September 21, 2010
9:00 a.m.
Harris Hall Main Floor
APPROVED 11-2-2010

Commissioner Bill Fleenor presided with Commissioners 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.


Fleenor pulled 5.b)1 to be put on next week’s agenda.  He noted items 8.(d)(e) and (f) are 7:00 p.m., not 1:30 p.m.


Bonnie Bennett, Eugene, shared her experiences as a tenant with HACSA.  She asked the Board to do the right thing and help her as a disabled tenant.


Handy asked what their options were to be responsive.

Richardson indicated that HACSA is coming to the Board next week. She e-mailed Larry Abel and told him to review the public comment so he would be aware of questions the Board might have. She noted that Pierre Robert is handling HACSA matters and is their advisor. She added that the Board could hire an investigator to look into it.

Sorenson announced that tomorrow the Lane County Board of Commissioners will be meeting with the Oregon Transportation Commission in Salem.

Fleenor thought Bennett had serious allegations.  He was in agreement that Abel should provide a report outlining the allegations.

Dwyer thought they needed to have an investigator.  He wanted a third party not connected with HACSA to review the matter.

Fleenor asked who would be preparing the board order to move forward with a private investigation.

Richardson said she will bring it up at agenda setting.

Handy announced that next Wednesday on September 29 the Board is hosting a meeting at the Lane County Fairgrounds.





A. Approval of Minutes: None.

B. Board of Commissioners

1) ORDER 10-9-21-1/In the Matter of Appointing Ashley Miller to the Lane County Budget Committee to Fill an Unexpired Term.

C. Public Works

1) ORDER 10-9-21-2/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of  3 Parcels of County-owned Surplus Road Fund Property Identified as Tax Lot 6400 on Lane County Assessor's Map 17-04-16-14, Tax Lot 9100 on Map 17-04-16-41 and Tax Lot 1800 on Map 17-04-16-42.

2) ORDER /In the Matter of Amending Order No. 07-2-7-9, Altering a Portion of North Game Farm Road (17-03-09, 15& 16).


MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.

Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.


a. Announcements



a. Announcements

Spartz said the Department of Youth Services has a consultant regarding  disproportionate minority youth.  He indicated that he will be attending that meeting at 2:00 p.m.

Fleenor asked how they audit the parking lot for the Duck games, ensuring they are getting the full benefit of the revenue.

Spartz said they know the number of parking spots available and they are all sold. He added that they know how much money was collected and whether the cash is being handled properly.


a. ORDER 10-9-21-3/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear Arguments on an Appeal of a Hearings Official's Dismissal of an Appeal of a Timeline Extension Granted by the Planning Director for a Special Use Permit for a 6-bed Hospice Facility (File PA 10-5292/Cascade Health Solutions).

Jerry Kendall, Land Management, explained that this is an appeal of a one year extension granted by the Planning Director.  He indicated that it is an administrative action for an extension of a special use permit granted by the Hearings  Official in 2008 for a six bed, 6,000 square foot hospice facility to be constructed on River Loop One, south of Beacon Drive.  He said the appeal was filed with the second option, in which the appellants have requested that the Board not elect to hear the appeal and to allow them to proceed straight onto LUBA. 

Kendall commented in the eyes of the Planning Director and the Hearings Official, the appeal is straightforward.  He said when a timeline extension is applied for, it is filed under Lane Code 14.700(2)(d). He said the provision reads that approval of an extension shall be done by the director and is not subject to appeal.  He indicated it is on that line alone that the Director feels and the Hearing Official agreed to dismiss the appeal.  He added that there is no authority to appeal this because the code says there is no option for that.

Kendall explained there are three assignments of error.  He noted there are four subdivisions and even though the extension is filed under  the (d) provision, the appellant states that (a) also applies to timeline extension but it was ignored by the Hearings Official.  He added that (a) applies to modification of conditions and this is not a modification of condition, it is a timeline extension.  He said an example of a modification condition is when a special use permit is approved and the applicant comes back later for a template dwelling and says they have rethought their condition and wants to relocate the location of the facility within the subject property.  He said that would require a reanalysis and reconvening of the Hearing Official.  He said that was not the case here.  He added it was a simple timeline extension.

Kendall noted assignment of error two said the decision fails to address Lane Code 14.500.   He said it is a side issue, and not germane to the matter of concern.  He said what the appellant’s attorney Farthing is attempting to do is to get the project blocked.  He noted this approval is for the six bed, 6,000 square foot hospice facility and was approved in 2008.  He added in the meantime, while that decision was granted, (there was a two year life span) the applicant, Cascade Health Solutions came in and doubled the size for a 12 bed, 15,000 square foot facility being applied for.  He said that was a separate set of applications taken to a different Hearings Official in this case and that was denied last April under a Goal 14 issue.  He said the day before the six bed special use permit expired, the applicant came in for a building permit for the six bed hospice facility.  He said Planning allowed that to come in.  He indicated that it is in the plan examination stage.  He added that Farthing is maintaining that they can’t entertain two applications on the same piece of property concurrently.  Kendall said in reality they are not because they signed off on one permit for the smaller facility.  He said if the applicant succeeds in getting the 12 bed denial turned around (they filed a writ and it is pending in January before Circuit Court) and if they succeed in turning that around and then coming back for a request for a 12 bed facility, then Planning will sign at their request, the 12 bed facility, but Planning will say at the same time this cancels the building permit for the six bed facility.

Kendall indicated the last assignment of error is that the Hearings Official’s conclusion that a time extension is not a modification of the condition as an error, it is a time extension.  He added the Hearing’s Official also notes that State Law ORS 174.010  requires that laws be viewed in context and in that regard she found and the Planning Director agrees that (2)(a) contradicts (2)(d).  He said (a) talks about  a hearings official reviewing a modification of condition which is not, and that action can be appealed.   He noted that (2)(d) says the Planning Director reviews extension requests and it cannot be appealed.  He indicated that was how the Hearing’s Official ruled.

Kendall explained that the Board must decide whether to elect to hear this appeal that was dismissed by the Hearing’s Official.  He noted in that regard there are four criteria. He asked for the first criteria if the issue is of countywide significance. He noted the agenda cover memo states that if they agree with how the Hearings Official ruled in this case, then the issue has been dealt with in a satisfactory manner and there is no countywide significance.  He said the second issue is will it reoccur with frequency and is there the need for policy guidance.  He said this is the first time an administrative extension request has been appealed.  He said if the Board agrees with how the Hearing’s  Official has handled  the situation and interpreted Lane Code 14, there is no need for  policy guidance by the Board.  He said the last two situations are a negative, meaning there is no unique environmental resource involved and neither the Planning Director nor the Hearings Official recommends review.

Kendall recommended Option 1 that the Board approves the attached order, electing not to hear the appeal, expressly agreeing with the Hearings Official’s decision of July 30, including her interpretation of Lane Code 14.700(2) and adopting such as the final decision of the County.

MOTION:  to approve Option 1 of ORDER 10-9-21-3.


Stewart asked with the application being submitted for the six bed structure, if the extension of what was being asked for was moot.

Kendall said they are padding their options if they need more time.

VOTE: 5-0.


b. ORDER 10-9-21-4/In the Matter of Approving the Schematic Design for the Public Works Customer Service Center. 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-9-21-4.

Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE:  4-0 (Dwyer out of room).

c. ORDER 10-9-21-5/In the Matter of Amending the Public Works Customer Service Center Agreement with PIVOT Architecture for Phase 3 Architectural and Engineering Services in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $548,976.

Marsha Miller, Public Works, reported that their team has been working hard over the past several months on programming for the Customer Service Center.  She indicated that they have gone out for an RFP and selection process for a construction management general contractor.  She said they started with seven and narrowed down to two.  She asked which option the Board prefers and how to move forward.

Tanya Heaton, Public Works, gave a presentation on each option.  (Copy in file).

MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-9-21-5.

Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE:  4-0 (Dwyer out of  room).

d. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance 7-10/In the Matter of Amending Chapters 13 and 16 of the Lane Code to be Consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules and to Make Other Various Correction and Clarification Revisions (LC 13.050, 16.005, 16.211, 16.212, 16.237, 16.238, 16.239, 16.240, 16.241, 16.243, 16.294, 16.296); (Second Reading and Public Hearing 10/5/10 at 7:00 p.m. in Harris Hall). 

MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance 7-10 for October 5, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.


VOTE: 5-0.

e. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1275/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) by Amending Two Coordinated Population Forecasts for the City of Coburg (PA 10-5610); (Second Reading and Public Hearing 10/5/10 at 7:00 p.m. in Harris Hall).

MOTION: to approve a  First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. PA 1275 for October 5, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.


VOTE: 5-0.

f. REFER TO PUBLIC HEARING/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 5 of Lane Manual to Formalize Staff Coordination Between Compliance and Permitting (LM 5.013) (Public Hearing 10/5/10 at 7:00 p.m. in Harris Hall.)

MOTION: to continue this item to October 5, 2010, at 7:00 p.m.


VOTE: 5-0. 

g. REPORT/In the Matter of an Update on the Eugene-Springfield  Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Joint Elected Official's Regional Issues Work Plan.

Matt Laird, Land Management, explained that these are amendments  to the Metro Area Plan regarding issues the Board has raised over the past few years.  He gave background on how they got to where they are.  He commented that these plans work directly with what the cities are doing with Envision Eugene and Springfield 2030 to implement HB3337.  He said now is the time to submit the County’s formal comments to those planning processes.  He asked for direction to submit them as the County’s position for the long range planning processes.

Kent Howe, Land Management, explained the purpose of this effort today is to walk though the five issues the Board identified  and the Joint Elected Officials subcommittee recommended. He said those five items are: 1) the definition of key urban services, 2) the jurisdictional autonomy for properties outside of the urban growth boundary; 3) the urbanizable area citizen representation; 4) dispute resolution for shared jurisdiction and 5) open space protection.  He asked the Board that if they concur with the materials before them, then staff would propose to insert them into the Envision Eugene process and the Springfield 2030 process as the County’s proposed amendments. He added that then  their process would be incorporated so when they come back to the Board of Commissioners for their adoption of their HB3337 amendments and their refinement plans, this will be in there and the Board would have accomplished what they wanted in their effort.

With regard to the definition of key urban services, Howe noted the Metro Plan is the region’s land use policy document for the metro area.  He indicated within the Metro Plan there are a number of different and inconsistent terms used when referring to various services provided by the local governments and other agencies.  He said the failure to recognize the County as a provider of public facilities and services within the Metro Plan is problematic because it is potentially detrimental to the County’s long term’s ability to maintain these facilities and services.  He indicated under current policies and operational practices of the Metro Plan, the creation of special tax districts for these services or including them within existing districts would likely not be feasible or it could be precluded.  He noted the definitions and the Metro Plan policies may affect other services unrelated to land use planning and the Metro Plan is a land use planning document.  He said they need to make it clear in the land use document that the County provides additional services that are not land use and should not be limited by the Metro Plan if special district formation was something the County wanted to pursue.  He indicated under the proposed solutions for this item that they need to clarify the Metro Plan as a land use document only.  He added that they need to add language to clarify other services provided in the urban area by Lane County and to revise the text throughout the Metro Plan to clarify among the public,  urban and rural facilities and services.  He said the changes are in the attached text and could be inserted into the proposed revisions that Eugene and Springfield will be bringing to the Board.  He said it would clarify the issue of what services the County provides that go above and beyond land use and would not be limited by the Metro Plan.

Dwyer asked if they had language that said “ Including other services that may be added from time to time.”

Howe indicated they can make sure that is added.

Handy thought good work had been done but he thought it was a piecemeal approach to the Metro Plan.  He thought the key issue is that they have not addressed the alternative performance measures in their TransPlan and the benchmarks DLCD is looking for.  He said there is data and analysis that needs to come  out of the Transportation System Plan work required by DLCD. He said he would not be supporting this suggested path today.

Stewart said they have been working on this since he has been a commissioner.  He said they talked about doing away with the Metro Plan altogether.  He said they put together committees and it was recommended that because they didn’t have the financial means and the time it would take to do away with the Metro Plan or completely redraw it, it was agreed upon months ago to pick out these topics before them today and move them forward.  He stated that now he is hearing it is not the appropriate approach.  He asked if that was the consensus of the majority.  He was willing to move forward.  He wanted to roll the metro boundary into the urban growth boundary so they can do away with the area that is in question.

Fleenor asked the Board if they wanted to continue with this discussion.

Stewart indicated that they are being asked to move forward the recommendations they have and to give guidance.  He heard from Handy that he is not interested in this approach as it is piecemeal and he wants to take a different approach.  He reminded the Board that they wanted to go down that road years ago.   He said when they analyzed the costs, timelines and everything it was going to take to do it and whether it was feasible, they directed staff to take this approach.

Sorenson agreed with Dwyer that the idea they are providing services some people might call rural and urban, but occurring within an urban area should be noted so it is clear the County provides the services within the UGB and they are not limited with providing services within the Eugene Springfield metro boundary. He stated that it is an important component.

Dwyer wanted to know what approach Handy would embark on specifically, what the steps would be and when the conclusion would occur.  He said they sent the cities  a letter with the 19 points the County requested and they didn’t respond.  He said they have to have linkage.  He said if they are going to have a meaningful relationship, there has to be linkage that benefits both parties.  He said they have to make sure they have leverage in getting what they need out of the discussions.  He commented that they really never get to talk about the issues they want to discuss.  He doesn’t think the Board wants to deal with the tough issues.

Fleenor also commented that none of his issues are being addressed with representation and protection.  He said there is a lack of effort to get to the bottom line.  He said it is good work but it is not satisfactory.

Handy said they need a Goal 4.  He said they need a River Road/Santa Clara policy goal.  He said they want to preserve the characteristics of Santa Clara and River Road and they want to do it in this document.  He said it needs to be called out in the policy language.  He commented that the world has changed and they know they have to change things.

MOTION:  to move to have staff come back with a more comprehensive set of updates regarding policy choices and options for discussion at the Board of County Commissioners, by review and analysis of the alternative performance measures and progress toward benchmarks as required by LCDC work program, and a set of policy choices and options for preserving the characteristics of the River Road/Santa Clara community as part of that, adding a Goal 4 statement specifically in document( 2)(c).

Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

Laird stated those are major changes.  He indicated that they have been working on this for several years and this is the first he had heard the specifics of a Santa Clara/ River Road Plan inserted into this process.  He said it will take coordination with the city.  He said if they are scrapping this and starting from the beginning, then it will take a long time.  He added that they are booked out with their long range planning resources until the end of the year working on all the projects for the Board.  He couldn’t give a time when this could come back.  He said he could come back with policy choices sometime next year.  He noted the cities are working on their refinement plans to the Metro Plan now and they have an opportunity to comment on those processes and insert language that the Board has wanted for some time.  He stated they have the opportunity to move the Board’s interest forward now. 

Howe reminded the Board that in 2009 Handy had just come on the Board and he was a member of the JEO subcommittee.  Howe reported that the focus of the subcommittee was to look to see if they want to keep the Metro Plan or if they want to develop a new plan for the Eugene Springfield area.  He indicated that after going through that exercise, it was determined by the Board of Commissioners and the other two city councils that the cost and expense of starting over and doing a comprehensive revisit and redesign of the Metro Plan for the Eugene, Springfield Lane County area was cost and time prohibitive.  He thought the best they could do at this time within budget is to look at the Metro Plan and do the band aid approach and make fixes that will get them along.  He noted HB3337 is requiring the two cities to do a large amount of work.  He commented the refinement plans they are working on are opportunities for this Board to refine the Metro Plan as it goes along.   He commented that the Metro Plan fundamentally is working okay.  He noted there were areas that needed to be fixed and it is something where they don’t have the resources to do it in time.

Fleenor said he didn’t buy into the “cost was prohibitive” paradigm that is driving this process in piecemeal fashion.  He commented that it costs them money every day they delay doing it right.

Dwyer said it was a problem of representation.  He said the people in the UGB outside the city limits are not represented.  He said once they declare a UGB and they give the cities jurisdiction within the UGB, their jurisdiction has to stop at their city limits.  He stated that he was okay if their jurisdiction stops at their city limits and they have a UGB that goes beyond the city limits.   He said they have to draw a line at the city limits and keep their jurisdiction there or they don’t have a deal. 

Handy thought  it was premature to set a date to come back.  He noted that DLCD is expecting their jurisdictions to come back in March.  He indicated they want to see a real work plan and approach to this and they were not happy with County staff dragging their heels.  He thought bringing this back was premature until all of their staffs have talked with each other and indicate the Board of Commissioners is serious about these issues.  He added that dealing with the alternative performance measures and incorporating those into their findings that will inform their policies and the River Road/ Santa Clara piece is not satisfactorily unwinded in any of these wordsmiths.  He said if there is reluctance from their staff to do the work they asked them to do, then they will have the conversations directly with the city of Eugene.   He said he is not supporting the tweak as it stands.

Handy wanted to keep the motion.   He said it is premature to come back because they have to respond to DLCD and they expect to hear from them by March with a realistic plan.  He added when their staff is ready and the other jurisdictions’ staff addresses this issue on the Metro Plan, they will be happy to have it come back to them and they will look to staff to give agenda team suggestions.  He indicated for his motion that staff comes back at a time uncertain.

Dwyer wanted staff to tell them how it could be done instead of how it can’t be done.

Laird understood the urban services, urban area citizen representation and the dispute resolution were not satisfactory.  He wanted to submit into the process the jurisdictional autonomy for properties outside the UGB.  He said both of the cities during HB3337 are gaining some autonomy from each other but the Board has the opportunity to gain some autonomy now.  He noted their current Metro Plan now extends outside of the urban growth boundary and they have a shared cooperative relationship with the cities in those areas.  He stated the statutes do not require them to do any shared work outside the UGB.  He said they have presented to propose to the cities that as they are doing their new HB3337 (and potentially that they might modify the UGB,) they would like to see the Metro Plan boundary shrink to the UGB.  He indicated the areas of negotiation would be around the gravel areas, the Delta area and the airport.  He thought they could accomplish that during this process.  He thought they could just move forward with that one.

Stewart recalled that last week this came to a head for him while he was trying to address a constituent.  He said there is a portion of the Metro Plan that goes outside of the UGB, and stretches up the Hayden Bridge area.  He said what happened was his constituents did research and bought with expectations RR2 county property.  He noted it was eight acres and they wanted to divide it in half to put their son in an additional house.  He said they went through all research and asked questions of staff.  They were told they could do it, they purchased the property and said they could move forward in doing a partition.  He added that as they were reviewing the documents, they found out the Metro Plan doesn’t allow that zoning to take place, it was limited to five acre parcels.  He wants to give direction to staff to initiate the process of moving the metro boundary back to the urban growth boundary.  He thought it was a good step forward.  He thought it was better to go to the city limits and to be the representatives of the people who are in the urban growth boundary that are not in the city limits that don’t feel like they have a place to go.  He was willing to pursue that.  He wanted to see the Board give that direction today.  He hasn’t received anything from DLCD that pertains to what they expect this Board to be doing. He said this is the first time that he heard there are meetings that people are going to and getting direction.  He said if DLCD is making those kinds of comments about staff resistance, then they should be looking into that.  He wanted the correspondence brought to his attention.  He wanted an idea how it could be done and what the cost will be.  He said when they had a conversation at the JEO meetings in their subcommittees, they were talking about up to $1 million to recraft the Metro Plan. He indicated that was a lot of money and it is a deterrent for moving forward. 

Dwyer commented that they have to take control of their responsibility.

Sorenson asked about DLCD and the information that Handy discussed.

Howe said there is a major effort to coordinate land use and transportation and the TransPlan provisions going forward are trying to make that linkage clearer.  He said it is in the TransPlan document and it will inform the Metro Plan. 

Sorenson indicated that there is money to plan transportation and not to plan land use.  He asked if they could have a discussion folded into an amendment to the Metro Plan since all the jurisdictions in the Metro Plan are also involved in the Regional Transportation Plan.  He asked if they could amend the Metro Plan and have it go along at once.  He was concerned about public involvement.    He wanted to focus attention on the land use and the transportation.  He said it has taken a long time for this to be prepared and brought to them.  He said in the  meantime the Board membership has changed.  He thought they would have that problem again when Fleenor and Dwyer are  off the Board and they will have two new commissioners.  He thought they should build in a part for the Metro Plan for the public hearing process.

Howe said that is what this is about.  He noted the last page of the packet shows that under the transportation work program the MPC approved RTP program is being folded into the  Metro Plan work plan.  He added the elements are being focused in Section F.  He said that is all being done.  He added the five issues this Board wanted to work on are what the packet of materials is for along with the presentation today.  He noted the other work is being coordinated and worked on. 

Vorhes said if the Board takes the position that they want to propose this to the cities,  if there is anything in the plans they don’t like, they can say it can be fixed.  He stated from a legal standing they will eventually end up with an IGA called a Joint Management Agreement under the laws of Oregon where they will articulate the jurisdictional authority and it could look similar to what they do in other cities.   He added that they may retain the jurisdiction but they have to have the conversation with them either in the context of changing the Metro Plan or articulating that in the refinement plans they are working on. 

Dwyer said he has nothing substantive in front of him.  He said they know what the issues are, the 190 agreements and the lack of representation have been going on for years.  He said it needs to start from the Board’s point of view and  then they will see where it goes.

Handy wanted to look at everything comprehensively.  He wanted to address all of the issues so they are not doing it piecemeal.  He said a question came up about the  alternative performance measures and DLCD.  He said they had a work session on the DLCD work program a few months ago and as part of that, the Board drafted a letter and approved  comment to DLCD on the alternative performance measures.  He noted after the Board approved sending the letter to DLCD, the Board asked him to testify before DLCD.  He reported to the Board what happened at the work session. 

Dwyer thought they need to address the concerns about people in the item.  He said it was crazy to have an overlay outside of the UGB that they don’t control that prohibits the citizens from receiving adequate information.  He asked how they could address it in the interim.  He said if that is not discussed, then he would not support the motion. 

Handy restated his motion:  In reference to 2 c), the growth management goals, findings and policies, to look at that and the other attachments.  Move staff to come back with more comprehensive updates regarding policy choices and options for discussions at the Board of County Commissioners after review and analysis of the alternative performance measures and progress toward benchmarks as required  by the LCDC work program.  Review, add specific goal and policy language and  a bullet in number 4, the growth management findings to reflect earlier Board of Commissioners direction to protect and preserve River Road/Santa Clara characteristics.

Fleenor stated he would support the motion with the hope that they will see it brought back before the Board in an expeditious manner so they can resolve the issue with respect to the Marcola issue.

Stewart asked if this precluded a following motion that might be made to give direction on item 2.  He thought to move Santa Clara/ River Road would be to put together a County Policy Plan to manage Santa Clara /River Road.  He thought they should come up with how the County jurisdictional property should have a management policy in those areas.  He thought it would be beneficial.  He said then they would have a document that would guide their staff plus give better representation.  He added that the city of Eugene could incorporate the document and they could have a policy used by both jurisdictions.

Dwyer said he won’t support it.  He wanted to have language come back that works in the County’s favor.   He wanted a report that said” city limits.”

Fleenor asked if the Board supported the motion, if it did not preclude a second motion to move forward the item of interest by Stewart.

Richardson said that was correct.

Dwyer said if they could support the second motion then he would support the first one.

Handy wanted to bring the issue back with more specific information in a packet so he could learn more about the issue.  With regard to Stewart’s recommendation about an approach for River Road/Santa Clara , he reminded the Board they had work sessions with the River Road/Santa Clara transition project and the recommendations of that task force and they were vetted in the communities.  He noted the city of Eugene is aware of that report.  He said instead of reinventing the wheel, they should review the document.

Fleenor asked if the maker of the motion be willing to amend the motion to include having the Marcola issue being brought back as a separate issue in a timely manner for consideration by the Board.

Handy amended his motion.

Vorhes thought it made more sense as it gives more detail and direction to look more comprehensively at both transportation planning and the Metro Plan. He reminded the Board the refinement plans for Springfield is out and Eugene is going through Envision Eugene.  He commented that this Board will have concepts and ideas they will want them to consider in building their plan.   He noted now is the time to start working on what those things should say.

Stewart reiterated that they are giving staff direction that they will pursue the jurisdictional autonomy bringing the Metro Plan boundary back to the UGB.  He assumed there will be a packet of information that will direct what the process would be, costs, timeline and what it would take to move that forward.

Fleenor understood that to be correct.

Sorenson agreed to amend his second.

VOTE: 5-0.

h. STATUS REPORT/Lane Code/Manual/Comp Plan Revisions.

Laird indicated there was not much to report back from the Land Use Task Force items.  He said the first reading was today, announcing the Public Hearing will take place on Tuesday October 5.   He noted it will be a joint Planning Commission meeting with the Board of Commissioners. He reported that the legislative code amendments are also moving forward.

Fleenor asked what they are doing about informing the public about manufactured homes.

Laird said they have added the frequently asked questions to their website.  He said what people are seeing is the Measure 56 notice they sent to everyone in the forest zone and it shows the manufactured home language being deleted.  He added the reason it is deleted was because it was redundant.  He said a single family dwelling does not preclude a manufactured dwelling.  He reported that another Measure 56 notice will be sent out soon on the drinking water protection overlay zone.

9. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660 (Commissioners' Conference Room)


There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor recessed the meeting at 11:55 a.m. 

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary