05/21/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e (page II-B-3) is one of the major foundations of this plan. It ties together the urban service area and sequential development. Policies 3, 4, and 5 (pages II-B-3 and II-B-4) focus on Lane County. Policy 7 (page II-B-4) states that conversion of urbanizable land within the projected urban service area will occur through annexation to a city under certain circumstances. Policy 7A--Lane County wants to insert "or other acceptable sewage treatment devices" in addition to sanitary sewers as one of the key urban services. Mr. Croteau noted that other acceptable sewage treatment devices such as local lagoons or sand fil- tration would only be suitable in the River Road and Santa Clara areas. The density normally allowed with these types of sewage treatment devices is a minimum 16,000-square-foot lot. Mr. Gordon noted that the DEQ has concerns about groundwater pollution. Mr. Delay asked, in regard to Policy 7, if conversion of urbanizable land to urban land will be through annexation only or if this is a wish. Mr. Gordon responded that he interprets the policy as stating that it only happens through annexation; Lane County may have a different interpretation. On page III-G-6, Policy 16, there is a definite statement about lagoons and collective sand filters being used in the Santa Clara area as an interim device until a central sewage system can be extended to that area. Mr. Delay asked whether there is agreement on the Santa Clara area. Ms. Miller stated that the wording is ambiguous and that there is no agreement. She further stated this is on the councilors' list as Difference 11. Mr. Henry asked if lane County is saying "prior to annexation" and Mr. Gordon responded that that was his interpretation. Mr. Obie noted that this could be interpreted in various ways depending upon where one lived. Ms. Miller suggested that the ambiguity of the language could be changed by "only" and the language would read "may be converted." Mr. Gordon noted that nort11"5j)ringfield and the Douglas Gardens area are also affected by this. Mr. Lieuallen stated he would prefer to deal with other items like this with additional background information and a better review prior to trying to deal with them. Mayor Keller stated that this issue would be discussed later at the coordinating committee level since it is' Concern 11. Mr. Farah stated that in regard to Policy 10 (page II-B-5), they are "turning up the wick" on density. Mr. Croteau noted that Eugene and Springfield are moving to greater density and this is a significant shift. Mr. Farah stated that Policy 11 (page II-B-5) is proposed as a deletion by Lane County; Eugene and Springfield favor retention of a growth rate management feasibility study. Mr. Gordon noted their apparent rationale is that they do not want public intervention that would interfere with the normal rate of growth. Ms. Schue asked if Lane County is viewing the industrial triangle as part the free marketplace. Mr. Gordon responded that they are and this is a difference between the County and the two cities. This is made more obvious in this document. The consensus was to retain Policy 11. Policy 12 (page II-B-5) is an insertion by lane County with concurrence by the cities. Mr. Delay asked if Policies 12 and 7A would allow development from the County's viewpoint. Mr. Croteau responded that it would and Policy 12 also couples with Policy 17 on page III-G-6. Mr. lieuallen noted that the only 5/21/80--11