Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/1982 Meeting ).'....... .......-. .,. .T.... . ... ':.>.~ ..,.,..... '~"-""'-"".".'-'-'''.'''-\<.'.''.'''''''.~'' i~; .. -ft~.~;:\i:i}'\?M:~~\>W}t ~ ~ --- ,'!-....f'I~V.~'-:>.W~,-.;i;:.-'\\.',~~.. ~o.~ ;~lf~J~fl~~~I;I);lk~'b1ht;fk;J;";i~~, " ~, JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON LCDC';GOAt:'~~ti~A'TURAL RESOURCES" .. ':'.~: ;:<.....:..:{;~4~~~..{~~.;;:'.::-..:;. '. PROPOSED. METROP'dDiT AN PLAN AMEN DMENTS - . ':",,:,\~'~,!:.~.:'.,.. . "~.;;..<!"'~~:i'~',~,,,,,\"':" ;":\'.' \:;\~. ~:.;~;~;t~_~l~..~:", , .; ,.::,"::.fl~{~I~1t~r:. .'. ' of the Eugene andSpringtield~:;<5itY~Councils and the Lane County. Boar~:~f :~omrriissioners , . ..., .:' ". .n. ...~~.<:..~~~iiPl?:",.- " ;.;. . ,., -.:~'-:.;'.- :-,;~:-~~,;,,!,.~<:_:~.;j~~bk~~z:.:,_: . " ,",','. . .... ....,. '. :. ~~~~>';"~.~!,w"'-,c. -'.' . '': :'. '.~ '.'+:: ~'~{~'~~'~~;}~"\~;-:, ',' Harris '. . , '.. ,:::.~f~?~t~f~~~~~1::': ." . Tuesday, janu'3'~Y\;:1'2.2~'~./" . Hall, 125. East 8th.Avenue/i:Eugene, Oregon . ..::,...<~,,}:~:'~tth41ir~'+>";\.,.. ,_. , c;,'~ -.'.. .~:;J;:~~??': . "-'.-;. . I~~l~~j({~, '~'\:':"~' .;, ::':-:>. )"~~~~:, '.': :1~~-: ". January 1982 . Lane Council. of Governments 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401' ...~%... .~~:. ";':J ~ :'::"';_': lane COU:1::t of Governmen~ N()rl'~ D! '<:.:'\ l.c'/el PSB 12:' E3st 8th.. Street Euoene,Oregon ~740!. , . ".~ ::~ ".-. ,,". . .,.~,.' '::. ;;::.~'':-~' -::. .' ';'~',; :,:~.:> '.: "..~-~..;../:.<~ ':. ... -'. '. ':~'-;'<\;,., . }. '~r I , ~ ,it~ f~ <Y)l ,'; , .... !. '~'i_f ~' ~' ''1' -t ',{i ; <j .~ t I ,i~ f f " 1 r , ;'~ t t 1 j,i.;"" , . ; " ~ ;. / 1~ , ~. , ~ II. SUMMARY MINUTES ON JANUARY 12, 1982 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON LCDC GOAL 5, "NATURAL RESOURCES" ,: I il t' f ~ :1: i I: I"~ I,i, il, II' i i tl:: i :' i r! i r Council and Commissioners Present: Lane County Springfield Eugene Scott Lieuallen Otto t'Hooft Harold Rutherford Jerry Rust Vance Freeman Gus Keller Bill Hamel Mark Lindberg Cynth ia Wooten Emily Schue Gretchen Miller Joh n Lively Gene Hulett Duane Herring Ken Eilers Chris Larson Sandra Rennie i_ II Councilors Absent: 1'1' l i I' Springfield il t I- t f: ;,i hi 1"'1 : ~ I I,' /, " II, 1'1: I" II! Ii - if' : -I; I '. ~. I :., i !, ! i i i Ii I , ; Eugene Don Carter Eric Haws Betty Smith Brian Obie Staff Present: Lane County Springfield Eugene L-COG Joe Hudzikiewicz Jim Farah Teresa Bishow Steve Gordon Barbara Phillips Rob Lilley Approximately 60 members of the public were present. A. INTRODUCTIONS \ \ Chairperson, Keller, opened the hearing at 7:40 p.m. by presenting Eugene City Council members. Joh n Lively introduced Springfield City Council members, followed by Scott Lieuallen, who introduced the Lane County Board of Commissioners. ; ; - I i! , ' !.I B. OPENING REMARKS ;. ; j" , Gus Keller gave a brief history of the Metropolitan Plan, starting with its predecessor, the 1990 Plan. He recapped the progress that has been made in making the required changes to the Metropolitan Plan, as well as the purpose for the Joint Public Hearings held on November 17, 1981 and December 15, 1981. He then stated the twofold purpose for tonight's meeting: (1) to receive public testimony related to the LCDC Goal 5 requirements for specific natural resource areas, and (2) begin deliberations, after closing the hearing, to allow the three elected bodies to discuss issues and reach consensus on proposed amendments which are acceptable to all three governing bodies. l. i f";. ~:.! 11-1 He declared the intent of the meeting was to complete the the Metropolitan Plan within the LCDC 15D-day continuance ends approximately February 22, 1982). amendments J period (which J' 'i Mayor Keller proceeded to explain how the meeting would be conducted: For Oral Testimony 1. Public speakers must register their name on the sign-up sheet (provided at the front door). Oral testimony would be received in the order of sign-up. 2. Five minutes would be the maximum time limit for testimony, so that all would have chance to speak. . 3. December 15th testimony need not to be repeated as tonight's meetin9 is a continuance of that meeting. 4. Goal 5 testimony should be directed to the draft materials and proposed amendments for the natural resource areas wh ich are given additional consideration in response to LCDC requirements. 5. The hearing would not be open to testimony on the issues related t the other 14 LCDC goals. 6. A copy of all written testimony must be provided to the secretar (deadline for such submission is at the close of tonight's hearing). 7. The meeting will close at 8:15 p.m. After The Hearing 1. After closing the hearing, the th ree governing bodies will reach consensus on the Goal 5 issues. 2. Following tonight's meeting, each governing body will adopt th amended Metropolitan Plan during January and February, according t individual schedules and procedures. 3. After the governing bodies make all individual changes required b LCDC and adopt a mutually agreed upon Plan, the three comprehensiv Plans, including the Metropolitan Plan, will be submitted to LCDC fo review and approval. Scott Lieuallen proceeded to open the hearing on behalf of the Lane Coun Board of Commissioners. C. PUBLIC HEARING ON GOAL 5, "NATURAL RESOURCES" Oral Testimony: 1. Mr. Tim Bloch, 1236 Willagillespie, Eugene, Oregon 97401 Vice-President, Committee to Preserve Gillespie Butte (see Writte Testimony ;"'Pp. 111-F-1-5). He felt that Gillespie Butte has significant 11-2 '.' .. historic and scenic value to Eugene, which would b,e irretrievably lost if this area is developed. 2. Mr. Mark Christensen, 33132 Coleman Road, Eugene, Oregon 91401, owner of tax lot #500. He protested the inclusion of his property in the Willow Creek Wetlands. He did not wish to donate h is land and said and that no economic tradeoff is possible on his land (all five acres are presently considered part of the wetlands). He requested that the wetlands boundaries be drawn south and east of tax lot 500 to exclude it. 3. Mr. Harold Chapman, 51 Chapman Drive, Eugene, Oregon 91404. He opposed staff recommendation of the land use plan for Confluence Island, as he felt it would adversely affect property, Santa Clara residents, vegetation and wildlife. He stated that the island protects North Santa Clara residents from flooding from the McKenzie River and feared sand/gravel operations would worsen the erosion around the island and result in a major flood. He also asked that better use be made of the power lines in existing corridors instead of constructing additional ones on the island. 4. Ms. Vora E. Heintz, 1038 Jayne Drive, Eugene, Oregon 91404, Board member of Neighborhood Group, Lane County Citizen Involvement Committee, River Road/Santa Clara Task Force Groundwater Study (also see also Written Testimony, pp. 111-1-1-2). She opposed annexation and use of storm sewers for the River Road/Santa Clara area, and questioned groundwater report findings. 5. Mr. Tom E. Heintz, 1038 Jayne Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97404. He stated his concurrence with the testimonies of Harold Chapman and Vora Heintz. 6. Ms. Sydney Herbert, 2750 Onyx, Eugene, Oregon 91403, Lane County Audubon Society (also see Written Testimony, pp. 111-C-1-4). She wished to amend her December 15, 1981 oral testimony regarding the staff recommendations for Confluence Island heronry. She disagreed completely with the compromise the staff suggested (conditional use permit to control sand/gravel operation and protect the heronry with a buffer) . She felt the gravel would be protected by some other land use designation until a process could be worked out to extract gravel' without harming other resources. She objected to the comparison of Confluence Island to Ross Island, feeling there was no similarity and mentioned flagrant violations of the conditional use permit that have occurred on Ross Island for the past five years. She was concerned that Delta Sand and Gravel felt the 300-foot buffer would be adequate to allow gravel extraction at any time of the year, even nesti ng season. 1. ?~ Further, she contended the Greenway permit process IS not precIse enough in detailing proper gravel processing. 11-3 ;, . ill! I~' i iil ~. r I I t ! P " ""11'1,' J.: I' , Ii I. 'j: h , Ii' , I I.. I' " 'II~ : 'II,. n iil i:i I' r ! i I j j ," 'I I I " ~.t " 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The island is in agricultural use, .wh ich she - stated made it effected Goal 15 which requires all agricultural lands be used exclusively such. , by: . as I I for! f I . ofl asf . , i She was against the building of a power line on the island, fearing the herons, who are clumsy and have stupid young. She suggested the island be designated for agriculture with an area heron trees set aside as a natural resource area and the fringe open space. Mr. Jim Greer, 3150 Main, Springfield, Oregon 97477, Department of Fish and Wildlife (also see Written Testimony, pp. 111-B-1-13). Hel asked that Willow Creek, Bertelsen Slough, Confluence Island and. I Pudding Creek be designated as natural resource areas. Further, he wanted 37 acres (not the 19 acres recommended by staff) to be' reserved for Bertelsen Slough as he felt they are an integral part of the marsh area. He concurred with the 105 acre allotment for Willow Creek, as long as there would be a buffer between Willow Creek and development. Ms. Esther Loy, 2683 Elinor, Eugene, Oregon 97403, League of Women Voters (also see Written Testimony, pp. 111-H-1). She expressed con~ern for island protection for Pudding Creek heronry and maintenance of the vegetation. She had no objection to the interim recommendations. i Mr. David Williams, 975 Oak, #60, Eugene, Oregon 97405, attorney representing West Park Associates and Landyne, Inc. (property owners in the Bertelsen Slough area)( see also Written Testimony, pp. III-D-1-3). He stated that the West Park Site had been designated as a special light industrial site, specifically to have a "campus-like" site to attract jobs. However, the natural resource designation takes a portion of that land which is the most "campus-like". He wished recognition of the issue of compensation for acquisition of the 19 acres in. Bertelsen Slough. Ms. Wanda R. Simmons, 1183 Skipper Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97404 (also see Written Testimony, III-J-l) . Regarding Confluence Island, she did not want the island disturbed with sand/gravel excavation and felt there would be flood hazard conditions if there were further excavation. She perceived agriculture as being no problem to the wildlife and asked that it be allowed to continue. She also requested that farmlands not be a disposal site for sludge. Mr. Donovan Kendall, 464 Dublin Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97404. He stated that the the average height of the 1964 "lOO-year" flood was 379.17 feet (calculations estimated from' data from the Soil Conservation survey). The island is 375-380 feet in elevation and the two highest points of the island keep floodwaters from reaching Santa Clara and is. its only protection. By allowing sand/gravel operation, Chapman Drive' to Scenic Drive (2-4 square miles) would be endangered as the land,. there is less than 375 feet in places. He feared the heronry would not be adequately protected from floodwaters due to an inadequate buffer \ 11-4 i I: ~ - I" ~. .r' '" ~; 12. 13. I' J 14. 1 a e t 4 I, d r e d e .5 n ;t '5 'e d ){ 15. 1; zone. Since this is a ~mall land mass, sand/gravel operation would lower the water table, thus, the wells could not "draw". He requested the island be designated as a natural resource area or agriculture. Ms. Marie Gray, 353 Knoop Lane, Eugene, Oregon 97404 (also see Written Testimony, pp. III-A-1-2). She submitted an article on flood dangers to Santa Clara and requested the Board and Councils take a minute to read. Mr. John C. Neely, Jr., 1600 Horn Lane, Eugene, Oregon 97404 (see also Written Testimony, p. III-K-1). He felt that groundwater presently used by River Road/Santa Clara residents presents no health hazard but if annexation occurs, the water that would be used (from Eugene) would. He claimed the septic tanks in River Road/Santa Clara can be altered and therefore, opposed annexation of the River Road/Santa Clara area. Mr. Bob Moulton, 260 East 11th Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, attorney representing Delta Sand and Gravel (see also Written Testimony, pp. III-L-l-12). He said he came to answer questions raised at the December 15, 1981 Joint Public Hearing and stated the following: a. Delta Sand and Gravel has protected the heronry at Confluence Island for a long time; people, not gravel activity, are harmful to the heronry. b. There will be no flooding problem due to gravel excavation. c. There was no agriculture, in recent times, on the island until Mr. Babb (owner of Confluence Island) built a bridge. d. Mr. Babb has agreed to allow 13 acres for a buffer to protect the heronry. Mr. Moulton felt the 300-foot buffer zone for the heronry was adequate, stating that all but two of the nests are over 600 feet away. e. He acknowledges and agrees to the Greenway process the lS0-foot buffer and protection of vegetation. Further, as soon as this matter is settled, the Greenway process will be initiated. f. He will meet all staff concerns. g. The types of gravel on the island are needed by Delta Sand and Gravel in the next year to remain competitive. Mr. Moulton urged that the staff recommendation of sand/gravel designation be given. Mr. George L. Griffin, 2866 Manor Drive, Springfield, Oregon 97477. Mr. Griffin is a civil and employed by Lane County to operations . At the present, sand/gravel activities and has structural engineer. Formerly, he was deal with rock quarries and sand/gravel he is a consultant on rock quarries and dealt with flood questions for the 11-5 IIi ~ ! i' illi I.. ~, l f!; i:! I: ' ~- : r j I f. !r-l L: I i. , ' r: . I I' I ,r: ,\ 19. 20. 16. County Jor a long time. He asserted there was no danger of flooding; from the sand/gravel operation on Confluence Island as the water level! of the McKenzie River is lower than in 1964 and Delta Sand and Gravell: has built dikes. He declared that he is working with the Corps of, Engineers on the bank erosion problem and that erosion will nott encourage flood conditions. i' Mr. Alan Dale Babb, 695 Fairoaks Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97401,) owner of Confluence Island and Delta Sand and Gravel. He contendedr that Delta Sand and Gravel has helped protect Santa Clara from, flooding (since 1965) by building dikes and that future sand/graVelt excavation cannot allow flooding to run through its operation due to; mining permit conditions. He asserted the island has been zoned as: sand/gravel for 10-12 years. He has owned the land the heronry isl; on for 14 years and asked for its protection then, as well as~. cooperated with the Audubon Society. He stated there are morel' feeding areas for herons now than before, th us disproving the sta.tement that sand/gra~el operatio.n cannot support such areas. He~ claimed there was no agriculture until three years ago when he allowed:' Dave Malkey to farm it (to keep the blackberries down), and that there would no agriculture if he had not built a bridge (as the island ,! ( would be inaccessible). , Commissioner Lieuallen requested verification that the herons are declining in number. Mr. Babb stated there are fewer nests in the heronry which he felt~ was due to limbs being broken off the nesting trees. However, since' the original data came out about the present number of nests, more" nests have been found, further south and west of where it was ': thought all the nests would be. Therefore, the acreage for the buffer; was enlarged to 13 acres on h is privately owned land. 17. Ms. Melva Barnes, 29943 Awbrey Lane, Eugene, Oregon 97402 (see~ also Written Testimony, p. IJI-M-1). She was against MWMC locatinsp: sewage lagoons on Site "c, claiming aircraft-bird strike hazards WOUldl:,'," result. She feared contamination of the water supply, as well. : Mr. Bob Coller, 810 River Loop 1, Eugene, Oregon 97404. He urged; that Confluence Island be considered a wildlife area, as all floods a rei,',' different and perhaps the next flood would endanger the residents. " Mr. Gordon Elliott, 938 Jefferson Street, Eugene, Oregon 97402. He, asked that his property be considered within the urban growth bou ndary. th us allowing h 1m to b u i Id a "sociologica I adult vi lIage" . t Ms. Rhonda J. Harwood, 92112 River Road, Junction City, Oregon I 97448, member of HOPE. She has submitted several petitions, concerning having wastewater facilities in prime agriculture land. She felt there is bias toward city interests rather than county residents.!,; Sh~ . questioned allowin~ con.ditional use for ,an industrial (sludge)l+ faCIlity when the land IS being saved for agriculture. She proposed~ the conditional use permit process be altered to disallow waste ~ 18. " .; ,. 11-6 treatment facilities on natural resource areas -and prime agricultural lands. 21. Mr. Jim Hale, 4064 Meredith Court, Eugene, Oregon 97404. He asserted that sand/gravel excavation could take away the buffer that prevents flooding and did not believe the Greenway process covers the excavation process adequately. He discounted George Griffin's testimony, stating that Mr. Griffin testified a few years ago against the construction of an elementary school (close by Madison Junior High) which is far from the river bank because Mr. Griffin thought additional structures that close to the river might present a hazard to residents during flooding, Now he has reversed his opinion on potential river flooding. Mr. Hale recommended Confluence I sland be designated a natural resource and not agriculture, park/open space or sand/gravel. Gus Keller closed the public hearing at 9: 15 p. m. and announced the joint meeting would commence in seven minutes. Scott Lieuallen closed the public hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. 11-7 ;. , ...". i IV. MINUTES ON JANUARY 12, 1982 JOINT MEET'ING ON PROPOSED METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENTS A. Minutes After closing the joint public hearing on Goal 5, Gus Keller reopened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. At that time, Scott Lieuallen requested the Commissioners state any questions they would like answered by staff; a discussion of the issues identified in lists from the three governing bodies wou Id follow. Q: Harold Rutherford Mark Ch ristensen natural resource Staff, . clarify what area wanted exempted from the designation for Willow Creek. A: Steve Gordon Tax lot 500 is at the northwesterly corner of Willow Creek. The total acreage recommended for the natural resource designation is ,105 acres, of which Tax lot 500 contains about ,5 acres. Mark Christensen is asking exclusion of the entire tax lot 500 from the natural resource designation. Q: Harold Rutherford Did David Williams request exclusion of 20 acres in Bertelsen Slough? A: Steve Gordon The staff recommendation is a natural resource designation for 20 acres In Bertelsen Slough. This area would extend from Bertelsen, easterly almost to Wall ice Street. Mr. Williams represents owners, Landyne and West Park Associates. They are affected by about 12-15 acres of that natural resource designation. As there were no other questions from the Board of Commissioners, Mayor Keller inquired if Mayor Lively or the Springfield City Council had any questions. They had none. Mayor Keller then asked if the Eugene City Council had any questions. Q: Cynth ia Wooten Mr. Farah, with regard to the January 12th memo to Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners from the Eugene City Council, please explain more thoroughly, recommendations 4 and 5 (under item 1). Give specifics on how they would work and what it would mean. Also, I would like a response from the Department of Fish and Wildlife as to its opinion on these recommendations (especially #5) . IV-A-1 A: Q: A: Jim Farah Cynth ia Wooten Steve Gordon These are recommendations -to the Council from Eugene Planning Commission concerning Goal 5, which the Commission voted on last week as additions to the Confluence heronry recommendation. Recommendation 4 states that the periphery of the island should be preserved. It recognizes that the staff cannot define the width of the periphery and that there are specific points the periphery should be addressing -- erosion and the scenic and wildlife habitat. It is attempting to take the thrust of the text of the Confluence heronry discussion and put it into recommendation form. This was a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Recommendation 5 addresses th~- -Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife review of the sand and gravel operations as part of the permit process. This recommendation also took comments from the text and included them formally in recommendation form. This too was a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Regarding the undetermined periphery width (recommendation 4), who will determine this, when will it be done, what will it need and how will this take effect? There are a couple of ways that might happen: I 1. Lane County has to comply with LCDC Greenway requirements as part of its Rural Plan and the Metropolitan Plan. One of the requirements is that the County identifies the width of the vegetative fringe of the island, or 2. through the Mining Permit Process; I.e., condition #6 of the Wildish Sand and Gravel Company permit at Pudding Creek reads, "natural vegetation shall remain intact between the operation and the river for a distance of at least 100 feet, where possible, and an effort should be made to preserve existing vegetation elsewhere at the operation. " These two mechanisms maintenance of the Confluence Island. will help vegetative ensure fringe the on IV-A-2 .' Q: A: Cynthia Wooten Steve Gordon Q: Cynthia Wooten A: Steve Gordon ~! '.J " h ~; !~ . : i~ Is it true that the number of. heron nests on Confluence Island has been reduced over a period of six or more years; if so, what is the cause and what would be the impact, if these two recommendations are adopted, on the ability of the herons to continue living on the island? Scott English's report indicated that at one time there were 71 active heron nests - - it was the largest heronry in the Willamette System. More recent surveys have estimated that there may be as few as 54 active heron nests. Mr. Babb has indicated that he has observed some storm damage to the nesting trees which has caused some herons to nest elsewhere. They are not moving out from the periphery of the existing heronry. It is possible that sand and gravel extraction could take place on the island without damaging the integrity of the heronry. If there is cessation of sand/gravel operations during the nesting season, especially in the early part of the nesting season, there would be no opportunity of disturbance in the heronry. If the vegetation is maintained, the visual buffer needed from sand/gravel activities will be there. I don't know how deeply Delta Sand and Gravel plans to extract. If it only excavates six to eight feet, shallow ponds would be created. In the long term, I think this would be beneficial to the heronry. Scott English's report also indicates that herons spend the majority of their time feeding within 1/4 mile of the heronry. This is accord~ng to his observation of other other heronries in the Willamette System). Would the issue of depth of excavation and other mine-related activities come under the agreements indicated by recommendation 5? What details can and would be laid out by that process? I have looked at some of the specifics of the Ross I sland sand and gravel excavation in the Portland area. The company can specify depth, explicit plans for revegetation, slope and width of dikes and water quality controls on release water into the Willamette System. IV-A-3 . .0 Q: Cynth i~ Wooten A: Steve Gordon Q: Cynth ia Wooten A: Steve Gordon We received correspondence' from Dr. English. He stated he believes his original work was misinterpreted by the Metropolitan Team staff in this process. What is your response to this? None of us are ornithologists or have studied the heronry in great detail. We looked at literature work by Dr. Werschkul on the impact of human disturbances -- road construction and logging -- on some coastal heronries. We came to general conclusions as land use planners, based on that literature. As .to the agricultural use of the island, Mr. Babb indicated there was no farming activity prior to 30 years ago. Can you verify this statement? I believe there is a longer history of agricultural activity. Historically, there were some hop orchards on the island. When the river changed course and access to the island was cut off, Mr. Babb told me there were people who drove cattle onto the island and used it for grazing. Further, that a new river channel was cut in 1929 that created the island, so it is not inaccurate to say that as much as 30 years may have gone by where there was no active agriculture. Recent agriculture only started after the bridge was constructed. I don't think Mr. Babb was trying to misrepresent the history of the island. Cynthia Wooten then requested Jim Greer, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to come forth to respond to recommendation 5. However, he was no longer at the meeting. Q: Mark Lindberg A: Jim Farah Pertaining to recommendation 5, would it be legal if in the Plan, the area designated as natural resource had a "grandfather" clause which would permit the owner to continue operations in that area, with a negotiated control process? Should the ownership change, then the designation would revert to strictly natural resource. The Goal 5 evaluation is intended to balance a series of conflicting activities. It would be improper to set forth mechanisms that would obliterate the ability to mine the sand/gravel resource. The Plan might be open to challenge if that were do~ This is a precarious balance situation which we are striving to maintain. We are attempting to do this in the staff ~".' IV-A-4 R~.: ~~ If; W recommendation. The Eugene Planning Commission is trying to add to the ability to keep that balance by minimizing the impact of the sand/gravel operation. There were no more questions from the Eugene City Councilors. Otto t'Hooft declared the Commissioners had spent approximately 2-1/2 hours earlier this morning, going over the various concerns. He requested the Coordinating Committee discuss the new items further to resolve them. Later, each governing body would meet to take action on them. Jerry Rust suggested the Goal 5 concerns be handled first, before going to the listed items. He felt some GoalS items should be set aside, to get to the heart of the Metropolitan Plan, and returned to for analysis and more careful study later on. He urged GoalS be taken first, followed by the General Plan as a wRole. Gus Keller responded that the chair's intent was to accomplish that goal, also. IV-A-5 Mayor Keller asked if there was a motion to adopt staff's recommendation on GoalS, after which it would be discussed. MOTION: Gene Hulett MOVED and Gretchen Miller SECONDED adoption of staff's recommendation on GoalS. Gus Keller declared, "The motion before you then is to adopt the staff recommendation". He inquired if there were any further comments from the staff. Gretchen Miller stated that the December 15th memorandum from the Metropolitan Planning Team to all three jurisdictions clearly explained the staff recommendation referred to in the motion. Gus Keller questioned if recommendations 4 and 5, from the January 12th memorandum, were included in the staff recommendation. Gretchen Miller responded that they were not. Gus Keller asked if Gene Hulett wanted to include recommendations 4 and 5 in the motion. MOTION: Gene Hulett MOVED and Gretchen Miller SECONDED including recommendations 4 and 5 in the motion. Mayor Keller requested the Commissioners to lead the discussion. Jerry Rust stated as h is concerns: (1) the unknown consequences of sand/gravel excavation upon the Confluence Island heronry; (2) overallocation of the sand/gravel operation in the Plan, with no justification for taking an exception to GoalS; (3) overcomittance to the sand/gravel resource, in general; (4) possibility of flooding .-": the river is not dammed (as is the Willamette) and subsequently does not .have strong flood check controls and there IS powerful undercutting continuously going on; (5) danger to the herons if EWEB constructs a powerline on the island; (6) 100 feet is inadequate as a buffer; and (7) the Pudding Creek heronry should be have the same designation as Confluence Island. He asked that Confluence Island be given an EFU designation with a natural buffer for the edge and the rookery. Jerry Rust urged that as Bertelsen Slough has significant and diverse wildlife species, the area be expanded and include some of the uplands which are critical habitat nesting and roosting locations. Mr. Rust suggested that Gillespie Butte receive a historic-scenic-open space designation. Mr. Rust recommended that if some of the concerns needed further discussion, a motion be made to set them aside from the main motion to be dealt with at a later time. Cynthia Wooten agreed but asked how they could proce~. Mayor Keller responded that the protection process suggested by the staff had enough leeway to deal with other events that might occur. He preferred not to put off dealing with the entirety of the concerns, by way of waiting for another report. He felt that there would not be any sudden drastic occurrences to worry about as long as there would be a commitment by the landowner while the governing bodi.es worked out a protection process. Mayor Keller proceeded to another issue -- tax lot 500 in Willow Creek. Q: Gus Keller I s there an agreement we can reach regarding omission of the 5-acre parcel (tax lot 500) from the Willow Creek protected area? A: Jim Farah Yes. The staff thought it was being discussed for property acquisition by a major concern but found out this afternoon that this did not occur. We could adopt a recommendation to continue to pursue acquisition of the property by the City or by a public body. -The staff feels this would be appropriate. Q: Gus Keller Could this same plan be used in dealing with the Confluence heronry? A: Jim Farah I feel recommendation 5 establishes that kind of framework. Later on, studies may be developed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Metropolitan Team staff, etc., that would more clearly define what has been set forth here. However, that kind of approach needs to be taken out of the context of the Metropolitan Plan. The Metropolitan Plan is intended to be a very general document and is not intended to cite every kind of. specific activity that goes on IV-A-6 IV-A-7 t ~ within the entire area. If it were~ we would be here till the year 2000, developing a plan. The staff feels very strongly that the Goal 5 analysis is perhaps too explicit already and any more specificity might put us outside the context of the General Plan. Gretchen Miller felt the Goal 5 issues were frustrating to many because the way the LCDC procedure developed gave the Goal 5 procedures an extra handicap, and there was less time spent working on these issues as compared to time spent on others, i. e., commercial land applications. She urged finding a common language that all could agree on -- tonight. If this was not done, there would be no hope for getting the Plan to Salem in the time left. I n her opinion, the Eugene Planning Commission had put some specific language in the Plan that hopefully all could agree on, which would also trigger further procedures. It would be impossible to send it back to the Elected Officials Coordinating Committee. Therefore, unless some wanted to constitute themselves an ad hoc committee to decide this matter by the next morning, there would have to be some Plan language that all could agree to. That Plan language might have to be someth ing that admitted that they did not have all the answers at that point but that they were going to continue to try to find them. She believed the Planning Commission had done this but she would listen to other suggestions. Q: Jerry Rust Ms. Miller, was the Eugene Planning Commission suggesting that we submit a Plan with holes in it -- with language that says we are continuing to study these particular areas? A: Gretchen Miller Recommendation 4 suggests the County deal with the Greenway permit issue. Recommendation 5 makes it clear that the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the owner need to develop controls through the mining permit procedure. These recommendations imply to me that we don't have all the answers at this point. Jerry Rust stated that this would give a primary designation of sand and gravel to the island. He felt everyone should take the time to have more meetings before such a broad designation was put on the island. He urged that judgments be held aside until all desired information was gathered. Vance Freeman replied that the Coordinating Committee and Metro Team staff had worked on this problem. In his opinion, there are plenty of checks and balances in the Greenway process and site review. Further, with all the restrictions, there was no need to worry about loopholes. He concurred with the staff on the recommendations they set forth. Gene Hulett also affirmed recommendations 4 and 5 took care of the matter. He stated that if these two points were made any more detailed, all the other areas in the Plan would have to be more specific as well. He concurred with Gretchen Miller regarding not having another EI~cted Officials Coordinating Committee meeting. He asserted that there was no reason the committee need be reactivated. Further, he had been working on the Plan for five years and felt it was time to finish it. Mayor Keller declared the intent of the meeting was to attempt a compromise and some decision-making. Each jurisdiction would take a tentative vote of approval or disagreement on the motions made. Mayor Lively requested Springfield Council vote on approval of Goal 5 with the inclusion of recommendations 4 and 5. MOTION: Gene Hulett MOVED that Goal 5, including recommendations 4 and 5, be approved. Springfield Council PASSED motion. Mayor Keller called for a vote from the Eugene Council. CARRIED 3-2 for Eugene Council. Motion Harold Rutherford stated he had a question to be answered before the Board voted on the motion. Q: Harold Rutherford What is the justification for the inclusion of the Christensen property (tax lot 500) in the wetlands? A: Jim Farah Staff talked about this matter late this afternoon and feels it would be appropriate to delete reference to tax lot 500 in the Willow Creek Basin. Instead, recommendation 12 (which states that efforts should be continued to acquire tax lot 500, either th rough a private nonprofit organization or a public body, so that the boundary of the natural resource area would exclude tax lot 500 at this time) should be substituted. Scott Lieuallen declared that for the purposes of the Board action, he would consider recommendation 12 to be part of the motion. He asked if a member of the Board would make a motion regarding Goal 5. MOTION: Vance Freeman MOVED and Otto T'Hooft SECONDED acceptance of Goal 5, as amended by recommendations 4, 5, and 12. Otto T'Hooft commented that the Bertelsen Slough Issue had not been addressed yet. Q: Scott Lieuallen What is the recommendation Bertelsen Slough? concerning A: Jerry Rust It includes the bottomland but leaves out the upland (upstream area). : ":'~': IV-A-8 t! t F MOTION: Jer,ry Rust MOVED and Scott Lieuallen SECONDED giving "natural resource" status to the 37 acres, which contains the upstream area and add it to the other area. Q: Scott Lieuallen Does the Board understand they are voting on including the upland, as well as the wetland part of Bertelsen Slough? Q: Harold Rutherford I would like that explained very clearly to me, as I am not sure what we are talking about. A: Steve Gordon Referring to map in front of you, the suggestion of the Department of Fish and Wildlife is to expand this site to include all those areas outlined in Figure 111-2 to the natural resource designation. A: Jerry Rust We have protected the marsh land. The City of Eugene diked the Bertelsen Slough at one point to back the water up. This has created a significant habitat there. Upland from that is the ash, cottonwood, oak, and willows which provide additional important environments. There is an interrelationsh ip between the lowland and upland. Q: Harold Rutherford Would the proposal given us by Mr. Williams reduce the amount of land recommended by staff? A: Steve Gordon I don't recall him asking for a reduction. He merely pointed out h is concern about compensation for loss of economic return for his acreage. Q: Harold Rutherford I would. like to know what the boundary is for the land the staff is making the recommendation on. Is it just due south of Wallis, near Hult's property, west of the words "West 5th A ven ue" (Figure 111-2)1 A. Steve Gordon Yes, it is Figure 111-2. the cross-hatched area in Q: Scott Lieuallen Would the relationship between the dryer upland area and lower wetland be interrupted and seriously impaired should development occur on the wetland? A: Jerry Rust Th is area is rather modest. For educational purposes, it is the only metropolitan wetland reflecting what once covered much of the Eugene-Springfield area. IV-A-9 - As there were no further questions, Scott Lieuallen called for a vote from the Board on the amendment. Motion FAilED 3 - 2. Scott Lieuallen requested vote on the main motion, as suggested by Gretchen Miller. Q: Jerry Rust A: MOTION: Q: Q: Does this take the whole of Goal 5? If there are other Goal 5 concerns, this would be the time to bring them up. Scott Lieuallen Yes. Jerry Rust MOVED and Scott Lieuallen SECONDED excluding from consideration in this motion, Confluence Island, Pudding Creek, and Gillespie Butte. Jerry Rust stated h is intent was to secure more time to effect a language that would be more protective and which would balance the Goal 5 issues more adequately. Scott Lieuallen supported Commissioner Rust in his concern and called for a vote on the motion. Motion FAILED 3 - 2. Scott Lieuallen Other amendments to the motion as offered? Mayor Keller Have you dealt with the 5-acre issue? A: Scott Lieuallen I consider that as inclusion in the main motion if there IS no objection from the maker or second. Mayor Keller asked the maker of the motion and Eugene Council if they had any objection to that. Since there was none, Mayor Keller stated that the record should show that issue was included in the motion as they acted upon it also. Springfield also indicated likewise. Scott Lieuallen verified that the change was to withdraw the 5 acres from the motion but to pursue acquisition. Q: Scott Lieuallen Are there other amendments, comments, debate on the Goal 5 main motion? As there were none, he called for a vote on the main motion. Motion PASSED 4 - 1. MOTION: Gretchen Miller MOVED and Gene Hulett SECONDED adopting the amendments to the August 1980 Metropolitan Plan. The amendments' include: "Summary of Proposed Metropolitan Plan Amendments" from November 1981; the additional Elected Officials Coordinating Committee recommendations as found in the December 10, 1981 memorandum from that body; the additional recommendations from the Metropolitan Planning Team as found in the December 11, 1981 memorandum from that body (the Elected Officials Coordinating Committee gave instructions to the Planning Team to refine and develop language; the next day the Planning Team submitted this IV-A-10 ~; ,I ~~ ; :j memo in which they ac<;omplished that); the recommended changes to the Metropolitan Plan relating to Goal 5 natural resources as found in the December 15, 1981 memorandum from the Metropolitan Planning Team, which has been amended by the governing bodies tonight; and the exceptions and working papers in "Metropolitan Plan Update, Natural Resource Areas: Conflict Resolution for Significant Areas", dated December 1981. Also, as part of the motion, by doing this, we would reaffirm the relationship between the General Plan and the working papers, as outlined on pages 1, 6, and 7 of the August 1980 Metropolitan Plan. The background for our decisions tonight are provided in working papers on "Exceptions," "Agricultural Land Addendum," "Forest Lands Revised," "Natural Resource Areas; Conflict Resolution for Significant Areas," "Noise," "Groundwater," "The Economy Addendum," "River Road-Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Facilities Study," "Emergency Medical Services," and the "Greenway Addendum," all of these being additional background information developed since August 1980. MOTION: Jerry Rust MOVED and Vance Freeman SECONDED the same motion for Lane County. Mayor Keller affirmed that action should be taken on all items that could be agreed upon. The issues on the position papers from the Eugene and Springfield Councils and Lane County would be removed for later discussion. He requested the position papers be given to him for identification in the record of the items to be withdrawn, so that the rest of the items be moved for approval. The papers were: 1. January 12, 1982 memorandum from Springfield Planning Staff to Eugene City Council and Lane County Commissioners, "Springfield City Council Metro Plan Recommendations," 2. January 12, 1982 memorandum from Joe Hudzikiewicz, Planning, to Lane County Board of Commissioners, "Items Discussed in Preparation of Joint Metro Plan Hearing on January 12th," and 3. January 12, 1982 memorandum from Eugene City Council to Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, "Items to Put on the Table. " (Those items are attached as part of these minutes, as Sections IV-B, IV-C, and IV-D.) Otto t'Hooft stated he would like item 7 on page IV-A-21 of the "Summary of Proposed Metropolitan Plan Amendments" be included among the 24 items in the Lane County January 12th memorandum. He felt the ph rasing process of incorporation" was too vague and should be changed to "formation and corporation of. " Gene Hulett responded that the Elected Officials Coordinating Committee had adopted almost identical language. IV-A-ll Commissioner t'Hooft felt the language, as it now stood, was unclear and should be changed. ' Gretchen Miller declared the change would be too imprecise. The October 27, 1981 memorandum (which was debated extensively) specified phrase "process of incorporation" referred to the specific steps incorporation outlined in ORS, chapter 221. Mayor Keller exclaimed that "process of incorporation" was originally Commissioner t'Hooft's idea. It was the compromise language developed. Mr. t'Hooft stated he had changed his mind and still wished that item added to the list. Mayor Keller so noted it. MOTION: Vance Freeman MOVED and Otto t'Hooft SECONDED approval of the balance of the Plan, excluding the above mentioned items. Motion PASSED unanimously. Mayor Keller called for Springfield City Councils. unanimously. a vote from the Eugene and Both Councils PASSED the motion Mayor Keller turned the discussion to the excluded items, starting with the two items from the Springfield Council. Mayor Lively stated that the first item was the Council's recommendation to designate the Pierce Property as special light industrial. Commissioner Lieuallen asserted the Board had agreed that this was a position for Springfield and the Board had no problems with it. Eugene City Council supported Springfield City Council unanimously. Mayor Lively stated the second item dealt with the definition of "available land" (page 111-W-2 of the December 15, 1981 testimony). They proposed the definition not be included in the Plan. Commissioner Lieuallen declared that the Board had discussed the issue and had not arrived at consensus though they were moving towards agreement with Springfield Council. They agreed that Harold Rutherford could make h is case at tonight's meeting and if the Board was unmoved by his comments, it would support Springfield. He requested .that Eugene City Council make known its position before the Board had its discussion. Gretchen Miller and Gene Hulett affirmed that the Elected Officials Coordinating Committee had discussed that definition and Springfield had agreed to the Coordinating Committee's conclusions. They felt the definition was adequate. Harold Rutherford asserted that the Springfield position left no definition for "available land." He felt the Cities should develop a definition they could agree on. IV-A-12 . Q: Scott Lieu,allen A: Steve Gordon ~~ J ~J ,t u Could the staff respond to that? It is .my understanding that there is a definition for "available land" in the Plan. The Elected Officials Coordinating Committee gave the Metro Team direction to justifying the treatment of the industrial lands the Board is being asked to adopt tonight. In so doing, they requested the Metro Team to incorporate as much of the I ndustrial Study Task Force work, as possible, into the "Economic Addendum" working paper. In the "Economic Addendum," page 111-B-5, the two definitions of "availability" (arrived at by the Industrial Studies Task Force) were incorporated into the background of the decision the Board is being asked to make. Scott Lieuallen stated that the question before the Board was if it was the duty of the public jurisdictions to make their commitment to annex, zone, and service, at which point their liability would end, and the responsibility of the privat~ sector to "put a deal together." Further, if the problem was too small a parcel, it would be the obligation of the private sector for land assembling; and if the property was not for sale, it would be because the price had not been found. He declared that this was not a problem for the Board and the Commissioners should not become involved unless extraordinary circumstances warranted it. A: Q: Harold Rutherford Have we accepted one or two definitions? Steve Gordon All the allocations in the Metropolitan Plan based on the first definition, under assumption that it is the public role to plan zone the land properly and coordinate capital improvements. are the and the Mayor Keller avowed that the entire Plan is predicated on the first definition and that adopting the second definition would slowly change the nature of the Plan, with respect to industrial lands. It would, have tremendous implications for the growth boundary -- too much expansion too soon. Mayor Keller stated that they should reject language that would force them to go back to re-examine the issue of the urban growth boundary and the industrial land allocation, and keep the definition as it IS. Jerry Rust MOVED and Otto t'Hooft SECONDED adopting the Springfield position on the removal of the definition of "available land" as stated on page 111-W-2 of the December 15, 1981 testimony. Motion PASSED 4 - 1. MOTION: Gretchen Miller started review on Eugene's seven items. As item 1 have been dealt with earlier, she proceeded to item 2 - clarification of the "floating nodes", item 3 - KEZI request for change of designation for southeast corner of Belt Line and Coburg Road, item 4 - definition IV-A-13 change for. "natural resource", item 5 - institute..a study to develop mechanisms. to implement the urban/rural edge concept, item 6 - exclude the Eugene Sand and Gravel property from the urban growth boundary and item 7 - adopt the October 27, 1981 memorandum (attached as section IV-E) on material pertaining to River Road-Santa Clara as policy language. The Eugene Council unanimously supported all the items. ~ I Scott Lieuallen stated that the Boa~d concurs with all the issues except item 4, which they had not had time to discuss yet. Gene Hulett declared that the Springfield Council agreed with Eugene on its support of the seven items. The Board concurred with item 4. Regarding item 5 (the agricultural/urban edge study), the Board agreed with Eugene and Springfield Councils that the phrasing would be "should" instead of "may" or "shall". Scott Lieuallen declared that all seven issues had the Board's approval. The Commissioners skimmed through the 24 items in the Lane County memorandum, so that matters already discussed would not be reiterated. Regarding item 6 - the EWEB request, Scott Lieuallen felt it should be deferred as the powerline issue would come up later. Mayor Keller clarified that items 1 - the KEZI request to change a plan designation, item 2 - change the definition of "floating node," and item 3 the December 4, 1981 recommendation from the Eugene Planning Commission had already been dealt with. The Board of Commissioners discussed the following items from its January 12, 1982 list: 4c amendment to objective 8 in the Economic Element 4d amendment of policy 2 in the Economic Element 4e deletion of policy 5 in the Economic Element 4f amendment to policy 12 in the Economic Element 4g .4h amendment to policy 23 in the Economic Element addition of the term "available" to the "Glossary" The Board indicated it wanted to amend item 4a to add a requirement for public input before adoption of or amendment to an official statewide list of rare and endangered plants and animals. It also indicated an amendment to finding 8 in the Economic Element was supported by a majority of the Boa rd (item 4b). IV-A-14 IV-A-15 The discussion went on to item 5 - the LCC request- to add to its exceptions. Cynthia Wooten announced her opposition to the request as the land is not planned for educational purposes. Q:. Scott Lieuallen Why is the land being requested? A: Gretchen Miller LCC bought the land to preserve its sewerage lagoon capacity because there is another area that has right to use the LCC lagoon and LCC felt it need the lagoon entirely, so LCC bought that land. Harold Rutherford recalled that LCC testified it wanted the flexibility to use the land for apartments if it so desired. MOTION: Harold Rutherford MOVED and Otto t'Hooft SECONDED amending item 5. Motion FAILED 3 - 2. The City Councils objected to item 7 designation of 20 acres as light-medium industrial. Their position was to not include the 20 acres in the urban growth boundary. Jim Farah stated that the 20 acres was in a proposed urban reserve-agriculture designation area. The property owner requested an exception to the agricultural goal and wished a rural industrial designation. It is outside the urban growth boundary. MOTION: Harold Rutherford MOVED and Jerry RUST SECONDED a light-medium industrial designation for the 20 acres. Motion FA I LED 4 - 1. The Board deferred to the City Councils' objection to item 8 - School District 4-J's request to change policy. Item 10 - excluding the Eugene Sand and Gravel property from the urban growth boundary and item 11 - additions to clarify policy 7 on River Road-Santa Clara, were accepted by the Board. The Commissioners felt that "may" should be replaced by "should': for item 12 - adoption of a buffer study prior to the next update. The consensus was to adopt item 12 with that amendment. Springfield objected to item 13 - addition of "commercial use" to policy. The Commissioners wished for clarification of the item, so Mayor Keller asked Steve Gordon to explain item 13. Mr. Gordon indicated two instances were recommended by the Elected Officials Coordinating Committee where development would be allowed to use interim services prior to annexation and capital improvements being extended. One was the "special heavy industrial" designation and the second was outlined in the "Summary of Proposed Metropolitan Plan Amendments," page IV-A-16 -- policies 24 and 25, and the unnumbered policy listed below policy 25. He added that Lee Miller had indicated the testimony referred to by the Lane County Planning Commission, which the Board of Commissioners had added to the list, related to that policy. Also, it was recommended by 1\ I ,j 'j J .j the Lane ,County Planning Commission, the definition of that policy be expanded' to include commercial development in addition to industrial development. His interpretation of this position is that the Cities could annex land without having sewers extended; i.e., the North Gateway site in Springfield -- part of that site might be used for commercial use. It could be annexed; the commercial use could have interim services until Springfield had the ability to extend sewers. Scott Lieuallen stated that at this point that could not happen, except with respect to those policies. The Board went on to item 14 - support of Springfield Council's decision on the Pierce property and approved it. At this point, Mayor Keller adjourned the meeting at 11 :07 P.M. for five minutes. The meeting reopened at 11:12 P.M. ,. The discussion continued on item 13. Scott Lieuallen Mat~d that his understanding of the item was that it would apply to commercially zoned property or to commercial activities that were associated with the kind of industrial uses that originally precipitated the proposal. Further, that this policy is associa~ed with sites, not necessarily with uses. Emphasis is on areas that have been annexed due to the need for industrially zoned land, which cannot be sewered immediately and which have commercial activities as well. I' , ,: t. .~ Q: Jim Farah Does this continue to apply to the industrial land, specifically special light industrial sites, that might occur in conjunction with commercial activities? A: Scott Lieuallen That is my understanding. Q: Jim Farah Is it correct to say that this is different than applying this kind of approach to a particular property designated specifically for commercial use? A: Scott Lieuallen That IS the Board's understanding. . The Board is not trying to create a device whereby all commercial land either within or adjacent to the urban growth boundary can escape the need for sewers and annexation. Q: Gus Keller Mr Farah, do you understand our position on th is issue? A: Jim Farah If I understand correctly, this amendment is intended to include the concept that beside the industrial activities occurring on industrial land, the same idea of interim services applies to any kind of commercial activity that might also occur in conjunction with the special light industrial site. ,;: , il i r IV-A-16 r MOTION: Harold Rutherford approving item 15. MOVED and Jerry Rust Motion FAILED 4 - 1. Mayor Keller declared that there was consensus among the Councils and Board with that kind of definition. Item 15 - add statement to description of special light industrial, was next examined. Harold Rutherford stated that if the Pierce property was included, the Plan would contain seven special light industrial sites. The combined acreage of the sites would be approximately 800 acres. The City of Eugene had earlier indicated the optimum size parcel for a high tech firm would be 25-35 acres. In that case, there is enough land designated for special light industrial for at least 20-30 high tech companies. Therefore, a 100-acre site should accommodate three or four high tech firms. He felt that local businesses were being ignored for corporations being enticed to come to the area. There was no certainty that a 100-acre site would have three or four high tech companies on it. If the entire site was reserved for high tech use, there was a risk of wasting much land if the high tech firms did not come here or they were not interested in a particular site. The new language ensures that we will have greater responsibility in dealing with the-large sites. The proposed change would preserve, e.g., that 30-40 acres could be held, instead of the entire site, for high tech use. The rest of the site could be included in a more flexible industrial zone. As the Plan language now stands, a large amount of land might be off-limits to existing local firms. The proposed change would provide protection for high tech industries without unreasonably limiting the ability to address the needs of local businesses, if the high tech demand does not materialize. Mayor Lively disagreed with Commissioner Rutherford. He remarked that there are enough designations for the other types of industrial. Further, in some cases, the high tech companies buy 100-acre parcels to allow some control of what locates around them. To suggest that they be restricted to a 30-acre site would be poor planning, from Springfield's standpoint. Gretchen Miller stated already and concurred businesses. that with industrial lands had been overallocated Harold Rutherford about relying on local SECONDED The Board went on to item 16 - status of portion of North Gateway property. It was decided not to make any amendments to the Plan and the consensus was to defer to Springfield in this matter. IV-A-17 Item 17 - Bertelsen Slough had been discussed earlier so the Board proceeded to item 18 the urban growth boundary in Thurston. Scott Lieuallen said that it was his understanding that Springfield did not want to withdraw the urban growth boundary in East Th urston. The Springfield Council felt that much work had been done in establishing the urban growth boundary and there would be nothing to be gained by reopening the discussion. The Council declared it would deal with any new flood data as it became available. Commissioner Rust stated it was Springfielg's prerogative because of proximity: and Springfield's future need for expansion. However, Mr. Rust had a strong feeling about the agricultural land as he was involved in the zoning of it. Springfield declared that the urban growth boundary had already been drawn back once. The discussion ended on item 18. Item 19 - status of Confluence Island and Pudding Creek and item 20 - definition of availability, had been examined previously. Item 21 - conflict with HB 2754, was deliberated. Mayor Keller stated that the Eugene Council was opposed to item 21. Q: Scott Lieuallen Could the staff identify the conflict? A: Jim Farah From the Eugene staff's perspective, there is no conflict. The language is clear. The language _that was referred to in the public testimony is preamble language to HB 2754. The language referred to in the public testimony is a finding in the bill, and as such, . was not incorporated into Oregon Revised. Statutes. The finding uses the term "may," which is discretionary, rather than "shall," which is mandatory language. There was no support from the Board for any action on item 21. The Board went on to item 22 - expansion of the urban growth boundary north of Barger Road. Harold Rutherford recommended including the Wildish property and item 23 - Gordon Elliott's property, in the urban reserve. designation. Scott Lieuallen asked for comments from the City Councils. Cynthia Wooten stated that Eugene disagreed with item 22. Springfield deferred to Eugene. Otto t'Hooft felt there should be equal treatment, not special treatment, for Gordon Elliott's land, as for other lands. The land is outside the urban growth boundary and is not in close proximity to services. MOTION: Harold Rutherford MOVED and Otto t'Hooft SECONDED designating the Wildish property as urban reserve. Discussion continued on item 23. Harold Rutherford stated that the Elliott property had been recommended for a designation of urban reserve by MAPAC. He felt it should be included in the urban growth boundary as it is in an area where services will be extended and it is a logical location for urban development. Jerry Rust deferred to Eugene City Council as it is Eugene's urban growth boundary that is involved. IV-A-18 IV-A-19 Otto t'Hooft favored keeping the Elliott property designation as urban reserve. MOTION: Harold Rutherford MOVED and Otto t'Hooft SECONDED for discussion, accepting item 23. Motion FAILED 4 - 1. Item 11 - River Road-Santa Clara came up for discussion. MOTION: Harold Rutherford MOVED to adopt item 11. There was no second, so Scott lieuallen declared the motion DEAD for lack of second. The Board went on to item 9 - Airport Vicinity/Exclusive Farm Use zoning for property in airport exception. area. Gretchen Miller stated that the City of Eugene airport department is actively engaged in working with the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) on the questions-of__ appraisal and federal grants. She was satisfied that the City of Eugene is trying its best to acquire federal grants in adequate amount to purchase the property. Mayor Keller agreed with Ms. Miller and affirmed the City of Eugene has been working towards obtaining the monies needed to offer a fair price for the land. Item 9 was unacceptable to Eugene. Q: Vance Freeman Mayor Keller, if the zoning IS changed and possibly a new appraisal results, would this jeopardize your grant or funding in any way? A: Gus Keller I feel it is in Eugene's best interests to leave the zoning as is. Q: Otto t' Hooft As I am unclear on the issue, could I have Jim Farah's comment? A: Jim Farah o The exception that was drafted and recommended by the Elected Officials Coordinating Committee stated that privately owned land would be included in the exception area, but that land would continue to be in agricultural use until purchased by the airport owner, City of Eugene. Q: Otto t'Hooft Are we essentially talking about an overlay? A: Jim Farah No. The discussion was whether the privately owned lands around the airport should be included within the exception area. The City of Eugene proposed that it should not. The compromise was that it should. An additional compromise was that, in so doing, the land would remain in agricultural usage until the airport purchased the property. t ~ MOTION: Harold Rutherford MOVED item 9 be adopted. There was no second. Scott Lieuallen declared the motion DEAD for lack of second. MOTION: Vance Freeman MOVED and was SECONDED to reconsider item 22. Motion PASSED 3 - 2. MOTION: Scott Lieuallen stated that the motion now before the Board was to include the Wildish property in the urban growth boundary. Motion FAILED 3 - 2. Commissioner Lieuallen announced that the jurisdications were all in concurrence at this point. Mayor Keller agreed. Q. Scott Lieuallen Joe, can we take final action now or IS this the first reading on the package? A: Joe Hudzikiewicz I would suggest that there be a motion to continue the hearing on Ordinance 856 for a revised ordinance -- a first reading next week and a second reading on the revised ordinance two weeks later. MOTION: Otto t'Hooft MOVED and Jerry Rust SECONDED continuing discussion on Ordinance 856 until January 13, 1982, after consulting with legal counsel. Motion PASSED unanimously. Gus Keller announced that the jurisdictions had informally adopted the Plan. Officially, Eugene would adopt the Plan at its meeting on January 27, and Mayor Lively indicated Springfield would adopt formally at its meeting on February 1 st. Mayor Keller pronounced the meeting adjourned at midnight. IV-A-20