BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
April 14, 2004
Commissionersí Conference Room
Commissioner Bobby Green presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton, Anna Morrison, And Peter Sorenson present.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.††
18. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 04-4-14-12/In the Matter of Receiving Comments from the Public about Community Development Needs, Proposed Projects to Meet These Needs, and Lane Countyís Performance of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects and List Projects for Funding Development.
Peter Thurston, Economic Development, explained the materials offer the opportunity of taking an action that prioritizes several projects.† He said the action is to hear from anyone who would like to testify as to how Lane County has implemented its community development block grant program and any projects that might be needed that would serve lower income people.† He submitted two letters as testimony and had testimony from someone who was in attendance earlier, but had to leave.
Commissioner Green opened the Public Hearing.† †
Julie Daniels, P. O. Box 885, Eugene, stated she is the Director of Bring Recycling.† She asked that the Board, as they consider community development projects, consider the options for promoting reuse and recycling in the community as a community development strategy.† She indicated the main benefit is job creation.† She said Bring is recovering about 500 tons of building materials a year and that is creating jobs.† She noted for every $80,000 worth of materials they salvage and re-sell, they add another job.† She said they are trying to develop a property in Glenwood that would increase their capacity to divert and re-sell building materials in the community.† She estimated they could add between four and eight more full time jobs through that work. †
Thurston noted that Anne Williams was in favor of rehabilitation.
Sorenson asked where they would include recycling in this policy.
Thurston responded they could add it to the order as it could be recycling, resource recovery and re-use.† He said he would add it after the Blue River Water system improvements, Lane Count Regional Housing rehabilitation program and the Mapleton Water District.
Sorenson wanted to add re-use and recycling of housing as an economic development policy. †
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-4-14-12 with the change of adding re-use and recycling of housing as an economic development policy.
Sorenson MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0. (Dwyer excused).
b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1199/Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Agricultural Land" to "Nonresource", Rezone That Land From "E-30/Exclusive Farm Use" To "RR-5/ Rural ResidentialĒ; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 01-5875; Grant) (NBA & PM 3/31/04).
Jerry Kendall, Land Management, reported the property is located halfway between the Hendricks Bridge Wayside Park and Walterville on Highway 126, on the south side.† He stated it is 30 acres and the current improvements include a single-family dwelling, barn and two out buildings.† He noted the remainder of the property is covered with a filbert orchard.† He indicated the Planning Commission (after deliberation and two public meetings) voted 4-3 in favor of the request.† He said if this is approved, the plan on the applicantís part is to apply for a subdivision of six parcels at RR 5 density.† †
Kendall said for non-resource land the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the subject property does not meet the definition of farm or forestland. He added this includes but is not limited to demonstration that the soils are unproductive and the property is not part of a greater farm unit. Also, that the subject property need not be retained as resource land in order to sustain resource activities on nearby lands and needs an evaluation of the proposalís affects on the other nearby resource lands.
Kendall noted the file record had testimony from an OSU plant pathologist, a forester and a farm consultant saying that the majority of the property is rocks.† He stated he was on the property last week and he verified that fact.† He stated of the three soils, the sifton soil (comprising 80% of the parcel) is 67% and has rubble and rocks.† He said they contest that the sifton is not an Ag Class 3 on a scale of one to eight, but a Class 5 and 6.† He said the end result is 67% of the property is non-resource soils.
Kendall explained the Oregon Administrative Rule defines agriculture land in part as lands classified by the National Resource Conservation Service as predominately Class 1 through 4.† He noted that sifton is classified by the NRCS as in those classes.† He said it does qualify as agricultural land.† With regard to forest capability, he said the sifton soils have a high rating of 182 cubic feet per acre production, but because of the rocks and reverse sponge-like quality of the property where the water passes through farm crops and trees, they claim these are not capable of being sustained on the property.† He noted a new submittal he received today rates the cubic foot at zero by a Mr. Booth.† Kendall expected more information to come in and requested that they continue this to another date so the new data could be looked at.† He noted there was debate on the farm unit and whether the subject property is to be considered in conjunction with the applicantís parentsí property that surrounds the subject property on two or three sides.† He said the history would be debated as to whether that is part of a farm unit.† He said with the state law, if it is part of a farm unit,† they would tend to want that retained as agricultural land so that the farm unit could continue as a whole.
Kendall indicated that staff had asked for more on the effect of the proposal on adjacent resource lands.† He said there is an eight-foot escarpment that the subject property rests on.† He said there was preliminary indication that the escarpment would effectively create a buffer, but the escarpment dwindles out over a majority of the property.
Commissioner Green opened the Public Hearing.
Green explained that the decision is subject to the plan amendment and rezoning criteria sited in the agenda cover memo.† He said that evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria.† He added that failure to raise an issue to enable a response might preclude an appeal to LUBA.† †
Green said this was an opportunity for those present to enter information into the record and only persons who qualify as a party may appeal Board decisions to LUBA.† He asked for any ex parte contacts.
There were no ex parte contacts .
Harry Taylor, P. O. Box 1420, Veneta, stated he is a land use consultant representing the applicant, David Grant.† He said the proposal is to re-zone 30 acres from E 30 to RR 5 with an appropriate plan designation.† He said that Mr. Grant had the soils work done and indicated that they found it is a sifton variant, meaning there is 75% of cobbles and stones.† He asked the Board to look at the exhibit in their attachment that indicates all the rocks.† He said the rocks are found all over the property and therefore it is non-resource land in spite of its picture of active farm uses.†† He said when the Grants bought the property, it was never used for a long time and just for limited grazing.† He said they started clearing property and farming the bottomland.† He noted the upper terrace is what they wanted to do something with.† He said Mr. Grant tried growing filbert trees since the late 70ís.† He believed if the Board denies this application they would be penalizing someone who had tried for over twenty years to make something out of nothing. He noted when they tried to deliver hazelnuts, the delivery reports (copy in file) show that many times they are delivering 5,000 to 12,000 pounds of rock with the filberts.
Taylor noted he had offered a farm forest management agreement that had been signed. He said it would limit any rights to object by any parties on this property to anything happening adjacent to the land.† He noted the property is adjacent to the community of Walterville, immediately contiguous to the north and that the RR5 zoning that is proposed is consistent with the RR2 and RR5 zoning in Walterville.† He added the rural residential zoning within the community does abut E-30 zoned land.† He believed that in this case where there is a rocky terrace that is not farmland, it is appropriate to have an RR5 use of the particular property.† He noted the property had not been historically farmed with the rest of the property.† He said it had been attempted to be farmed but Grant is a full-time farmer and farms the adjacent land.† He commented that this particular area is not.† He added the land had not been used as part of any management or has any interrelationship with the other land he has farmed.
Mike Pininger, 39200 McKenzie Highway, said they bought the property that was on the corner six months.† He wanted to know what was going on.† He said they received the information two days ago, after it was sent to the previous owners.† He wasnít against this, but he wanted to know what the impacts would be.
Lauri Segel, 120 W. Broadway, 1000 Friends of Eugene, said the comments are being submitted on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon.† She said they believe the proposal exemplifies many of the issues that are overlooked during the Countyís review of land use proposals for conversion of resource lands to non-resource and the applicant had failed to establish a basis for approval of the proposal.† With regard to the parcel as being high value farmland, she said they had no dispute concerning the soils type present on the parcel. †She said the applicantís soil scientist attempt to justify his position that the NRCS soil documentation incorrectly characterizes sifton gravely loam as Class 4 is inappropriate, as was an effort to recharacterize it as Class 5.† She said the conclusion is contrary to the directive of OAR 660.033. 0020 (8) (c ) (B) and is outside the scope permitted to provide more detailed soils data.† She said that Goal 3 does allow for more site-specific information to refine the soils mapping done by NRCS, but does not allow for a challenge to the soil capability classification system of the US Soil Conservation Service.† She added the applicant and the proposed findings state that the only feasible farm use of the subject property is for an existing feasible filbert orchard and that all other farm uses are impracticable.† She said that impracticability for farm use is not within the scope of allowable consideration in identifying agricultural land.† She noted if the land is predominately composed of Class 1 through 4 soils (as is the case with this parcel), it is agricultural land under Goal 3.† She stated that OAR 660.033.0030 (5) precludes considering profitability or gross farm income in determining whether land is agricultural land.† She said the question of suitability for farm use considers whether the parcel is part of a farm unit.† She noted because the subject property had historically been part of a farm operation and continues to be adjacent to land in farm use, it could reasonably be put to farm uses and therefore is agricultural land protected by Goal 3.† She stated the Oregon Court of Appeals has found that lands are considered part of a farm unit when they are farmed in common ownership and has explained that the purpose of the farm unit rule is the preservation of a unit as a whole.† She said the subject parcel is currently in common management and a part of a farm operation with land that contains soils of a specified capability.† She said as such, is it part of a farm unit and must be inventoried as agricultural land.
Jim Just, Executive Director of Goal 1 Coalition, addressed forest capability and the sifton unit.† He noted the parcel has a cubic foot breaker per year capability of 182 according to NRCS data.† He said the applicant is stating that the NRCS is wrong and the capability of the sifton unit is zero.† He didnít think a reasonable person could reach that conclusion.† He added the process the applicantís soil expert and forestry expert went through to reach that conclusion does not meet the standards established in the administrative rules that requires challenging the NRCS data, but to do so, they have to produce data that is equivalent to NRCS data using methodology approved by the Department of Forestry.† He stated there was no data produced by the soils except a conclusion.† He noted the property went through a lot line adjustment in 1998.† He added it wasnít a lawful lot line adjustment and the configuration of the property is not as it is presented in the application, but it remains as it was in 1998, so they canít determine compliance with Goal 4 and the lot line adjustment cannot be approved as part of this application.
Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, stated he had excerpts from written comments regarding lot line adjustments.† He stated that the lot line adjustment deed that was recorded on December 28, 1998 was not the recording of conveyance as conforming to an approved property line adjustment.† He said the applicable procedures for adjusting the property line are the re-platting procedures in Oregon Revised Statutes that require that an agency or body be established to approve subdivision or partition plats and that the notice of a re-plat be provided to adjacent property owners.†† He said a local governmentís property line adjustment procedures must include an approval process that includes a review and decision making process.†† He noted that LUBA had explained that a lot line adjustment is a land use decision requiring a land use decision-making process including notice of nearby property owners.† He said it was supported by two recent cases.† He said that Lane County still has no procedures for property line adjustments.† He said the reconfiguration of the subject parcel was not done in a manner consistent with ORS 92.180 and 92.185 or with Lane Code Chapter 13.† He said the record notice was not provided, recording lot line adjustment need does not bear the dated signature of the director and applicable comprehensive plan policies have not been identified or addressed.† He noted the property line adjustment was not consistent with the purposes of the exclusive farm use zone. He noted that LC 16.2121 states it is to preserve open land for agricultural use as an efficient means for conserving natural resources that constitute an important physical, social, aesthetic and economic asset to the people of Lane County to preserve the maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land in large blocks in order to conserve Lane Countyís economic resources and to maintain the agricultural economy of Lane County.† He commented that the property line adjustment does not comply with LC 16.2129 that requires compliance with agricultural lands policy number 10 of the Lane County Comprehensive Plan.† He asked the Board to deny this application.
Gary Kitzrow, 244 Apple Blossom Lane, Roseburg, stated he is a former principal soil scientist for the USDA NRCS.† He indicated he was hired by the applicant in conjunction with a retired professor Jerry Sivenson from Oregon State University to do a detailed soil survey for the County.† He said it is state law that they can have refinement of soils surveys that were generalized and he used the same protocols for the Grant property that he did as a federal contractor.† He said he has worked in six states for the Forest Services, BLM and timber companies, making detailed soil surveys that are site specific.† He noted with this case, the claim is that all of the soils are prime farmland soils Class 1 to 4, but their analysis showed that over 2/3 of the property is Class 5 soils and they do not meet the guidelines for prime farmland.† He said they are not resource because they are a rock pile.† He said a sifton soil is the rockiest soil.† He said it couldnít be farmed adequately because it cannot be plowed and that is why it is called a capability Class 5 that is in the USDA guidelines for the State of Oregon they did in 1977.† He said this particular sifton is not sifton that is in the SCS manual, it is sifton-like that is overloaded with rock.† He stated the soils by a strong preponderance are not Class 1 through 4 soils.† He added according to LCDC guidelines and the State Constitution of Oregon,† they are not farm or forest capability soils.
Kendall noted new information came in and he requested a continuance.
Taylor said the generalized soil mapping says there is Class 1 through Class 4 soils on the majority of the property, when in fact a site-specific review of the property indicates otherwise.† He said the property is limited, (if not prohibited) from any agricultural uses.†† He noted when they did the property line adjustment, it was in 2000 and done by Lane County, through its own action. He indicated the property line adjustment deed was prepared and until Lane County has a process, they had done everything according to how things had been done.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.
Kendall suggested having the next reading on June 9, allowing until April 28 for any party to comment on any aspect of the proposal until May 12, for any party to respond to that first period submittal, and May 26 for final rebuttal.
MOTION:† to approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation for June 9, 2004.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
c. PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL ORDER 04-4-14-13/In the Matter of Vacating a Portion of Willow Street, in the Plat of Gallagherís Part of the City of Florence, as Platted and Recorded in Volume 30, Pages 12 and 13 of the Lane County, Oregon Deed Records (18-12-26) (NBA & PM 3/10/04).
Bill Robinson, Land Management, reported the issue is whether it is in the public interest to vacate a portion of Willow Street.†† He noted it is a portion of a platted subdivision in 1891.† He said it is a public road.† He indicated that the surveyorís office had received a valid petition where only 60% of the abutting properties signed.† He said the petitioners are requesting this vacation in order to improve development potential of adjacent properties.† He noted that petitioner Randall Johnsonís property abutting the vacation falls within the UGB of Florence and as a current part of a pending annexation.† He said Johnson has received endorsement from the city for this.† He noted that Don Saxon has raised an objection.† He said an analysis of the proposed vacation would not deny any access to any of the landowners.† He indicated a non-vacated portion would remain between Highway 126 and tax lot 2300 owned by Don Saxon.
Robinson explained the Board could approve the vacation, to deny it or to continue the matter.† He noted the Director of Public Works recommends that the Board support Alternative 1, to support the vacation as applied for and as it pertains to that section as shown and described in Attachment A. He passed out a color photo showing where the property is on Highway 126 (copy in file).† He said it is a steep sandy area.† He noted that Willow Street continuing from the end of the vacation, continues on for 80 feet to the state highway.† He added that Tenth Street is also involved as it extends past Willow Street and touches the state highway.† He indicated those are outside of the annexed area applied for by Johnson and that area would remain as a public road.
Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.
Don Saxon, 05719 North Fork Road, Florence, thought this should be put aside.† He was told they wanted to close Willow Street but donít want to go down to the highway because they want access to come down the hill.† He said they should leave Willow Street open.† He didnít have an objection to closing the whole road.† He thought they should find out from ODOT first who they would go to for the access and if it would be given.† He asked if Johnson needed access, why he was closing Willow Street.
Randall Johnson, 10300 Highway 126, was in favor of the application.† He stated that before he submitted the petition, he considered whether the approval of the proposal would offend anyone.† He said there are two adjacent ownerships to the proposed vacation.† He said his property is an acre and a half and another owner is to the north.† He noted that Willow had already been closed to the north.†† He said he owns a large portion of the adjacent property, with an additional 30-foot frontage of the proposed vacation on the north end and the property owner signed the petition, willing to allow it.† He indicated there are two ownerships that access from Willow.† He noted that one of the ownerships that could be accessed from Willow is his property and the other property is the one owned by Don Saxon.† He noted nothing would change if the petition were approved.† He said all those that have access would still have access.† He submitted an application over a year ago and he learned from the Countyís surveyorís office that there was an objection.† He withdrew it because he didnít want to offend anyone.† He stated that after reconsidering and making application to the city for annexing, he re-submitted this.† He discussed the proposal with Phil Fields, Public Works, and Fields does not object to it.† He added the City of Florence has since approved the annexation of the area and is in support of it.† He stated he had a letter from ODOT that they would allow access from the highway onto Willow to gain access to his properties. He didnít want to vacate the road all the way to the highway.† He wanted to maintain the lower portion of Willow and not be vacated for potential future access.† He asked the Board for their approval.
Dwyer said it was hard for him to approve a vacation in the publicís interest that allows people to make a private gain.† He didnít see where that was in the publicís interest.
With regard to any future access, Morrison requested the letter in the record to clarify that ODOT does not have a problem with this† She commented in looking through the record and the information, there isnít any opposition to this and in reality it doesnít impact the Saxonís property.† She said Saxonís only question and concern was why wasnít Lane County vacating it all the way through.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-4-14-13.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Dwyer opposed it.
Green asked what the Countyís long-term plan was with this piece of property.
Chickering explained that whenever there is a vacation that has been requested, the application is forwarded to his transportation planning staff and they do an assessment of what the particular portion of roadway means to the surrounding road system and the overall County road system.† He said they also look at individual property owner impacts.† He noted in this case access to Highway 126 is under the purview of ODOT.† He was concerned that Saxon or any other property owners were not landlocked and there would be prevention of him accessing his property in the future.† He noted through further research and discussions with the local property owners, they decided it was not an issue or a concern anymore and that this particular road does not have a broader purpose to the entire county road system as it is already vacated to the north.
Robinson noted that Saxon asked about the potential for vacating all the way to the highway.† He said the majority of the remaining 80 plus feet is fronting on his property.† He said that Johnson only asked for that that is adjacent to his and that is why this petition contains that.† He said if it were vacated, Saxon would have control and Johnson would not have any potential at all for accessing his property from the Highway without getting an easement. He indicated that when the City of Florence does annex this, it would not be a pubic road or a County road
VOTE: 2-3(Dwyer, Hampton, Sorenson). MOTION FAILED.
Robinson stated he would bring back an order denying the vacation.
d. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 04-4-14-14/In the Matter of Approving the Alignment, Right-Of-Way Widths and Other Design Features for the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway, Previously Known as the Pioneer Parkway Extension, as Adopted and Recommended by the City of Springfield.
Green recalled that the Board held an informational work session yesterday.† He said they decided to keep the record open after the public hearing for a period of time to be determined at the end of the session.† He said they wonít make any decisions, they are going to schedule another work session because they want to consider the comments they hear from the public.
Sonny Chickering, Public Works, recalled on April 5, 2004, the Springfield City Council took action and passed a resolution concerning the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway design concept.† He said included in the resolution were 15 specific recommendations regarding the project.† He stated staff has reviewed that and there are seven items they think directly affect county residents or are directly covered by provisions of the Gateway Refinement Plan that was passed in 1992. He noted that included in that document was a requirement that prior to construction of the Pioneer Parkway Extension (MLK, Jr. Parkway) the Board of Commissioners would review and approve both the alignment and the substantive design features of the project.† He said for both of those reasons, the city council has referred that recommendation for consideration and concurrence to the Board of Commissioners.
Chickering indicated the seven items that staff has asked the Board to review include the project alignment, the alignment for the north link (the connection from the parkway to a nearby industrial area), suggested modification to Game Farm Road South, the issue of whether to have a sound wall and if so, how tall it should be, the intersection form where Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway will intersect Hayden Bridge Road, and impacts to septic drain fields that abut the proposed right-of-way.† He noted that currently there is an existing right-of-way that is owned by the City of Springfield and was formerly used as railroad right-of-way and the full right-of-way width in the southern end of the project, there is a dispute about what that width should be and whether there should be allowance made for bus rapid transit.
Chickering stated the Board had a work session yesterday and there were no deliberations.† He said the intent was to provide the Board with a general description of the project features and to field any questions from the Board that staff might be able to answer prior to the Public Hearing.† He noted that one of the questions from Sorenson had to do with air quality and the difference in carbon monoxide emissions they might expect between a traditional traffic signal and a roundabout form.† He said they were not able to make contact with anyone from LRAPA, but they reviewed a report prepared by a consultant working for the County regarding the Delta Beltline project.† He said included in that analysis was the consideration of fuel consumption as it related to total delay and there were no direct estimates of CO concentrations included in the report but they indicated that traffic delay could be used as an indicator of potential hot spots.† †
Chickering stated that both intersectionís forms would require removal of on- street parking along Hayden Bridge Road.† He noted it was a significant issue for that neighborhood.† He added the project would remove both the parking and the planter strips as the roundabout will require four lanes of traffic and the traffic signal would require five lanes of traffic in the easterly direction from the main intersection.† He said to mitigate the impacts to the abutting property owners, the city had proposed driveway modifications at some of the residences in the area.† He said they would consist of either connecting two driveways that are next to each other (so there would be a loop so residents could turn their vehicle around on their own property and come out in a forward direction) or a turnaround area provided.† He stated that removal of the on street parking was considered by the Board in 1994 in relation to an asphalt overlay project that would have not involved widening the street but they put down a layer of fresh asphalt.† He said at that time they were considering re-striping to three lanes and after deliberation and discussion, the Board denied their request so it was re-striped with parking.
Chickering indicated they received four pieces of written testimony from individuals who were not able to attend and he entered them into the record, from:† Joyce Brooker, Walt and Irene Haik, Christine and George Larson and John and Kathy Vogt.† He also attached the actual resolution that was passed by the Springfield City Council on April 5.
Sid Leiken, Mayor, City of Springfield, 225 5th Street, Springfield, represented the majority of his council.† He said a couple of the votes were close and he didnít necessarily agree with them.† He thought it was a good partnership between the County and the City of Springfield.† He noted the $5.2 million the County is supporting would be important for the long-term future of their community.† He added the City of Springfield would provide $3.75 million for the project.† He commented this is a project where not everyone would be happy but he thought for the long-term it would be positive.† He noted this project would carry an estimated 30,000 vehicles per day within the first few years of operation.† He said the parkway would provide a vital road link to the Gateway area.† He thought the testimony from the citizens was constructive and it allowed them to make sure they would do what they can to make it right, understanding that it would probably disappoint some citizens.† He stated that the City of Springfield is willing to cooperate with the County on this project to make it a success for the community.
Susan Ban, 2125 Nirvana St., stated she is a member of the Board for Lane Transit District.† She commented that the Lane Transit District has been pleased to be part of the project that builds infrastructure for the future.† She said they recommend the width of 86 feet along the southern section of the MLK, Jr. Parkway, allowing for the establishment of queue jumping lanes for bus rapid transit.† She said it would require an additional five feet of property from each side over the plan that had been forwarded to the Board. She noted the LTD Board has agreed that that additional purchase would be covered by their cost.† She commented that the bus rapid transit is a strategy that was adopted by all three jurisdictions as part of the plan to mitigate transportation pressures in the future.† She said the constructed bottleneck at the southern end of the MLK, Jr. Parkway has the potential of creating a system that does not work.† She commented that without the additional dedicated bus lane, they canít move traffic through and it mitigates the impact with the benefit that bus rapid transit can have.† She said exclusive lanes are critical to the success of the design and it is important that the performance of the whole corridor not be hindered by the one small piece. She commented that once the sound walls are built it was unlikely they would be relocated in the future and at this point it is important to do it right the first time.† She said staff at LTD has been working on options to find other ways to find the dedicated lane without having to use property.† She recognized there are concerns but there are ways to mitigate those concerns.† She commented that it is a project for the future that they can invest in now that will benefit the community.
Dwayne Knoll, 2999 Wayside Loop, said his concern is the neighborhood of Wayside Loop.† He went to his neighbors with a petition to open Seward so they have a way in and out of their neighborhood.† He said out of 70 homes, there were 55 people who were in favor of opening Seward, three opposed, five who were not home, five who were undecided and nine that were rentals.† He said they are concerned about the intersection.† He was not in favor of the roundabout, as he thought it was against public safety for emergency vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.
Nick Arnis, City of Springfield, 225 5th, Springfield, reported the project is projected to be a city arterial street with four lanes.† He said it is about 45 miles per hour as the operating speed of the roadway.† He said it starts at Hayden Bridge Way and extends up to the intersection of Beltline and Game Farm Road.† He said it is a $9.3 million project and they will be ready for construction in 2005.† He said the purpose of the project is to provide an arterial link that will carry regional trips and local trips and open up access to parcels in the Gateway area that provide employment, housing and commercial jobs.† He said it originally was intended to relieve the traffic on Game Farm Road South.† He said the residents on Game Farm Road South wanted an alternative road improved and at that time it was the Pioneer Parkway Extension that has been named the MLK, Jr. Parkway.† He said the process has been over ten years in the making, beginning with the Gateway Refinement Plan where it was first introduced.† He added in the refinement plan there were policies about mitigating for sound on road projects in the Gateway area.† He added there were sections about coordination between the County and the City of Springfield and policies about when traffic reached certain levels on Game Farm Road.† He said in 2001 they started applying for funding.† He said they began last summer with a series of public meetings about the Hayden Bridge intersection and whether it should signalize or be a roundabout.† He said they discussed the sound wall, closing off the top part of Game Farm Road at Beltline and they had extensive public process around the north link area.† He noted of the 15 design elements that the City Council had passed, some had to do with the north link process and the two lane roundabout.† He indicated the original north link was up at Beltline and Game Farm Road. He said they conducted a four-month process where the Patrician Mobile Home Park had a steering committee that organized themselves and they agreed unanimously to improve the existing Game Farm Road.
Arnis said the roundabout proposed by the City was not taken lightly.† He said the original recommendation was a signalized intersection at Hayden Bridge Road but it wasnít until they went out to an open house that they realized how difficult it was to put in an intersection and still keep Wayside open or provide for alternative access points in the neighborhood.† He said they investigated all options that the citizens had including a roundabout at the location.† He commented that a roundabout out performs a signal with safety reasons and it provides access to Wayside Loop.† He noted the City of Springfield would be willing to work with the property owners on Hayden Bridge Road to work on the driveways for access.
Joyce Brooker, 75 Hayden Bridge Way, said she was against the widening of Hayden Bridge Way and the double roundabout because it narrows down to two lanes from four lanes in 1,000 feet.† She said only one lane of traffic can exit a roundabout at a time.† She thought eliminating one parking lane and putting in a left turn at Manner Drive could accomplish the same thing.† She noted the two lane roundabout motion was passed by a 3-2 vote.† She said that Councilor Ballewís comment was that she had to trust the experts on this.† She asked how the roundabout would work and why they think it is best in this setting. She thought there could be problems for out of town drivers who come across it.† She thought that efforts should be concentrated on MLK, Jr., comprehensively including underground power, bus lines and later if and when Hayden Bridge is widened, it should be done right.† She commented that the widening of Hayden Bridge Way on the south side would require moving a power pole from an easement.† She wondered if it was legal to move the high power transmission lines closer to their homes.† She didnít see the benefit for the public for widening Hayden Bridge Way. She thought entering the roundabout would be difficult at busy times with a continuous stream of traffic coming from the roundabout.† She is concerned about accidents closer to their homes.† She said if and when Hayden Bridge Way is widened, Springfield could offset the de-valuation of residentsí property by offering something in return like sewers and utilities before the easement is paved over.† She thought their assessments should be reduced.
Sue Klein, 3530 E. Game Farm Road, Manager of Patrician Mobile Home Park, she said there is a roundabout in front of their park and the residents hate the roundabout.† She said it doesnít perform any good function and wasnít necessary because it wasnít a four way intersection.† She was against another roundabout.† She thought a two-lane roundabout would be dangerous.† She noted there are 82 homes and 130 people in the Patrician and no one wants the roundabout.† She was involved in the stakeholder working group for the Pioneer Parkway project and she was not happy with the process.† She represented 130 people and was only given one vote.
Darrell Cabral, 275 Allen Avenue, was in support of keeping Seward closed.† He said the Wayside residents he spoke with were not informed that by opening Seward Street that the increased traffic coming out of the River Glen neighborhood, creates a no stop sign zone for 20 blocks where people could speed through.† He said with the traffic flow in the area it is dangerous for the children in the area.† He thought instead of the traffic going out on Hayden Bridge Road from River Glen, the people who live in River Glen would find a quick shortcut.† He wanted his neighborhood to stay safe.
Eldon Hutchins,† 2836 Wayside Lane, stated he was in favor of opening Seward.† He noted that Wayside Lane has one way in and out and they should have two ways.† He didnít want a sound wall.† He said they need more access than what they have and Seward would be the most logical and least expensive.† He was opposed to the roundabout.† He didnít think there could be five entrances and exits with two lanes moving traffic faster than a light.† He asked how the pedestrians and bicycles would get across the street safely.
George Larson, 839 Royaldell, said his office is located at the intersection of Hayden Bridge Way and Pioneer Parkway.† He said he has been there for 20 years.† He was concerned about the amount of traffic going through the intersection when it is hooked up with the Beltline.† He thought a roundabout would be the best way to go because the traffic flows better and there are less stopped cars.
Phillip Farrington, Director Land Use Planning, Peace Health, 677 E. 12, Eugene, said they are proud to be a part of the solution as part of the MLK, Jr. Parkway extension project.† He said they are providing right-of-way and some of the funding toward the project.† He said they have had successful collaborations with all of the local agencies through their project area.† He said the BRT project through River Bend Drive has been successful in collaboration with LTD.† He said that whatever solutions they come up with, he encouraged the Board to take a long term view at what is best with the community on how to support this vital transit need the community is looking forward to.† He encouraged the Board to listen to the alternatives and those who are supporting the project in an objective way. †
Carol Fairborn, 2812 Manor Drive, stated she was opposed to opening Seward.† She supported the residents of the Wayside area.† She said the people to the east of Manor Drive are unaware that Seward is on the books to be opened because a notice was sent out.† She noted at the last minute the city council decided to open up Seward.† She thought an impact study should be done.
Christine Larson, 839 Royaldell Lane, stated she is part owner of the Timber Valley Medical Clinic at the corner of Pioneer Parkway and Hayden Bridge Way.† She said the safety factor for a pedestrian is higher when they are in the roadway where cars travel than being on an island or adjacent sidewalk. She noted in a roundabout, the maximum number of feet that a pedestrian would have from one curb to another curb is 30 feet.† She added with the signalized intersection,† the maximum amount is 70 to 75 feet, across two of the roadways.† She noted the total number of feet in the roadway for pedestrian within a signalized intersection is 310 feet and it goes down to 240 feet when using a roundabout.† She thought the safest way to take care of pedestrians is the roundabout because they have fewer chances of being hit by a car because they would have more walking time on sidewalks instead of the roadway.† She thought everyone involved in the area has to give up something.† She said at the clinic, they proposed that Laura Street would be closed and they would no longer have direct access to their clinic.† She said there would be one way in and one way out.† She said they care about the neighborhood and it is a difficult situation for everyone.† She thought the long-term viability of the neighborhood is important and they have to think about what is best for everyone.
Robin Havens, 2735 Wayside Lane, said she has lived there for seven years.† She noted when they were going to purchase their property they were told by the real estate agent that the extension of Pioneer Parkway would go on.† She was told at that time that Wayside Lane was going to be cut off and become a dead-end and Seward was going to be opened.† She said since that time they already have a traffic problem on that section of Wayside Lane.† She said because Seward is a County road, it has been referred to the County for opening up and there are no traffic considerations taken into account for Wayside Lane.† She said the citizens along that road would like traffic bumps or some way to slow down the increase of traffic that will happen on the road.
Alice Beret, 3195 Wayside Loop, said her home and others will be severely impacted by the MLK, Jr. Parkway.† She commented that the sound wall in the plan might reduce the noise but the traffic problems have not been fully addressed. She said in order to have safe and reasonable access on Hayden Bridge Way, there must be an opening of Seward Street. She said when they remove the backyard fences, there must be an adequate security fence installed to protect the residence from dogs and intruders.† She added that re-routing the high power lines that are in the center of the right-of-way would reduce the need for taking more private property, especially if the dedicated lane for BRT is in the plan.
Louis Michael Williams, 79 Hayden Bridge Way.† said he was a state policeman.† He asked how a double lane roundabout would work.† He called one of the engineers from Lane Transit District and Dwyer and they had concerns.† He was concerned that they would spend the money to put it in and if it doesnít work, they would then put in traffic signals.
Arthur Jorgeson, 2663 Castle Drive, said this was affecting their neighborhood.† He noted that no one else was notified and asked why they werenít included.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.
Dwyer said they asked Chickering to give them some cost projections and the cost of the power line underground.† He said if they could put the power lines underground, they wouldnít have to take so much property.† He said the property ownership is to the north and the best way to link International Way to Pioneer Parkway was an existing street that went through a mobile home park.† His objection to doing the alignment in the beginning was the north link.† †
Sorenson asked the number of vehicles the intersection would handle and the grading of the intersection.† He asked if an air quality hot spot existed.† He wanted to know if there was any way to achieve the recommendation from LTD about the width of the right-of-way for the bus rapid transit and have an increased efficiency in the flow through the intersection.
Green asked how long they should keep the record open.
Vorhes responded that it depended on how fast they want it back in front of the Board.† He commented that seven to ten days was appropriate.
MOTION:† to move to keep the record open for 14 days.
Hampton MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Vorhes indicated they should keep the record open until the close of business on April 28, and to bring it back to the Board on May 12.
e. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 04-4-14-15/In the Matter of Recommending Countywide Modernization Project Priorities to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the 2006-2009 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Bill Morgan, Public Works, reported that ODOT has requested project priorities from Lane County for the 06/09 STIP.† He explained that this action is in preparation for participation by the Board on the Region 2 all area priority setting meeting that has been established for May 14.† He noted today was the opportunity for public hearing for people to give public testimony.
Morgan recalled on March 10 there was a work session with the board by Tom Stinchfield.†† He noted the Board had previously commented on the eligibility criteria to the Transportation Planning Commission.† He said they adopted the criteria.† He added that letters had gone out to various cities and interested parties.† He noted there were web pages created on both Lane County and LCOGís systems.† He said the MPC held a public hearing on March 11 and on April 8, they voted for the priorities.† He noted they were reflected in Exhibit A (Copy in file).† He said no changes were recommended by MPC from what was in the packet.
Morgan indicated the development STIP had three projects suggested as a high priority:† the Beltline facility plan study, I-5 at Willamette River facility plan and I-5 at Coburg Interchange environmental assessment.† With regard to funding, he said there is $500 million statewide, with $10 million going to Region 2 for modernization and $29 million for the OTIA III funds for a total of $39 million.
Morgan stated in the additional comments section of the memo, there was a discussion on a later submittal by the City of Oakridge.† He said the recommendation is to wait until they get through with their refinement plan and they would be ready for the next phase of the STIP. †
Morgan noted the all area meeting for Region 2 is May 14 and the Board is asked by ODOT to make comments.† He added that the draft STIP program for the state will be released this year and this wouldnít be the last public comment for the process.
Sorenson asked how they could ask for money for the West Eugene Parkway when the amount was not listed in the CIP.† He asked what had happened.
Green explained that part of it was because of the amount of dollars that have to be provided by the state.† He said the state is having a difficult time finding money to allocate towards projects.† He said they have to demonstrate at the local level that they had done their part to commit to the project.
Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.
Sid Leiken, 225 5th Street, supported the I-5 Beltline interchange.†† He said there was strong support for this project.† He added it is a project that is ready to go.† He said that there is $15 million that is earmarked for the project.† He said it nearly completes the funding for Phase One.† He thought it was important to start to go out to purchase the right-of-way.† He encouraged Green to secure off of the top of the region funds, already approved for the Beltline Coburg Road project and not have those funds be credited against Lane Countyís share of the funding.† †
Bob Ackerman, 186 Harvey, Eugene, said he was in favor of the West Eugene Parkway.† He said he remains committed to the funding and the completion of the project.† He said the project has been in the public domain for over 20 years.† He said they should move forward with the project and retain it on the priority list for funding through ODOT.† He thought the most significant statement he found was in a memorandum from the Lane Economic Committee under the letterhead of LCOG.† He read the letter into the record.† He commented that this project is not only a vital transportation link, it is a vital economic development issue.† He said if they keep the West Eugene Parkway on the prioritized list, it takes them closer to finding the money to fully fund the project.
Ron Framer, 3330 Bardell Avenue, noted that the citizens of Eugene had voted on this issue three times to move forward the West Eugene Parkway.† He asked the Board to do the same. †
Terry Connelly, 1401 Willamette, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, urged the Board to concur with the recommendation of the West Eugene Parkway, to keep the project on the priority list.† He commented that Lane Countyís actions so far had been supportive of the West Eugene Parkway.† He asked the Board to honor that policy by keeping 2 a) and 3 b) of the West Eugene Parkway on the priority list and that they adopt it.
Gary Wildish, 2295 Coburg Road, commented that the need for the West Eugene Parkway had not diminished.† He said the WEP is important to the West Eugene area and to the region.† He encouraged the Board to keep it on the STIP.
Jim Welsh, 90050 Killon Lane, Elmira, stated he represented the Eugene Association of Realtors.† He said they supported the Beltline I-5 interchange.† He wanted the Board to recommend the countywide modernization project priorities as detailed in the draft exhibit and provide it to ODOT for the 06/09 State Transportation Improvement Program.
Quincy Powers, 355 Goodpasture Island Road, stated he represented the Pape Group.††† He noted the community has voted and approved the West Eugene Parkway numerous times since 1986.† He supported the WEP for the many benefits that it would bring to the community.† He commented the WEP represents a special opportunity for improving traffic flow and they donít want to lose that opportunity.† He added since constructing the policy is the adopted policy of Board, it was incumbent upon the commissioners to honor that policy and request funding for unit 2 a) and unit 2 b) of the parkway.† He said they support the parkway and encourage the Board to request state funds to facilitate its construction.
Jonathan Evans, 1737 Orchard, Eugene, stated he was against unit 2 a) and 2b) of the West Eugene Parkway.† He noted the dollar amount was listed and it didnít fully address the planning.† He commented that putting together something like the WEP would take all the money and there would be nothing left for Lane County and the rest of the region.† He recommended moving parts 2 a) and 2 b) from the transportation funding and allowing better competition for projects such as the I-5 interchange to receive funding.
Laurie Segal, 120 W. Broadway, said she was aware of the agenda.† She said they advised people that the STIP public hearing would not come on the agenda before 4:00 p.m.† She asked that the Board provide additional time for people who thought they could show up around 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. to get on the list to sign up to provide written comments.† She said that 1001 Friends asked the Board to follow the STIP selection criteria required by OTC for projects seeking STIP and OTIA III funding, including providing adequate documentation on project selection and prioritization to the Board.† She noted the documentation currently provided to elected officials and the general public does not provide adequate information on which to base a recommendation.† She noted in November 2003, the OTC approved project eligibility criteria and prioritization factors to be used with the current 06/09 STIP with minor modifications to OTIA III.† She stated the policy directed ODOT and local jurisdictions to do everything possible to protect and improve the efficiency of the existing highway system before adding new facilities. She said that action l G l establishes priorities for developing corridor plans, transportation system plans, and the STIP and project plans to respond to highway needs.† She noted the top two of the four priorities include protecting the existing system and improving efficiency and capacity of existing highway facilities. She noted the lowest priority is adding new facilities to the system.† She said as stated in the IGA policy, that road construction is expensive and funding is limited and it is unlikely that many new highways would be built in the future.† She said with this information, Lane County should recommend projects for STIP and OTIA III funding in line with the $10 to 15 million that Lane County could expect to receive. She commented the projects were not clearly established on the project matrix.† She added the project priorities that are not currently recommended did not consider rural/urban equity for available funding.† She asked the Board to direct staff to come back later with a more comprehensive accounting of the project priorities and clear documentation on how the priorities comply with the criteria for establishing priorities.
Rob Handy, 455 1/2 River Road, commented that Lane County didnít have the documentation that the OTC criteria for the projects had been applied by Lane County.† He said they need a better analysis† of the projects under consideration, using OTCís project eligibility criteria.† He said the WEP is a highway that requires full project funding and they donít know the full cost of the highway.† He said they are aware that ODOT and the fed highway administration are doing a re-evaluation of the parkway. He asked if there would be a local match for this project.† He urged the Board to extend the written comment period because of the switch of the public hearing, and to delay action on the STIP and OTIA III priorities.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.
Dwyer agreed leaving the record open for written comment.
Green was prepared to take action on the STIP.
Sorenson wanted to keep the record open to get written testimony from people who thought they would be able to give testimony at the hearing.† He commented that given the importance of the projects that are listed, the Board would want as much written documentation to put into the board order as they could to see some greater argument for funding that project.†† He added for projects that are outside of the metro list, the Board could possibly move some of the rural projects. †
MOTION:† to move to tentatively approve this order, subject to keeping the record open to April 28, 2004, with staff providing additional information as requested by Sorenson.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
19. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.