June 5, 2001

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

PASSED 1/16/02


Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., and Peter Sorenson present.  Cindy Weeldreyer was present via telephone.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.



Under Commissioners Business, Morrison added a letter to the legislators and under Emergency Business, an item on open space study.  She noted the 1:30 p.m. discussion with the Sheriff had been cancelled.






Mona Linstromberg, 87140  Territorial Highway, Veneta, stated she attended a work session in Lincoln County on cell phone towers and would be providing the Board with information.  She read some information into the record (copy in file).  She spoke about the Seavey Loop cell phone tower area.  She noted it was easier to put in a cell phone tower in a residential area than in a light industrial area.  She thought that needed to be addressed.

James W. Spickerman, 975 Oak Street, discussed the Public Works item. He said if the County wanted to impose fees, they should take up the matter of an ordinance to adopt the methodology and  set up criteria.  He didn’t want the Board to allow an open-ended interpretation.

Donna Murray, 87140 Territorial Road, Veneta, noted (concerning cell phone towers) that other counties were facing the same issues and local governments have to come up with ideas.  She suggested having minimum setbacks of at least 1000 feet from any home or school.

Marv Rexius, 795 Sand Ave, Eugene, said the County wanted to impose something different and new with road standards, and he was being singled out to pay for things in place. He said they were not going to use the road any differently than what was already being used by other trucks that have the same weight and classifications.  He noted they did a traffic analysis study as part of their conditional use permit and it had been submitted to the city.


4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


To take place at 11:30 a.m.




a. DISCUSSION/Board Direction to Staff Regarding Work Projects to Update the Rural Comprehensive Plan and Lane Code.  Note:  Discussion Will Include Cell Phone Towers.


Kent Howe, Land Management, asked for direction from the Board on how to prioritize the list of long range planning efforts. He said they had adopted a work program of implementing work under the periodic review work program under the Community Rule and the Rural Residential Rule that the state adopted last year.  He added they were working on Lane Code Chapter 16 to reflect the statutory changes that had taken place.  He explained they had one for the EFU zone (draft in file) and the F2 zone.  He was concerned about Lane County’s legal lot determinations.  He added they are also processing applications on cell phone towers but had limited resources.


Jim Mann, Land Management, asked the Board if they were headed in the right direction with the periodic review and whether they should continue with  pending projects.  On the periodic review, he noted they did the community plans and zoning for the McKenzie Watershed and proposed changes to the developed and committed zoning countywide outside of communities.  He said they were 80 to 90% completed.  He said they would want an additional hearing on the countywide changes and then bring back recommendations to the Board.


Mann explained they had another project to update the County’s impact on forest lands.  He added the County’s restrictions are more restrictive than the rule.  He noted they drafted (in legislative format) changes to the F2 zone to bring it into compliance with the rule and they had also done the same with the County’s EFU zone.  He added the rule had not been updated since 1990.


Sorenson asked if Lane County was out of compliance with the State Planning Rule or decision.  He asked what Lane County hadn’t done.


Mann responded that determining what was mandatory in some cases was difficult.  He said in complying with Goal 14 for uses, the state had not adopted the rule.  He said there was discretion at the planning commission level.  He added--in complying with Goal 14--they are looking at zones for the past 17 years and they know where there are problems and what could be improved.


Morrison suggested cleaning up codes to eliminate the problem on all of the applications as they go forward. 


Chris Clemow, Planning Commission, stated a large part of the work they need is housekeeping, and updating the code.  He added the planning commission wanted clear direction from the Board that they were going in the right direction.  He asked if the Board wanted them to look at discretionary changes that could be more restrictive than state code.


Howe noted they have a periodic review that is a mandatory work program where the state had identified areas Lane County needed to comply with the Community Rule and the Goal 14 Rural Residential Rule.


Morrison asked what the final deadline was to comply with the state requirement and the periodic review.


Mann responded 2006.


Green asked what could be accomplished with staff.  He suggested waiting on Measure 7.  He supported the housekeeping measures and updating F2 zones.  He wanted broader participation on cell phone towers in how the planning commission would be involved.


Dwyer asked for a list of the mandatory changes needed to comply with state law and a list of regulatory changes not mandated and the effect of those changes.


Howe responded the periodic review program has a Community Rule, and the Goal 14 Rural Residential Rule they are working on, which the Board has in draft format.  He said the drafts for the farm and forest zones are to comply with state legislation that is required.  He added the draft to Lane Code Chapter 14 is to also comply with state legislation regarding their process.  He said the legal lot amendments in the packet have to do with local issues and problems they were having, they were not governed by state directive legislation or a rule that needed to be complied with.  He noted that would be optional, as would the cell towers.  He noted the effort they took with riparian regulations is also optional.  He noted the 4D Rule had a federal regulation and they could address the riparian issues differently if the Board chose to.


Weeldreyer noted that some of the impacts that were being suggested under the riparian issues for property owners along fish bearing streams would have restrictions.  She supported the effort to get broader public input into the process.  She said they have to be concerned about the existing riparian ordinance. With regard to the community rule issue and the work plan for Land Management, she was involved with staff a few years ago when they moved to a watershed plan before Goal 14.   She thought the code needed updating.  Regarding the cell phone towers, she suggested a task force of two commissioners and two planning commissioners, a staff person from county counsel, and land management would review a variety of ordinances relating to siting a cell phone tower, then return to the board with different options.


Morrison noted there had been a decline in permits coming through the planning department so the staffing issue would be minimized.  She was in favor of the department working on the F2 and EFU portions.  On the McKenzie Watershed, she reported she attended some of the planning commission meetings and  questioned if things were too excessive for the small rural areas to survive.  She noted the smaller rural areas did not want to become bedroom communities for Eugene and Springfield.  She didn’t want to move forward on something that had not been discussed fully and openly by everyone in this process.  She said it is a mistake to go forward on the community rule without input from other communities. She wanted to complete the periodic review with Goal 5, before continuing on any other proposed ordinance.


Sorenson asked how much staff time would be put into this.


Mann responded that with two people, the projects would be periodic review, Goal 3 and 4 F2, changes to Lane Code Chapter 14 and the proposal appointing a subcommittee to work on standards for cell towers.


Sorenson suggested moving ahead with a moratorium on the cell phone towers.


Dwyer recommended instituting a process to adopt regulations instead of a moratorium.  Dwyer stated Lane County needed to regulate cell phones.


Weeldreyer concurred.


With regard to Attachment 1, periodic review, (bringing codes into compliance with the state) Morrison asked the Board who wanted Land Management going forward.


There was consensus for Land Management to go forward.


Howe responded it would involve a broader citizen involvement countywide to expand the effort.


With regard to Attachment 2, Critical Habitat, Morrison stated the Board would table that until further notice.


Dwyer asked about protecting the environment, not aspects that would allow more development.


Howe stated it wouldn’t be taken care of under periodic review.  He said changes they would be making under periodic review would be removing elements to address riparian issues under density standards.  He said if they were going to be addressing the riparian issues, they would make sure they would also comply with Goal 5. He said they could develop any revisions they make to riparian Goal 5 issues so they are consistent with the current Goal 5 Rule.  He added they did not have a requirement under their periodic review work program to comply with Goal 5 on riparian issues.  He noted if they were going to make revisions, they need to be compliant with the Goal 5 Rule.


Green asked what the ramifications would be if nothing were done.


Howe responded there might be a greater risk from a third party lawsuit. 


Green stated he was more supportive of the second alternative, directing staff to make the revisions in coordination with a land use consultant with the Spring Chinook Group.


Howe said it would address the take issue of the 4d Rule.


Morrison reiterated for Attachment 2, that critical habitat would be placed on hold.


Sorenson was against putting this on hold.  He wanted to be proactive.


Weeldreyer asked if a task force group could keep moving this forward instead of stopping all work, so staff time wouldn’t be devoted to this.


With regard to Attachment 3, (legislative draft of Lane Code 16.211) Morrison said the decision was to go forward.


With regard to Attachment 4, (draft adopted format of Lane Code 16.212, dealing with EFU) Morrison stated the decision was to go forward.


With regard to Attachment 5, (Legislative Draft of Lane Code 4,) dealing with the proposed changes, Morrison stated the decision was to go forward.


With regard to Attachment 6, (legal lot amendment to Lane Code,) Morrison stated it was not required.


Howe stated they needed policy clarification as they were running into problems with applications.  He noted it was 90% complete.


Dwyer wanted the process to go forward.


Morrison noted there was unanimous agreement to go forward.


With regard to Attachment 7 (cell phone tower information), Morrison noted she wanted to make sure this wasn't another McKenzie River Boat Ramp problem. 


Weeldreyer requested a task force with two commissioners, two planning staff and an individual from Land Management.


Morrison was supportive, but thought it needed to go to the planning commission for a basic ordinance and then back to the Board.  She stated the public would have their opportunity to participate with specific examples for review.


Green supported the task force.  He agreed they have to move on with this to get it to the planning commission.


Weeldreyer stated the task force could get something back to the Planning Commission within 60 days.


Vorhes stated there were a number of examples and policy discussion needs to take place in the areas where there are abilities for local government to regulate location and placement of cell towers and what approach to use.  He noted this was a nationwide issue.


Morrison noted there would be two commissioners when they set up the task force, Weeldreyer and Green.


There was unanimous support for a task force.


Weeldreyer requested that when they do community rules and go out for public comment, they get public input on a recreational corridor zoning overlay for rural Lane County.  She said if there were developed committed areas that have existing zoning of light industrial or commercial, that they could be a major recreational attraction and they might have opportunities to examine that as an overlay so each application wouldn’t have to go through a planned zone change.  She wanted to present this idea (with the rest of the community rule) for public review and comment.


b. ORDER 01-6-5-1/In the Matter of Clarifying the Application of Pavement Analysis Requirements for Facility Permits to County Roads.


Ollie Snowden, Public Works, stated they discussed the issue before and they would be coming back with a two step process, one to prospectively move forward, including the amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code Update, that would indicate that capacity included structural capacity of the pavement.  He said they also came back for clarification when they issue facility permits for access to County roads, one consideration is the structural capacity of the road and they may require mitigation requirements with issuance of an access permit.


Snowden asked the Board to concur in their interpretation that when they are looking at commercial and industrial uses, they would apply for a new or revised access to County roads.  Also, one thing they would ask for is information on heavy truck usage, allowing them to calculate accelerated damage to the County roads.  He noted they asked for that information during the Rexius conditional use permit and did not get it.  He said their position was based on Lane Code and ORS language.  He stated under approval criteria under Section 15.210(2), the Director of the Department of Public Works in approving any application may attach special terms and conditions as determined by the director to be in the best interest of the public.  He said the applications that are deemed to cause unnecessary damage to the road system shall be denied.


Dwyer thought it was reasonable that, given the fact this is in the urban transition area, the public’s interest is protected if people are going to inundate a facility with truck traffic.


Weeldreyer asked what the difference would be if most trucks were not overweight.


Snowden responded that the fact a truck was legal under Oregon Statutes doesn’t mean that it doesn’t damage the road.  He said their concern was that a greater number of trucks on the road would accelerate the deterioration of the road with the overlay.


Morrison was concerned they may deny any type of enterprise that has truck traffic from going on some of the smaller streets.


Weeldreyer concurred with Morrison.


Dwyer stated the trucks might incidentally use roads that were not designed for trucks.  He said this was not something the Board was required to do.  He noted there were conditions.  He thought increased traffic would detract from the longevity of the road.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-6-5-1.

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Morrison said truck traffic would impact other areas out north as they move forward.  She said realistically they should bring the roads up to a higher grade.


Snowden said they were asking for an affirmation for them to continue their interpretation of the term capacity when they look at approach permits.  He said they were talking about commercial and industrial uses.  He added they did not want to get into examining residential development.


Dwyer stated the order didn’t deny anyone anything, it discussed AASHTO guides and protecting road systems.  He said this used to be a country road that was not used much and is now being developed for commercial purposes. 


VOTE: 5-0.




a. Announcements






a. DISCUSSION/Potential Charter Amendments.


Morrison recalled last June the Board had a conversation regarding potential amendments to clean up the charter.  She said this was an opportunity to put something on the ballot to amend charter items.  She added they had to examine the costs involved.


Sorenson asked what the cost would be to Lane County.


Wilson responded if there were only two entities placing measures on the ballot (county and state measures) the County’s share would be half.  She said the overall cost of a countywide election is about $120,000 to $130,000 and did not include the cost of a voter’s pamphlet.


Sorenson asked if the parts in the charter that were obsolete had to do with the number of commissioners it took to compel another commissioner to attend a meeting.  He noted when the charter was written, it mentioned three commissioners.


Wilson stated if there was such a provision, that at the time they went from three commissioners to five, if the number stayed the same and didn’t change as a result from three to five, then it would be obsolete.  She added if it was actively considered at that time and the Board chose to have it reflect the number that was in there, she wasn’t sure it was obsolete.  She suggested that the Board might want to change that and that would be a separate amendment.


Sorenson asked if lowering the cost to change obsolete, or non-policy changes to the County Charter could be done at a lower cost.


Wilson said she would have to see if it could be done with others or not.  She said they were dealing with the impact of the Armada decision by the Supreme Court on the one subject type of concept.  She had to be careful not to combine things that people might want to vote on separately.  She wanted to keep the changes truly housekeeping and not something that the voters would want to have the right to vote on.


Sorenson suggested moving forward on the minor changes, but for anything major, it would be better to have a charter review commission review the issues.


Weeldreyer suggested placing this on the ballot in November 2002 so there would be more jurisdictions sharing the ballot and the costs would be much lower.


Wilson recalled the change for redistricting would allow one additional month on the commissioner district boundary changes.  She said the Board could do the changing of the date of the commissioner boundary changes, have it voted on in November and have it become effective immediately so that it would apply to the revision that was needed.


Dwyer stated that anytime they change the charter there needs to be public participation. 


With regard to Number 1 (to change the date for commissioner district boundary to allow an additional month), Morrison noted placing it on the November ballot would make it effective for the May primary in 2002.  She asked if it were big enough to put it on the ballot in November.


With regard to item Number 2, (schedule for election of chair, to time it so that it occurs after the beginning of terms of newly elected commissioners) Morrison recalled that when they had a Board retreat they went through the manual, and this was how the chair was elected.


Wilson noted they resolved the process but with the timing, it was possible for the charter to require the election of the chair before newly elected commissioners take office. 


Green noted the suggestion makes the Board consistent with the process.


Wilson said her recommendation was for the language to be sequenced so the chair was to be elected at the first meeting of the newly seated board members. 


Morrison said number 3 was the residency qualification for county elected officials, to reduce a two-year requirement to a more constitutionally acceptable period of six months, or one year.


Dwyer stated this needed to be consistent with running for other state offices.


Wilson stated it varied depending on the office.  She noted that sometimes residency within the County was one requirement, and residency within a district may be a different requirement.


Dwyer said after they review what the time constraints are in other counties for the other offices, he didn’t think they would be the same if they had a two-year requirement.


Van Vactor said this was more an issue of what was constitutional as opposed to a policy choice.  He said the courts have stricken down lengthy residency requirements.  He said the safest would be a six-month period.


With regard to number 4 (the nomination election of County officials, correct gender references and provide that the election occurs in the same manner as for state officials), Morrison said that if there is only one candidate or if a candidate receives the majority of votes casts, the actual election to office would occur in May.  She noted that presently by charter this occurred in November.


Wilson noted the only exception would be the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s race is determined in November by Oregon Constitution.


Morrison noted number 5 dealt with the deletion of obsolete sections and renumbering of the remainder.


Dwyer said as long as they were just housekeeping changes, he suggested fixing them.


With regard to item number 6, Morrison said the elected official resignation upon filing for another office was discussed.  She stated filing for another office mid-term shall be the same as resignation, effective as of the date of filing.  She added mid-term did not include the final year of an elected official’s term and filing for another office in the last year of an elected year shall not constitute a resignation.


Dwyer said this was something that needed to be put forward to the people to have them make their choice.  He said this should go to a charter revision committee because it is substantive.  He thought this would be a good provision, as it would make a person decide what job they wanted to have. He added the Boundary Commission could be the appropriate committee to review this.


Green said the citizen committee or charter committee should review this as he didn’t think it needed to be changed.


Sorenson said this was taking a concept out of a whole scheme of things.  He said the phrase last year of an “elected term” was a confusing term because a last year could be only a few days before the swearing in.  He wasn’t opposed to having a committee review this and other charter provisions.


With regard to number 7 (placing corrections under the general administrative authority of the Board), Morrison gave an example of removing that as a function of the Sheriff.


Dwyer said they have to ask the Sheriff if he was willing to give the Board authorization to resume the operations of the corrections system.  He said the same committee should review this.


Green concurred with Dwyer but would not limit the question to the Sheriff.  He said if this was of great concern to the Board that their concerns should be stated.


Morrison noted they had identified three items that needed to go to a charter revision committee.  She asked if this should be put on the ballot in November and if they did, it might take away from the charter revision.


Dwyer stated the things they could put on with housekeeping issues should be moved forward.  He said the other issues needed to be given to a committee and reviewed by the citizens.


Morrison noted with the reapportionment committee, they would need to be asked if they wanted to take this on as an additional task.


Van Vactor suggested coming back with an agenda cover memo to discuss the history of the Lane County Charter Committee.


Morrison said at this point they would do nothing for November and they will have this come back with further information.  She suggested bringing this back some time in the fall.


b.   DISCUSSION/Letter Drafted by Dwyer on Public Health, Mental Health


Morrison stated Dwyer was in Salem last week and this letter was a follow-up. She passed it out and they would vote tomorrow on whether or not they want to send the letter.






A. Approval of Minutes: None.


B. County Administration


1) ORDER 01-1-10-1/In the Matter of Appointing Representatives Various Committees and Agencies.


C. Health and Human Services


1) ORDER 01-6-5-2/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign a Contract Amendment with ARC of Lane County to Provide Disability Services in the Amount of $40,000.


D. Public Works


1) ORDER 01-6-5-3/In the Matter of Approving Proposed Geographic Name of "Tokatee Creek."


2) ORDER 01-6-5-4/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County-owned Road Fund Real Property Located near Fall Creek and Identified as Tax Lot 602 on Map 18-02-31-00 to Richard R. Brewer and Leslie A. Brewer.


3) ORDER 01-6-5-5/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to Be Used as a Public Road Easement for McKenzie River Drive (County Road No. 56)(16-55-16).


Morrison requested pulling item B. 1).


MOTION: to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.




VOTE: 4-0 (Weeldreyer not present).


With regard to B. 1), she noted with the legislative session, the new bill (if it comes through) will take the place of this one.  She added under LCOG Board of Directors,  she is the alternate and not Dwyer.  She noted under the Regional Investment Board on page 2, she is the alternate to Weeldreyer for voting purposes.  She said the Building Appeals Advisory Board was to be left as is. 


Sorenson noted on page 3 for the Economic Development Committee was left blank.


Dwyer stated that one would have one rural and metro commissioner on the committee.


Morrison noted that the 2050 Policy Committee would be added under others.  Dwyer was the delegate and Sorenson was the alternate.


Morrison explained under page 2 for the Regional Investment Board, she would be Weeldreyer’s alternate, and under the LCOG Board she is the alternate.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-1-10-1  with the changes.


Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0 (Weeldreyer not present).




a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance 1-01/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 18 of Lane Code to Add a Northwest/Central Ambulance Service District, to Adjust the West/Central District, and to Update the Ambulance Service Area Plan.


Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, passed out an overview of the motion.  (Copy in file).  He noted the Second Reading was set for June 27 in Harris Hall.


MOTION: to approve the First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance 1-01 on June 27, 2001, at 1:30 p.m. in Harris Hall.



VOTE: 4-0 (Weeldreyer not present).




a. DISCUSSION/Review the Sheriff's Office Budget.








ORDER 01-6-5-6/In the Matter of Supporting the Lane Council of Government Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Study and Transferring $20,000 from the General Fund Contingency into the Materials and Services Account within the General Fund in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 for Partial Sponsorship of the Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Study.


Van Vactor said they had been trying to fund Lane County’s share of the $20,000.  He recalled the Board agreed to this.  He said that he, Rich Fay, Parks and Tanya Heaton had reached the conclusion that the only coverage that still had money left was the Parks fund.  He said that LCOG was anxious to go ahead with this project and requested that this be brought back to the Board.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-6-5-6.

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Morrison noted this did not address the time or cost of Lane County Park staff.  She asked how Parks would be participating.


Rich Fay, Parks Director, responded it would be with in-kind participation, he didn’t think they would have the cost of staff to participate.


Morrison stated this could come back next year through the normal budget process and Lane County may not want to participate.


VOTE: 4-0 (Weeldreyer not present).

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


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary


go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices