BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING 

January 16, 2002

1:30 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 3/13/02

 

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

10.  PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

a.  SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1165/In the Matter of Naming a Newly Constructed Frontage Road Connecting to Weatherberry Lane, Along State Highway Number 58, Vicar Road (18-02-34).

 

Bob Ezell, Land Management, explained addressing the rural road had to do with where the driveway intersects the highway.  He noted when they did the reconstruction of Highway 58, a frontage road was built so they no longer connected to Highway 58.  He noted the neighbors have to go through a process for renaming the road.  He said that in July a letter was sent to the landowners which explained the situation.  He said after several tries with different names, they selected Vicar Road.  He noted the name was sent out to many agencies and there was approval.  He said there was a tenant who rents property from one of the landowners, Mr. and Mrs. Thumb, who wrote a letter to Weeldreyer that explained the word vicar had a religious meaning contrary to their business, which is religious in nature.  They appealed to the Board not to approve that name.  He noted on Monday they provided an alternative road name of Sun Vista and contacted the Pleasant Hill fire chief.  Ezell indicated that the fire chief said the name was not acceptable because there were roads with "vista."  He asked the Board to deny that name.

 

Ezell said they have to take back another name to the reviewing committee of the agencies and check the names against existing road names.  He said they provided notice regarding the public hearing.

 

Weeldreyer wanted to hold a Public Hearing and leave the record open to give her more time to work with the community to find a name that works with the neighbors and the agencies.

 

Dwyer said he had no problem with Weeldreyer’s request.

 

Vorhes said they could hold the hearing and leave the record open. He added they would have to come back to the Board with a revised ordinance with a process of two readings 13 days apart.

 

Commissioner Dwyer opened up the Public Hearing.  There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION: to move that they keep the hearing record for a period of 28 days.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

b.  EIGHTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 5-00/In the Matter of 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. (NBA & PM 5/16/00, 5/31/00, 10/11/00, 1/31/01, 4/11/01, 5/30/01 & 12/12/01)

 

Jan Childs, City of Eugene, explained the Board received two memos dated December 31, regarding revisions to Exhibit A-2 and they are part of what the Board is holding its hearing on.  She said they received three pieces of written testimony.  She noted one from Debra and Eric Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, requested an amendment to the draft code to go with uses in agricultural zones.  She added there was a letter from the office of Bill Kloos, dated January 15, 2002, requesting that the Board not act on the Land Use Code until the LUBA appeals are completed.  She noted the third letter was from Bruce Swearingen that was included in the supplemental material regarding the special heavy industrial zone, requesting a clarification. She noted they had received e-mails regarding the testimony.  She said she received e-mails asking the Board to make an application on the urban transition area on January 30, but to do it with an emergency clause so it could take effect immediately.  She added most of those people were interested in the cell phone tower siting regulations and have those apply within the urban transition area.  She also received testimony asking the Board not to vote pending other actions.

 

Van Vactor noted that several weeks ago the Board assigned him to the task of talking to Jim Carlson about the cell tower issue.  He reported they had a conversation, and an option could be taking specific items out of LUCU, acting on them separately.

 

Dwyer said they have to act on their current code. He said the City of Eugene needed to fix these things and then Lane County could ratify what their actions were. 

 

Commissioner Dwyer opened up the Public Hearing.

 

Roxie Cuellar, Home Builders Association and Home Builders Construction Company, 2053 Laura St., Springfield, discussed some of the amendments to the code.  She said if the Board adopts the code on January 30, there were some amendments they wanted the Board to incorporate.  She said amendment 90500 (Lot Coverage) was an amendment the City made at their request.  The definition of lot coverage under LUCU wasn’t working and the City made the changes back to the old code.  If the Board were to adopt LUCU, she asked that the Board also adopt that particular amendment and the same with flag lots (97225).  She added that the City of Eugene grandfathered flaglots that had tentative approval.  She urged the Board to grandfather all flaglots in the County.

 

With regard to amendment 96710, Cuellar encouraged the Board to not adopt the amendment.  She noted Eugene City Councilor Rayor said that he had talked to public works about the proposed amendment and the language in LUCU, saying that both were overly strict and by engineering standards too restrictive on development.  She said by not adopting this amendment, forces a discussion on that code language.  She also discouraged the Board from adopting 96885, dealing with tree removal.  She said they had oral arguments at LUBA about this, with the decision coming on February 28.  She recommended that the Board wait until they find out what happens at LUBA.

 

Debra Jeffries, 3800 N. Delta Highway, Eugene, asked for an amendment for the agricultural zone of LUCU.  She said it was supported by City staff and 9.2010 (agricultural zone land use and permit requirements) and they asked that golf course construction and expansion in the agricultural zone be an allowed use.  She noted the Lane County code allows for construction and expansion, as does Oregon State law in the agricultural zone that was referred to as EFU.  She added the current Eugene City code (LUCU) does not allow this in the agricultural zone.  She said by adding the amendment, it would clean up the conflict between Lane County and the City of Eugene. She understood that they were still under the old ordinance and if the lawsuit by the Home Builders Association is successful at LUBA, then amending LUCU would have no effect.  She requested the Board begin the process of amending Chapter 9 of the old code. 9.298 Buildings and uses permitted conditionally in the Agricultural District.

 

Mona Linstromberg, 871440 Territorial Road, Veneta, stated in June, 2001, the Board of Commissioners told those seeking a moratorium that the County could get an ordinance in place more quickly than it could establish a moratorium.  She added if a moratorium were sought, power companies and service providers would try to expedite applications.  With regard to LUCU, she said serious consideration should be given to making sure that when presented the opportunity and the means, unannexed lands of the urban growth area are not sacrificed as other county neighborhoods had been.  She stated that the City of Eugene does have a telecommunication facilities ordinance and it is better than what Lane County provides its residents.  She urged the Board to adopt LUCU on January 30, 2002 with an emergency clause to take effect immediately, or facilitate another arrangement to protect the neighborhoods.

 

Martha Johnson, 110 E. Hilliard Lane, Eugene, spoke about the need for uniform regulatory authority on County lands within the urban growth boundary.  She stated that Verizon wireless was meeting with the city planning staff for a preapplication conference on the tower they were proposing at 927 River Road.  She added the preapplication was for a site within 400 feet of a tower that is proposed by Master Tower that had been opposed in writing by 200 citizens.  She noted the second site would not be permitted under LUCU because it has a provision that requires a 2000-foot minimum separation between transmission towers.  She urged the Board to adopt LUCU with the emergency clause that would make it effective immediately.

 

Dwyer noted Lane County has intergovernmental agreements with the City of Eugene within the urban growth boundaries and normally their provisions apply with the exception of the cell phone towers.  He said the Board’s adopting of the code (as it relates to Lane County) would impact those areas in the urban growth boundary.

 

Barbara McKie, 106 E. Hilliard Lane, Eugene, stated her home is within 300 feet of the site approved for a Cricket wireless cell tower.  She added it is within 800 feet of the site targeted by Verizon wireless for a new cell tower.  She said other companies were proposing another tower within 1000 feet from their home and River Road Elementary was situated within the same parameters.  She asked the Board to stop the assault on the quality of their life. 

 

Rob Handy 455 ½ River Road, said he wasn’t against cell phone towers or cell phone use, but the cost to society with the radio waves coming off the towers. He noted that other countries have tougher restrictions on the amount of waves they allow children to be exposed to.  He said this causes decreased property values.  He noted in three to five years the cell phone technology would change and the towers would become abandoned.  He asked the Board to craft a moratorium until they find out more about radio waves or adopt this provision and an emergency clause to make the new restrictions go into effect now so there are protections for neighborhoods.

 

Jim Spickerman, 975 Oak St., submitted a letter regarding Rexius.  He noted that Rexius wanted to relocate their facility and expand it on Awbrey Lane, east of Highway 99.  He said under the current code, this use was not spelled out in any zone.  He noted the table on 9.2450, the I-3 zone, allows specifically a recycling posting facility, requiring a DEQ permit.  He said this was his client’s use, and it was listed in the wrong zone.  He asked on behalf of Rexius that this use be added to the I-2 zone, as well as the I-3 zone as a permitted use.

 

Teresa Damron, 605 Howard, Avenue, River Road, shared concerns about the cell phone tower in their neighborhood.  She said that LUCU was an important document to be adopted as soon as possible as there is a lack of consistency between city and county standards. 

 

Kevin Jones, 4740 Wendover, encouraged the Board to adopt some restriction on the placement of the cell phone towers.

 

Vorhes stated what applies in the urban growth area, (outside the city limits of the City of Eugene) is current land use regulations adopted by Lane County by the Board of Commissioners that are Eugene Code Provisions from years ago.  He said by intergovernmental agreement with the City of Eugene, Lane County will adopt for application by the city, regulations that are the city regulations for that area. He said that LUCU is the City’s land use regulations and they asked the County to adopt four applications.

 

Leonara Kent, 111 Oakely Lane, stated she was within 300 feet of one proposed cell phone tower and 600 feet from another one. She had been living at her address for 22 years and she had watched River Road become a dumping ground.  She wanted to see the livability of River Road increased.

 

Vorhes noted that LUCU (as it is currently adopted by the City of Eugene) applies only to the areas that are annexed within the city limits of Eugene.  He added that all of the unannexed areas outside of the city limits, but inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Eugene, are regulated by the regulations that Lane County adopted.  He said those hadn’t been updated.  LUCU attempts to update those land use regulations with the current version.

 

There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.

 

Childs noted they received a request to leave the record open to allow Ms. Cuellar to submit her comments in writing.

 

Sorenson requested to keep the record open.  He wanted the Board to take action on the specific problems that were raised: the forest by-products, the golf course and the adoption of the Eugene Code on Cell Phone Towers within the urban growth boundary.

 

Dwyer wanted to leave the record open, fixing the discrepancies between the agricultural and city zoning, since the city had acquiesced.  With regard to cell phones, he said the Eugene code should apply.  He wanted to fix the Rexius problem as well.  He added he wanted to take care of all of these without adopting LUCU in total.

 

Childs noted the testimony from Jeffries, allowing golf courses, as a permitted use in the agricultural zone, would require both an amendment to the new LUCU code and to the existing code for the urban transition area.  With regard to the cell tower issue, the City of Eugene adopted its regulations for cell tower siting in 1997, within the incorporated city limits.  She noted at that time they were projecting the new LUCU within a couple of years and they did not bring that ordinance to the Board to have it apply within the urban transition area as they thought it would be incorporated in the new LUCU.  She said they are in a situation where they have regulations, standards and protections in place, where they can deal under the Telecommunications Act.  She added those regulations do not apply in the unincorporated area. She said the Board could adopt LUCU or they could amend the code that is currently in effect for the urban transition area.  He asked legal counsel how long it would take to amend that code as the ordinance before the Board was in relation to adopting the new code.

 

Vorhes responded he could get an ordinance back in a couple of weeks.

 

Weeldreyer recalled that the Cell Phone Task Force group took the Telecommunication Act of 1997 into consideration and the ordinance in front of the Planning Commission would address some of the telecom issues.

 

Van Vactor stated what Eugene adopts would refer to the code that was in effect.

 

Dwyer said that Lane County needed to confirm its code with Eugene and adopt it so it was consistent and applicable while they are waiting for the result from LUBA.

 

Childs stated in order to address Jeffries’ problem, they would have to have an ordinance to amend the current transition code.  She added they would want to include an amendment to the agricultural zone section of the old code to include golf courses as a permitted use.  She added that the Board would want to provide direction to amend LUCU to also include golf courses as a permitted use in the agricultural zone.

 

Sorenson asked if there was a separate proposed County ordinance to adopt the old code with respect to the cell phones. He asked if that could be done as a separate matter from the golf course and forest by-products.  He wanted the ordinances stated separately so they could be put up for an ordinance vote.

 

Morrison asked if LUCU was remanded back, if the action the Board takes precipitates Lane County being brought in as a party.  She didn’t want to adopt LUCU.

 

Childs responded at this time they were discussing adopting the old code revisions.

 

MOTION: to move hold continued deliberations on Ordinance 5-00 on January 30 and to approve the Eighth Reading and Setting a Ninth Reading and Deliberation.

 

Dwyer added they were keeping the record open until 5:00 p.m. on January 18.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Childs asked if the Board was interested in making the revisions to LUCU that were discussed.

 

Dwyer stated those expressions had to be in both codes.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Childs noted the Lane County Planning Commission reviewed the new land use code and recommended it be forwarded to the Board for approval, including the cell phone tower regulations.

 

MOTION: to move to ask staff to bring back to the Board for a first reading, one, two or three ordinances, adopting Lane County code provisions concerning forest products recycling, cell phone towers and golf courses in exclusive agricultural zones.

 

Dwyer added they needed to adopt the Eugene’s provisions as the Lane County portion of the code so they are consistent.

 

Teresa Bishow, City of Eugene, noted that Rexius wanted an outright permitted use in the new code.  She added there was no problem under the old code but, but rather than a permitted use other than a conditional use, she said an ordinance could be prepared for a public hearing.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

11.  COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Morrison stated she attended an LCOG dinner and a River Road/Santa Clara meeting.

 

Green stated he would be attending a minority summit in Portland.  He announced there would be a Martin Luther King celebration on Monday morning.

 

Weeldreyer stated she took the Board’s letter (on whether they would be able to take on a full scope study) to the McKenzie Watershed Council.  She announced the Economic Development Standing Committee is in the process of bringing back recommendations on the video lottery policy.

 

Sorenson announced he was working with the SAVE committee.  He stated he had been attending the meetings of the Victim Impact Panel and he wanted that committee to be listed as an advisory committee

 

12.  OTHER BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary