minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

March 19, 1997
Harris Hall Main Floor - 1:30 p.m.




a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1096/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land from "Agriculture" to "Rural" and Rezoning that Land from "E-40" ("Exclusive Farm Use") to "RR-5" ("Rural Residential 5"), and Adopting Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 3306-96; Frank).

Weeldreyer explained that the nature and purpose of this hearing and rules is that this decision is subject to plan amendment and rezoning criteria and that evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria. She said failure to raise an issue to enable a response may preclude an appeal to LUBA. Weeldreyer announced the opportunity for submission of information of appeal and that only persons who qualify as a party may appeal the Board decision to LUBA. Weeldreyer called for disclosure among Board members for any ex parte contacts. There were none.

Michael Copely, Public Works, gave a staff report and referred to a map showing location of the property. He stated that a key element of the proposal is that it is located between two rural residential areas. Copely explained that the applicant has proposed redesignating the property from agricultural to rural residential, invoking a Board policy interpretation which relates to impacts on dwellings in rural residential areas surrounding the property. He said the property is of somewhat marginal agricultural capability. Copely stated that the applicant makes the case that the property is committed to nonagricultural use by virtue of surrounding development. He said the Planning Commission reviewed this issue at a public hearing with no testimony presented. Copely noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval and the matter was submitted to LCDC with no comment received.

Weeldreyer opened the public hearing.

Al Couper, 3358 Harris, Eugene, stated that he has identified four or five major topics that are persuasive and referred to Exhibit 4 in the packet, noting that the property is surrounded by small scale development. He described it as predominately a rural residential pattern. Couper said the parcel is not practical for agriculture due to poor soils, and is suitable only for grass seed production. He stated that it is basically fine for development with septic approval and noted that all required services such as police, fire and schools are in place. Couper remarked that there are no natural resources nor any natural hazards to constrain this land for development. He stated that the logical zoning would be RR5.

Weeldreyer closed the public hearing.

MOTION: Approval of the Ordinance. Dumdi MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. The secretary polled the Board. VOTE: 5 Ayes.

b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 3-97/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt Various Amendments to the Springfield Development Code for the Urbanizable Lands Within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (LC 10.600-15), and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

Copely said this matter comes as a function of the Urban Transition Agreement between Lane County and Springfield. He stated that any time Springfield or Eugene amends the land use regulations within the Urban Growth Boundary but outside the city limits, the County is asked to co-adopt those same changes. Copely stated that the city continues to administer the codes and that the County should not be impacted by these changes. He referred to material in the packet regarding the changes (see material on file).

Weeldreyer opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to testify, Weeldreyer closed the public hearing.

MOTION: Approval of the Ordinance. Cornacchia MOVED, Green SECONDED.  The secretary polled the board. VOTE: 5 Ayes.


a. ORDER 97-3-19-13/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear an Appeal of a Hearings Official's Decision Denying an Application for a Contract Zoning District Within the Florence Urban Growth Boundary (file PA 1529-94/Morales).

Copely gave a brief review of this item and the process leading to the appeal (see material on file). He stated that staff decision is that the appeal does not comply with criteria in Lane Code.

Dumdi stated that this issue has been discussed at considerable length and it was her opinion to not hear arguments on the appeal.

MOTION: Approval of staff recommendation to not hear arguments on the appeal, to affirm the hearing’s official’s decision and to agree with the interpretation of the Florence City Plan in LC 10-710 and LC 10.315. Dumdi MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

Board recessed at 2:12 p.m. to reconvene at 2:35 p.m.


a. Replacement Levy for a May 20 Ballot/Deliberation and Action

Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, reported that the City of Eugene did place a three-year levy on the May ballot in the amount of $30 million.

Teresa Wilson, County Counsel, stated that the public safety levy in front of the Board is in the amount of $2.8 million and includes double bunking. She explained that there is discussion at the legislature about changing the election date for the rewrite of Ballot Measure 47 because it now must go back to the House and will not be approved in time for the May 20 election. Wilson stated that the Board may want the levy to be on the same ballot as the rewrite measure to help with the 50% approval requirement.

Doug Harcleroad, District Attorney, stated that public safety is underfunded even without the effects of BM47. He agreed that the levy should be small to prevent having a large impact on taxpayers. Harcleroad remarked that because voters passed the public safety levy last year, he believed the public would be willing to support this public safety levy.

Clements commented that Lane County voted down BM47 and said those people that did vote for it may not have been aware of the implications on public safety. Clements believed that Lane County voters should have a right to weigh in on whether or not they want to preserve the present public safety system. He stated that Lane County should take advantage of going out in a coordinated fashion with the City of Eugene and the State to meet the 50% approval requirement.

Steve Carmichael, Director, Youth Services, was supportive of presenting this levy to the public, giving the public the right to undo the damage done by the voters in the rest of the state. He stressed that there are a number of public safety reductions due to BM47 that are not acceptable.

Rob Rockstroh, Director, Health and Human Services, said the choice ought to be offered and reiterated that Lane County should go out with a small levy.

Jim Gangle, Tax Assessor, talked about the impact on taxpayers. He said it would be about 14.3 cents per $1,000 or approximately $14 a year.

Sorenson expressed his concern about going out to the voters too often, noting that Lane County went to the voters twice in 1996 and will go again this year and next year. He stressed the need for people to have the opportunity to voice their position in a voters' pamphlet. Sorenson felt that this levy was rushed and said haste makes waste. He stated he was concerned that there was not enough time to hold public hearings and that the County is jumping the gun on what the impacts of BM47 are going to be. Sorenson remarked that public process issues are very important to him and said he would vote no on this item.

There was consensus to amend the order to allow for a change of the election date depending on that the legislature does.

MOTION: Approval of the Order as amended. Cornacchia MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0 Sorenson dissenting.

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 3:39 p.m.


Zoanne Gilstrap, Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices