May 19, 2010

1:30 p.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 3-15-2011


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




a. EIGHTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1249/In the  Matter of Co-Adopting the Florence Comprehensive Plan 'Realization 2020,' and Applicable Refinement Plans to Complete Periodic Review for the Urbanizable Area Outside Florence City Limits and Within the Urban Growth Boundary and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File No. PA 08-5142, Florence) (NBA & PM 9/17/08; 10/1/08; 12/10/08; 4/08/09; 7/22/09, 12/2/09, 2/17/10).


b. SEVENTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 7-08/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code To Revise and Add Provisions for the Interim Urbanizing Combining District (/U) Applicable Within the Florence Urban Growth Boundary (LC 10.122-10, 10.122-13, 10.122-14, 10.122-15, 10.122-30, 10.122-31) (File No. PA 08-5142, Florence) (NBA & PM 11/05/08; 12/10/08; 04/08/09; 7/22/09; 12/2/09, 2/17/10).


Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, explained that the readings today for the two Florence agenda items:  the Comp Plan co-adoption and associated Lane Code amendments were set at the previous reading and Public Hearing on February 17, 2010.  She said upon conclusion of testimony in February, the Board discussed and identified issues remaining to be resolved:  the inclusion of Heceta Water District as a party to the City County Intergovernmental Agreement for a groundwater monitoring study in the North Florence Dunal Aquifer.  She said the Board discussed at length the timing of the next reading, initially proposing a date in  2011 for the next readings.  She indicated that the Board settled on May 19 for these reading.  She noted the revised IGA was presented to the Board earlier today and County staff explained the status of the IGA.  She recalled the Board this morning approved signing on as the third party of the IGA.  She noted on April 6, 2010 the city of Florence sent a letter to the Board, articulating the city council position on the Board’s concerns.  She said that Dan Stotter, an interested party in these proceedings submitted an e-mail late yesterday into the record.


Schulz said Ordinance No 7-08 included in the packet today is potentially in its final form showing the amendments to Lane Code Chapter 10 for application within the Florence Urban Growth Boundary.  She indicated the language presented in the ordinance has undergone public review and conforms to the changes recommended by the Lane County Planning Commission.  She said if upon discussion of the Florence letter and other considerations the Board directs staff to make any revisions to the policy Ordinance No. PA 1249, an additional reading would be needed to a date certain prior to considering adoption of that ordinance.


Commissioner Fleenor opened the Public Hearing.


Dan Stotter, Corvallis, spoke against both ordinances because he didn’t think they were ready at this time.  He said the Comp Plan is not ready for a decision because the actual language of the changes the city of Florence have suggested have not been promulgated.  He said there is not a revised ordinance.  He stated they needed public input as to the actual language.  He said their suggestions for language are not acceptable.  He indicated the main problem is they are confusing the issues involving what is necessary and legal for the Board with respect to when annexation should be approved.  He explained what they are saying is they  would like to have a consensus as provided by Oregon Law for annexation and consensus under Oregon Law has majorities not always based upon real persons. He thought they should require a majority of real persons instead of residents or electors.  He wanted the city of Florence to have that language.  He indicated they talked about the language with no forced annexation.  He stated that is not the language from the public, it comes from the city of Florence’s own policy. He stated they are saying don’t let one person block annexation, but require a majority of real people in the area affected. He stated that is a legal mechanism and consistent with what Mr. Perry has to say from the DLCD.  He added that Perry’s comments are not carrying the weight of law. He said with respect to the zone change, it states no subdivision.  He asked if that was good policy.  He noted they are doing the water study testing to determine if the septic is a real problem. He commented that they don’t know what is best for the North Dunal Aquifer.  He added the city of Florence admits there is not a pre-existing problem with septics.  He wanted to hold off on the policy of pushing for annexation.  He said the determining factor is if the septic is a problem.  He stated it was not.  He said they should ask County Counsel to look at the IGA and determine if the County has contractual rights or legal rights based on the IGA by being a party.    He thought the County had the right to control the water study.    


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


Fleenor stated he sent an e-mail to Mayor Brubaker with copies to Faye Stewart and Bob Hirsch yesterday regarding his request for Vorhes to look into a majority of consents language.  He said Vorhes looked into ORS 222.125 and 222.170 and there is no language that talks about majority of consents.  He said they have language that talks about double or triple majority.  He said it isn’t the same z majority of consents.  He wants to see language in the comp plan that sites the Oregon Regulatory statutes by verse so there is no confusion as to the interpretation to the annexation policies.  He said they have yet to identify if there is a septic problem in the Heceta Beach area. He added that if it is a problem, they need clear policies, procedures and guidelines on how to declare a septic system failure or emergency and have mitigation policies in effect at that time. He said it gives the homeowners an opportunity to make a decision whether they want to spend the money to put in a state of the art septic system, allowed by state law or to hook into a sanitary sewer at that point in time.


Dwyer concurred with Fleenor. He wouldn’t allow state law to define what it is; he would define it as a majority of persons voting not property or value. He said they can define what they mean.  He said they need to protect the people who are not represented by those people who are making policy.


Handy commented that this is not ripe yet.  He thought the city of Florence needs to have this out further.  He asked about contractual rights with the County entering into the IGA.


Vorhes said in the IGA the County has joint responsibilities.  He stated the County has certain abilities to do certain things.  He said both parties under a contract have certain rights and responsibilities.  He stated the IGA itself describes the circumstances where the County has a joint role to play with the city and the Heceta Water District under the IGA as it relates to the studies.


Stotter concurred with County Counsel’s statements.  He said this morning there was a misunderstanding with Mr. Hurley who works at Public Works who said they couldn’t do anything at all.  He said the County has some powers and he asked that they tell Public Works that they have powers under the IGA and they want to exercise those powers instead of letting the city of Florence do whatever they want for the water testing.    He wanted the Board to direct Public Works to specifically carry out the Board’s objectives and not let the city of Florence and its consultants do whatever they want.


Vorhes indicated there are legal issues and he didn’t see the e-mail that went around earlier.  He said Public Works will do the role the Board has directed them to do under the agreement.


Stotter stated he received an e-mail from Fleenor stating their hands were tied.  He said the County’s hands are not tied and if they want to exercise some control over the water study, he wants staff to know how this water study will be implemented.


Marsha Miller, Public Works, found the dialog insulting.  She stated that Public Works staff has been working close with the city of Florence and they will continue to work with them.  She stated for Stotter to take words and twist them was insulting.  She said they will exercise their power in the IGA. She stated they have worked collaboratively with the city of Florence from the beginning to make sure language was taken out of the IGA that would predispose some type of conclusion regarding annexation. 


Stewart stated that he and Fleenor met with Mayor Brubaker and the chair of the Heceta Water District.  He said they discussed the issues and thought the IGA with Heceta and Florence was is in the works and has not yet been completed.  He understood that this wouldn’t be ratified today, but would roll into another reading and there would be work done on the two other issues.  He thought a resolution was within reach and that all parties wanted to get there.


Fleenor thought they should roll this for 90 days to give sufficient time for the public to weigh in.


MOTION: to approve an Eighth Reading and Setting a Ninth Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. PA 1249 for August 25, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. and keeping the record open.


MOTION: to approve a Seventh Reading and Setting an Eighth Reading and Public Hearing  for Ordinance 7-08 for August 25, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. and keeping the record open.




VOTE: 5-0.


c. PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION/ORDER 10-5-19-10/In the Matter of Annexing Territory Identified as Identified as Map 17-15-09 Tax Lots 1100, 1101, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, and 1700; 17-15-10 tax lots 1502 and 1600; 17-15-16 tax lots 1300, 1304, and 1037; and Portions of the McKenzie River and Deerhorn Road, to McKenzie Fire and Rescue Under ORS 198.855(3) (File No. F MK 2010 – ANX 1, King, et al.) (NBA & PM 4/28).


Schulz explained that this is the final hearing opportunity for the fire annexation proposal where all of the owners are requesting to be included in the fire district.  She noted this is the second hearing in the process the Board has for annexation into special districts.


Fleenor recalled this item was  brought back because they had a timing issue with a Public Hearing.


Schulz indicated there were no changes.


Commissioner Fleenor opened the Public  Hearing.


Don Nickell, Cottage Grove, asked the Board to vote in favor of this item. He said the fire district surrounds the island of parcels that has not been annexed into the fire district.  They are asking they complete the island and allow the fire district to have full capabilities of serving the people in the area.  He said they are providing fire safety service not only for the people along the parcels but also along the road and the river.  He added all of the parcels will have a dwelling associated with it and they are providing fire safety for the dwellings.


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


Handy asked about the Board’s discretion.


Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark said they are dealing with a limited amount of properties.  He said the Board has to say yes or no.  He thought there was justification for this annexation.  He said denying the annexation would result in an appeal by the applicant.   He stated the limited criteria for approval appeared to have been met.  He indicated the result would be the river and the road would be in the district instead of being separate along the line of the district. 


Dwyer thought this land was zoned F1 and F2 for a reason because the owner didn’t want to be taxed.  He said it doesn’t seem fair. He thought it was a subterfuge to not pay taxes.  He said he was a no on this issue.


Fleenor commented that the citizens take it upon themselves to make this solicitation.  He said it seemed logical to him.  He thought the remedy would be for them to adopt it.


Stewart was in support of the request.  He stated that they are not setting a precedent for anyone else until the Board changes their policy.  He said the citizens have the right to build homes and he encouraged that they have fire service to protect themselves and the neighbors.


Sorenson asked why this criteria was consistent with land use planning.


Clark thought it was consistent because the Comprehensive Plan policy that deals with provisions of fire protection are met.  He added that Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services 4 (a)(b) of Lane Code Chapter 16.211 8(c)(i)(i) acknowledges a rural level of fire service appropriate for forest dwellings.  He said in this case they are talking about the provision of fire protection services or other rescue services to these properties for the purposes of protecting the dwellings.


Sorenson asked if there was any opposition.


Clark said there was none.


Fleenor asked if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest.


There were none.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 10-5-19-10.


Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-1 (Dwyer dissenting).


d. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1268/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Adopt a Goal 2 Exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3 & 4, Redesignate Land From “Agricultural Land” to “Rural Land”, Rezone That Land From “E-25/Exclusive Farm Use Zone” to “RR-5/Rural Residential Zone”; Adopting Developed and Committed Land Exception and Adopting Saving and Severability Clauses. (File PA 09-5255; Rogers) (NBA & PM 5/5).


Lindsay Eichner, Land Management, explained that this proposal has three requests:  to request the Board to adopt a Goal 2 Exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4; the second is a minor amendment to the Rural Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the land from agricultural land to rural land; and the third is to rezone a portion of the property from E25 to RR5.


Eichner noted the subject property is 10.24 acres and approximately 2.24 of the acres are zoned Rural Residential and the remaining eight acres are zoned E 25.  She said the property owner is proposing to rezone approximately 1.55 acres of the EFU into the Rural Residential zoning.


Eichner recalled in 1997 the property owner came in and applied for a building permit to locate a dwelling within the Rural Residential portion of the property.   She indicated a dwelling was built in the wrong spot and in 2007 the Lane County Compliance Officer sent the property owners a letter informing them that their building permit was expired and the dwelling was not in compliance. She stated staff conducted a site visit determining that the dwelling was fully located within the Exclusive Farm Use Zone and on January 7, 2008, Mr. Rogers paid to reinstate the original building permit but staff was unable to conduct additional inspections on the building permit because the location of the home was not in an approved area and it was located in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone where there wasn’t land use approval.  She stated on May 1, 2009 Mr. Taylor submitted a plan amendment zone change.  She said on April 6, 2010 the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposal and after some discussion a recommended approval was voted on.  She said the vote was seven approved with one abstention.


Eichner explained that the Board could adopt the amendments, adopt the proposed amendments with any changes or they could deny the application.  She said if the Board approves the application, it will not create the opportunity under current law for any further land divisions and only a minor amount of development will be allowed on the property with no further dwellings under current law.


Fleenor indicated the nature and purpose of the hearing and decision is subject to plan amendment and rezoning criteria sited in the agenda cover memo and attachments and any evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria.  He said failure to raise an issue to enable a response may preclude an appeal to LUBA.  He said this is an opportunity for those present to enter information into the record.  Only persons who qualify as a party may appeal Board decisions to LUBA.


He asked for any ex parte contacts due to conflicts of interest.


There were none.


Commissioner Fleenor opened the Public Hearing.


Harry Taylor, Veneta, stated he represents Brad and Lori Rogers, the applicants.  He said the only property the Rogers own is 10.2 acres of land.  He said the property is in high value soils and it would require $80,000 income to approve a dwelling for two years or three of five years in a row.  He said it is unlikely that would occur on the remaining portion after the zone change.  He said the dwelling as it exists is 230 feet to the closest property around it.  He said the EFU property surrounding this ranges from 9 to 15 to 25 to 35 acres, in raising alfalfa, raising horses or hay or minimal farm use.  He added there would be no additional uses proposed in the EFU area.  He noted the addendum was to find further guidance towards how developed and committed lands are being looked at.  He understood the addendum was added to develop and committed lands review process to give further guidance to staff and to the Board for what properties would qualify.  He commented that this was a unique circumstance.  He said the exception and application is to correct an error that was made by the applicants and they admitted that.  He added the error was not made intentionally, it was something that occurred.  He recalled when they were issued the building permit; the approved building site was within the Rural Residential area, backed up to the zoned boundary of their property.  He added when the applicants went out and staked out the foundation, they found that that location didn’t work as well because there are two swales on their property that flooded in 1996.  He said innocently they moved the house back 50 feet, to move outside of the swale areas.  He said they got a number of inspections granted by the County for the foundation, framing, and the sanitation system.  He noted it wasn’t much later until a survey was made and after the house was constructed that they were able to accurately note where this zone boundary was.  He indicated the use of the property will remain what it is now, they have a filbert orchard on the property on both sides in both zones and the rest of the property has a barn on it.  He noted the property is not in farm deferral, it has one dwelling.  He said they want to correct the situation and they believe this is the only means available to do it through a developed lands exception.  He said it will end up being 3.8 acres in the RR5 Zone, but the use of the property will not change.  He said if they can get the Board to approve the request, the Rogers can move ahead to get their final building inspection.  They believe it is the best way to move ahead and correct the situation.


Brad Rogers, Eugene, said he is the owner of the property.  He said they purchased the property from his wife’s family.  He said they went through in good faith with the County starting off with a proper plot plan with how they were going to proceed with the dwelling.  He moved into the house in 2002 to get a final permit and since they moved in, the house has been assessed for tax purposes. He said in 2007 they were sent a letter from the County stating that they have a problem.  He didn’t understand how serious the problem was until he had a further meeting with Jane Burgess.  He said that Don Nickell went out and measured the house.  He had an original plot plan and a revised one.  He wanted to find a solution.


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


Dwyer stated that he was not happy with this.  He said they need a mechanism to keep this from happening in the future.  He said they need to rectify this.  He said they need to recognize that a mistake was made and the County was culpable in this mistake.


Marsha Miller, Public Works, explained that this doesn’t happen very often.  She couldn’t remember a case like this in years.  She added that it was pre-GPS.  She thought it was a procedural issue.  She indicated that they now have GPS technology available so they could make sure when an inspector goes out to inspect a foundation they have a GPS.  She noted that property lines are not evident when they are out in the field and a zoning line is less evident.  She said it was an error made by the owners and by the County.  She thought they could tighten things with new technology.


Eichner said since 1997 when the first building permit was issued, they have started stamping their site plans and talking with the applicants that they are responsible for locating the structure per the agreed upon site plan and they require them to be scaled and more specific.  She added that they will also check the plan against an aerial photo.


MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1268.


Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.




e. Continued Public Hearing and Possible Action on ORDER 10-5-12-1.


Celia Barry, Public Works, recalled the Board had a Public Hearing on March 12, 2010 for the Public Works 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program.  She indicated the Board left the record open for another Public Hearing today.  She added the Board asked they come back with additional information.  She provided a supplement with information.  (Copy in file).  She noted an issue that came up was the I-5 at Coburg project was originally intended to address traffic problems that don’t exist anymore and therefore the project should be scaled down and for the project to be entirely in the city of Coburg.  She noted the Board also asked about the earmark if the County match were withdrawn, and whether there are options to move the earmark to another project.  She stated the earmark cannot be moved to another project unless Congressman DeFazio decides to do so.  She said withdrawing the County match means the local match must come from another non-federal funding source.  She said ODOT has given preliminary indication they would try to cover the match, transferring the money from some other Lane County project that is receiving modernization funds. She explained an action to remove the match at this time could have implications for future appropriation requests made by Lane County.  She noted that Lane County and ODOT have an IGA for the $1.03 million match and the Board gave approval to execute.  She said prior to the award of a construction contract for the project, either party may terminate the IGA with 30 days notice.  She added there is another section that states Lane County will have the funds available and if the funds are not available, ODOT will withhold a proportional share of highway funds from Lane County’s regular allocation from the highway fund. 


Barry explained that ODOT’s position is that under the IGA, ODOT may take that money from another source that would normally go to Lane County. She indicated that Legal Counsel has said if the IGA is terminated, it is subject to interpretation.  She said they have indication from ODOT that that clause remains valid.  She indicated that if the Phase 1 project comes in under the estimate (currently at $15.4 million,) it is hard to know what the final budget will be, if they didn’t use the entire $1 million match in Phase 1.


In response to another question, Barry said if they adopt the CIP with the Coburg Phase 1 funding intact, it does not commit Lane County to more than Phase 1.  She added that they proposed changes to the CIP document (copy in file) that would only be committing to Phase 1.


Barry was asked if they could use the earmark as was originally intended.  She said the original intention was to replace the bridge.  She added that because the estimate was so much greater and the earmark fell short of the value that is when Phase 1 came into play.


Handy wanted to move forward everything else that is in the CIP.  He wanted ODOT to come back and address his questions before he can get to yes on this piece.  He asked if they could bring this back on June 8 and get the broader CIP approved or take actions on what they agree upon today.


Barry stated the Board must adopt the CIP 30 days prior to the County budget.  She said June 8 was not the actual adoption date, but this meeting gives them enough time if they take action today.  She said they could take the Coburg IAMP out of the CIP and she could bring the project back if the Board wanted additional work sessions on the project and they can adopt the reminder of the CIP today.


Vorhes explained the challenge is if the Board is waiting for more information and they don’t give direction to terminate, the IGA remains in effect and there might be a way for ODOT to get money and continue on the process.  He said they could adopt the CIP without this project in it and come back and consider whether to amend the CIP to add this one back in.  He stated that might have consequences for both an earmark for ODOT in terms of the project or what to do with other projects they have allocated money for in Lane County.


Spartz commented that there are overarching political implications to any decisions they make.  He said ODOT can go back to the document to show the County made a commitment.  He added that they have to think about the consequences with ODOT going forward if they decide to withdraw.  He indicated their congressional delegation has worked hard in finding funds for this project and it is important over the long run to maintain good relationships with them.   He added that they may end up paying a stiff price for saying no and withdrawing.


Dwyer stated they don’t need factory stores in Coburg or to use this as a catalyst to expand the urban growth boundary.  He commented that this project has changed substantially and it was not what they originally agreed to.


Spartz thought they should sit down with Sonny Chickering, ODOT and discuss whether or not the project still makes sense.  He said it might not be necessary to build to the scope the plan is projecting.


Barry explained that Phase 1 is a scaled down version  of the original project.  She noted there are no funds in place for Phase 2.  She indicated there were additional access control purchases contemplated earlier than is actually in the project now.   She said the policies in the IAMP that control level of traffic increases for land use helps to protect the farmland and help to contain redevelopment and growth on the west side of the freeway.


Fleenor said they have a project created ten years ago that will no longer serve the purpose because they have had a major change in the economy and the politics.


Stewart recalled that he sat down with ODOT staff and the Mayor of Coburg and  discussed the project.  He stated at that time he was not supportive of the project. He said that Coburg continued to make the case about how important it is to their community.  Chickering took his concerns and they came back with plans that changed and it allowed him to change his mind and be supportive.  He senses there is a concern that this is going to open up development.  He indicated those properties have already been developed.  He didn’t think they were justly placing concern on this project.  He wanted to hear the public comment to address the concerns.  He was supportive of the project.  He commented that this project has been tough for the last ten years in getting the landowners to sign onto this project.


Commissioner Fleenor opened the Public Hearing.


Petra Schuetz, Planning Director, Coburg, recalled the TSP in 1999 included the west side improvements and they have always been part of the concept plan from the beginning.  She said they scaled back one piece including Stewart Way that was closer to the residential area because it was a private street. She said many things were done to meet the city’s sustainable goals and they need to help with the mobility of 50 plus businesses they have in Coburg.  She said they wanted to design a project that met a lot of other goals they have.  She stated they have integrated three bioswales and stormwater techniques.  She indicated they have a natural stormwater drainage.  She stated they were excited to have the first loop of the Coburg Loop Bike Path on the west side of the realignment of Roberts Road.  She said the project creates a more balanced transportation system for the residents and the businesses. She indicated that they still have congestion today in that area and it is a problem.  She said they have enough employment land for the next 20 years within their existing urban growth boundary.  She stated they want to provide an efficient better mobility, better transportation system at the gateway of their community so they can provide infill opportunities within their existing urban growth boundary for employment.  She commented that by having the project, it will meet many local needs besides just serving congestion reduction for Monaco.


Sonny Chickering, ODOT, indicated that he has been involved in this project on both sides of the issue.  He stated that ODOT does support this project  He indicated they have worked in concert with County staff, the city, the  local property owners and Congressman DeFazio’s office to make something happen with the money.  He said that ODOT takes federal earmarks very seriously and as a policy and practice they avoid the money going back unused.  He stated they intend to move forward with the project however best they can.  He preferred they do it in concert with Lane County utilizing the $1 million match.  He recalled the agreement was signed by ODOT and Lane County in good faith and everyone intends to honor that agreement to the best of their ability.  He explained if the County wants to cancel the agreement, they have an option to do that but until that occurs they expect the Board will honor their commitments in the agreement.  He said if they accept the CIP without the Coburg IAMP that ODOT would consider that one of the terms of the existing IGA would not be met.  He added that throughout the term of the agreement (from the time it was signed in 2008) sufficient funds shall be available in Lane County’s account to cover its contribution.  He said from their perspective it means the $1 million is in the CIP.  He added if they adopt the CIP that doesn’t have the $1 million in it,  ODOT would consider that a breach of the contract.  He indicated if the Board comes back with the project, they would not pursue any remedy in that intervening time. 


Mike Stevenson, Coburg, stated that he has been going to ODOT meetings for three years.  He is one of the property owners on the east side of the freeway.  He is concerned about traffic control and access. He noted that any improvements to the overpass and traffic control helps it make things safer for him to run his farm operation.  He noted that part of the IAMP plan is for ODOT to purchase an access control strip on both sides of Van Duyn Road.  He didn’t think there is any negative effect of the control strip to their farming and ranching operation.  He didn’t think it would impose any difficulties on them. He said ODOT has been good to the property owners by having lots of meetings and discussions, telling them what they need to know about the project.


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


Fleenor said from his perspective it is not about land use or transportation, it is about spending tax dollars.  He said they didn’t know in 2008 that there would be economy problems in the future.  He commented that they had good intentions but life has changed.  He thought the $1 million needed for the match could be used to keep the roads preserved.


Dwyer  commented that this project took on a life of its own.  He asked how they can cancel the IGA.  His suggestion is to cancel the IGA and they would have nothing to lean back on.


Vorhes explained the termination notice says prior to an award of construction contract the contract can be terminated by either party  upon 30 days notice in writing and delivered upon certified mail or in person.


Barry reported the project was 80 percent complete and within two months they expect to begin acquiring right-of-way.


Handy stated they don’t intend to support commercial development unrelated to highway uses.  He said they need clear language in the policy section to preclude the use that the County and Coburg doesn’t want to see.  He said given they have the $6 million in the proposed plan for the right-of-way; he asked what ODOT could do in leveraging the access issues.  He wanted to make sure that Coburg doesn’t go into a direction the County doesn’t want them to.


Chickering said ODOT believes they have provided protections in the IAMP that will result in the outcomes the County desires.  He said the limitation on access and the mobility standards are built in and for ODOT they are sufficient for their purposes and for the County’s purpose.  He said they have put in protections to give additional opportunities to comment on land use changes. With regard to putting additional conditions into right-of-way acquisitions, he said they would not be interested in pursuing that unless there was something particular to a parcel that was not covered in the IAMP.  He noted that the agreement is between Lane County and ODOT.  He added that the city of Coburg is not a party to the agreement.


Handy was prepared to support the CIP without the IAMP project.


Schuetz said Coburg went back and checked and Coburg doesn’t not allow retail in the code.  She said it is highway commercial and light industrial.  She said highway commercial allows retail that is auto oriented.   She added that they have no zoning that would be allowed that Handy was concerned about.  She added that LCDC ‘s comment was focused on one sentence of a 200 page document that is their zoning code that allows a 50,000 square foot building.   She said anything with over an acre of property has to go through a master planning process with the planning commission and city council.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 10-5-12-1 without the Coburg IAMP project.


Sorenson MOVED, Handy SECONDED.


Stewart said he won’t support this.  He supported all the projects but he was against the exclusion of the Coburg IAMP.


VOTE:  4-1 (Stewart dissenting).


Barry said the Board has three future board action requests related to the Coburg project.  She indicated that it is in the packet. (Copy in file) She said there is an access management IGA, an IGA for project construction  on county and city facilities that is being developed and implementation of the Coburg IAMP on the County lands.


Fleenor wants to protect and preserve as much money as possible for future maintenance projects.


Sorenson wanted Spartz to have conversations with ODOT to see if there is anything they can do to work things out.


MOTION: to move to ask staff to bring back at the next meeting options including cancelling the IGA.  He also wants DLCD involved and to put it on the agenda for the week of June 8th and 9th and a subsequent hearing to possibly amend the board order on the CIP.




Vorhes asked if they wanted to have a continued hearing or just a work session.


Sorenson wanted a work session preceded by a public hearing.


Vorhes asked the maker of the motion if they would include a continued public hearing and work session.


Barry indicated the order adopting the CIP if they change Exhibit A can be passed.  She asked if they are going to have another public hearing on that same order.


Vorhes said it would be a continued public hearing in the matter of amending the CIP to consider including this project in that CIP.


Stewart stated that he will not be present on June 8th or June 9th.


Handy said he will move it to June 16th at 1:30 p.m.


VOTE: 5-0.






12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660








There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary