TSP.  He thought it would be legitimate for Junction City to pursue funding.  He said getting into queue is what they have been concerned with given the plan covers two jurisdictions and only one jurisdiction has adopted it. He said they will explore the questions.

Fleenor wanted them to give the information to the Planning Commission.

MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading for April 7, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. for  Ordinance 1257.

Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

Barry noted that none of the improvements will be built in the near term.  She said the city will update the TSP over the next two years.  She said the information they are looking to be addressed could be part of the process.  She said the TSP is required to address all transportation modes and legislation being reviewed at the legislature for greenhouse gas admissions reduction.  She said some sort of legislation will be adopted in the Metro planning areas. She thought their concerns could be more  efficiently addressed as part of the TSP process and they can let this move forward. 

Clark agreed with Barry.  He added that much of what is in the plan requires the Board of Commissioners to approve before it goes into effect.  He said there will be pieces of the plan the Board will have control over.  He stated that it was important to get the Refinement Plan completed to get it on the queue for funding.

Clark recommended keeping the record open until the next reading.

Handy indicated it was part of his motion and Sorenson seconded.

VOTE: 4-1 (Stewart dissenting).

Barry asked for clarification from the Board on what they want for their report back.

Fleenor wanted the results of the discussion that Cole will have with the Department of Justice to see if they can move forward and whether the Lane County Planning Commission has an agenda item that can be scheduled.  He asked who will be attending, and the nature of the discussion so they can anticipate what the Planning Commission will be talking about to move it forward.

Handy didnít want it too focused.  He wanted to talk to DLCD, OTC and conversations with Junction City with technical and legal questions and coming back with a range of options to explore with the Board so they can look at partial phasing.


a.  DISCUSSION/Lane Code/Manual/Comp Plan Revisions Per Adopted Land Management Division Program.

Matt Laird, Land Management, recalled that he was asked to report back on the process they could use to engage citizens of Lane County to identify and analyze  issues of Lane Code and the Rural Comp Plan related to work task number one on the long range planning work program.  He indicated the title is Modernizing and Streamlining Lane Code, Lane Manual and Incorporating State Law and Policy Changes.  He commented that it was a lot of items for one work task.  He said they broke it into two projects, the first implementing changes to state law.  He said they are compiling information and are almost finished and scheduled to go to the Planning Commission in March and then to the Board.  He said a more significant component is comprehensive prioritization of identified amendments to land use portions of Lane Code and the Rural Comp Plan.  He said they used the process the same as Chapter 13 and 14 code amendment process. He designed a similar program.  He attached a list of known issues.  (Copy in file). He noted last week Goal One put together a list and he put that in a spreadsheet.  He added that he put in issues that Land Management staff had.  He said it is difficult to put an FTE to it.  He said it looks like it will exceed .8 FTE allocated to the long range working program.  He wanted to get a list of items and cost analysis and the Board will choose which ones they want.  He indicated they have sent out e-mail announcements for a stakeholder group.  He noted the first meeting will be February 25 to identify the issues, code sections proposed and brief justifications for the change.  He noted the second meeting would be going thru the issues to categorize and have a deeper discussion.  He thought there will be enough issues to take two meetings.  He indicated the fourth meeting is April 15, where they will evaluate staff and financial resources and finalize the list.  He noted May is when the Board will hear from the stakeholder group to decide on the issues to be worked on.

Handy said his intent is to have the Board and Laird schedule time every week the Board is meeting and get an update and make adjustments to the schedule.  He wanted a review of the proposals and timelines so far.

Richardson stated her concern is they are offering to form a stakeholder group and if the Board has already decided on the proposals that it sends the wrong message to the stakeholder group.  She recommended that they Board truly listen and get their input and let hem have their say.  She wanted the stakeholder group to bring their ideas.

Handy wanted staff to notify the citizens of the upcoming stakeholder meeting of February 25.  He wanted a further discussion next week for Board direction on which Goal One proposals to send to the stakeholder group and how and when the Board reports back.  He also wanted to know the role of Land Management in facilitating the stakeholders group and inviting further proposals from the public until Friday March 19.

MOTION: to instruct staff to continue outreach of notifying citizens to serve on a stakeholder group, having a kickoff meeting no later than February 25, schedule an item for one hour of further discussion next week for Board direction on which Goal One proposal is sent to the stakeholder group on how and when to report back to the Board and the role of the stakeholder,  and to further invite proposals from the public from now to March 19, to streamline the Comprehensive Plan and Lane Code that would improve by planning and land use decision making a process that would further Public Health and safety and reduce energy cost for Lane County citizens.


Stewart thought they should strike number 2 and let the groups meet.  He would not support the motion.

VOTE: 4-1 (Stewart dissenting).


Sorenson reported that he is having a program at Davisí Restaurant.  He reported that last night the Budget Committee held a work session on the dynamics of the Lane County budget.  He announced the MPC was meeting on the investment of transportation dollars.

Handy announced that next week he will be having a town hall meeting with Sorenson and Mayor Piercy on food security.

11.  EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of discussing potential and pending litigation.



There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 3:15 p.m. 

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary