BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
April 14, 2004
1:30 p.m.
Commissioners’ Conference Room
APPROVED 7/14/04
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 County’s 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 Residential”; 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 applicant’s 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 proposal’s 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 applicant’s parents’ 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 70’s. 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 wasn’t 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 County’s 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 applicant’s 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 didn’t think a reasonable person could
reach that conclusion. He added the
process the applicant’s 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
wasn’t 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 can’t 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 government’s 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 County’s 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
couldn’t 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.
VOTE: 5-0.
c. PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL ORDER 04-4-14-13/In
the Matter of Vacating a Portion of Willow Street, in the Plat of Gallagher’s
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
surveyor’s 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 Johnson’s 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 don’t 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 didn’t
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 County’s surveyor’s office that there was an objection. He withdrew it because he didn’t 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 didn’t 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 public’s interest that allows people to make a private gain. He didn’t see where that was in the public’s
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 isn’t any opposition to this and in
reality it doesn’t impact the Saxon’s property. She said Saxon’s only question and concern was why wasn’t 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 County’s 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 won’t 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 intersection’s 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 didn’t 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 can’t 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
wasn’t 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 Ballew’s 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 didn’t 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 residents’ 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 doesn’t perform
any good function and wasn’t necessary because it wasn’t 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 didn’t 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 didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 weren’t 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 wouldn’t 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.
VOTE: 5-0.
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 LCOG’s 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 wouldn’t 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 County’s 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 County’s
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 don’t 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 didn’t 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 didn’t 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
OTC’s project eligibility criteria. He
said the WEP is a highway that requires full project funding and they don’t
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.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary