08/28/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ralph Aldave, speaking for the South Eugene Homeowner's Association, said he would re- serve any objections he might have to the rules for this particular hearing as well as any objections he might have in the future. He said residents of the South Eugene area are concerned with (1) rapid development, increase and growth in that area,(2) the over- load on schools and other facilities - streets, shopping centers,etc; and (3) absence .- of any meaningful procedure in hearings to decide whether planned unit developments do <.~ meet the permit criteria. He said there is no evidence in the record of hearings before the Planning Commission showing the basis or standards on which app~0val for this de- velopment was decided. No official traffic counts were introduced, he said, to show there is or is not traffic congestion. He suggested the applicant himself be required to supply this type of evidence - traffic counts, impact on schools, streets, etc., and increase potential - which should be submitted in factual content. With regard to BALSM PUD, Mr. Aldave said there was even less evidence than in the South- ridge hearings, reference being made to the Southridge situation as a basis for the de- cisi on on BALSM! He said the builders should introduce evidence for the record on which a decision may be based rather than some vague reference to an entirely different project which may have completely different factual information. He said there were no reliable figures on school populations, rather the decision was based on secondhand information. Mr. Aldave further argued that besides factual information, there should be quantitative standards by which to judge whether congestion exists or will result from these develop- ments. Guidelines developed and evidence gathered could then be compared to the standards, allowing a decision on a factual basis. He said comparing the traffic generated by BALSM to that crossing Ferry Street Bridge does not constitute a legitimate standard. Mr. Aldave said further benefit from using quantitative standards would be the determina- . tion of accumulative effect of many small developments. Southrmdge plans were cut back, he said, yet several small planned unit developments could be allowed with little or no restriction resulting in as many or more total units as approved in one large one. Standards could be developed to measure realistically the impact of small accumulations of growth. He maintained it is not really known whether the proposed developments will cause congestion, proper analysis may show.they will not. Obj ecti ve findings based on evidence in the records is needed, he said, to support any decision on these deveiliopments. He suggested the Highway Department be asked to make up-to-date traffic counts and pro- jections as to what will be added by the developments. Then he would hope an attempt would be made to develop guidelines of what is meant by "congestion" in permit criteria included in the ordinance adopted by the Council. The Homeowner's Association, he said, agrees with the criterion that a development should be allowed if it is found that the traffic generated will not cause congestion, but they question the procedure for reaching that decision. And the Association should not have the burden of proving whether conges- tion will or will not result - the builder, or developer, should bear that burden, then it would be open to challenge if it is thought a wrong decision has been reached. Mr. Aldave said he thinks people in that area would be better satisfied ff this issue is sent back to the Commission for traffic counts and anticipated increased in traffic and impact I on schools resulting when all of this area has been developed plus these projects, then arrive at quantitative standards for re-evaluation of this project later. He said it is a grievous error in reaching a decision without facts for basis. . Councilman McDonald referred to Mr. Aldave's statement that a foot or two difference in requirements for yard setback with ~egard to building permits seems of more importance than the criteria set for these planned unit developments, and asked whether the permit criteria is entered on deeds or title insurance. Mr. Aldave replied this was not a major issue, he was merely alluding to the contrast in criteria for setbacks and a development which affects a greater number of people. He asked whether the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held July 12 and August 7,1972 would be a part of this record. Mr. Mohr said they would be, and by reference are made a part hereof. Councilman Mohr asked clarification of Mr. Aldave's presentation that (1) error was made I in not having specifics on traffic congestion mentioned in Item (c) of the permit cri- teria, and that (2) changes are recommended in procedure and specifications of standards. Mr. Aldave said his main point was that the appellants think the record does not contain the kind of information on Item (c) - traffic congestion - needed to make a responsible decision, there was no evidence to support the decision. And that an error was made in making the BALSM ruling on congestion because ti was compared to that crossing the Ferry Street Bridge. Councilman Mohr asked if the appeililant made no objection on the grounds of judgment or . finding of error in the Planning Commission's decision on Item (a) - Consistency with the 1990 General Plan. Mr. Aldave answered that they would not want to close the door on raising the issue later on whether the projects met the 1990 General Plan criteria. At this time they were concerned with procedure; they feel a decision cannot be ,made be- cause there is nothing on which to base it. In further clarification Mr. Mohr asked if the Homeowner's Association is arguing that a decision cannot be made because of lack of evidence in the record and, in other areas, that there is not specific enough language that would bring out the kind of information necessary. Mr. Aldave repeated his sug- 2, 50 8(28/72 - 2