September 15, 2004

1:00 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 12/15/04


Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1215/In the Matter of Adopting Criteria for Determining Significant Goal 5 Riparian Areas and Wildlife Habitat Sites Within the Springfield Urbanizable Area; Adopting an Updated Goal 5 Inventory for the Springfield Urbanizable Area; and Adopting a Severability Clause (Metro Periodic Review, Work Task No. 7). (NBA & PM 8/25/04).


Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, explained this item is for co-adoption of the Springfield Natural Resources Inventory as it applies outside city limits and within the urban growth boundary.She said completion of this task would be the final piece of the Goal 5 Natural Resources Inventory adoption for the entire metro area under their periodic work task number 7.She stated the City of Springfield adopted the inventory after extensive public involvement and revisions to the maps and the sites.She noted there was an extensive public involvement process and they also mailed out notices to over 900 property owners on the list.She received some phone inquiries from the outreach.Most of those calls were asking about restrictions and implications for their own property.She said the process is for accepting the inventory itself, not for the detailed analysis of what would happen on those properties.She said the minutes from the Planning Commission had been provided in a supplemental packet.She noted the Planning Commission recommended unanimously approving the project.She also recommended co-adoption of the proposal as it is being presented.


Green reported the nature and the purpose of the decision is subject to the plan amendment and rezoning criteria in the agenda cover memo and attachments.He said that evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria and failure to raise an issue to enable a response may preclude an appeal to LUBA.He stated this is the opportunity for submission of information and appeal.He said it was an opportunity for those present and only those persons who qualify as parties may appeal the Board decision to LUBA.


Green asked if there were any ex parte contacts.


There were no ex parte contacts.


Commissioner Green opened the Public Hearing.


Mark Metzger, City of Springfield, emphasized that this was an inventory step to show what resource sites within the Springfield UGB should be on their list to follow up on, and to recommend policy for balancing both protection and growth within Springfield.He noted the Springfield City Council had chosen to follow the standard process and the Administrative Rules for treating natural resource sites.He said the standard process requires a more rigorous analysis. He said if they have a potential conflict between development and preservation, there is some flexibility. He said he would be back in front of the Board in May or June with a list of recommended protection policies they think achieve the balance for each of the sites outside of the city limits but inside the urban growth boundary.


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


MOTION: to adopt Ordinance PA 1215.


Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.




b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1214/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan and the FlorenceComprehensive Plan to Enlarge the Florence Urban Growth Boundary; Redesignate Affected Lands From Rural Comp Plan Designations of Rural, Non-Resource, and Forest to Florence CompPlanDesignationsOfMediumDensityResidentialAndPrivateOpenSpace; Rezone Affected Lands From Lane Code (LC) Chapter 16 Districts of'RR'Rural Residential and 'F-2' Impacted Forest Lands toLC Chapter 10 Districts of 'RR'Rural Residential and 'PR/BD/U/SR/UGB' Public Reserve/Beaches and Dunes/Interim Urbanizing/Site Review; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; (Florence Periodic Review Work Task No.1) (NBA & PM 8/25/04).


Schulz reported the City of Florence is proposing expansion of their urban growth boundary in two different areas, Area 1 located south and west of Munsel Lake Road is approximately 25 acres.Area 2 is approximately the southern 80 acres of the Ocean Dunes Golf Links.She said the plan designation is from the City of Florenceís comp plan.She said the idea is to have the planning designationslooking toward the future in that area.She noted the zoning changes are Lane Countyís designation from Chapter 10 that applies in the urban growth boundaries of small cities and from Chapter 16 that applies in the rural comp plan area in Lane County.She said the plan area designation for Area 1 is going to change from residential to medium density residential into the city.She noted that Area 2 was changing from forest and non-resource to private open space within the City of Florence Plan applied to golf courses in the community.She said the base zone of Area 2 is public reserve that allows golf courses in recreation uses and has a minimum lot size on any type of other development in that area.She noted the other overlays combining districts, the beaches and dunes and site review category are added to the underlying base zone of public reserve for further analysis and review on future development†† She indicated the site review is added to determine and analyze future adverse impacts upon development with traffic public facilities.


Schulz explained the criteria for the project would be for amending the rural comp plan and the change in public need and future need for municipal public services, water and sewer.She said it is a coordinated effort with the city and the county.She noted the process began in 1977 on the UGB study and much of the documentation and input from the earlier efforts has been brought into the record through input from the public during the Planning Commission process.She said there has been an outline that had been added.She indicated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15, 2004 on this proposal and deliberated on June 22 and voted 3-2 to recommend approval.She recommended co-adoption of the UGB expansion as the city has met the comp plan amendment criteria and has followed the process to make the change.


Sorenson asked about the appointment of a citizen involvement committee.


Schulz believed the city used a citizen involvement committee in their review process but the county didnít have one.


Vorhes explained what was legally designated for the purposes of Goal 1 as the citizen involvement program in Lane County is the Lane County Planning Commission.


Sorenson asked what the duties of the Planning Commission was besides its administrative and legal functions to hold an evidentiary hearing and take public testimony.He asked what they did to involve the public.


Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled that the City of Florence had their own Planning Commission andconducted their own public hearings.


Sorenson asked if the Lane County Planning Commission was ever notified of their additional duties of being the citizen involvement committee and required notification of information telling them they are both the Lane County Planning Commission and the Citizen Involvement Committee.


Howe responded they used to have two planning commissions and in 1996 they combined the group, leaving two people who represent the West Lane District on the larger group, resulting in a single Lane County Planning Commission and they knew they were responsible for citizen involvement.


Vorhes explained they always have that charge and it is not an additional duty.They perform the function of citizen involvement required under Goal 1 as they perform their functions as the Planning Commission.He noted it is not an additional duty or additional exercise they are called on to do unless the Board of Commissioners directs them in a particular instance to do something different than the process that was set up for considering proposed changes.


Dwyer asked if the reason they were bringing this property into the city was the failing septic system.He said if that was the reason, he was against this.


Schulz explained it wasnít only the sewer, it was the water system that was needed.She stated that looping the water system was part of the water portion.


Morrison requested George Ehlers, Land Management, review this.She said there are different requirements with septic now than in 1975 when the houses along Munsel Lake were built. She wanted to know how much land they required for some of the lots they are looking at and whether or not they could put in a replacement system exactly like the one they have, or if they need to have additional land to put in back up systems.


Dwyer asked if the set back of dunes and beaches could be used for septic purposes.He thought it could be, and they could fix the code so it could be used for sanitation that doesnít upset the beaches and dunes.He also wanted to hear from Ehlers on this matter.


Green explained the nature and the purpose of the hearing is subject to the plan amendment and rezone criteria found in the agenda cover memo and attachments.He said that evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria.He stated that failure to raise an issue to enable a response may preclude appeal to LUBA.He added this was the opportunity for those present to enter information into the record and only persons who qualify as a party may appeal the decision to LUBA.


Green asked if there were any ex parte contacts.


There were none.


Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.


Emily Durell, City of Florence, noted the City of Florenceís periodic review was almost completed.She said there are a few tasks left dealing with Task No. 1, a Goal 14 task, and urbanization issues around the UGB.She indicated that DLCD provided a number of subtasks.She said the City of Florence addressed Task No. 1 and all of the subtasks in a study in 1997 and they updated that study in 2003.


Durell indicated that one of DLCDís requirements is the subtask G, requiring the city to consider its UGB in light of the seven factors that are laid out in Goal 14.She added these seven factors were always the consideration in urban growth boundaries.She said they include population growth, housing, employment opportunities, economy, efficient use of land and the value of agricultural lands.She noted an important factor is the need to ensure livability and economic provision for public facilities and services.She said that is what led the city to make a determination that the proposed UGB amendments are necessary.


Durell stated the city had adopted the amendments that are before the Board.She said they submitted those amendments to the DLCD for approval and heard back that the task wasnít complete until the County had taken the same action. She said the city withdrew its request for approval and will resubmit if the Board of Commissioners approves this.


Durell indicated the cityís study revealed a number of concerns about a particular state law that prohibits the city from extending urban services outside of the UGB.She said the first concern was the cityís need to establish a looped water system.She noted the city couldnít establish a looped water system unless they are within the UGB.She added the second concern is attempting to address the number of septic systems that are currently in Area 1.She said there was a potential for those systems to fail and contaminate water bodies and surface water and with both areas being outside the UGB the city could not have an emergency annexation to provide a water system.She said inside the UGB in the event there was a failure the city could address that.


Durell noted the third issue is a concern about Munsel Lake Road that currently serves two subdivisions in the city and a golf course. She commented that any one of the reasons would justify an UGB expansion and taken together the city thought it was necessary to pursue one for both of the areas.


Linda Sarnoff, City of Florence, reported that Area 1 includes 25.96 acres and is currently designated as rural residential.She said upon inclusion in their UGB the comprehensive plan would designate the property as medium density residential, allowing seven units per acre.She said that Area 2 is approximately 80 acres that is a golf course.She said it is designated on the county plan as rural residential and impacted forestland.She added if it were included within their UGB, they would designate it as private open space to reflect that it is being used currently as a golf course.


Sarnoff explained the reason for considering these annexations and to amend the UGB has to do with the orderly provision of services.She noted part of the issue with DLCD is their UGB or periodic review was not aligned with their approval process because they did not have adequate capacity to provide sewer water services to that area within the UGB.She noted in 1999 they began looking at their water treatment and they expanded their facility to serve the entire UGB.She said they added new filters and wells and they can now provide service to approximately a population of double of what they currently have.She said they could provide one million gallons per day and have the capacity and ability to have additional water service if anyone wanted to buy water from them.She added their wastewater treatment facility has the ability to service the population of double what they currently have.She said as they have been upgrading their facilities, they noticed that not only is it capacity, it is important to have their own collection system that provides for reliability


With regard to Area 1, Sarnoff reported those were developed 20 to 30 years ago and 10 lots are less than a half-acre, with the majority being in the 5,000 to 6,000 square foot range


Sarnoff concurs with staff recommendation to amend the UGB and they think it is furthering the purposes of Chapter 10 of the Lane Code.She added it encourages the efficient and appropriate use of land and resources and the adequate and efficient provision of water, transportation, sewer service and to help preserve the quality of Lane Countyís environment


Dwyer requested a list of characteristics they use to identify the failures and a list of communities or neighborhoods that have exhibited the patterns and characteristics.


Sarnoff responded that Driftwood Shores is one of those areas.


Rob Ward, Dunes City, read a letter into the record from Bill Robinson.


Lauri Segel, 120 W. Broadway, Eugene, stated she was speaking on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon.She regretted that no representatives from the citizens of Florence were present.She said the 60 miles for people to drive was prohibitive and they asked for one of the Planning Commission meetings to be held in Florence but the Planning Commission didnít agree with that request.She noted the time of day requires missing work and it is intimidating to be present and citizens had been intimidated in the past.She said it is intimidating to come in front of the Board and be a sole voice that is not necessarily in favor of development.She had questions about the issues and inconsistencies of the ordinance that are not answered in the 85-page agenda item.She said the map and tax lot numbers werenít stated.She noted there were errors stated throughout the agenda materials.She asked why County staff hadnít responded in writing to the cityís April 20, 2004 letter regarding amending their proposal to designate Area 2 as residential instead of private open space. She said the cityís request to designate the area as residential instead of private open space doesnít have a zoning classification and it supports that intention.She asked why the staff findings had been based solely on applicant material.She noted there was substantive problem as it didnít meet the requirements of Goal 14.She said the applicant and County staff state that the cityís request for a UGB expansion is not based on the need for buildable land but the desire for the city to provide water and sewer to areas having the potential future failure of septic systems and take over jurisdiction of Munsel Lake Road by building it into the UGB.She commented the applicant had not established a need for the UGB expansion.She asked how the County could make a Goal 2 finding; that there is an adequate factual base to support the amendments proposed when the record doesnít substantiate any need.She asked why Goal 14 was not included as one of the criteria.She noted in addition to there being nothing to substantiate any kind of need versus the desire to provide urban services to areas 1 and 2,there is nothing identifying problems of Munsel Lake Road or the Countyís failure to maintain it.She said there was enough documentation in the record to support denial of the application.


Sorenson asked what type of citizen involvement there was in this case.


Siegel said there was citizen participation at the local level but there was a lot of opposition.She said that the citizens are not in Eugene because it is too far and some are afraid to speak in front of the Board.She said the citizens asked if they could hold the next hearing in Florence so more people could attend.She said 35 people in Area 1 signed a petition.She commented that staff seems to support the applicantís view more than the people who come forward.


Morrison commented that the chair of the Planning Commission is from Florence and there is another individual from Florence on the Planning Commission and they both supported the application.She didnít agree with Siegel with the Planning Commission bullying the citizens.She noted the petition that was handed into the record was brought to Eugene, it was not mailed.She noted there were people present from Florence other than staff.


Durell noted the findings of fact with seven factors of Goal 14 and ORS. The Planning Commission discussed 197.298 on pages 13-21 of the minutes. (Copy in file).She said they took the deliberations seriously.She said the City of Florence takes citizen involvement and participation seriously.She noted there was an extensive process based on citizen involvement.She thought this was consistent with what a majority of the individuals of Florence thought was right for the community.


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


Dwyer wanted staff to address Siegelís contention about the open space zone and why they should go on faith when there are no guarantees that it would happen.He wanted to make sure the open space remains open.He wanted that information available prior to the next meeting.


Vorhes indicated they needed to leave the record open in order to introduce response to the questions and to provide an opportunity for people to respond.


Dwyer wanted to have the final hearing in Florence.


Vorhes said continuing the hearing was different than closing the hearing and leaving the record open.He said what was pointed out was the site review attachment to Area 1 that was a transcription error.He said in the ordinance it needs to be noted that that is not part of the proposed zone change to that area.He said that change is Section 2 of the ordinance.He indicated the site review should be deleted from the section.He said it didnít include site review for Area 1. Green wanted to leave the record open for new information, not to continue the hearing.


Dwyer wanted to continue the hearing in Florence.


Sorenson wanted to keep the record open and have the public hearing in Florence.


Hampton requested having the hearing in Florence.


Morrison agreed to have the hearing in Florence but she thought this could set a precedent for the other cities.


Green said by having a hearing in Florence, the record would remain open.


MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Continued Public Hearing on October 12 in Florence at 6:30 p.m. in the Florence City Council Chamber.


Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


c. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1216/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan, Taking a Reasons Exception to Goals 3 And 4; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 04-5003; St. Parks). (NBA & PM 9/1/04).


Jerry Kendall, Land Management, explained this is to accommodate for recreational vehicle overflow parking at the Heceta Head State Park.He said the area is 116 acres but the actual project site is slightly over three acres.He added under the reasons exception, the only project being granted is for what is being specifically proposed.He indicated the Planning Commission by a 5-1 vote, voted to approve but there were loose ends due to ownership issues.He stated the applicant had given them deeds showing that state parks owns all of the subject property and that took care of the majority of the loose ends.He noted there was also a concern on the part of a neighbor.


Kendall said there was concern on the part of a caretaker on behalf of a Mr. Broadbank who owns a dwelling that is serviced off of a road going across Cape Creek.He said they were concerned about trespassers utilizing the portion of the park.He said the applicant agreed to relocate the existing gate that is on the east end of the bridge to the west end.He noted there would be a sign on the gate that the park closes at a certain time and there is no camping allowed.He said the three letters of objection were attached to the packet.(Copy in file).He said the new loop system is designed to eliminate RVs coming from either direction into the park from needing to take a left turn and block the highway.He noted ODOT was given the opportunity to review and they chose to not comment on the project.


Kendall noted the initial concern of staff was that Cape Creek is a salmon bearing stream.He said it was recommended that there be a filtration trap on the paved parking lot for oil leaks.


Kendall said they were looking at four main criteria, exceptions to resource farm and forest goals and there is no adopted master plan for Heceta Head State Park. He said the parks planning goal said if there is no park plan, they have to take exception to the goal.He said the goal not applying is driven by the proximity to the existing park on the other side of the bridge, dictating the need for this rezoned resource land to be utilized. He asked if it was feasible from an economic, social, energy and environmental viewpoint to locate another resource site.With regard to the plan amendment standards, why the Board would find a reason to adopt this as proposed is that it fulfills the public need for traffic safety and park accessibility.He said staff is recommending approval of the ordinance as it is presented.


Green stated the decision of this body is subject to the plan amendment and rezoning criteria sited in the agenda cover memo and attachments.He said that evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria and failure to raise an issue to enable a response may preclude an appeal to LUBA. He indicated this is the opportunity for those present to enter information into the record and only persons who qualify may appeal the Boardís decision to LUBA.He asked if there were any ex parte contacts by the Board.


There were no ex parte contacts.


Terri Harding, Satre Associations, stated she was representing the state parks on this application.She reported the proposed improvements at the Heceta Head Lighthouse State Scenic Viewpoint is intended to provide safer and more convenient vehicular access.She said this would allow a right turn into the park no matter what direction someone was coming from.She said it is also to relocate the overflow parking area. She said overflow parking takes place in a gravel area and there are no barricades and it is not the best for water quality because it is adjacent to Cape Creek.She noted the proposed relocated parking area would be paved and would drain into bio swales and it would treat the water before it goes into Cape Creek.She added it includes parking spaces for RVís and buses so they have an increased ability to turn around.


Harding explained the new parking area is designed to avoid jurisdictional wetlands.She added that ODOT was a partner in the project as well as the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Noah Fisheries and the U.S. Forest Service and the Division of State Lands.She noted the application proposes to adopt a plan amendment and goal exception for access improvements.She stated the whole park was already zoned park and recreation but OAR 660.034 0035 requires that a goal exception be taken from improvements within a park that do not have an adopted master plan.She noted that state parks is intending to provide a gate at the west end of the little bridge.


Harding stated that the complete goal findings and evaluation of compliance with Lane Code and ORS are in the packet.She asked that based on the evidence entered into the record that the Board approves the application.


Ron Hallquist, P. O. Box 5000, Florence, stated he is a local businessman.He stated he was for the project.He thought if this passed there could be some pressure to start using the area prior to the asphalting of the Cape Creek Tunnel.His was concerned about any environmental spills that would endanger Cape Creek.


Nancy Broadbank, stated she is the owner of the 40 acres that is due east of the project.She said they are new owners to the property.She said when they acquired the property they were told by their real estate agent and previous owner where the road would go.She was concerned that the existing bridge that goes across Cape Creek has a railing of about one-foot high.She noted that even though the gate would prohibit vehicular traffic, they were concerned with the road coming down that they would see the bridge and that could be a picnic area and would draw people.She was afraid people could fall over the barrier.She suggested that they also have some type of pedestrian gate and some type of site barrier.She said even though there is not supposed to be overnight parking she said there were squatters that were there.


Harding stated they would work with the property owners to address the security concerns and the design issues.


Kendall indicated they received a letter in support from Siuslaw NationalForest.He noted the current parking lot does not have a filtration trap or a design to catch solvents.


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


MOTION: to approve Option 1 as presented with the findings.


Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.






Morrison announced that Saturday is the Eugene Celebration Parade.She added on Friday she is one of eight people to greet Vice President Cheney at the airport.










There being no further business, Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary.