May 15, 2002

1:30 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 6/19/02


Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.  Cindy Weeldreyer was excused.  Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




a.  ORDER 02-5-15-10/In the Matter of Denying a Request to Amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Revise the Lane County Goal 5 Inventory of Significant Mineral and Aggregate Sites; Redesignate from “Agriculture” to “Natural Resource: Mineral,” Rezone from “E30/Exclusive Farm Use” to “SG/Sand, Gravel & Rock Products” for 575 Acres of Land (File PA 99-5996; Eugene Sand & Gravel) (NBA & PM  3/19/02 & 3/20/02).


Dwyer stated there would be no public comment for the Eugene Sand and Gravel matter as the record was closed.  He said the purpose of the meeting was for the Board to deliberate.


Dwyer asked the Board to disclose any ex-parte contacts.


Morrison stated she had none other than articles in the paper and e-mails.  She passed them onto staff.


Sorenson stated he had the same.


Dwyer said he had discussions with people regarding the process and how it would work. He said he had no substantive contacts and nothing that would influence him to change his vote.


Thom Lanfear, Land Management, reported that at the conclusion of the meeting of March 20, direction was given to staff to prepare findings that reflected the Board’s tentative decision.  He attached the findings as Exhibit “A” to the order.  He said the findings correspond to the tentative decision in the following manner:  the aggregate resource site is considered significant as provided by OAR 660.023 0180 (3).  He said the proposal was found not to meet all conflict minimization requirements regarding flooding, groundwater discharge, riparian resources and conflicts with agricultural practices from flooding, groundwater discharge, dust and traffic. 


Lanfear stated that based upon a termination of the ESEE consequences, the Board concluded that mining shall not be allowed.  He said if the findings were acceptable to the Board, staff recommended adopting them as the final decision.  He added if the Board wanted changes made, staff could prepare revised findings that would come back to the Board.


Dwyer asked Green if he had any ex-parte contacts regarding this application.


Green responded he had an e-mail asking him to consider the threshold question about significance and what the implications would be.  He forwarded that letter to Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel.  He said nothing would cause him to have any biases.


Morrison was concerned that the findings were not in depth enough.  She wanted staff to be able to defend these if, and when, the opportunity should arise.


Vorhes responded that findings are not well defined and there are no guarantees in any land use action.  He said given the direction from the Board about the deliberations and the way they tried to articulate in the findings the evidentiary basis for some of the conclusions the Board drew, they are defensible.  He didn’t know if they would succeed if it were challenged.  


Sorenson stated during the last deliberations the evidence that was submitted during the proceedings didn’t warrant the Board’s reversal on the significance issue.  He asked if there was support for that.


Green stated the area did have significant resources.  His issues were with the different mitigating conflicts.  He wanted to adopt this as it was presented.


Morrison commented she still has questions regarding the significance of the resource on quality and quantity, but she didn’t think her concerns were great enough that they could defend if it got to an appeal position.  She was comfortable with the overburden layer and how it was defined in the sampling.  She thought additional samplings could be done.  She held her position regarding the significance of the resource and let the order go forward.


MOTION: to direct staff to come back with new findings on the significance issue, finding that the site does not pose a significant aggregate resource.


Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


VOTE: 2-2 (Motion failed).


MOTION: to approve ORDER 02-5-15-10.


Sorenson MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0.




a.  SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 7-02/Amending Chapter 5 of Lane Code, Administrative Enforcement, to Add Properties Declared “Unfit for Use” Due to Illegal Drug Manufacturing to the List of Activities Defined as a Nuisance and Subject to Administrative Enforcement Procedures and to Remove Provisions Pertaining to Animal Carcasses.


John Cole, Land Management, explained this was a proposal to allow the Land Management Code Enforcement Office to help in the community effort to make sure that contaminated methamphetamine  production labs are cleaned up after the police had conducted their investigations.  He said they could do this from the office as far as code enforcement staff is concerned.  He said the police department would be out on the sites and would receive notification from the Department of Health at the state level when those properties are cleaned up. 


Green asked if this was a process that is complaint-driven or from the department.  He asked if Land Management had attempted to work with property owners  causing the nuisance.


Cole said it was an initiative that grew out of the relationship with inter-agency narcotics enforcement teams over the years.  He said a lot of the time there are dysfunctional circumstances related to meth production that Land Management gets involved with, including nuisance trash or vehicles.  He said the actual methamphetamine  production problem hadn’t been in violation of any of their ordinances.  He said they had coordinated in the past on properties where they had asked people to clean up their yards.  He added they had been successfully involved in one methamphetamine property clean up, west of Creswell.


Green asked if Land Management's efforts were documented for notification and correspondence for anyone having this hazard on their property.


Cole  noted the adoption of this ordinance had been published in the newspaper and they had gone through public notice procedures. He said if the Board chooses to adopt the ordinance today, it would become effective in 30 days.  He said that INET keeps track of arrest cases and their disposition.  He said when the health department gets notification from a licensed clean up company that a clean up has occurred on a piece of property and it passes assessment, that information is forwarded to the health department who notifies INET.


Morrison was concerned that once they passed the ordinance, the end result would come back to the Board to enforce the action.


Cole responded the end of the administrative enforcement process would be a lien on the property.  He said in order for them to enforce the lien, they would come back in front of the Board.


Morrison wanted to make sure they pass a policy that the Board intends on enforcing.


Cole explained there would be a decision on a case-by-case basis for the Board to make.   He said there are currently no recorded documents that would state a property was unfit for use.  He said with the adoption of the ordinance today, when they place a lien on the property, it gets recorded in the public record and puts potential purchasers on notice that there is a problem that would need to be addressed.


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


MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. 7-02.


Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Sorenson requested that Cole report back to the Board in six months regarding any problems that were unanticipated as it is implemented.




b.  PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 02-5-15-11/In the Matter of Adopting a Countywide Priority Listing for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) FY 2004-2007 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).


Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, recalled the Board held a Public Hearing on May 1 at which time he handed out supplemental materials dated May 1 and they kept the record open through May 8 for comment. He also gave the Board a supplemental packet dated May 9 that had six items of correspondence related to the criteria to the material handed out on May 1.  He noted the order adopts a priority listing of important projects for the FY 04-07 STIP to be used as a discussion at the June 13, all area meeting in Salem for Region 2 priorities.  He noted the letter endorsed some demand management and transit priorities that were forwarded to the Board from MPC for TDM projects:  the Park and Ride at the Springfield Station and a Breeze 2 shuttle project for the Courthouse area.  He noted the Exhibit had been modified to reinforce the projects they think are good funding candidates.  He added they left the MPC priorities and the other rural county priorities on the list for future consideration.


With regard to the project criteria, Stinchfield noted there were not many suggestions for changes.  He said there was a suggestion to remove or unprioritize the 42nd Street project because it is not a state highway.  He said it was a state highway and would not recommend the change.  He noted there was a comment that the Creswell interchange project is too expensive for the number of people in Creswell. He stated it was not proposed for funding this time and it is not an immediate issue.  He said it was included in the Creswell TSP and there is an adopted interchange refinement plan.  Staff recommended that it stay on the list.  He said there were comments about Sixth and Seventh intersections that should be considered part of the West Eugene Parkway.  He noted there was a comment about the Veneta to Fisher Road project on Highway 126 for an EIS as part of the WEP and there is a problem in that regard.  He said that project had been on the list for a long time at the request of the City of Veneta.  He added there is a status report that says scoping and development was needed.  He said there was no problem with leaving it on the list.  He stated there was support for  Jasper Road to 42nd Street.  He said it was affected by the TransPlan amendment and is not a high priority of funding this time.  He said the 42nd Street Main Street to Jasper Road is a higher priority, because it has higher volume and is in a heavily populated residential area.


Sorenson noted a letter from Lauri Siegel dated May 8, identified some concerns regarding the process that they are using.  He said she wanted documentation of the finding of the OTC-approved eligibility criteria and prioritizing factors.  He asked if they had complied with the documentation process.


Stinchfield said he had been trying to track down the issues about findings.  That is why he attached the OTC minutes.  He noted Siegel said the process fell short because they hadn’t had findings adopted yet.  He said there was no discussion at OTC in April about findings, there was discussion about the criteria.  He had correspondence with the Region 2 STIP coordinator and they had done preliminary work to assure them that the projects meet the basic eligibility criteria.  He noted that Bob Pirrie’s letter of May 1 indicated that at least the local area ODOT staff agree with Lane County’s priorities overall.  He didn’t know who would adopt findings on the projects.


Sorenson said Siegel wanted a requirement to provide for the public or staff to respond to public comment. 


Dwyer noted there had been numerous opportunities for the public to give comment.  He said it was designed for public input.  He added that Siegel did speak at the MPC meeting.


Stinchfield noted the criteria document was not specific about public involvement.  He noted this was a draft STIP and ODOT would hold their own hearings next winter on the draft  He said this was local priority setting to advise the OTC.


Morrison declared the letter Siegel wrote was counterproductive.  With regard to ACTs, Morrison stated they were not mandated to form one.  She said by not forming ACTs they were saving taxpayers money and putting money toward actual improvements on the road.  She noted the process had been used for a number of years and included a public participation component at varying levels. 


Dwyer thought the OTC flawed the process.  He stated that, structurally, the governor appoints the OTC.  He said it means those people are political appointees and rely on an appointment to get power for their structure.  He said the process is flawed when an appointed agency tries to require elected bodies to structure their system so they are subservient to appointees.


Sorenson said there was opportunity for improvement.  He said there should be information about cost benefit so involvement could be more meaningful.  He stated lots of meetings could give the public a sense that they were being involved.  He thought the projects could have been listed better.  He said it didn’t lend itself to an informed public response.


Dwyer stated he would never do anything that didn’t fully engage the public.  He said the OTC needs to come to Lane County to see how things really need to be done where the elected officials are chosen.  He said the Board needed to draft a board order appointing them as an ACT.


Commissioner Dwyer opened up the Public Hearing. 


Linda James, City Administrator, City of Creswell, requested that the Board  keep their project on the STIP list where it is.  She said the interchange doesn’t just serve Creswell, but the entire community.  She added the population of Creswell is 3,600--the fastest growing city in Lane County during the last decade.


Rob Zako, 1280 B E. 20th Avenue, Eugene, said he wasn’t convinced the comments today were effective.  He said the information provided to the public is inadequate for an analysis of the cost and benefit of each project and how each project matches the selection criteria by OTC.  He wasn’t convinced that the priority list represented the best use of limited taxpayer dollars.  He was troubled about key meetings behind closed doors.  He strongly opposed additional funding for the Beltline I-5 project.  He said Phase 1 of the project was a good project as it would address critical safety concerns.  He was concerned about the lack of discipline and planning around the interchange.  He didn't think the Board should spend taxpayer money to address the problems at the interchange, while at the same time allowing development to allow these problems to get worse.  He said the $18 million allocated is adequate at this time.  He stated he would support additional funding only after they address new development in the area.  He urged the Board to include only smaller projects that addressed safety issues.


Sorenson asked what the basis was for Zako not to like the project.


Zako responded that there was a lack of information.  He indicated to the Board that he would review the project and do a more detailed analysis.  He said it was a good project and that phase one deserved the funding.  He added there were more development plans in the whole Gateway area than was anticipated in TransPlan.  He was opposed to additional funding at this time.


Dwyer noted Federal Transportation Rules require that all phases go into one pot and Lane County has to say yes to everything in order to get one part funded.  He didn’t want to do anything that would impact the businesses.  He said before they go after all the money, they need to know if it would be a viable project.  He added if the environmental assessment impacts the businesses,  something would have to be done.


Mark Rabinowitz, 28549 Sutherlin, Eugene, stated the estimated cost for the project is about $104 to $122 million.  He noted that in the TransPlan fiscally constrained list, it is $53 million and it had doubled in cost in a short period of time.  He recommended a modification of the no-build option with inclusion of an extra collector distributor lane to solve the merge problem.  He stated there was no discussion of bus rapid transit and how it could be used and this didn’t include factoring in the new hospital and the added development.  He said the document would need to be revised when the hospital is built and for Coburg Road/Beltline being included under the logical terminus.  He stated Lane County couldn’t afford both the West Eugene Parkway and the Gateway project.


Jeanne Crane, 885 S. 42nd St., Springfield, stated her concern about the S. 42nd Street project.  She asked the Board not to forget they don’t have sidewalks and a crosswalk.  She added children were attending school on a road that is not safe.


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


MOTION: to approve ORDER 02-5-15-11.


Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


Sorenson asked what the status of the list is when it gets approved.


Stinchfield responded this was the final list for this part of the STIP process.  He noted the Board adopted it in a preliminary way last October.  He said the draft STIP will be published and the Board would have an additional opportunity to comment.  He noted it is the final list that would go to the all area meeting in June.


Sorenson asked if all projects would be forwarded.


Stinchfield noted the large Beltline/I-5 project was listed to indicate the continuing priority and to show that it was the furthest along with the environmental work. He noted there would be two ways that that would be important.  He stated if the OTIA II funding were available, it would bring it back to the $35 million and fund the full Phase 1.  He said the other reason it was listed was the hope that there might be 04/07 STIP funds available to increase it.  He said that most likely at the June meeting there would be three smaller project priorities that would be the focus.  He added with 04/07 STIP funding, the smaller projects would be more fundable.


VOTE: 4-0.










There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary