minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

December 9, 1998

REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

1:30 p.m. Harris Hall Main Floor

 

Commissioner Steve Cornacchia presided with Commissioners Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr., and Peter Sorenson. Cindy Weeldreyer was late. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

8. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. ORDER 98-12-9-5 Awarding Tourism Special Project Grants for 1999 and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Agreements.

 

Carol Ann Peters, Parks Department, reported the Tourism Special Grant project is funded from a portion of the transient room tax and Lane County Parks administers the grant process for the County. She added five members were appointed by the Board to review and evaluate the proposals. She said they received 32 proposals, totaling $218,925 and there was only $140,000 to be given away. She said Attachment "C" has the recommendations for 19 for full funding, 3 for partial funding and 10 for no funding. She asked the Board to approve the committee's recommendations.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 98-12-9-5.

 

Weeldreyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED

 

VOTE: 4-0 (Dumdi out of room.)

 

d. ORDER 98-12-9-7 Declining Further Consideration of Ordinances PA 1083 and PA 1084 and Directing Waste Management Division Withdrawal of the Application for Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan.

 

Mike Copely reported it was the Short Mountain Landfill plan amendment to be added to the landfill. He said the order declines further consideration. He added by withdrawing it, the Board will not need to act on items e) and f) of the agenda.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 98-12-9-7.

 

Weeldreyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0. (Dumdi out of room.)

 

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

 

A. Approval of Minutes: October 27, 1998, Joint BCC/Lane County Planning Commission Meeting, 5:30 p.m.

November 4, 1998, Regular Meeting, following Board of Health

November 4, 1998, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

 

B. Health and Human Services

 

1) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 98-12-9-9 Awarding a Contract to the Sherman Center to Serve on the Lane County Managed Mental Health Provider Panel for Crisis Services for the Period December 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign the Agreement.

 

2) ORDER 98-12-9-10 Amending the Community Corrections Plan, Reallocating Funds, Awarding Contracts for $102,000, and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Contracts and Agreements.

 

C. Public Safety

 

1) ORDER 98-12-9-11/In the Matter of Ratifying the Execution of an Amended Intergovernmental Service Agreement with the United States Marshals Services to Increase Per Diem Bed Rate by $9.95.

 

D. Public Works

 

1) ORDER 98-12-9-12 Awarding a Three Year Requirements Contract to McKenzie-Willamette Hospital for the Purchase of Alcohol and Drug Testing, CDL Physicals, and Miscellaneous Services.

 

2) ORDER 98-12-9-13 Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 289 (Cox Butte Road) (15-05-25)

 

3) ORDER 98-12-9-14 Dedicating and Accepting Parcels of County Owned Land Within the River Road Alteration Project, to be Used as Public Road Easements for Various County Roads and Public Roads in Sections 13 and 24, Township 17 South, Range 4 West of the Willamette Meridian.

 

MOTION: to approve Consent Calendar.

 

Green MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0 (Dumdi out of room.)

 

10. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

None.

 

12. PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 98-12-9-15 Entering into a Lease Agreement with the Friends of the Old McKenzie Hatchery and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign a Lease Agreement.

 

Bob Keefer, Parks Department, reported the Friends of the Old McKenzie Hatchery was formed in 1996 with the purpose of helping support the hatchery. He said as this group forms and works toward their goals, they could take over a major portion of the operations of the hatchery. He said the lease is a short-term five year lease with a three year extension repeat. He said they are doing a good job and are waiting to file for the 501 C3 status with the federal government, which will allow them to apply for additional granting sources that will help fund the improvements at the hatchery.

 

Commissioner Cornacchia opened Public Hearing. With no one registered to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 98-12-9-15.

 

Dumdi MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1125 Adopting the Veneta Transportation System Plan, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

 

Chris Henry, Public Works, reported that LCOG was contracted by the City of Veneta to develop a transportation system plan as required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule and has prepared the document that is before the Board. He added November 24 was the First Reading and in September the Board tentatively adopted the transportation system plan following an adoption of an ordinance by the city. He said the city did so on November 9.

 

Commissioner Cornacchia opened Public Hearing. With no one registered to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION: to approve adoption of Ordinance PA 1125.

 

Dumdi MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0.

 

c. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1127 Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land from "Forest" to "Rural" and Rezoning that Land from "F-2/Impacted Forest Land" to "RR-2/SR" ("Rural Residential 2 with Site Review"), Adopting Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 1710-97; Roberts).

 

Mike Copely, Land Management, distributed documents (copy in file). He said what he passed out was a letter received yesterday from the Deerhorn Community Water Association and a set of photographs submitted by the applicant's agent, Mr. Miller, illustrating conditions on the property. He said the proposal is to designate a 12 acre piece of property from F-2 to RR2. He added the original proposal was for a straight RR 2 designation. He said in the process of hearings before the Lane County Planning Commission and negotiations, a site review suffix was added to the designation and appears in the ordinance before the Board. He added there is an exhibit in the ordinance that is part 2 to Exhibit B, the zoning map that sets forth a number of conditions if the matter is adopted. He said the key site condition review would be limiting three properties instead of six. He added there are also conditions with fire suppression and setbacks from adjoining properties. He added the site review suffix would be used in a positive manner to manage development on the property in a way that the impact on the site and surrounding land would be less. He said the property being proposed is a committed land in a committed lands exception area and represents a peninsula in an area that is forested. He said the applicants' arguments rely primarily on that it is a small parcel, encumbered for purposes of forest management by virtue of the Deerhorn Water Association tank facilities and an access road in the center. He said there is a creek on the property which inhibits forest practices. He said staff's view is that it is not as strong a case as the Board has reviewed in other similar proposals. He added it does appear the case has been made and with addition of the site review, it appears to staff that development could be accommodated on the property. He said however, it is dependent upon the Board's judgment. He said some issues that have arisen with respect to this proposal occur in a packet of letters that were previously given to the Board. He added the opposition from the regional forester has indicated that his concern is this would lead to conversion of further properties and would have an adverse affect on neighboring properties of forest land. He added there are mixed reactions from people in the area, positive and negative. He said with regard to history, it did go before the Lane County Planning Commission and was recommended for approval with the site review by a 5-1 vote. He said it was referred to the Department of Land Conservation and Development and as of 1:30 p.m. today, received no response or comment and no objection. He said one of staff's concerns was the question of fire protection and they took the position that there had to be assurance that fire equipment could gain access to that property. He said, based on the site review process, staff believes that development could be accomplished on the property without a great risk to neighboring forest land.

 

Cornacchia stated it is more than just an ordinance approving a rezoning, it actually carries with it a site review suffix that carries requirements on the part of the owner and the applicant to do certain things once the development starts. He added what this means is that before any parcels are created or houses are built, the requirements must be completed or in place.

 

Copely noted that the site review is a requirement that any development on the property must be preceded by the process which is an administrative level approval with appeal opportunity to the hearings official and ultimately to the Board.

 

Cornacchia noted the number of building parcels should be limited to a maximum of three over the entire property, vegetation removed during the process of development shall be replanted except for removal as necessary for fire protection fuel breaks, access for structural purposes, 100 foot development setback from adjoining properties zoned F-1 and F-2 from Hagen Creek shall be maintained; fire suppression capability onsite shall be required and approved by the McKenzie Rural Fire Protection District and fuel breaks around dwelling shall be set forth in the Lane Code.

 

Commissioner Cornacchia opened public hearing.

 

Thomas Miller, representing the owner (Tiffany Noah) reported it was a property that was site planned and engineered by Dr. Holt in the 1970's as a larger lot transitional development property within the Deerhorn Community. He added it was also part of a 1000 Friends of Oregon disagreement with Lane County's master plan and was eliminated from the master plan based on the contract zoning concept. He said the presentation for the zone change conforms with the County and state criteria and Board Order 89-10-25-4 in that the property is less than 15 acres and has dwellings on at least one side. He added because of the existing development of home and water facilities and the creek being on the property, it was impractical for forest resource management. He said the property next to it is owned by Weyerhaeuser and they would not be interested in parcels like this. He said the property to the east is owned and managed by the Baxter Timber Company and he received a letter from them that said they had no interest in the property in any way. He said the property to the west, is F-2 and is owned by John Hyland. He said he didn't know if the easement had been developed but from Don Henry's letter, it is in process. He said the road was built to F-2 standards with the appropriate turnouts and grades and will be paved.

 

Dan Shults, 3150 Main St., Springfield, stated he is a District Forester for Eastern Lane District for the Oregon Department of Forestry and provided written comments and concerns (copies in files). He said it is a 12 acre parcel and the major concern he has is that it is good productive forest land, capable of producing a good timber crop that is surrounded on three sides by other forest parcels. He said landowner objectives change, trees grow, are harvested and die and if houses are put on the property, it will make timber management opportunities problematic. He said it is not a large parcel, but a stepping stone if it is approved for rural residential. He added it is a matter of time until the parcels on the east and west will likely go the same way, because it makes forest management more difficult. He said one of the goals is to conserve forest land for forest uses and this falls within that objective.

 

Jack Adler, 88979 Bridge St., Springfield, stated in the original hearing with the Planning Commission, that he spoke in favor of the change because the conditions that were put on it made it seem like it would be to his benefit. He said he has been concerned that clear cutting in adjacent areas has led to a great amount of lost trees on residential property. He said the property across the street from him has been logged. He said it has been shown that it is good forest land. He added he is changing his position to recommending against the change.

 

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

 

Sorenson questioned what standards the applicant needed to meet.

 

Copely responded that the standards are County and state with respect to development committed land exception criteria. He said they require an approval showing that the property involved in the proposal is not practicable or cannot reasonably be used as a resource property because of conditions around it, such as development that inhibit forest practices. He said in his opinion, this case is not as strong as others that the Board had looked at in the past. He said they meet the requirements but not in quite as compelling a manner because it does constitute good forest land.

 

Vorhes noted the findings are general in terms of the specific County plan change requirements. He said the most critical statewide goal is whether they can conclude that the parcel is irrevocably committed to non-resource use.

 

Commissioner Cornacchia reopened the Public Hearing.

 

Cornacchia noted that Adler brought up a number of different ways that there have been logging activities occurring on the site. He wanted to know what the logging activity has been on the parcel for the past five years.

 

Adler responded there had not been any activity on the parcel until the recent activity. He said there had been an earlier road cut that was 30% of the length of what the road is now. He added that cut didn't meet the F-2 standards because some of the grading was too step and it wasn't quite wide enough. He said the logging has been related to the construction of the road.

 

Cornacchia stated according to Adler there had been no commercial timber harvest.

 

Adler responded there had been none.

 

Elizabeth Shatt, 89016 Frick St., stated her property is north of the property from Bridge and Deerhorn, the second lot up on the west side. She said she spoke at the initial hearing in favor of the development. She added she is a geologist and thought it is better to have limited development as opposed to clear cutting. She said she has concerns about what has happened since then. She said her interest now is that Hyland has purchased the property across the street. She said his property is the F-2 on the west side of the creek and she is concerned if this property is approved what he would do with that property. She said she has only been living on the property for less than two years and chose the area because it is rural. She said had she known this would have transpired, she would not have bought the property. She is worried her property value will drop.

 

Weeldreyer noted Copely stated in the oral and staff reports the case is not as strong as other cases with similar requests. She added knowing they have a letter from the Department of Forestry that is opposing this and the recommendation from the Planning Commission is inconsistent with Goal 4, (to conserve forest lands) there will be some outside conversation group that would file an appeal to LUBA. She wanted to know if it would be a strong enough to survive a LUBA appeal.

 

Copely stated what happened at the Planning Commission was the proposal came in for RR2 and he recommended RR5 on the basis of concerns of fire safety and the impact of six dwelling units. He said it could be termed a compromise and there was interest with the Planning Commission saying some form of limited development could be accommodated without totally disrupting the parcel. He said the property has some forest capability and could not be continued as forest activity.

 

Vorhes stated the development committed exception test is a difficult one to meet. He said the applicant has provided findings that address all of the factors and the criteria. He added under a LUBA appeal, with issues raised adequately to contest the evidence and the conclusions drawn based on that evidence, there is no guarantee it would withstand it.

 

Weeldreyer said she didn't have a strong recommendation for a yes or no vote. She said she has concerns about the letter from the Department of Forestry whether it meets the Goal 4 test. She noted the Planning Commission addressed those concerns and had provided for some requirements in site review to allow for the development of the property to proceed and still maintain a level of forest health to it.

 

MOTION: to approve Ordinance 1127.

 

Weeldreyer MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED.

 

Sorenson said the evidence in the record does not support the findings as they are inconsistent with the testimony and photographs and the diagram.

 

Cornacchia said the facts fit directly with current County policy. He said he has some concern about what will happen after this is approved from the standpoint of productive forest land.

 

Weeldreyer stated she was supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation as there is a water facility in the middle of the property and the amount of commercial timber production is questionable.

 

Green noted the applicant met the tests and on that basis he will support the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

 

Dumdi stated she supported the motion from the material and testimony given and understands the concerns of the people who supported the project a year ago and have since changed their minds.

 

Cornacchia said the compelling factor for him was the water facility through the middle of the property. He said with all things considered it appears to be with the site review suffix and the limitation of three houses and everything else in the site review requirements.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting.)

 

13. OTHER BUSINESS

 

a. DISCUSSION & ACTION Ordinance PA 1124 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Redesignate Land from "Airport Reserve" to "Government and Education" and Amending the Airport Master Plan Land Use Diagram to Redesignate that Land from "Environmental Buffer" to "Air Cargo" and Rezoning that Land from "Exclusive Farm Use/Commercial Airport Safety Combining (E-40/CAS)" to "Airport Operations/Commercial Airport Safety Combining (AO/CAS)"; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

 

Mike Copely reported the matter came before the Board on November 16, as part of a Joint Elected Officials meeting in Springfield. He added Eugene and Springfield both adopted the proposal on that day and questions were raised by Cornacchia that were answered in a memo of November 6. He said the memo was not distributed until the day of the hearing, so the matter was held over to allow the commissioners to read the information. He said the memo addresses the issue of application timing and whether or not the proposal is appropriate in terms of statewide administrative rules.
Weeldreyer wanted to know if--in approving the matter--they are also approving the actual site plan that is proposed by the Airport Commission, or if it just has to do with a zone change.

 

Copely responded it was just a plan amendment zone change with nine acres of property.

 

MOTION: not to approve Ordinance PA 1124.

 

Dumdi MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Dumdi stated she was very disturbed about the way the property owners in the area had been treated over the years and as a result she cannot support this proposal. She said she does not object to the planning, but does object to commitments that were made to property owners years ago that were not honored. She added it has severely impacted families negatively and as a result of that, she cannot support the ordinance.

 

Cornacchia stated he was supportive of whatever needs to be done within the appropriate regulations to improve the airport for the community. He said he will vote for this although he had significant reservations because the City is taking a flexible reading of the administrative rule regarding airport facilities. He said they interpret that if this is commercial, it falls within the exception and they don't have to go through other steps in land use. He added he wasn't convinced that the City of Eugene would allow a private developer to do what it is suggesting, to rezone a portion of a lot without a partition. He said he wouldn't support Dumdi's motion but has significant reservations about they way it is being accomplished.

 

Green stated he would vote against Dumdi's motion but is in agreement about process.

 

Dumdi withdrew her motion.

 

MOTION: to approve Ordinance PA 1124.

 

Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

Weeldreyer stated she was voting yes on this issue for the benefit of the community but she believes that government has an obligation to abide by the same rules and regulations in developing property that is required of private citizens. She added the rezoning without a partition is not something that would pass muster if it were a private citizen asking for this action.

 

Sorenson stated he will also be supporting this because of the record that is before the Board in terms of the applicant wanting the land rezoned. He added the economic vitality is tied to the existence of the airport and continued improvements to the airport area are important.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0 (Dumdi dissenting)

 

b. ORDER 98-12-9-16 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Heceta Water District and City of Florence Regarding the Clear Lake Watershed, and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign an Agreement.

 

Dumdi requested that this item be pulled to be reconsidered next week when final internal action will be taken.

 

Van Vactor added that the parties haven't met but they have passed language to each other that addresses Section 6 of the agreement, the lake level and the amount that can be extracted.

 

c. ORDER 98-12-9-17 Providing One Time Maintenance and Improvements to Collard Lake Road.

 

-OR-

 

d. ORDER 98-12-9-18 Improving Collard Lake Road and Providing Continuing Maintenance.

 

Dumdi proposed the Board consider ORDER 98-12-9-18. She said it would provide for continuing maintenance of $150,000 of road improvements that are needed and take care of resurfacing and ditching and putting the road into good condition. She asked the Board to consider the continuing maintenance that in the long run would cost less money. She added they don't want massive improvements.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 98-12-9-18.

 

Dumdi MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

 

Van Vactor clarified that this order does not bring it into the County road system.

 

Goodson stated they were concerned about the continuing cost (average cost $7,500 per year to maintain, including periodic overlays) and he said most people living on local access roads will be looking to this project and coming to Public Works indicating they want their local access improved.

 

Dumdi noted it is a loop situation, not an isolated road leading to a dead-end.

 

Green said he has concerns about other groups that come and ask for similar treatment. He said the ongoing maintenance for a road that is not part of the County system is problematic. He added if Dumdi were to amend her motion to an as-needed basis, he would be more in favor of it. He said he did not want a continued ongoing maintenance piece. He said he can't support the identification of funds on an ongoing basis.

 

Weeldreyer said she believes that there are circumstances that surround this particular road project that make it unique. She said this is something the Board should do and there has been a history with this road where the Board actually voted to take it into the County road system but one property owner complained to stop it. She said there has been an ongoing commitment by the Board to take on the routine maintenance.

 

Dumdi added if an area is kept healthy, it will help with the pollution of the watershed.

 

Sorenson stated he will support it but does not consider it precedent setting because of the issues raised about the zoning district and the prior Board vote.

 

Cornacchia requested staff to have the Public Comment section integrated into the discussion on the matter and motion so the testimony stated regarding the issues of the creation of the watershed district, pollution and the whole environment leading to this decision, will help refute any type of precedent claims made by Weeldreyer's constituents.

 

Cornacchia stated he had been thinking about the whole scenario of urban growth boundary, transition areas, local improvement districts and the relationship with the City of Eugene. He said it is time to say as a Board the current scenario of assessments and local systems development charges (SDC) (at the city level and not existent at the County level) are not working. He said there are individuals that are being charged under the number of benefited properties. He said the majority of the public wants the urban growth boundary maintained, compact growth, and infilling. He said on places like Ayres Road, a few people are being assessed for new subdivisions. He added he can be supportive of the compact growth considerations or urban growth boundaries, but he cannot support a system that is a sham. He said a recent Supreme Court case raises questions about whether or not these properties are benefited. He said this Board needs to start a message that will continue, that the current system of SDC in the two cities and the metro area and the lack of SDC in Lane County are putting the County in a position where people are being treated unfairly, where the public's work is being paid by the individual. He said change needs to take place where the development pays the charges instead of the individual. He stated he wanted to rescind the Order that was passed a couple of months ago of the Local Improvement District on Ayres Road. He said the deferral program for the city is of no value to the majority of the people with the biggest assessments. He added the other alternative is to have the County participate in the Ayres Road project as a partner in the construction and pick up the portion that they are assessing individuals. He said the County will not approve any other local improvement districts until there are discussions between all three jurisdictions about SDC, assessment policies and how the transitioning of the infill in the areas will take place close to the urban growth boundary.

 

Green stated the Collard Road motion is entirely different from Ayres Road and he would vote on Collard Road. He added there was a process around SDC's and assessments and that the methodology was a good exercise. He said there is a price to be paid for compact urban growth. He said the issue is who pays for the improvements. He said the Board should say no properties in the Local Improvement District until the problem is solved. He said he was not for taking public dollars to put into private assessments.

 

Sorenson said voting for Collard Road is a way of reaching across the coast to let them know that Lane County does want to help them out.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Green dissenting).

 

Dumdi stated she wanted to say to the people of Collard Lake Road, the Heceta Water District and Clear Lake Watershed that she is pleased that this entire situation was brought to a positive resolution. She thanked everyone for their patience and for supporting the Collard Lake maintenance program.

 

14. PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Judy Fleagle, 06049 View Rd., Florence, reported that Collard Road is neither a public or private road and it has been a problem in limbo for a long time. She said Collard Road has been a problem since 1983 and is still a problem. She added in 1983 the County did a one-time fix, but since then the 107 affected property owners have participated in voluntarily filling potholes and repaving portions of the road. She said the deteriorating road along with the Clear Lake Watershed problem created a situation where residents are taking sides against one another and with the County. She added in the last couple of years, new people have moved in and a new spirit of cooperation has resulted in the Clear Lake Moratorium Agreement that was agreed on last week. She said she would like to see the Collard Lake problem settled at the same time, with not a one-time fix but with continuing maintenance on the road.

 

Ken Kentch, stated Paul Jenson is his neighbor and he is home taking care of a family member. He read a letter from him into the record (see material on file).

 

Ken Kentch, 88336 Collard Lake Road, stated he is the Chairman of the Collard Lake Road Neighborhood Association. He said the association consists of 107 land/property owners including 78 homes within the Clear Lake/Collard Lake watershed. He said last week the Board passed the Clear Lake Watershed Protection Ordinance. He said by implementing the road standards today, the Board has an opportunity to continue its commitment to Collard Lake Road while enhancing the protection of their public water supplies. He said the standards would protect the watershed and its waters by minimizing erosion, runoff and pollution from the roadway. He said the association supports the adoption and asks the Board for their support.

 

Gordon Howard, P.O. Box 775, Pleasant Hill, he said he is encouraging the Board to adopt Board Order 98-12-9-18 that provides for improving Collard Lake Road and providing continuing maintenance. He said the Board, by adopting the Clear Lake Watershed zone last week, acknowledged the importance of a unique watershed by creating and implementing a zone that does not apply to any other area of the County. He said an important component of the Clear Lake Watershed zone was to utilize roads where new roads are required to design them to a minimal standard because of the beneficial aspects to the watershed. He said by approving the order, the Board is solidifying their commitment to the Clear Lake Watershed zone by recognizing and implementing road standards that were adopted as an important component of the Clear Lake Watershed zone. He asked the Board to recognize the positive long-term benefits to the entire area.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Cornacchia recessed the meeting until 6:00 p.m.

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices