BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
March 31, 2004
Commissioners’ Conference Room
Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., 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.
#17. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1198/In the Matter of Adopting Criteria for Determining Significant Goal 5 Riparian or Wildlife Habitat Sites Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Adopting an Updated Goal 5 Inventory for the Eugene Urban Growth Area; and Adopting a Severability Clause (NBA & PM 3/17/04).
Green indicated a supplemental letter from Barbara Combs was distributed.
Neil Bjorklund, City of Eugene, passed out supplemental information on written testimony that came in. He explained this was the end of a long process to adopt a Goal 5 inventory of riparian and upland wildlife habitat sites. He said it is a portion of a subtask of their periodic review work program. He noted the processes at the local level and beyond is governed by the periodic rules in the Oregon Administrative Rules. He said the periodic review work program was approved in 1995 and they spent a number years working on the inventory. He said that resulted in the Eugene City Council approving two ordinances, one for the inventory inside of the city limits and the other was an ordinance for the inventory outside of the city limits. The inventory outside of the city limits is what was in front of the Board today. He added it is an identical ordinance to the ordinance that the Eugene City Council approved in July. He noted that anything within the city limits has been adopted and acknowledged by the city council and DLCD.
Bjorklund noted the council voted 5-3 to approve both ordinances. He said they had a public hearing before the Lane County Planning Commission on this portion of the inventory. That took place on November 18, 2003, following which the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the inventory to the Board of Commissioners. He noted the process is governed by rules that are passed by the state for the Goal 5 process and the periodic review process, including a clear point related to what local governments are supposed to do with Goal 5 inventories. He said the inventory is intended to be only accurate to tell whether or not there is a resource on a given property. He said it wasn’t intended to be an exact location of the edge of the resource on any given site. He noted in evaluating all of the resources against the set of criteria attached to the ordinance, they were consistent in evaluating them as sites. He said they didn’t look at each tax lot separately from the site to see if the tax lot met the criteria, as that was not the intent of significance criteria. He said they are evaluated at the site level. He said in many cases they had received information that didn’t meet the criteria. He said in some cases where they have been able to conclude from information submitted, there is no resource at all and they had removed those sites from the inventory. They had been consistent in doing that. He said where it is clear that there is some resource, they left those properties on. He noted the next phase after the inventory is adopted is where they go through an ESEE analysis and make a recommendation as to whether a given site is fully protected, partly protected or not protected and then implementing regulations for those that are partially or wholly protected. He said the issue was raised in a number of objections and appeals to the city council’s adoption of the inventory including the inventory outside of the urban growth boundary. Those issues went to LCDC on March 12 and the commission fully acknowledged their approach of the inventory regarding the riparian sites and the consistently applied criteria across all the sites was consistent with the Goal 5 Rule. They unanimously acknowledged the inventory.
Sorenson asked why Councilors Bettman, Taylor and Kelly voted no on this ordinance.
Bjorklund responded the primary discussion related to sites that are in the south hills within the city limits, and the biggest debate had to do with whether large forested areas of residentially designated lands in the south hills should be designated as Goal 5 resources or not. He said the three votes against it were because those councilors preferred to have those forested areas kept in the inventory and the other five preferred not to. He noted the local government has the discretion to selectively apply the various options under Goal 5 under a site and that is what the council chose to do. He indicated the council decided to apply safe harbors to the majority of those upland sites in the south hills. He added it was fully in compliance with state law.
Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.
Cindy Land, 2705 E. 43, stated she has been dealing with this process since 1991 and it had gotten ridiculous with the time, energy and money that had been spent to divide a property that doesn’t belong to the government. She indicated they still don’t have any definition of what it means to be a safe harbor riparian upland wildlife habitat. She noted her property is on I-5. She didn’t think that private citizen’s property should be part of the inventory.
Terry Connelly, 1401 Willamette, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber had been involved in the Goal 5 natural resource process for several years. He asked the Board to concur with the recommendation from the Lane County Planning Commission on what is being presented. He said this is a state mandated process but there are discretions that local governments could have and how they comply. He thought one of the most important decisions to date was made by the Eugene City Council to apply the safe harbor measures for the upland wildlife habitat in the areas. He said that having over 2,000 acres designated on the inventory was alarming. He said they began to realize that decisions like this could not be made in isolation of other actions that have already been taken to remove buildable lands inside the urban growth boundary out of the inventory. He said the Chamber believes that protecting natural resources and critical habitat is good but they recognize that those desires come in conflict with the land use planning goals like Goal 9 and economic development or Goal 10 housing. He said they think the Eugene City Council help balance the competing interests and the Lane County Planning Commission concurred with that and he asked the Board to do the same today and concur with their recommendation.
Debbie Jeffries, 3800 N. Delta Highway, stated she had been involved with the process since 1995. She concurred it is a state mandated direction. She said it is to ensure more predictability in how urban development will occur on land inside the UGB as is designated for urban development. She noted the safe harbor approach that was taken by the city is predictable and clear. She added the standard method that the city is using for the riparian corridors is not. She didn’t support it. She said it is costly because of the way city staff is implementing it. She was in favor of the safe harbor approach. She noted there is no defining boundary of what any of the riparian corridors are. She said once this is adopted from a standard inventory approach, it is then up to staff to make the interpretation of what the boundary is and what the setback is. She suggested for areas that are still in the UGB but in the County’s jurisdiction, that the safe harbor approach is the way to go. She noted that anything that is on the inventory made it on the inventory because it was significant. She commented that most of the general public that have property that once they were put on the inventory; they wouldn’t be able to get off. She said it didn’t meet the intent of predictability and that is what the Board should look at to be consistent with the reason the Board went with safe harbor.
James Edgar, 55 Ayres Road, Eugene, commented his property doesn’t have wildlife habitat, it is a manmade ditch. He said the water lies in the ditch.
Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.
Sorenson asked what the down side was in failing to enact the ordinance.
Bjorklund responded that it is a portion of the periodic review work program item that is considered mandatory by DLCD and currently overdue. He said the Board and the city council need to adopt an identical ordinance. He said the down side by not adopting this is that they don’t finish the item and the properties that are affected continue to be in limbo and don’t move forward with the process. He said if the Board wanted to apply the safe harbor approach, they would need to direct staff to bring back an ordinance that would implement that.
Green preferred that staff bring back an ordinance with the safe harbor approach.
Dwyer commented that safe harbor as it applies to designated certain areas for riparian or wildlife habitat was okay but for safe harbor identifying building sites is another issue.
Wilson understood that the ordinance before the Board had done a safe harbor approach on the upland wildlife habitat but has done a more inventory approach for riparian.
Bjorklund indicated this ordinance applies to safe harbor criteria for all of the upland wildlife habitat sites that are away from stream corridors. He noted for all of the riparian sites, the standard process is used. He thought it was half and half as to where safe harbor is being applied, acreage-wise. He said the safe harbor approach is more predictable at a point where they adopt the inventory. He noted for the interim period, they have a better idea of where they are going to end up because the safe harbor protection measures are prescribed. He noted they don’t have all of the safe harbor sites on the map; there are additional types of water features that would have to be added to have it comply with the safe harbor provisions. He said when the city council reviewed it; they found ponds that met safe harbor. He said the map identifies the resource as best they can at the width of the resource, where safe harbor ignores how wide the resource is and says it is either 100 feet wide or 150 feet wide. He commented they might end up with more area on the inventory for a given site and on the other hand there are sites that might not qualify so they wouldn’t be on the inventory at all.
Green recommended having the safe harbor approach and consistency with the city council.
Wilson asked if that would necessitate additional work in identifying the sites.
Bjorklund indicated they would have to re-notice it because there would be new properties being affected and they would have to hold another hearing.
Green asked if it would take another year to include properties in the inventory if they took the same approach.
Bjorklund stated if the Board adopts the inventory now, in a year they will have the rest of the paper work done so they can determine what gets protected. He added if they were to adopt a safe harbor inventory, they could do it today. He said it would have to go back to the city council and the council might not agree with it. He added it might end up at MPC and could possibly take another six months to agree on an inventory and they would have to adopt regulations and applying them. He thought they were at least a year away from that point.
Morrison disagreed about changing the inventory with regard to safe harbor. She commented that safe harbor is a less expensive way of looking at each parcel as it comes forward.
Bjorklund responded that safe harbor results in a map for riparian resources. He said they have the map for outside of the urban growth boundary and all the properties that are affected by the map sites have been notified. He noted they had been in the standard process track for over ten years and all the people who have been notified were notified based on that type of inventory and the sites that were affected. He said by switching to safe harbor, sites get added that are not on the standard inventory, and they would have to go back to re-notice.
Morrison was in favor of the safe harbor approach. She suggested having a third reading and deliberation.
MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation for April 14.
Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Sorenson asked what has happened since they have been out of compliance.
Bjorkland said the City of Eugene has committed to finish this as quickly as possible. He noted the downside is delaying this and keeping property owners in limbo. He wanted to get on with the ESEE analysis for all of the sites within the city. He noted that LCDC could levy sanctions for non-compliance.
Dwyer wasn’t ready to re-write this.
18. PUBLIC SAFETY
a. REPORT AND DISCUSSION/Lane County Sheriff's Office.
Russ Burger, Sheriff, discussed issues with the Sheriff’s Office. He gave a presentation on the remodel of the dispatch center.
Brett Freeman, Sheriff’s Office, said they have 16 deputies and two sergeants on the traffic safety team. He indicated they haven’t been able to fill the positions due to retirements and military leave. He hoped to have the positions filled by July 1. He added it is a revenue neutral program. He indicated that Lane County has a dire need for more traffic safety enforcement and education. He said they want to have 12 people in the unit but because of staffing they have lost a deputy for a six-month period for injury and a deputy for military leave.
Burger explained that the DOMC was a partnership effort between the Sheriff’s Office, state courts and Parole and Probation.
Bob Hickok, Sheriff’s Office, noted this project began 17 months ago. He said they reviewed this as a result of budgetary factors in court operations and custody referee operations of the jail. He stated the three primary issues they were asked to look at were ways to divert the population of inmates coming into the jail they knew would have to be released through matrixing. He said they asked them to look at a method by which everyone released would have a release agreement. He said as it currently stands, only the people released by the custody referee’s office have a release agreement. He was asked to review what control they could have over the people released. He said they asked them to look at a better way to manage their sentenced population. He said 50% of the sentenced population serves their sentences outside the jail. He noted that he and Liz Rambo, Sheriff’s Office, got a work group together in January 2003. He said the development group completed their work in January 2004 and they have the project report in front of them. (Copy in file).
Liz Rambo, gave a power point presentation on the Defendant Offender Management Center.
Dwyer asked about the cost and source of funds.
Hickok said they were to make the plan work by using existing resources. He noted everything they had done utilized existing resources.
Greg Fox said they have a change in the book-in process from what they are currently doing to meet the Phase One operation. He stated they have been utilizing the risk assessment tool since March 17 to get data to see if they would release someone with the new risk assessment tool and how it compares with the old.
Green approved of the evaluation component.
Burger indicated they applied for a grant for the first phase of the radio communications project. He added they would know in April or May if they got the grant on state homeland security.
19. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Morrison reported that she, Tony Bieda and John Arnold attended the National Forest County and Schools Coalition Meeting in Reno. She said they came up with a set of legislative program goals on reauthorization. She passed out a copy of the goals that were adopted. She said there was an ODOT open house in Florence last night that was well attended. She announced that Charlotte’s Web would be at the Florence Event Center on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Green reminded the Board that on April 7 at 2:00 p.m. on Mill Street, the Wayne Morris Courthouse groundbreaking ceremony would take place. He noted there would not be an afternoon work session at that time.
20. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
21. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:20 p.m.