APPROVED 9/06/95

June 7, 1995
Harris Hall Main Floor - 1:30 p.m.

Chair Ellie Dumdi reconvened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. with Commissioners Steve Cornacchia (arrived 2:08 p.m.), Bobby Green Sr., Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Leslie Barrett, Recording Secretary.


Commissioner Dumdi read a letter requested by Commissioner Rust's assistant, Trish Rosewood, for a grant application for the Family Investment Center through HUD. She asked the Board to approve the letter, stating that HACSA has developed a comprehensive program designed to assist public housing residents and family self-sufficiency participants in obtaining and maintaining family wage employment, and that the Family Investment Center would assist participants with transitions that await them.

Bill Van Vactor asked if the Board sitting as the Housing Authority approved that application. Dumdi responded not that she was aware of, but that Trish had been working with the Housing Authority to put it together.

Van Vactor asked what the total cost was or the match obligation. Van Vactor reminded the Board that if the grant was under $25,000 and within the Administrator's authority to execute the contract, the grant is approved, but if the grant has a local obligation more than that, the County requires that the departments place the item on the agenda so that the Board is aware of the potential commitment. Rust suggested conditional approval based on consensus, if it meets all requirements. The Board consensus was to proceed with the application.

Dumdi brought up the issue of a potential hearing requested for Florence in reference to the Siuslaw Rod and Gun Club which had requested that the Board hold a meeting in Florence a couple of months from now. Dumdi asked the Board if they were interested in doing this if they could combine it with their meeting with the Florence City Council and Dunes City Council, if possible to do them all on one day.

Dumdi continued that there is potential that there might be several other similar requests coming to the Board, and that if this hearing is held, there might be additional requests to hold hearings in Florence. Dumdi questioned if the Board wanted to hold the hearing in Harris Hall or honor the request to hold the hearing in Florence.

Van Vactor stated that he had a minor reservation, that one of the strategies to be discussed at the June 20th Leadership Team meeting is how to coordinate meetings with the cities around the county. Van Vactor felt that information might be available within a couple of months, and certainly by the fall. His concern was that the County would be driven by a land use deadline rather than the County's financial planning.

It was the consensus that if it was feasible, the Board would hold the hearing in Florence, but that further discussion would occur at the Leadership Team meeting on June 20th.

Mike Copely, Land Management, asked if the Board would make their decision at that time. Rust responded that the Board would like to do this, but that they would like to do it within the context of either other hearings or other meetings, and in particular meetings that the Board has scheduled with the cities of Florence and Dunes City, and that this probably would not occur until the fall. Copely indicated that he would wait to hear from the Board and reminded them that the timeline involved required a six-week advance notification at the LCD and an extra two weeks or so to prepare the information.

Additional discussion followed on the timing and possibility of setting a precedent. Van Vactor said if the timing of the request was such that it needed to proceed in either July or August, it would need to be scheduled here. Green stated that unless the hearing could be combined with something else, his preference would be to have the hearing at the County rather than traveling to Florence or a small city to hear one item.

Dumdi also suggested to hold the hearing in the evening, so that perhaps more people could attend. Green indicated that he would consider that. Rust commented that he felt the group wanted the Board to hear the item in Florence, and that his preference would be to do it over there, as part of a larger package.

Weeldreyer stated that she agreed with Green. She didn't want to hold up the process to tie the hearing into something that the Board was already doing and would be willing to meet on any evening except Thursday to hold a public hearing.

Dumdi stated that Cornacchia wasn't present to state his opinion, but that the majority comments were to move it along in the timeline that was appropriate and she would agree that things needed to be kept moving, not to hold them up to accommodate a special request. She indicated the hearing could be held at the County in the evening, if it would make it easier for the people on the coast to attend.

Further discussion followed with a continued focus on whether the hearing should be held in a combined format with other items in the Florence area or whether to hold the hearing in Eugene. Green stated that an evening meeting was an option, but perhaps not the preferred option.

Weeldreyer echoed Van Vactor's previous remarks about not rushing this joint meeting with the Cities because of a Land Use issue. Rust said that the meeting with Florence and Dunes City should be scheduled first, and then schedule the hearing with it, unless it needs to move more quickly. Copely said that the law does not require that it move more quickly, but out of deference to the applicant the Board might want to move it along more quickly. Copely said he is unable to begin a packet until the time and place is fixed, and then the process begins, taking about two months from that point.

Weeldreyer said she would feel uncomfortable if the Board made the applicant wait until September if they wanted to take advantage of moving the process more quickly. Rust indicated that the difference is about thirty days. If started today, that would put the hearing in August. At worst case, it would require the applicant to wait for thirty days for a meeting in Florence. Rust said it was his experience that an applicant would wait a long time for a yes vote, and would not like to wait at all for a no vote. He indicated that this hearing could work if the Board did as the Chair had suggested and tried to accommodate the request and put it in Florence in September.

Dumdi reiterated that the preference would be to try to accommodate the request and to hold the hearing in Florence in conjunction with the Florence and Dunes City meeting. Copely stated he would wait to hear the Board's schedule.


a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 95-6-7-11/In the Matter of Receiving a Community Development Block Grant for SCAR/Jasper Mountain Asset Center Water/Wastewater Emergency Project.

Peter Thurston explained that as a part of the Community Block Grant Development process, it's important to put on the record that the Board considered a variety of different alternatives in two different hearings. Hearings were held earlier in the year with regard to general needs, and this is the second public hearing which places on the record the need for this particular project today.

Thurston reviewed that OEDD staff asked that this hearing be held and that actions be taken to help expedite the process, even though they have not offered a grant to the County as yet. He stated OEDD is processing this in a very expeditious manner and would anticipate that next week, with all the pieces coming in place, the County would have a grant offer in the range of $100,000 to complete this work.

Thurston said that Systems West Engineering was working with the County to describe the scope of work in engineering terms and complete budget, and that OEDD requested the County come in with a set of exact budget figures. Thurston indicated that those figures were being used as the basis for the request. Thurston then recommended holding the public hearing, taking any public comment, and that he was available to answer any questions.

Dumdi stated there were two individuals signed up to testify, and opened the public hearing at 1:53 a.m.

Frank Papagni, 701 High Street, Vice-ChaIr of the SCAR/Jasper Mountain Board member spoke in favor of the grant. Papagni stated that about five months ago, the Board celebrated that, as a charitable organization, they were finally "in the black," and that it took about a month to put themselves back "in the red" when the opportunity presented itself to purchase a facility that Christian Family Services could no longer use. He remarked that Children's Services Division came to SCAR/Jasper Mountain to inform them of an urgent need to have a space available where young abused and disturbed children could be stabilized and evaluated. Papagni announced that this evaluation center opened on May 1st, is fully staffed and presently serving six children. He stated they have the capacity to hopefully serve eighteen in the future and are also helping families in crisis. Papagni stated that the SCAR/Jasper Board had acted so quickly to get the facility into operation that they hadn't even had a chance to name the facility. (In the application program, the facility has been referred to as ASSET, but the SCAR Board is prepared to go forward and name the facility SAFE (Stabilization Assessment Family Evaluation Center). Papagni continued that the name was less important than the services being provided to needy children.

Papagni remarked that the Agency was able to respond to the CSD request expeditiously because a physical facility for the center became available due to the recent closure of the FISH & Family Services Teen Shelter Program. He further stated that in the negotiation process for the building, it was discovered that there were serious problems with the septic system and a need to install a water purification system as soon as possible, but the SCAR Board decided to go forward because the facility was ideal for the program, knowing that the liability existed, and that the Board chose to purchase the facility and then find the funds needed to solve the water and wastewater problems.

Papagni noted that SCAR/Jasper Mountain takes pride in that they normally do not go to government agencies, but try to recruit from the private sector the funds necessary to keep them going. He asserted that CSD needed the center open immediately, given the safety needs of the children targeted for the program, and wanted the center open in January. He stated the SCAR Board moved ahead, choosing the children's immediate needs over the more relaxed pace of fund raising.

Papagni stated that the SCAR Board greatly appreciated the County Board's support in the past in their application of necessary repair funding through the Oregon Community Development Block Grants.

Janet Gielow, 48 W 23rd Avenue, Eugene, Special Projects Coordinator at SCAR/Jasper Mountain, spoke in favor of the grant. Gielow commented that CSD came to them in December in immediate need of this program. She reviewed a handout, a screening checklist of the types of children that are served. Gielow remarked that in the past these children have gone to the State Hospital or been passed from foster home to foster home, and that when the SCAR/Jasper Mountain Board found the Christian Family Services facility available, it felt the project was a priority and moved ahead.

Gielow referred to the screening checklist, which gives a profile of children with needs that are addressed by the program. She continued that these kids are immediately unsafe for themselves and for the community, whether it be the school community or their own foster family. She reviewed the checklist of services that SCAR/Jasper Mountain provides: assessment, stabilization of the child and then a plan of care that will take that child back into the community in a safer way with the kinds of needs met, or a plan for meeting the needs that the child has.

Gielow indicated the process could have been slower, that they could have gone about raising funds in different ways, but CSD very much wanted this to happen-—initially wanting the house to open in January, then in February, then in March. She indicated that the SCAR/Jasper Mountain Board worked as fast as it could to make that happen, opening on May 1st with the first group of children.

Gielow continued that there is another safety issue at hand--problems with the septic system were discovered and potential contamination of the well on the property. She stated the house sits at the top of a hill, and the wells are below the drainfields. She explained that the sanitation manager indicated it was definitely a safety hazard as the septic does not have a large enough capacity and since the drainfields are failing, the wells are in risk of contamination. She stated that all proper precautions have been taken for testing and the water is currently okay, but that Harry Youngquist has suggested hand chlorination be considered until the problem can be solved in a more permanent way.

Gielow stated she wanted to thank the Board for all they've done to date at SCAR/Jasper Mountain and to thank them for their ongoing support. She stated that the septic system need is not as "flashy" as the castle or a special education school, but that the program could be closed for a time if the water was to become contaminated. Gielow reiterated that the needs for the children came first, and SCAR/Jasper Mountain Board decided to purchase the facility knowing that there was a problem with the sewer.

There being no one else signed up to speak at the hearing, Dumdi closed the Public Hearing at 2:03 p.m. Green asked Thurston the amount of the grant. Thurston replied that the exact amount was not known at the time of writing the grant, nor was it known today, but that it will be in the offer that OEDD will make to the County. He estimated costs at this time for the total project are about $100,000 (water, wastewater, administration, etc.). Thurston stated costs were known only based on those estimates, as to the total engineering adding all of the costs and projecting that they will be in the area of $100,000.

Thurston indicated that the original application to OEDD in April included an administrative component that would be handled out of the County Administration office, and at that time (based on usual practices for Block Grants) $4,000 was included. Thurston indicated they were also looking at the possibility of having most of the work being done by the engineer, which could reduce the amount, particularly if expedited. Thurston continued, stating that usual practice in Block Grants involves everything from preparing and developing a project, to working through the environmental review records, to taking care of administrative procedures, hiring consultants, overseeing the project development, monitoring Federal requirements for wage rates, completing the project construction, meeting the necessary grant requirements and closing a project down.

Green further queried how Thurston had arrived at $4,000 for a $100,000 project. Thurston replied that it was an estimate on his part and explained how he had reviewed past projects to arrive at the figure. Green asked when the Board would know if the grant was received. Thurston replied that they were treating this as an emergency grant and they are recommending several waivers of usual procedure, including granting both design and construction money in the same, single grant, which is not normal policy. He explained that OEDD recognizes that though the building is owned by a private entity, that it is a public health problem and a public wastewater and water system improvement. Thurston continued, stating that means the project is eligible for funding now, instead of waiting for community facilities funding next year, and it is expected that next week if all the pieces are in order, they would have the administrative approval necessary to make these waivers and make the offer.

Van Vactor commented that there was an agenda item on next week to accept the grant. Thurston remarked that the order today would receive the grant and authorize the County Administrator to take care of it. Van Vactor indicated that County Counsel had a question about whether another Public Hearing was needed. Thurston stated that would be at the Board's discretion, but the OEDD staff asked that in the mode of an emergency, that if the County indicates that it has held two hearings and is prepared to actually receive the grant, and that the Board is aware of the issues and problems that would get all the information on their table, they [OEDD staff] would be better prepared to make their decision and offer.

Green remarked that he supports the program, but had a question of whether the Board had received a grant without knowing the amount. Thurston replied that the Board does not normally receive a grant without knowing the exact dollar amount. Dumdi clarified that it was because of the emergency nature.

MOTION: Approval of Order 95-6-7-11. Green MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1074/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Forest" to "NonResource" and Rezoning that Land From "F-2/Impacted Forest Land" to "RR-5/Rural Residential"; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 2962-94/Ocean Dunes Golf Links).

Michael Copely distributed two additional pieces of correspondence and stated that the history was in the Agenda Cover Memorandum, that the application came before West Lane Planning Commission in April for hearing, and the West Lane Planning Commission recommended approval as there was no opposing testimony and some expressions of support were given at that time. The matter was referred to the LCD, and no comments or objections were received. Copely also indicated that the applicant's stated intention was to expand a golf course, now existing to the north, and that the zone allows a golf course as a special use permit, but that application of the Rural Residential zone within a non-resource plan designation does allow a variety of other uses, some permitted, some requiring a special use permit. Copely indicated that staff is recommending approval of the proposal, as it appears to meet applicable criteria.

Copely continued, stating that the letters that were distributed were delivered today, and the first letter from Harriet Godfrey was faxed in. Copely referred to a map, indicating that the cemetery in question is the property immediately to the right of the subject property. He indicated he interprets the letter as a cautionary statement rather than a statement of opposition, but the Board would need to draw their own conclusions. He stated the second letter was given to him at the hearing by Mr. Peterson, representing the applicant, indicating that the applicant has deeded some land over to the Indian tribes for their use, as it is a cemetery site. Copely suggested that concerns or conditions the Board might wish to place on this proposal, with respect to either letter, might be placed in the file and could be invoked at the time of special use permit processing, e.g., with a Hearings official's approval to proceed with a golf course expansion and a fence being built.

Cornacchia asked for clarification from Copely, if it would be manageable to provide some kind of fence, as the North Fork sits around the other side of their property, and with the idea of people going back and forth for other reasons, impacting the cemetery is a legitimate public issue.

Cornacchia stated his confusion was about not making screening or fencing a part of the rezone for the golf course expansion, but including it in the record for requirements on golf course development as a better way to go. Copely stated that it was probably a cleaner way to go, in the sense that in a special use proceeding at the hearings official level, usually a variety of conditions are placed on the use. Copely indicated that the applicant may elect to volunteer to build a fence, and asked

Mr. Peterson to address that during testimony.

Cornacchia asked if the Board put that desire for that condition at site review, and asked if that would be translated to the Department Head or hearings official. Copely indicated that it would go into the property file and would surface at the time of special use permit consideration. Copely further remarked that it was very likely that he would be doing the special use permit, and he would certainly remember it. Cornacchia indicated that he would like Mr. Peterson to speak on that issue.

Dumdi opened the public hearing at 2:15 p.m.

Bill Robinson, owner of Ocean Dunes in Florence, clarified that the reason this piece of land was purchased was to relocate some golf holes, not to expand the golf course, and that the golf course presently consists of eighteen holes and is located on 88 acres. Robinson continued that there are a number of golf holes that are too close together and he had purchased the land to take some of the existing holes out of the play, "loosen up the golf course a little bit," and put four of the new holes on the proposed property.

Robinson indicated that he began the application process in April 1994, and that he had purchased the property in 1991. He stated that before he purchased the property he came to Eugene and talked to someone in the Planning Department who gave him a definition of what "Forest Reserve" was and recreation was part of it, but when he returned in early 1994 to get his building permit, he was told that Lane County no longer used the definition of Forest Reserve, but used the State Code and that recreation, which was part of the County Code, was no longer a part of the State Code. Robinson said that "basically, you people sterilized my land without even telling me."

Subsequent to finding that the State Code definition was now used, he hired Mr. Peterson to start the application and after a period of 15 months, he was now back before the County. He stated in April they came to the County and were told that they would probably do better by not asking for Rural Residential, but went for Park and Recreation. The reason for that was that golf courses were permitted without another hearing. Robinson stated that they went along with that idea, and were told 30 days later that Parks and Recreation hadn't been on the books for 11 years, which brings them back to the County today.

Robinson stated he "was also threatened by the South Umpqua Indians that if I didn't deed over a piece of land that I owned to them, which was a cemetery, that they would be in opposition to it." He continued that he deeded a piece of land 6' wide by 120' long which contains cemetery plots, to gain their support. Robinson referred to a map, indicating the section marked RR5H, stating that the woman who owns that strip of land does not really own the cemetery, but she owns the right of way which goes to the cemetery owned by the South Umpqua Indians.

Robinson indicated that the South Umpqua Indian Tribe told him that they had purchased the other piece of land that Robinson owns in 1940, but neglected to register it, and that if he didn't give it to them, they would have the Department of Indian Affairs sue him for it. Robinson said that a few years ago he had asked one of his employees of Indian descent whom he would give the property to, but she did not know. He continued that he didn't like "being put over a barrel and threatened" so the South Umpqua Indian Tribe indicated they would agree to his plans if he gave them the cemetery land. His plans include leaving a 100' buffer around the whole cemetery area.

There being no one else signed up to testify, Dumdi closed the public hearing at 2:21 p.m. MOTION: Approval of the Ordinance. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED.

Cornacchia requested that the record acknowledge the applicant's intent to create a buffer around the cemetery, and have that translated to the site review and appropriate persons, acknowledging the offer and expressing the interest in that occurrence.

Rust and Green indicated acceptance of that inclusion to the original motion. The revised MOTION: Approval of the Ordinance, with the inclusion that the applicant has agreed to create a 100' buffer around the Indian cemetery. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED.

Rust inquired how the County miscommunicated on the Parks and Recreation definition. Cornacchia asked if it was one planner one day and another planner another day or if it was all Copely. Copely indicated that it was all him, and indicated that an application came in last September. Some additional seller's information was required, and that was delivered in February, and the processing began.

At the time he took the application in March, to do the staff work for West Lane, Copely stated he began to examine County policies and what kinds of zones could be placed with a non-resource plan designation. Policy 16 "Land Use Planning" indicated either a rural residential zone or a park and recreation zone.

Copely continued that upon checking those zones, he determined that as a park and recreation zone the golf course is a site review use, whereas the rural residential zone carries a special use permit. He talked it over with other County staff and the applicant and decided with their concurrence that it would facilitate their process if a park and recreation zone was sought, and the matter was scheduled before West Lane at their hearing, where they agreed that a park and recreation zone would be appropriate and so recommended.

Copely further commented that it was determined by Jim Mann (who was doing some research on the history of that particular statement) that an Ordinance adopted by the Board in 1984, at the time the original plan was adopted, removed the words "park and recreation" from that particular policy statement that he was relying on. Perhaps because of the haste of the time, the phrase was not deleted from the statement, and is still there to date. Accordingly, the proposal fell back to the Rural Residential designation. Copely summarized that the County was attempting to assist the applicant in moving along more quickly, but it didn't work out.

Cornacchia asked if the applicant would be required to go in for a special use permit to build the extra holes. Copely replied that the applicant would be required to have a special use hearing for the golf course. He further indicated that the RR Zone is the only zone that's possible with a non-resource plan designation. Cornacchia inquired if there was value in having in the records the Board's reasoning that the zone change would lead to golf course development, so that the hearings official was aware of the Board's action. Copely indicated that the history of the proposal and the statement from the record could be passed on. Copely cautioned the Board that things change and the zone provides a variety of different uses.

Cornacchia stated that it bothered him that the person had to go through so much to get to this stage, and then be required to go through another process for a special use permit. He indicated he would like to translate to the hearings officer that the process be speeded up or diminish the possibilities of opposition or unsatisfactory conclusion. Copely stated it would be passed on to the hearings official.

The recording secretary polled the Board. VOTE: The Ordinance passed 5-0.

Cornacchia requested that Land Management review the land use policies (e.g. Lane County Planning Policy #16) within the next year and alert the Board to those that are inconsistent.



There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:29 p.m.


Leslie F. Barrett, Recording Secretary