COAST HOUSE
CONTROVERSY
LandWatch Lane County, a group dedicated to
stopping sprawl and protecting natural areas and
farmland, has concerns over a house that Eugene
architect Otto Poticha is building on the Oregon Coast
and its possible effects both on the environment and on
the scenic view from Highway 101.
Poticha requested approval to construct a dwelling on
a property situated between Highway 101 and the
Pacific Ocean. Poticha’s land is on a spot that Nena
Lovinger of LandWatch calls in comments submitted to
the county Land Management Division, “one of the most
majestic and imposing headlands along the Oregon
coast.” The property is near Sea Lion Caves and near to
cormorants and puffins, Lovinger writes.
LandWatch expressed concern that the property,
which is in a designated “significant natural shorelands
combining zone,” could have a septic field that could
adversely affect the beach below. The concerns also
include the severity of the slope and the possibility of
Native American artifacts on the site.
“Any house constructed on the site, no matter how
well designed, would be a reprehensible blight on the
Oregon coastline,” Lovinger writes. Highway 101 is a
National Scenic Byway. She says Oregon’s coast has
taken too many hits.
Poticha Architects is known for designing and
winning prizes for local buildings including the Wildish
Community Theater.
Poticha takes umbrage at LandWatch’s criticism. He
says, “I guess one could say, ‘Let’s not build anywhere.’”
LandWatch’s facts are not correct, Poticha says. He
says though he had approval for a septic system, he will
put in a high-tech sand sewage filter and disposal system
instead, which he also has approval for. He says he has
a water right to the stream on the property, and “I don’t
want effluent running into the Pacific Ocean or the
stream.”
He says, “I have had soil testing by a licensed soils
engineer, and the strata has been determined to be very
stable,” and he has a report and on-site survey from an
Oregon State professor and consultant that shows no
Native artifacts will be present. And the house, he says,
was designed so it would not be seen from the highway.
Poticha says he has owned the property since 1970
and spent the last 10 years obtaining all the necessary
approvals. His previous permit expired when it was not
used. The downturn in the economy kept him from
building as planned, and he ran out of renewals, which
he says is a good thing — “You should have to reapply;
the rules might have changed.”
Lovinger says her understanding is that there is likely
no way to appeal the expected approval for the property.
“Nonetheless,” she says, “I want Otto to know that
people disapprove of him building in this location. It
sets a bad example. If other people also try to play God,
there goes the sublime majesty of the Oregon coast.”
Lane County is accepting written comments on the
issue until 5 pm Oct. 10. — Camilla Mortensen
COUNTY
BOUNDARY
ISSUES
CONTINUE
Lane County is getting closer to making a decision
about its voter district boundaries, but fears of
gerrymandering the districts to give an advantage to a
particular person or party continue. The progressive
group Onward Oregon, affiliated with the Bus Project,
has weighed in on the issue.
“Gerrymandering? Bozimandering? I don’t know
what it is but it’s a ‘mander,’” says Scott Bartlett, a
member of the county redistricting committee who has
expressed concerns that Commissioner Jay Bozievich
had too much influence on what is supposed to be a
citizens’ committee.
When Bartlett voiced his concern during a committee
meeting, Bozievich agreed that he should no longer
participate in committee discussions, though he said he
was happy to continue to provide technical assistance.
Bozievich, who advocated for the purchase of the
Moonshadow software called Borderline, is experienced
with using the product.
But Bartlett says Bozievich is still over-involved in
the process. The committee approved five possible
scenarios, Bartlett says, including scenario one, which
calls for leaving the districts as is. Onward Oregon says
that scenario was favored by most of the committee.
Bartlett says the committee was told in a memo from
Bill Clingman, a senior GIS analyst with the Lane
Council of Governments, that the existing population
figures have less than 1 percent deviation and therefore
already are in compliance for redistricting.
At the Sept. 27 Board of Commissioners’ meeting,
the Redistricting Task Force presented the five possible
scenarios it recommended. Bozievich moved to restore
two more scenarios that the committee had left out, and
the move was approved.
According to Onward Oregon, a volunteer run group
working for progressive change, scenarios three through
seven are problematic, and “any major changes to the
current district boundaries are politically motivated and
political gerrymandering.”
The group says those scenarios do not meet the
criteria for redistricting that the committee was given and
argues that scenarios three through seven propose to split
areas within the urban grown boundary or urban areas
and place them into districts that are primarily rural.
Steve Brock and the conservative 9.12 Project Lane
County group sent out an email to 9.12 members originally
advocating for scenario two, but then revised the
recommendation, writing, “After speaking with people
more familiar with the process than myself,” scenario two
“would favor the liberal factions much more than we
would like,” and goes on to advocate for scenario six.
According to Onward Oregon, “Commissioner
Bozievich is doing this simply to make the North
Eugene district more conservative in order to increase
the odds that a conservative will win this seat and that
right wing conservatives will maintain their majority on
the Board of County Commissioners.” North Eugene is
current commissioner Rob Handy’s district. Onward
Oregon describes Bozievich as a “Tea Party leader and
former Libertarian.”
The county held a public meeting on the issue Oct. 5
and a decision will be made in the next couple weeks,
Bartlett says.
For more on Onward Oregon go to onwardoregon.org
and for the county’s redistricting scenarios go to http://
wkly.ws/14d — Camilla Mortensen
WORKING ON
SAFER STREETS
This summer city construction workers unnecessarily
and dangerously converted many of the city’s bike lanes
and sidewalks into places to put construction signs, but
that practice may change.
A safety subcommittee circulated a draft of a “Pedestrian
and Bicycle Accommodations During Construction
Projects” pamphlet at a meeting of the Eugene Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee last month.
The pamphlet is an effort to educate city staff and
construction workers, and save cyclists and walkers
from having to swerve into fast-moving traffic to avoid
construction work and construction signs. The pamphlet
states “place signage to block neither bike nor pedestrian
CONTINUED P.10
CITY VIOLATES ITS OWN CODE
If you have something you don’t want and some people you don’t want, can you lock the trash to
city property to try and keep the undesirables away?
Not according to City of Eugene Code, but that’s exactly what Eugene police have done in locking
trashed bicycles to city landscaping downtown to keep street people away.
The city strategy appears to violate several sections of the City Code:
• 5.420 prohibits “a bicycle left on public property for a period in excess of 24 hours.”
• 5.135 states “no person shall store or permit to be stored a vehicle or personal property on a street or
other public property for a period in excess of 72 hours.”
• 6.010 prohibits “nuisances affecting the public” on “public or private property.
• 6.010(k) prohibits “sidewalk accumulations” and “any obstruction on a sidewalk.”
• 4.872 prohibits “impeding access to any public pedestrian area.”
• 6.007(1) states “no person responsible shall cause or permit a nuisance on public or private property.”
• 6.010(c) prohibits “debris,” “waste” or “trash” or “other refuse matter or substance which by itself in
conjunction with other substances is deleterious to public health or comfort or is unsightly.”
So will the city code enforcers enforce the City Code against the city or will Eugene police ticket
fellow officers for breaking the law? That hasn’t happened in the past.
Six years ago Eugene police were caught targeting the homeless with “no trespassing” and “no
soliciting” stencils on city sidewalks in violation of state law. They weren’t ticketed, cited or
disciplined for the illegal graffiti. — Alan Pittman
8 OCTOBER 6, 2011
EUGENE WEEKLY
WWW.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM • BLOGS.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM