08/13/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was being challenged in court (Peterson vs. Klamath Falls). She urged at least a postponement of a decision if not a denial. She cited the e election results of Ballot Measure 10, wherein 68 percent of the Eugene electorate supported LCDC goals. She asked the cost of the extension of services and expressed concern for the lack of parks in the area, overcrowding in the schools, safety on sidewalks, building on floodplains, congestion with traffic, and lack of mass transit. Citing statistics, she argued the need for more buildable lots when 2,922 homes were listed for sale in the Eugene multiple listing and the number sold in the past week was five. She opposed the continued erosion of agricultural land and urged the denial of this annexation request. Dorothy Anderson, 393 East 21st Avenue, told the Council that they were being asked to make a judgment before the testimony on the updat~ of the 1990 Plan. They were deciding that it would be included in the urban growth boundary. She asked if these lands were clearly and demonstrably needed for that use now, or could they wait for one year. She said that with the Dessler/Allen, there is a need for mobile home sites, but the Knutson property is a different problem. To show need now would be difficult, and it would be necessary to consider the range of houses within the PUD. Tom R. Bowerman, 1370 East 25th Avenue, asked that the Council consider the will of the people of the City of Eugene. He cited page 34 of the 1990 Plan and page 10. When outward expansion is considered, it should be on our least-productive lands, he said. He cited a questionnaire e of the citizens, asking if they would wish to preserve the environment and natural resources; 61 percent gave their support. He urged the annexations not be approved. Sidney Herbert, Lane County Audubon Society, asked that the Council not foreclose on the urban service boundary and assume that it is already adopted. She asked that action not be taken on that assump- tion. She noted the mobile home park south of the annexation (Delta Pines) that has 66 spaces available. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Saul responded that this action does not disregard Statewide Goals. Based on the written material, the action was consistent with the Statewide Goals. The question of whether the administrative rule had been correctly interpreted, and whether or not an exception was required, was answered when Mr. Darnell of the Lane Council of Governments submitted the question to Mr. Kvarsten, Director of Land Conservation and Development, after the Planning Commission hearing on the two annexations. He sent the material to the Director and asked if the City should take an exception. He was told that no exception was requi red. Mr. Saul again stressed the need for mobile home parks e 'i3'f 8/13/79--6