minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

October 28, 1998
Harris Hall Main Floor Following HACSA

Commissioner Steve Cornacchia presided with Commissioners Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Acting County Administrator David Garnick, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.


Cornacchia stated there will not be a need for Executive Session. He said because of a letter received by attorneys Kent Anderson & Associates, he was pulling item 10) f. 1. He added legal counsel needs to respond to the letter.


Nena Lovinger, 40093 Little Fall Creek Rd., spoke about a letter that Dale Riddle wrote in the Register Guard in which he said 1000 Friends of Oregon and Barbara Roberts (who was governor at the time of adoption of House Bill 3661), were supporters of the bill. She said Blair Batson, staff attorney at 1000 Friends responds as follows: "1000 Friends was deliberately kept out of the special committee on which Riddle participated because Riddle, Mike Evans, Roy Burns and Kent Howe objected to their participation." She added 1000 Friends lobbied against the bill, but did not ask the Governor to veto it. She further stated that 1000 Friends is not a preservationist group. She said former Governor Roberts is not a preservationist and supported active timber management on land zoned for forestry. She stated overwhelming testimony opposed to the opening of Lane County F1 zones to new dwellings was offered at the October 14 hearing. She said over 100 people attended the hearing and in oral testimony, 58 people urged the Commissioners to continue to prohibit new dwellings in F1 zones while 12 people asked that Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow dwellings in land zoned F1. She added former Commissioner Jerry Rust said that F1 lands should be protected from development. She said he stated that during his term of office the County said it would never open F1 forest land to development. She said testimony from people opposed to new dwellings and F1 zones maintain that dwelling free F1 zones help a significant land resource remain devoted to forest uses while protecting water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. She added that subdivision and development on forest land interferes with productive forest management. She said both urban and rural residents testified in favor of a continuation of the prohibition of new dwellings in F1 zones. She said the testimony was well informed, accurate and covered all of the bases as to why opening Lane County's prime forest to construction of new dwellings would be folly relative to the County's long term interest. She said she hopes the Board will vote wisely on the issue and support the no dwellings option.

Alice Doyle, 78185 Ratcreek Road, Cottage Grove, stated that everyday the Board makes critical decisions that guide Lane County and its future. She said the decision to allow development on a protected resource zone has caught the attention of Lane County and it will alter the landscape forever, allowing the developer's foot in the door. She added people in Lane County are watching the decision as they understand the importance of the future. She asked the Board to remember the vision and act to continue to enhance the livability by casting a no vote on the initiative.

Chris Attneave, 85328 Willamette St., Eugene, stated she attended a planning meeting last night talking about water availability that is a big issue in the planning with the County. She said she hopes the Board will support trying to develop some sense of where things are headed with water availability. She said she hopes the Board would not adopt any of the three options. She said she wanted a case-by-case basis, addressing individual problems where they exist.

Mike Evans, 1071 Harlow Rd., Springfield, stated he was refuting what Nena Lovinger had said about 1000 Friends not being involved in negotiations when this was adopted. He said it was incorrect. He said there was a forester on staff at the time he was involved with the hearings continuously through the process. He added they were involved and supportive of the provisions. He requested the Board listen to the land owners. He said they have offered a balance position which creates enhanced siting standards specifically for increased fire protection. He said the location of dwellings should be limited by the access requirements. He said the proponents the Board has heard from are the land owners almost unanimously recommending option 2. He said he hopes they will listen to the property owners, as they manage their land and know best how to take care of it.

Weeldreyer reported one of the fears of the people is this will open the door to a lot of development that would be detrimental to Lane County's quality of life in the future. She questioned Mike Evans in his representation of people that do own F1 land in the surrounding counties that have adopted the state legislation. She wondered if there has been an increase in adding home sites that do have this provision.

Evans responded most of the counties did not have a zone that prohibited dwellings. He added in the last year he has worked in 12 of Oregon's counties and this provision hasn't been utilized in any of those counties. He said the one that is looked at the closest is Douglas County and the provisions were used, but to a minor extent. He stated there will be an adjustment the first couple of years, where some of the lands that have been prohibited for dwellings that should have been zoned F2 will utilize the provisions. He said with regard to dwellings in the outlying areas, there probably won't be any due to economics.


Will be given in the afternoon session.


a. RESOLUTION AND PROCLAMATION 98-10-28-1/In the Matter of Proclaiming Thursday, October 29, 1998 as Pearl Buck Center Day.

Green reported he had the opportunity to visit the Pearl Buck Center on West 5th and Bertleson, where the majority of the work takes place. He recommended the other Commissioners take the tour and see the value that Pearl Buck is bringing to the community. He added Pearl Buck has a families program that is the only program in the Country where the children of families that have developmental disabilities are in a pre-school setting. He said today the center is celebrating 45 years in existence in the community.

Steven Kohn, Executive Director, Pearl Buck Center, gave a presentation about the Pearl Buck Center to the Board.

Green read the proclamation into the record.

MOTION: to approve the RESOLUTION and PROCLAMATION 98-10-28-1.


VOTE: 5-0.


a. ORAL REPORT/Bus Rapid Transit Update.

Rob Bennett, Lane Transit District, stated he has been on the Lane Transit District Board for five years. He explained the premise of BRT (bus rapid transit). He reported that LTD has been a valuable service in the community and it is supported by a payroll tax. He added they have done a good job over the years in transporting people who would not otherwise have a reasonable way to get around. He stated he is proud of the record LTD has achieved. He said this is a situation in a growing community where there is going to be increased congestion. He said how the boundaries end up and how communities outside of Eugene relate may be an open question. He stated that no one disputes the fact there will be more drivers and cars on the same amount of roadway. He added unless LTD takes some type of initiative to increase its competitive position, they will not make any further headway in gaining any additional market share. He stated their initiative is bus rapid transit. He said it is a system of routes with exclusive right-of-way, with buses running every ten minutes. He added the buses will be classy looking and have a prepaid fare system. He said he is in the process of trying to implement the plan by trying to get a place in TransPlan. He added he is trying to get increased community support. He said the Steering Committee (which he is chair) is trying to help analyze where they are, what the time should be and to help with direction. He said the committee has been valuable so far. He said they are now moving into the Glenwood area because they are working on the Springfield Station location. He added they may be able to contribute to some increased economic activity in downtown Springfield. He said it will not be effective without having exclusive right of way. He added the automobile will play a major role in the community from now on, but if it is started now, there is an honest chance to create the routes that will offer a viable competitive alternative.

Green stated he was familiar with Downtown Minneapolis and their transit system. He wanted to know where BRT was occurring in other cities and what has been the experience of how that is working with the Lane Transit District.

Stefano Viggiano, LTD, stated the envisioned BRT system is made up of different techniques, transit signal priority, exclusive bus lanes, and pre-paid fares. He said they take place in other communities. He said they do not have an example of a community within the United States that has tried all the techniques. He said the best example in North America is Ottawa, Canada. He added there are 13 cities in the United States that are planning bus rapid transit systems. He said the BRT would support the tourist and convention business.

Sorenson reported that after each steering committee meeting he attended, he sent a memo about the outcome to the Board. He stated for the Board to be able to continue to support this, there will be a continuing question of what will be the County's financial involvement. He stated he wanted an update on federal funding for the continued work that is being done by Lane Transit District.

Viggiano mentioned the federal government and Federal Transit Administration like the concept and because of that, they have been willing to fund the planning work that is being done on the pilot corridor. He said they are working off a grant of the Transportation Equity Act that was passed last session, and there is $8.8 million for implementation of the pilot corridor. He added if the community decides they want to go ahead with the project, the money has already been approved. He said at this point they are not anticipating coming to any local agencies for funding.

Cornacchia said the report was valuable to the Board. He asked for Viggiano to come back to the Board in a couple of months to let people know what is happening.

Commissioner Cornacchia recessed the meeting to return at 10:45 a.m.

6. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660



a. REPORT/Legislative Update.

Roy Burns, Public Works, reported the purpose for the report is to begin to formulate some of the scheduling and other activities that are necessary to proceed with representation for Lane County before the legislative assembly. He stated he wanted Bob Keefer, Lane County Parks, to discuss a ballot measure that would allocate some monies to parks that is not currently provided.

Bob Keefer, Lane County Parks, reported on Ballot Measure 66, which is known as the Parks and Salmon Measure. He said that it dedicates 15% of the net proceeds of the lottery to parks and salmon and it is a constitutional amendment earmarking those funds. He added 50% of the money would be dedicated to state parks programs in the areas of capital development, improvement and renovation of facilities. He said the other 50% is for stream restoration and water quality improvement through the governor's Watershed Enhancement Board. He added the measure will create a pool of money of approximately $90 million that would be split 50/50 between the two programs. He reported the state parks have estimated their backlog of restoration work needed is at $100 million within their program. He added the measure received over 140,000 signatures from petition gathering (the highest among all petitions that were filed). He said the state parks were also concerned about local parks. He said the state parks director proposed to the governor that the requested $3 million be placed in a grant program for local governments to be used to improve and develop additional public parks on the local side. He added the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) has opposed the measure because it is earmarking funds, potentially taking some money from economic development within the budget.

Sorenson stated there was a potential downside to local government in that this measure potentially takes away money from economic development efforts. He added on the other hand, the measure does something that combined branches of all governments haven't been able to do, in addressing the systemic long-term decline of the state park system. He said there is a lottery issue, dedication issue and potential impact on economic development efforts, but the upside is that it protects state parks and assists in the recovery effort of salmon. He stated he was in favor of the measure.

Burns said he was proposing to the Board that they will be needed in Salem a number of times to further the New Realities campaign that began the last session, so the state can pay for those requirements that are imposed upon County government. He said they were proposing the Board of County Commissioners host a dinner for the freshman senators and representatives held on November 9 in Salem.

Cornacchia stated that the Commissioners would be taking them out to dinner, and there would be no public expenditures for the dinner in Salem.

Burns said in the past the County paid for it as a County expense.

Sorenson questioned the open meetings problem, a discussion about complying with the open meetings law, if the event were in Salem.

Burns said it isn't likely there would be a majority of the Board there so the open meetings law wouldn't prevail.

Teresa Wilson, County Counsel, stated she wasn't aware of any limitation in the open meetings law on where the Lane County Board of Commissioners meets. She added there is no local requirement in the Open Meetings Law. She said some city charters have limitations, Lane County does not.

Burns proposed that the Board consider individual contacts with the legislative delegation in Lane County after the election, to discuss some of the AOC priorities and other issues. He said on December 3, there will be a Legislative Committee Meeting and on December 9, a report back to the board. He said on December 14 there is tentatively scheduled a breakfast in Eugene. He added he has already established meeting dates every other week, commencing January 21 to July for the Legislative Standing Committee. He provided a draft of the overview of the legislative process (copy in file) for all Lane County employees. He said he was seeking direction from the Board so he can start the logistical processes and other activities to further the Board's desires in this matter.

Green stated he would support the recommendation and give staff the direction that they should continue to go forward as it relates to Lane County employees.

Weeldreyer stated she liked the legislative processes as it has been outlined by the committee and added that in Step 3, "the lead department coordinates with other affected departments," that there be a sentence added there, as a reminder to refer it to Advisory Committees that Lane County has for that department. She said if it is appropriate the citizens have an opportunity to attend the legislative committee meeting and be part of the team that would advocate a measure that is in Lane County's best interest.

Burns replied that it can be added and he would be happy to discuss with the advisory committees the process so they are familiar with advocacy on behalf of the County. He said in addition, the Board authorized anyone that was interested and has an Internet connection, for information on the meetings and all other materials.

Dumdi stated she was in agreement with the proposal.

Sorenson suggested Roy Burns meet with the advisory committees or notify them and ask the committees to designate someone that wants to be involved in this. He added it will be a challenge for the transition of the new board members. He added having a briefing for the new Board before the session gets going will acquaint them with protocol that is involved and the depth of the interest that the County departments have.

Cornacchia stated Roy Burns' recommendations have been accepted.


a. Announcements


b. ORAL REPORT/Making Property Available to Friends of Dexter Library.

Jeff Turk, Real Estate Department, stated he was asked to secure quotes for appraisals of the Dexter shop property. He said there were three types of appraisals: 1) self-contained, 2) summary and 3) restricted. He added in a self-contained appraisal, it contains information about the area (Eugene area, home to University of Oregon, economic data, past trends, future trends.) He said in the summary appraisals there may only be three or four paragraphs, where the self-contained appraisal has three or four pages. He stated in a restricted appraisal, it may make a simple one paragraph statement about many of the facts. He added they all get to the market value of the properties using the same process of either comparables, income approach or the other approaches used to determine value. He said the self-contained or summary would be used for marketing a property, trying to interest other buyers for banks and making loans on the property. He said the restricted appraisal is for the use of the property owner and not for outside individuals. He added the deed restriction is key in determining market value.

Cornacchia stated it appeared to him that a lot of money could be spent, but he finds expenditures questionable, given the needs. He added the expenditures should be more related to the needs of people trying to purchase the property than to the needs of the industry. He said extra work means extra cost. He said what is needed is a restricted appraisal and it will adequately meet the County's needs. He questioned Turk about his opinion of the appraisal.

Turk said in the other types of appraisals they will include pictures of the property and the comparables. He stated the restricted appraisal will give what the property is worth, with a minimum of cost.

Cornacchia offered that by consensus he would be directed to move forward in securing a restricted appraisal at the best bid that could be obtainable.

Turk stated the time line was three weeks.

c. REPORT/Public Information Measures 20-05 and 20-06.

Mike Moskovitz, Public Information Officer, stated he put together a memo (copy in file). He added that, legally, the public information program for Measures 20-05 and 20-06 needs to be approved. He said the overall budget for public information is $40,000 and the other jurisdictions involved from the Public Service Coordinating Council (City of Springfield, Eugene, School Districts, LCOG and Lane County) will also contribute to this, making the County's share about $15,000.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 98-10-28-98.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED.

Wilson reported the Board was approving just the program as a conceptual matter, she said an order wasn't necessary, but one could be prepared if needed.

Cornacchia stated he wanted one because there are expenditures of public monies and there should be a paper trail.

Wilson responded that one will be provided.

VOTE: 5-0.


a. REPORT BACK/Cristo Davis/Westfir Drainage.

Ollie Snowden, Public Works, reported this item came up in the joint meeting with West Fir City Council he was asked to come back with two specific pieces of information: 1) with a legal opinion on whether the County has a right to discharge drainage across Mr. Davis' property and 2) to report on whether there is any engineering solutions to the problem that Mr. Davis has. Snowden stated it was his understanding that Mr. Davis wants to partition his parcel which is 9/10 of an acre into two pieces, one that would contain the existing house and one that would be developed with a new dwelling. He added the difficulty is the drainage ditch that bisects the proposed vacant parcel and Davis is alleging the County does not have an easement discharge. He said the records indicate that the culvert was placed under West Oak Road in the seventies, (or before) and there has been discharged drainage across the parcel for that length of time. He added the two most important attachments are a) legal opinion from Steve Vorhes, and b) from Gary Darnielle. He said Mr. Vorhes is of the opinion that the County has the right to assure the flow of water across Mr. Davis' property and Mr. Darnielle's letter indicates if Mr. Davis so chose, he could put the drainage in a pipe, cover it and if soil conditions were right, put a drain field on the property and have a developable piece of property.

Cornacchia stated if the public had certain rights in that situation, then it is on the developer to deal with changing the benefit to the public. He said it is a position the Board has taken. He added if the public does not have a right to discharge water across this individual's property, it needs to be taken care of, with the recommendation of counsel that the public is within its right and is appropriately discharging water there. He said it appears to him there might be a way in which both public and private benefit in a way that resolves the issue. He said it appears if the pipe were to be placed in there, there would be some required engineering that would have to be done. He added there would be the actual physical movement of land and placement of pipe. He said there would be the expenditure for the actual components.

Snowden stated there are permits that are required and it could be done. He said they would have to legally memorialize the easement there as needed for drainage. Snowden stated he doesn't know if he has a buildable lot. He said everything could be done, and he may not have a buildable lot because of the drainage field issue.

Cornacchia suggested the first step by the property owner would be to engage the County on that basis to see if there was any interest in moving in that direction or taking a hard line. He added there is cost to the public for the hard line.

Weeldreyer reported that the City of Westfir is interested in the Board resolving it as it has been going on for three or four years. She stated she wanted to see Mr. Davis go through and determine if another home site could be put on the property at his cost, so another decision point could be reached.

Cornacchia said two options were given and they carry questions of liability about discharging water onto someone else's property. He added whatever resolution is used, it needs to occur on that property itself.

Snowden stated another option would be to extend the ditch farther to the west and relocate the ditch on the property line between the subdivided partitioned property line.

Cornacchia questioned if the Board was comfortable with sending the message: 1) the Board believes the public has the right to do what they are doing and 2) they are willing to participate in a resolution of the issue but it requires steps taken first by the property owner with whatever constraints there are with the road fund.

Green responded he was comfortable, based on legal counsel's memorandum stating they had authority to do it.

Dumdi responded it was a win-win situation if it was done that way.

Cornacchia stated by consensus, Snowden has been given direction to communicate with the property owner in the manner the Board has laid out. He added the communication needs to be in writing with the Board sent copies.
b. ORDER 98-10-28-2/In the Matter of Appointing Four (4) Members to the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee.

Mike Perkins, Vegetation Department, reported there are four vacancies on the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee. He added one was vacant because of the resignation of Sue Tong, who had served as chair. He said the other three are vacancies that will be created at the end of December. He said there were eight applicants that applied for the vacancies, and the members chosen were Paul Mickels, Karen Bodner, Chuck Stolsig and Jack Harris.

Cornacchia stated he is the liaison to the committee and felt over the years there has been a balanced committee but now three out of nine have been staunch advocates for a total "no-spray" County. He said Mr. Mickels would fall into a "no-spray" category. He said he was impressed by the credentials that were brought to this committee, Ms. Bodner as a master gardener was in the middle, and had more concern for the use of pesticides. But Mr. Stolsig, with the experience with the 4J School District and Lane County, continued to look at a model to move away from spraying toward an integrated vegetation management program similar to Lane County. He said it would be his recommendation for Ms. Bodner, Mr. Mickels, Mr. Harris and Mr. Stolzek to be appointed to the committee.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 98-10-28-2.

Cornacchia MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

c. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ Ordinance PA 1124/In the Matter of 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.

Cornacchia reported that the Second Reading and Public Hearing will be held on November 16, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. at the Willamalane Senior Center in conjunction with the Glenwood issue.

MOTION: to approve First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing/Ordinance PA 1124.


VOTE: 5-0.

Cornacchia questioned Mike Copely and the Board regarding amendments that come from jurisdictions. He said there should be some cursory staff analysis. He said he wants to know what the staff thinks about this. He added a direction needs to be given on November 16. He said it appears to be a partial rezoning of a larger lot and his question is: "Why does the City of Eugene not have to come forward to Lane County and partition the property first before a rezoning to it?" He said there is a Curry County case that speaks directly to that point. He added his second question is about the city claiming they are taking exception to natural resource goals, 3, 4 11 & 14. He said in light of the new administrative rule on airports that defines what an airport is, OAR 6600130020 (1), was not included in the staff report from the City of Eugene. He said they were using earlier OARs. He said his request is that there be some discussion on that issue so the Board can understand converting resource land to an urban use has to take exception to statewide goals.

Copely stated he could get the response in writing prior to November 16.

d. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ Ordinance PA 1124/In the Matter of Adopting a Text Amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Modify Sections II-C-1 and IV-2 and to Transfer Jurisdiction for Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

MOTION: to approve First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing/Ordinance PA 1123.

Cornacchia reported that the Second Reading and Public Hearing will be held on November 16, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at the Willamalane Senior Center.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

e. DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1121/In the Matter of Amending Lane County General Plan Policies (an element of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan) Goal 4 Forest Lands, Policy 5 to Allow Limited Dwellings on Lands Zoned Non-Impacted Forest Lands, F-1 and Adopting a Savings and Severability Clause.

Cornacchia stated the only thing the Board received in the packet this time was the checklist. He suggested that they work off the checklist and give direction to staff. He asked Vorhes if they go beyond the first box, and the response was yes. He wanted to know if the Board is approving the ordinance today or if it will be brought back to the Board consistent with the boxes checked at a later date.

Vorhes responded it could be done either way. He said the ordinances are set up so if the boxes are checked, they will be stricken from the code language. He said the ordinance could be adopted today with the idea that they are stricken, or the code pages in the form they will be once the ordinance is enacted, could come back to the Board with the pages redone without the provisions in them.

Cornacchia stated it would be his recommendation that they act today and get a copy thereafter.

Sorenson stated he had no problem with the discussion or any votes that will be taken today. He added he had a problem with the idea that they would be adopting an ordinance that is not currently in front of them or available.

Cornacchia responded it is currently in front of the Board and everything is in front of them. He added what would be adopted would be excluding the information.

Sorenson said he had a problem with a motion to approve something where it is not readily apparent what ordinance is actually being approved.

Vorhes stated right now all the proposals are incorporated within both ordinances. He added, depending on the decisions that are made to include or exclude items on the check list, those decisions will correspond to leaving in the language that is in there, or striking out language that is reflected by the checked boxes.

Cornacchia read the question: "Should dwellings be allowed in the F1 zone?"

Green asked for clarification. He wanted to know if the intent is to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. He asked: "Would you stop at no, or proceed through the list with the restriction in place?"

Cornacchia responded that currently the boxes are for rezoned. He said that couldn't be done on a case-by-case basis. He added if the Board approves an ordinance that does include those, it would still be on a case-by-case basis for each lot to show that they complied with whatever was in the ordinance.

Green asked: "If the most conservative and restrictive approach were taken, then how should a vote be taken?"

Cornacchia stated the most conservative, restrictive action would be to check the no box. He added if a box is marked with an "x", that will remain. If it is not marked, the item is pulled out and not available in Lane County on a case-by-case basis.

Vorhes responded in terms of the process that will be followed, if the Board collectively says yes to go through the exercise, a decision by the Board to adopt each item would mean that the language would stay in the proposed zone provisions. He added if one is not chosen, that would be stricken and not placed in the code. He stated if the Board collectively said no, there is still an opportunity for each individual property owner to state why there should be changes. He said there would be an opportunity for individual property owners to ask for rezoning.

Green asked if that could happen if he were to stop at the "no". He said it still allows for the individual property owner to come in and state their case.

Kent Howe, Planner, reported if the property is in the F1 zone, the first box "no" would be checked. He said they do not get a dwelling unless they made an application to get a zone change to another zone. (That could allow a dwelling and if those requirements were met, they could get a change.) He added it wasn't a certainty that they would qualify for a rezoning.

Green stated after hearing the explanations, to answer Cornacchia's first question, he would check the first box "no." He said he is more interested in the individual property owner, rather than going the other route. He added he would not be participating in checking boxes.

Sorenson stated Green raised a good point on the distinction between F1 and F2 zones. He said it would be a better way of dealing with problem than changing the F1. He added the Board's time and attention should be placed on protecting the F1 zone and carving out some way to identify the people that are affected by the current designation.

Weeldreyer questioned if changes were not made, then the people who come forward to ask for a zone change from an F1 parcel to F2, zoned by the County as F2, LCDC challenged those properties and made them F1. She asked if they came forward and said they want to put a house there, they would have to meet the necessary accessory test to get the zone change approved.

Howe reported the test they would have to meet for qualifying for a zone change to F2 is not related to any of the criteria. He added they would qualify for the characteristics that the F2 zoned land represents. He said those characteristics are different than the F1 zoned land. He said if a person is in a F1 zoned land, parcels that were originally zoned F2 as part of the 84 acknowledgment effort were rezoned from F2 back to F1. He said if the box "no" is checked, they would not be able to do that unless they were able to qualify for a rezoning to F2. He said that would have nothing to do with the checklist requirements. He said the characteristics will distinguish whether a property will be able to be rezoned to F2 from F1.

Cornacchia said the individual who has 160 acres and wishes to live on the property to manage it would not have that as an argument. He said if it was not included, the whole concept of living on land and managing it is over.

Howe stated that would be correct, especially for the larger tracts. He said for F2 zones, it is for land that is less than 80 acres in size.

Green stated when the public hearing took place, he said less than 10% really addressed the issue. He said he went to Salem and pulled up the votes of the bill and how Lane County represented its voting. He said in the senate, the only person to vote against it was Karen's. He asked what the sense of urgency was in doing this. He said he hasn't received the response that would allow him to go forward. He stated he was more interested in the individual property owner that has the property and would like to make changes, but not whole changes. He said he is not persuaded by groups that are saying urban sprawl and no growth. He said he is interested in the private property owner having the opportunity to make their case under the existing rules. He said if he was going to go ahead on the checklist, he would make things as restricted as possible. He said he voted no.

Dumdi agreed with many of the things that Green said but said she would not stop at "no," she would go to "yes" with restrictions. She said she would not go along with, no. 4, 200 acre non-contiguous. She said she has no desire to see those properties fragmented. She said she would go for the lot of record, the template and 160 acre minimum parcel. She said she is not persuaded by arguments that talk about urban sprawl. She said she would build in additional restrictions around roads and fire suppression. She added that access off of BLM or Forest Service road would not be allowed, it would have to be on a public road, county road or state highway. She said when restrictions are built in, it reduces the number of dwellings that would be allowed and she would feel comfortable with the restrictions. She added it is at the expense of the developer, not the County.

Weeldreyer stated she has an obligation to many of the property owners in her district and rural Lane County who do own property. She said they have the right to be able to develop their forest land that allows them better opportunities for forest management. She said she would be one of the "yes" votes to allow limited residential dwellings in F1 land. She said she wanted to provide that opportunity to private property owners (particularly small woodlot owners) and doesn't want to see the 200 acre non-contiguous lands outside of Lane County, she would limit it to the lot of record, template and 160 acre parcel. She said she has also listened to a lot of testimony about this issue. She said people are very passionate about protecting the unique quality of life in Lane County and she wants to balance the interest of all Lane County residents. She added most people who testified at the public hearing were residents that did not own the land that would be impacted. She said they are people from the city who like to enjoy the rural setting that other people own. She said she has to weigh that fact in her decision. She said she strongly supports all recommendations on fire protection. She said she would like to see the 1500 feet within a public road so there are not houses that are back on 160 acre parcel, that there would be an allowance for variances for local topographic conditions. She added on the issues of landslides and road building, the Board hasn't addressed those concerns, but would like the opportunity to address them.

Cornacchia stated that there still needs to be work done by staff. He added he is not in a position today to enact an ordinance that would encompass Weeldreyer's concerns. He said he knows there are variance procedures in the Lane County Code and those procedures are not directly related to the issues Weeldreyer raised. He said there is a need for some type of language that would provide a variance outside the variance code. He said these issues need to come back in an ordinance that is more refined.

Howe reported the way the ordinance is drafted now, the 1500 foot limitation is limited to the lot of record provision, it does not apply in the statute of rules to the template or 160 acre dwelling provisions. He added if the Board wishes to provide that direction, it should add language to the ordinance that would apply a 1500 foot limitation to the template, 160 acre large tract dwelling option and build in some type of variance process to the 1500 line. He added when circumstances are met, a separate ordinance would have to be brought back.

Cornacchia stated he was not comfortable with the variance procedure being used. He said he would rather bring it back as an option and have the opportunity to have it fully explained as to the impact of a 1500 foot restriction. He said it is not a one size fits all situation.

Mann requested the Board make a clarification on a 1500 foot provision, the distance of the dwelling from a public road, or the distance of a parcel that the dwelling is located on. He added if there would be a modification of the standard, a variance procedure is not what is wanted. He said it is a modification procedure that builds in substantive standards directed towards that.

Cornacchia stated he checked the "yes" box because there are circumstances where it is better to have a residence than not. He said a small woodlot owner could far better manage his or her property living on it than having to live elsewhere and drive out. He said he agrees with Dumdi on the three elements for the ordinance. He said there are three Board members who say move the ordinance to next week with three boxes checked. He added he would check all boxes but 2, 3 and 9. He also said he would check box 4, but would not limit it to just sprinklers on the exterior, he would add foam. He said he wasn't convinced that foam would protect the house from a forest fire. He said requiring parcels to be within a Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) or to request annexation to it, moves towards fire protection in a way which meets the needs for the public who is concerned about fire issues. He said he would have supported 16% for the road grade, but more roads and culverts lead to more erosion. He questioned Dumdi and Weeldreyer about the boxes they would check on the right-hand side.

Dumdi stated she would have boxes 2, 3 and 9 excluded.

Weeldreyer replied she was comfortable with the exclusions of 2, 3 and 9, with the addition of foam in number 4. She stated her motivation for the language is primarily to address the concerns about being near a public road, that fire could be contained faster than if they have to go into a 160 acre parcel. She said she weighed the value of an acre of timber to put a house on over the need of being able to fight a fire quickly with as much apparatus as can get there.

Cornacchia stated he heard that box numbers 1 and 4 are checked, that means having to be in an RFPD or request annexation to it or have sprinklers. He said they should have sprinklers regardless whether they are in the RFPD or not.

Green echoed what Cornacchia said as it related to the public hearing. He added while he voted no, he recognized the majority will do the best job they can do. He said he has not heard from anyone on the Board interested in wholesale giveaway or trashing the environment. He said he agreed with the restrictions that were chosen. He said his no vote is different than Sorenson's. He said he was not persuaded about the argument of urban sprawl, and had his own ideas about how things should have been done.

Weeldreyer stated a common remark made at the public hearing was if they chose to open up F1 zones to limited develop, that development cost would be an additional burden on everyone in Lane County. She said it was an erroneous statement. She said any utilities that are installed are borne by the developer of the rural residential property. She said it was not a persuasive argument for her knowing the reality of what exists. She said the most convincing argument made to her was made by Lee Downey who owns 200 acres in the Mohawk Valley. She said he told her: "Commissioner I have my entire life savings that is tied up in the trees that are there. I have no desire to clear cut that, but I would like the opportunity to be able to put one or two residential dwellings there and to be able to divide it up and allow some of my kids to live close to me." She added that in public policy the simplest most obvious solutions often times have repercussions that are far more detrimental than looking for a more balanced approach.

Mann reported the way the state law and LCDC rule is written, people can use a BLM or Forest Service road and they can get a use permit to do that. He said the County's ordinance is drafted more restrictive, to require that they have to have deeded access on the road.

Dumdi stated she didn't want any use because of the distance of the dwellings.

Mann said restricting development within 1500 feet of a public road may address a concern about the use of a BLM or Forest Service road. He said if you add the 1500 restriction, there will not be use of the roads into the back of the forest. He also requested that a third reading be set.

Cornacchia stated the Third Reading and Deliberation will be set for November 4, 1998, no time given.

f. DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. 4-98/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 16 of Lane Code to Adopt New Provisions to Allow Limited Dwellings on Lands Zoned Non-Impacted Forest Lands, F-1, and Provide Siting and Fire Safety Standards for Those New Dwellings, and Adopting a Savings and Severability Clause (LC 16.210, 16.270).

Cornacchia stated the Third Reading and Deliberation will be set for November 4, 1998.


A. Approval of Minutes: Wednesday, October 7, 1998, Regular Meeting, following HACSA
Monday, October 12, 1998, Joint BCC/Dunes City City Council, Florence City Council, and Port of Siuslaw, 6:00 p.m.
October 14, 1998, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m.

B. County Administration

1) ORDER 98-10-28-3/In the Matter of Award of LCP 98/99-05 for SAFE Center Building Remodel and Addition.

C. Assessment and Taxation

1) ORDER 98-10-28-4/In the Matter of Granting Property Tax Exempt Status Pursuant to ORS 307.475 (Russell W. Bloom).

2) ORDER 98-10-28-5/In the Matter of Granting Property Tax Exempt Status Pursuant to ORS 307.475 (Lillian M. Johnson).

3) ORDER 98-10-28-6/In the Matter of Granting Property Tax Exempt Status Pursuant to ORS 307.475 (Ruth M. Hupe).

D. Health and Human Services

1) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 98-10-28-7/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign a Contract Amendment with White Bird Clinic for Alcohol and Drug Services for Offenders.

2) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 98-10-28-8/In the Matter of Accepting Revenues from the State of Oregon, to Increase Appropriations of Revenues and Expenses in the Amount of $10,000 in Fund 85 for Fiscal Year 98/99, and to Delegate Authority to the County Administrator to Sign a Revenue Contract with the Department of Human Resources and a Contract with Catholic Community Services in the Amount of $50,000.

3) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 98-10-28-9/In the Matter of Delegating Authority for the County Administrator to Sign a Contract Amendment with Bethel School District in the Amount of $58,375 for Wraparound and Effective Behavioral Support (WEBS).

E. Management Services

1) ORDER 98-10-28-10/In the Matter of Authorizing the Chair to Execute an Amendment to the Grant of Easement and Maintenance Agreement Dated April 19, 1996 Between the State of Oregon, By and Through its Military Department, and Lane County.

2) ORDER 98-10-28-11/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute an Extension of the Sale Agreement with Mill Site Developers, L.L.C. for the Purchase of Surplus County Owned Real Property Commonly Known as the Westfir Mill Site (Map# 21-35-07-40-00132).

F. Public Works

1) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 98-10-28-12/In the Matter of Authorizing the City of Eugene to Improve and Assess Outside City Limits for Street Improvements to Terry Street.

2) ORDER 98-10-28-13/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Enviro-Clean Equipment in the Amount of $200,000, with Trade-in, for the Purchase of One (1), New, Truck-Mounted Catch Basin/Sewer Cleaner, Contract FY 98/99 FS-04.

3) ORDER 98-10-28-14/In the Matter of Awarding a Requirements Contract to EGR & Associates for Solid Waste Engineering and Technical Services and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contract.

4) ORDER 98-10-28-15/In the Matter of Amending the Contract Between Lane County and Cascade Drilling, Inc. and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Amendment in the Amount of $13,350.

5) ORDER 98-10-28-16/In the Matter of Releasing, Dedicating, and Accepting Parcel "A", in Hazelwood, Book 33, Page 7, a Parcel of County Owned Real Estate, as a County Road. (18-02-06) (Osage Street)

6) ORDER 98-10-28-17/In the Matter of Vacating a Portion of Colter Street in the Plat of Glenada as Platted and Recorded in Volume W, Page 261, Lane County Oregon Plat Records and, the Plat of Fisk's Addition to the Town of Glenada as Platted and Recorded in Book 2, Page 9, Lane County Oregon Plat Records, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (18-12-35).

MOTION to approve the Consent Calendar.


Dumdi stated there were corrections to the minutes of Monday, October 12, 1998, the Joint BCC/Dunes City City Council, Florence City Council and Port of Siuslaw. She said that Lonnie McCullah should be "he" instead of "she", and on the back page, it should read "unless it is a safety issue".

VOTE: 5-0.


a. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 98-10-28-18/In the Matter of Adjusting the Department of Health and Human Services Budget (Fund 85) and to Appropriate $25,000 and to Increase FTE by 1.0 FTE; Establishing a .75 FTE Community Service Worker Position and Increasing an Administrative Analyst Position by .25 FTE; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Enter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Eugene Water and Electric Board in the Amount of $150,000.

Rob Rockstroh, reported Reach 2000 is a low income energy project. He said they are asking for a position to expand the analyst position to help with management information systems and a case manager. He said this allows them to integrate services and partnering with the utility companies. He said it keeps them out of working with people who are in arrears or shutting off electricity. He added it is to prevent people from getting to that point and connecting with other social service agency functions.

Green stated it is a program that helps consumers who are having difficulty maintaining their utilities. He added it is a form of assistance and for weatherization.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 98-10-28-18.


VOTE: 5-0.



Commissioner Cornacchia recessed for lunch to return at 1:30 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary


go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices