minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

Approved 6/7/00

May 16, 2000
REGULAR MEETING - LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
Commissioners' Conference Room
following HACSA

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

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

There will be a 20-minute Executive Session and emergency business items.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

Will take place after the meeting.

4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a.    Announcements

Van Vactor reported that the out-of-state finalists for the Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator have been contacted and interviews will take place on Monday and Tuesday. He added that Dwyer hosted a planning committee for the Wayne Morse Free Speech Platform.

5.    PUBLIC WORKS

a.  ORAL REPORT Parking on Local Access Roads.

John Goodson, Public Works, explained that there is an issue of parking on some county or local access roads. He added the County has the ability to regulate on both types of roads. He passed out a provision that was submitted to the Board in 1988 (copy in file), noting that it prohibited overnight parking on a county or public road. He said that local access roads were added with a provision that was amended by the Board and added to Lane Code. He said the amendment exempted vehicles but not storage of vehicles on the road. He added if the Board wanted to provide something like this, the period could be changed to help regulate parking. He noted that there is a problem with Plaza Loop in Pleasant Hill.

John Cole, Land Management, stated that in response to a specific situation, a neighbor is upset that a street has turned into local truck activity. He added that investigation by Land Management would be necessary when this many trucks are parking on a regular basis. He said it seems like there is a truck dispatch center that is being run from that vicinity.

Dwyer said that 24 hours for parking if applied to vehicles is not a lot of time, that the time frame needs to be extended to 72 hours. He noted with commercial activity that they need to look at the problem, specifically with trucks. He said if large trucks are the problem, that they could regulate commercial parking.

Morrison asked who would be responsible for the monitoring and enforcement.

Goodson replied that it would be compliant driven and the sheriff would enforce it. He said right now there is nothing that they can cite these people for.

Green said that there would be an expectation by the citizens that if action is taken, then deputies will be able to enforce it. He said he hopes that enforcing it doesn’t become an issue.

Morrison asked if they approve this, would the sheriff actually be able to enforce it. She asked who would remove the trucks and how fines would be paid.

Goodson responded that if a vehicle isn’t moved, a private company will tow it and the owner of the vehicle will be responsible to pay the fees.

Dwyer said that signs could be put up for no truck parking. He said it would have nothing to do with people who park and work. He said they need to focus on commercial activity as opposed to regular parking.

Sorenson said he would be in favor of a report back from County Counsel and Public Works on the possible amendment to Lane Code to authorize the public works director to post no truck parking signs in places where it is of interest to residents. He said there needs to be more than a complaint driven process, perhaps an opportunity for citizens to be able to come in and initiate a civil action.

Wilson reiterated that the Board is not interested in pursuing what had been proposed, that they were more interested in posting no truck parking signs.

Sorenson said he wanted a report back on the next steps attempting to deal with the concerns that were discussed.

Green stated he was in favor of language with 48 hours for parking and the posting of signs. He said he wanted to update the code.

Dwyer said he wanted to address specific problems with commercial parking as it relates to trucks, as the code doesn’t address commercial activity.

Goodson noted that an ordinance could be crafted with Public Utility Commission plates that would be applicable to this location. He noted that some vehicles are there for days or weeks.

Sorenson requested that this topic be brought back in six weeks.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Approval of Minutes:
February 23, 2000, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
April 12, 2000, Regular Meeting, following HACSA
April 12, 2000, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
April 26, 2000, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

B.  Management Services

1)  ORDER 00-5-16-1 Increasing the Change Fund for the Waste Management Division of the Lane County Department of Public Works.

2)  ORDER 00-5-16-2 Award of RFP LCP 2000-04 for Food and Vending Services Agreement and License.

C.  Public Works

1)  RESOLUTION AND ORDER 00-5-16-3 Amending Resolution and Order 00-4-25-12, Concerning Improvement of Marcola Road, MP 5.81 to 11.75, by Removing an Incorrect Reference to Coburg Road and Replacing it with the Proper Reference to Marcola Road in Paragraph 10 of Said Resolution and Order.

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0.

7. MANAGEMENT SERVICES

a.  ORDER 00-5-16-4 Appointing a New Member and Reappointing a Current Member to the Lane County Human Rights Advisory Committee.

Laura Yergan reported that James Mattiace was appointed last November but the term ending date was incorrect. She said his ending date was April 30 and he is being reappointed. She added that they had an opening due to Lynn Burditt’s vacancy and they only had two applicants apply. She said that Eric Burmeister was chosen for the vacancy.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-5-16-4.

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0.

8. PUBLIC WORKS

a. DISCUSSION FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 5-00 Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt a Revised and Updated Version of the Eugene Land Use Regulations for Application to the Urbanizable Lands Within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Second Reading & Public Hearing: May 31, 2000, 6:00 p.m., Eugene City Council Chambers).

MOTION: to approve the First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for May 31, 2000, at 6:00 p.m.

Morrison moved, Green SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0.

Celia Barry, Land Management reported that this major project has been going on for a few years. She said they are asking the Board to amend Lane Code Section 10.600-25, to reflect the adoption of the Eugene Lane Use Code Update as it relates to land outside of the city limits and inside the urban growth boundary. She noted that both the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions have recommended unanimous approval of the April 2000 draft. She added they have also authorized city staff to make minor format changes. She noted there has been extensive public comment and input by a variety of interest groups that has been incorporated into the code. She explained the County has to adopt the update because it applies to lands that have been subject to city land use codes since the mid-1980’s. She said that is when the County delegated its authority to the city for the area and that is why the County needs to amend Lane Code Chapter 10. She added there would be no change to the implementation of the Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan or the Lane Land Use Implementation to the Land Use Code. She said the only change would be to Lane Code Section 10.600-25 to reference Ordinance 5-00, showing the Land Use Code update has been adopted.

Teresa Bishow, City of Eugene, reported that when this project started in 1995, the impetus was to streamline land use procedures, eliminate unnecessary regulations and save money. She noted as the years went by, there was a change in sentiment from the neighborhood leaders and people at the grassroots and elected officials’ level. She said the charge was to cut costs and eliminate unnecessary regulations, not in making Eugene a better place to live.

Bishow said it is the first time that the entire land use code has been updated since 1968. She noted that Eugene has more than doubled in size since the last code update. She included an analysis of the draft code helping implement the growth management policies adopted by the council. She noted they have tried to make the code easier to read and understand and in doing so, people are discovering regulations. She added they have recommended a draft code but it is still a working draft.

Bishow noted the highest degree of confusion with the public is having received a state mandated public notice in response to Oregon Ballot Measure 56. She said in general, every property owner of land in the Eugene urban growth boundary received a six page notice informing them about the land use code update and any uses allowed currently in the code that are being prohibited or limited. She added they didn’t have enough funding to tell people what they could do with their property nor did they provide a map showing them the area where they live. She noted they had over 800 phone inquiries in over a ten-day period.

Bishow noted as part of the land use code update, they are not proposing changing the zoning map. She said there would be changes in what they will be naming the zones and the biggest one is a zone RA Suburban Residential, (a semi-rural environment.) She said the uses and standards are the same as R1 residential, except if they are on property zoned RA, they could actually sell produce that is grown in the backyard to neighbors, and they can have large farm animals.

Bishow reported for the rest of the base zones, they tried to align them better with the Metro Plan, with the uses allowed and the standards. She said they would get testimony regarding specific uses. She said with regard to the overlay zones, the urbanizible land is being retained in the unincorporated area, having retained the automatic removal of it following annexation. She noted that it is a holding zone to prevent too much development prior to annexation. She noted there is a new nodal development overlay zone and the application will occur after TransPlan is adopted. She said there are special standards for certain uses in the code. She added there are general standards for all development. She said they currently have over 21 land use application codes in the City of Eugene and each application has its own self-contained section with regard to procedures. She said they have consolidated the procedure types. She noted that the April 2000 draft code exceeds state law in every area.

Bishow reported that for large scale and commercial and multi-family permits, they will go through an administrative process. She noted that the last two sections of the book deal with application approval criteria and they had a lower degree of public interest. She noted the section on adjustment review is new to the City of Eugene and that would be a staff process.

Bishow said the last portion of the code is adopting plan policies. She said there are certain types of land use applications that are called limited land use decisions. She said if a plan is used there needs to be a citation in the code for it. She noted the planning commission recommended that they include all of the applicable plan policies from any of the neighborhood plans. She said she recommends that the elected officials adopt it and direct the Eugene Planning Commission to do further work on it if needed instead of holding up the code update process.

Sorenson asked what the rationale was for the land use changes within the City of Eugene and within the urban growth boundary.

Bishow responded there was a sense of urgency to get a new land use code for the Eugene urban growth boundary as the current code is inadequate. She said with the draft land use code, she wanted to give enough vision for what is occurring in TransPlan and the residential land study to put mix use zone into the land use code so they are easier to understand. She said they are taking steps to implement the TransPlan concepts.

9. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

Morrison reported that she and Green attended the United Way awards ceremony. She presented the Board with a plaque from United Way for the Volunteer Campaign 2000. She added that this weekend the Rhododendron festival starts in Florence. She said she will be in the parade on a float and everyone is invited to attend.

Green reported that Pleasant Hill High school had pledged over 6,000 hours for the United Way and they reached 108% of their goal.

Dwyer reported that today is Election Day and everyone needed to vote.

10. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

a.  ORDER 00-5-16-6 Receiving a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Continuation Grant for $181,000 For 2000-01 and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Grant Documents.

Richard Sherman, Sheriff’s Department, reported that the Board approved funds last year for residential substance abuse treatment in jail with Senate Bill 1145. He added they received funds for alcohol and drug from the state. He noted the last grant came to an end in April and the state said they could re-apply for funds for a 12-month time period at a reduced rate.

He asked the Board to accept the funds of an additional $181,000 plus carryover for a total of $236,259. He added that would be matched by $151,804 from the Sheriff’s Office budget. He noted with the reduced amount, they will only be able to employ three people and the patient treatment will be 30 instead of 42. He added that the funds would go away at the end of a 12-month period.

Van Vactor said that he was supportive, but if revenue will continue to decline that he hopes the Sheriff’s Office will work with them to make up the deficit.

Morrison questioned how effective the treatment would be.

Sherman responded that there is a 50% treatment rate for this type of treatment and it is very successful. He added they have to see in the long term what the cost would be for not treating people. He noted that Congress recognized that this is success-based and they need to be treated for six months to achieve the best results. He noted the funds are available for six months of treatment.

Sorenson asked what was the estimate of people adversely affected by substances in the jail.

Sherman responded that that is the biggest issue in Lane County Jail as over 90% of the population is affected by substance dependence or are abusing substances.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-5-16-6.

Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0.

b. ORDER 00-5-16-7 Paving Four Feet of the Existing Shoulder on Spencer Creek Road Scheduled to Be Overlaid Under Contract No. 99/00-06.

Goodson reported that they would be doing a normal overlay to repair the road and they want to expand the paving to include four-foot shoulders on Spencer Creek Road. He noted that the last time the road was overlaid was in 1980. He said at that time, the shoulders were prepared for paving but the property owner had concerns about paving the shoulders. He noted at that time a Board order was prepared stating that the shoulders were not to be paved. He added that they now want to pave the shoulders and recommended the Board approve this order.

Dwyer asked who would be incurring the cost.

Goodson replied it comes out of the Public Works budget.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-5-16-7.

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

Sorenson noted this as an improved change.

VOTE: 3-1 (Dwyer dissenting).

There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting at 12:05 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices