HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/1972 Meeting
Ce.uncil Chamber
Eugene, Oregon
March 22, 1972
Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon- adjourned from the
regular meeting held March 13,1972 -.was called to order in joint session with Lane County
Commissioners and Springfield City Council.
'.
Present:
Lane County CommiSsioners: Chairman Ken Omlid, Jess Hill,
Nancy Hayward, Staff: Lee Miller, Larry Thompson .
Eugene City Council: President Fred Mohr, Jim Hershner, Charles
Teague, Beth Campbell, and Ray Bradshaw. Staff: John Porter,
Keith Martin,' Sherman Flogstad '
Springfield City Council: Vern Meyers, Roscoe Cole, Leonard
Clearwater, Mayor Darwin Courtright. Staff: Richard Johnson
., '
....../..
"Chairman Ken Omlid opened the meeting at 7:40p.m. in the Eugene City
Council Chambers for the purpose of hearing additional testimony on the
1990 Metropolitan General Plan. He explained the three governmental
units-- Lane County, the City of Eugene, and the City of Springfield
-- were involved in this hearing. After approximately 30 months of
development and consideration of the plan, the planning commissions
have adopted and forwarded the plan to these governing bodies for
consideration and possible adoption. He said that all officials have
had access to discussions and minutes of past meetings and are well
aware of previous testimony on the plan. '.'
.
In explanation of what is being considered for adoption Chairm~nOmlid~
listed the following items~
, '
1971 Revised Preliminary 1st Revised Edition of the Etigene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area 1990 General Plan;
Errata sheet to the 1st Revised Edition of the 1971 Revised
Preliminary Plan for omissions on page 17, 44, and 47 of the
"1990 General ,Plan;"
The Metropolitan Area Plan Diagram - 1990;
An addition of a paragraph to Recommendation #6, page 29 of
the "1990 General Plan;"
A recommendation that public hearings to be a part of the pro-
cedure for both "annual" and' "major" review of the "1990
General Plan;"
All testimony received at the January 26, 1972, joint meeting
of the planning commissions.
'.
The meeting was turned over to Mayor Darwin Courtright of Springfield,
who explained that official action could not be taken by the Springfield
City Council until its meeting of April 3 because the last council
meeting was not adjourned to this hearing. Thus, this meeting is not a
legal meeting for the council.
Chairman Omlid thEm turned the meeting over to the President of, the Eugene.
City Council, Fred Mohr, who said the meeting had beeIi,continued from
the March. 13 City Council meeting and was therefore still in ,session.
Mr. Mohr explained that at' the meeting of March 15 , Ray Bradshaw had
been, appointed to the Council to fill a vacancy on theboard~-.He then
ash~d Sherman Flogstad, Eugene City Recorder, to give the oath ,of .
office to Mr. Bradshaw. Mr. Bradshaw was sworn into office. President
Mohr declared a quorum was present and. announced that at the close of
the public hearing it was possible for the Council to take action on
the matter of whether to adopt a resolution for adoption of the 1990
General Plan Revised Edition.
.
Chairman Omlid, in his opening remarks, stated that this hearing should'
end discussions on the development of a document that will provide some
orderliness to community growth, land development and public and private
interests. All in all, this would enhance the community's livability.
He also expressed hope that there will be little repetition of testimony
that has gone on at public hearings in the past and asked that if
'.
- /
65
3/22/72
.
.
.
.
"
memb~rs of the audience wished to summarlze their previous testimony~'
that it be limited to three minutes to allow people who have not been
heard to express their comments. Public testimony was opened.
.~'~
Ed Fadeley, attorney representing Oregon Research Institute (ORI),gave
testimony on behalf of ORI urging the governing bodies to consider for
adoption an amendment to the amendment which was made by the Coordinating
Committee to page 29, pa~agraph #6. The amendment reads as follows:
The 1990 Plan Diagram designation of Public Facilities -- "Univer-
sity and Colleges" in this area refers only to the Community College.
or compatible uses. Any other development in the area which
requiressigrtificant urban services would be in conflict with
this PIano (Underlined material is ORI's proposed amendment.)
Mr. Fadeley, in his testimony stated that ORI owns land in the LCC
basin. He said that ORI supports the 1990 Plan; however, they find a
recommendation made on January 26, by the Coordinating Committee would
jeopardize appropriate use of these lan!is.. .'. The specific problem has to
do with the arbitrary limitation of the ~ommunity college development
only. He felt the existing language on page 29 which gives reasons
why the community college should remain rural does not affect ORI as
they could comply without violating these reasons. He stated that
"public reservelJ zoning has been granted by the Lane County Planning
Commission. In allowing this rezoning it was his understanding that
they knew ORI would not require additional public services. The lagoon
on LCC property is available to them for service. As the location of
ORI could be considered a "compatible use" he urged the adoption of
the language in the amendment be added to the body of the document.
Other development in the area which would be in conflict with the plan
and desiring additional urban services would be in conflict with this
plan; therefore he feels this amendment would limit zoning ,t,o . public
reserve and to those where services are already lined out without
additional cost to the taxpayers. A point made by Mr. Fadeley was
that it would be possible (and has been suggested by some staff,
personnel) for ORI to enter into a landlord-tenant relationship.with
Lane Community College which would allow them.to do the same work by
the same people and be in the same location. Hefe!t the language in
the present amendment limits the area to the'LCC only.and reiterated
his feeling that the ORI could certainly be stated as having a
"compatible use."
~
Ray Klappenbach, 333 Buckskin, Superintendent of Bethel School District
52, stated that the school districts agree in principle with the 1990
Plan, but they do have some concern about the language concerning
schools. In reviewing the plan they find that they are the only public
agency for which recommendations are made regarding boundary changes.
They questioned whether that particular section should make specific
statements in a general plan which the 1990 Plan is supposed.to be.
It was requested that the plan contain language which would make
general statements concerning the school districts rather than specific
boundary changes at this particular time., (These remarks were in
reference to page 57 of the plan.)
B. J. Rogers, 136 'A' Street, Springfield, stated that he is a realtor
and has been concerned with the result of the 1990 Plan. He has been
a critic of the plan in the past and felt that all the avenues ,have
been exhausted to "whip" the plan. At this time, however, Mr. Rogers
felt that the plan should be adopted and given to the planners in
order to implement it for a period of a year and see how it works.
At the end of that time adjustments could be made to those things
that may not be workable; therefore, he urged adoption of the plan by
the governing agencies .
Bob Golden, 193 Washington Street, Eugene, stated that he has been a
participant of a group (Lane County Free School) which has been studying
the 1990 Plan and has been looking into different facets of the plan.
They have found the plan has both good and bad aspects, with the urban
service boundary concept as being a valid and necessary concept that
will benefit this area. Mr. Golden said he had been somewhat skeptical
and concerned about the Oregon Research Institute moving into the
Russell Creek Basin. It was felt the urban service area is a crucial
part in the proper development of the plan and one that would need to
be strictly enforced. It seemed to him that if this concept gets
broken down by allowing such development outside the urban service
area it would be impossible to properly implement the plan. A major
conc:er~_po~n!ed ol.!t by Mr. Golden that had nO~~!H~~~ dealt with in'
~--". - .~-
of.:,
3/22/72
I'
.. the plan was the overall issue of ~the growth factor in the central
Lane County area. He said the plan is full of statements of projected
growth by 1990 and seemed to be a factor that people can do nothing about.
It was hls'feeling that steps could be taken to change this, and that
the time has come when it might be possible for plannarsto ,confront
this issue, even though itisa controversial subject.
. .. ,
He further stated that there has been a change in governmerit..pulicy
in,that the FederaliCommissioI1 on Population Growth,hadmada..the,
statement that "We should try to aim at Zero Population Growth.in
the United States as a whole.'" He felt that if the time has ,come that
,the national government can talk about this, that' perhaps Lane,County
can also do something about it. He asked that this be a new area of
study in the 1990 Plan to concern itself with overall population growth.
ElsaStruble~ 2730 Alder, speaking on behalf of Marian Frank, Acting
President ,of the League of.Women,Voters~ stated that "the League supports
a unified planning approach to the metropolitan, area and'coordination
of county zoning policies with those of Eugene and ,Springfield. We.
support citizen participation in the planning process. We commend
the serious efforts of the planning staffs and commissions and committees
to cooperate in the development of the 1990 Plan and their willingness
to consider the ideas of the citizens who will be affected by the Plan.
We urge the early adoption of the Plan as it stands and the use of the
built-in mechanisms of cooperative deliberation and citizen review for
changes in the future,"
-
Shirley Hulegaard, 1710 West 28th, Eugene, speaking as Assistant ,State
Coordinator for Oregon Legislative and Research Committee, and Vice
President of the Political Action Committee of the Taxpayers Protective
Association of Lane County, made several ~)mments. The complete text of
Mrs. Hulegaard's statement is included as Attachment A.
.
Darrel Ross,. property owner in the area of Airport Road and 99 Highway,
stated that he opposes the urban service area concept of the plan and
said he understands modifications that have been made regarding certain
aspects of the plan but did not feel they necessarily have benefitted
him. The zoning around the airport has affected him., .By eliminating
the urban service boundary and therefore further development from the
airport area he felt this affected the whole economic growth of the area.
He stated his experience started with the airp9rt vicinity zoning
proposal which was a temporary plan at the time and expressed the idea
that a large variety of local use could exist around the airport as
long as it was' "..:::ompatible" with the airport S'erviees-., After extension
of the tempora:cy zoning in waiting for a "firmed-up" plan, . the work
"oriented" took the place of' the work "compatible" which took on a new
meaning. He said as yet no one has found an "airport-oriented" business
that could be on private land and not on airport property. When the .
1990 Phm C8.me along they were told tha.t.the airport. vicinity would. not,
be discussed and was not considered part of this plan. It did affect
their area by being excluded from the planning. In referring to the
water table problem in the vicinit he said that some of the draina e i$
from the already developed.areas'w lC owon,to:tis':pr.operty.which
prevents them from development that othershave',alt,eady,.~a.chiaved~ ,d ,Mr '
Ross said as there is. an increase in air travel; :theai:rpor,t,is ,becoming
the gateway to Eugene; and we'are not giving visitors to.the community'
the kind of showplace that it could be if development were allowed in
the,area.
It
Ralph Barrett,' 687 Level Lane, Springfield, represents himself ,-and
members of the C.itizens in Support ,of the 1990 Pl~ said, ,that they had
testified and submitted copies of statements in support of the 1990
Plan at previous public hearings. The Committee's statements are in-
cluded as Attachment B. Mr. Barrett said that adoption of the 1990
Plan is long overdue and he felt the plan is a good basis for good
orderly land use planning.
A~ Tussing, 2437 RiverviewStreet, Eugene, speaking for the Laurel Hill
Citizens Association, said the group supports the adoption of ,the 1990
Plan, and said that those portions of the plan that need amendment in
the future can be made because ,of the provisions in the plan for
, amendments and review. He would urge. adopt:lon of the plan at this time
, and let the need for amendment be judged on their individual merit
through public hearings before revisions are <made; It'w~s,fe-ltby '.
some that the plan would infringe on their individual rights;> The;-'.,
committee would suggest that individual rights have been trampled on
.
3/22/72
fi,(
, "
in the past, without planning. : He felt that the plan will .give',"")"""
'protection to individuals and gave an illustration that "liberty,
means one thing to a wolf and.it means something else to a sheep" --
, they felt the 1990 Plan would give some kind of protection to -the
'sheep. He suggested that upon implementation of the plan,when the
Citizens Advisory Committee is appointed, that in addition to realtors,
developers, and members with ,expertise, ,tl1at someone on social security,
some blue collar workers, some renters , some.one whose only. expertise,.
is living in 'Eugene be placed on the committee., 'Mr. Tussing added that
upon adoption of the plan the group ,he is repres~ntingwill follow the
progress of the plan and have an active voice in, the amendments.
Neil Murray, 653 West Broadway, stated that he lives in the neighb;orhood
that is just west of the downtown urban business district and felt that
neighborhood is being unsystematically destroyed by encroaching
commercial district and speculative land buyers and absentee landlords
who fail to tend their property. The traffic patterns are dividing
the neighborhood, and the neighborhood is becoming mor.e and more a
neighborhood of only very young and very old. Many of the same problems
are threatening other neighborhoods throughout the metropolitan area.
He sees this 1990 Plan as providing basic guidelines through which we
can begin a systematic way of solving problems that are facing his
neighborhood and many others throughout the community. He felt a need
for more restrictive growth patterns and therefore urged the governing
bociies tOGldop!.the_19~0 ~!an._
....
...
.'
Bert Fegles, Pleasant Hill, ,stated that he would not:d.i:r:e.c.t..J'li.s. -remarks'
to anyone "in particular. He stated that.life...:had,~beerLgoo.d ..to him and he
wants to see other people have more than he has been, able to aCCOJIlplish.
He is opposed to the, 1990 Plan and considers it to be "75 .p.age-sof pure
gaI'bageo" He felt the plan served as a means of fooling the .people
questioned why so much time and 'money had been spent on such a plan. Mr.
Fegles was critical of the "federal beauracracygrants" that financed
such a plan and felt that Lane County is being destroyed by tax~free
foundation grants. l1esai,,9- that,"when'~ any gt~J.lp. takes one man's earnings
and one man's lifeahddeiis it 'out to the ben~fit of others it is not
any better than Russia and ,Ohina." He sai~i:~hat if the people who are
adopting this plan 'care about future generations and the future of their,
grandchildren,tl}at they should" "chuck ''the . whole rotten mess."
'.
Tim Greenhoot, 650 East Jlth, student at Northwest Christan College,
stated that he had revlewed the plan ,and felt that it should be implemented
immediately"
.
Lloyd Bond, 2740 Spring Boulevard, commented that he was gene~ally in favor
of the concept of the 1990 Plan in principle, but had some reservations on
interpretation of the plan. He requested clarification of the urban
service boundary and questioned whether all areas that are within the
pTesent city limits are considered to be inside the urban service area.
John Porter replied that not all areas within the corporate Umi ts are
included in the urban service boundary. The actual boundaries in detail
aTe something local agencies will have to work out. An example is~, one
of the very difficult ones to define is in the south hills of Eugene and
also some hill areas adjacent to Springfield -- also an area around Green
Hill Road where the full range of urban services are not provided for in
this plan,
Mr, Bond reiterated his concern about interpretation of the urban service
boundary because he understands that those really are cOT).tFolled by the
areas that can receive the urban services at a reasonable level of service,
\vhich would deteTmine whether it was in or outside this boundary. He is
concerned that there are no major hangups or conflicts in that particular
part of the document.
.
Dan Herbert, 4450 Hilyard Street, Eugene, said he has watched the devel-
opment of the plan through public hearings and feels the plan is not only
a very good plan but also is a plan which carries within it the means for
its own improvement. The strength of citizen participation process has
been a crucial part of the plan and has changed the complexion of the
plan fTom merely being a good product to a very good plan, This aspect
allows citizens and elected officials to realize the plan does not have
to be perfect J because we know it can be improved through.. provisions
t\1at have been bui I!. in:t<:lJ:he_pl~12'_
--- -------- --- - _______.__ -0
b8
3/22/72
William ,Sweetland, .42 Ridgewood Diive,Eugene~' expressed confusion ,about
how ap~l?lic hearing could be heldwheIl':ap'prov:al:forthILpr.opos.al,was
given prior to the public hearing. ',F'i;'edMohr ".Prei:id~nt':,of.;the ..Eugene
City Council, clarified this point .in stating that ,.no:,iction had been
taken by any of the governing bodies to adopt. this plan. His,earlier
statement had been that it would be possible for action to betaken by,
the Council to adopt stich aresoluti6nat the close of this public
hearing. Testimony is being heard on whether or not to approve or
disapprove the plan, but at this time no motion had been ,made regarding
adoption of the plan.
:.
Mr. Sweetland then stated that he is in the process of developing an
industrial park on West 11th Avenue. He said this property is within
the city limits of Eugene but he is paying high fees in order ,to have
urba~ services and said that nobody is helping him pay for this,service. '
Therefore, Mr. Sweetland felt there is too much emphasis being put on
getting public facilities' (and in preventing urban sprawl) whether
you are in the urban service,are~ or not. He commented that he cannot
help but feel that many of the aspects of the plan are very.socialistic.
He thought there were bound to be problems because of the influence
of certain people in "higher up" places 'and are trying to alter.their
boundaries. His feeling was "the less government, the better" and
said it bothered him as an American that such an effort has been put
into something that is very socialistic.
Melvin McDerman, 3625 South Willamette, said that hehad.lived.inEugene
since "before.the parking meters." He could remember many things about,
the way the city was many years ago and commented on the mall ,and new
deve lopm~nts within the city. It was his feeling that the plan would
not work and that it would cause an economic impact on the area. He
believed that th~ corporate interest groups are not being heard from.
He said that big business is very influential and did not feel that
planners could prevent pollution of waters by big industry. He re-
ferred to a book entitled "Politics of Ecology" which contains a page
on a documentary about theWillamette River in Oregon., The urban
growth and scatteration does not show a true political boundary be-
cause the jurisdiction of the County Commissioners goes beyond this
urban service boundary and are ,also involved in this city. He ,expressed
his feeling that the boundary is very vague and felt that corporate
and industrial interests should be included in the plan.. Mr. McDerman
referred to people's constitutional rights and gave an example of new
methods of sanitation are being required but the sanitation systems are
as obsolete as the automobile engine. He would like for oil company
people to speak in favor of this plan. Mr. McDerman spoke in opposition
to controlled boundaries and questioned why "we couldn't have a little
scatteration and go out and raise our own beans and cabbage?"
.
Esther Leong, Route 4, Box 306, Eugene, referred to the remarks, .made
by Mr. Sweetland regarding paying for his services for .theindustrial
park. She questioned who actually pays for these urban services.'
Chairman Omlid commented that ultimately the consumer does;. if..a
businessman is good he is not going to absorb all of ,theurban.service .
cos,t,s. As for the taxpayer there are portions of the sewage ,treatment, .
etc.} that is paid for by someone 'other than the person who is directly
involved with this property. There are many ramifications otl).er than
\vhat ,he was talking about in his individual property.
-
Mrs. Leong said the general concept of the urban service boundary is
to control urban services so that the cost is not ,thrust on the property
mmer. This is the aspect of the general plan which she admires most,
even though she stated she may not totally agree with all parts of it.
She felt it was an incredible indication of the wisdom on the part of
the people in the cornmunitythat they could consider such a plan and
she expressed hope that the plan would be adopted. Mrs; Leong felt
that as we look forward to 1990 we can anticipate an increase in the
cost of labor, etc., as well as scarcity and increase in cost of
m&~erla15. She felt we can anticipate that all development will become
mare and more difficult. It seemed to her that to provide for the
needs of our city and without causing an incredible burden upon the
'taxpayeTs that we should limit and control the growth to the best of
our ability and that the 1990 Plan would help to achieve this goal.
.
Roger> Soderstedt, Pleasant Hill, said that he is in the real estate
business and it was his request that the 1990 Plan be given to a vote
of the people. He stated that there are some good things in the plan
and some things that need to be looked over and changed, but he did not
feel it is fair to approve a plan that affects so many people until
the people have a right to vote on it.
3(22(72
69
There being no further comments from the audience the public hearing
was closed by Chairman Omlid. A short recess .was called. It ll.
.
In resuming the meeting, Chairman Omlid commented on three points .
which he would like for us all to think about in planning for orderliness
to provide for and, enhance the livability in the community. The first
point mentioned was that with a plan the decisions by government and the
public will be more dependable, thus help to promote economic development
whi::h provides much needed opportunities for our own. people. Secondly,
government will be able to plan ahead for income needs, thereby getting
more efficient use of those tax dollars. The third point mentioned was
that capital improvements and public needs will cost government less when
provided on an orderly rather than a scattered unrelated basis; Chairman
Omlid felt that the public opinion has been strong 'in favor of developing,
an o:cdeTliness to the public and prlV'ate secto'l"deds'ions that can have
a tremendous effect upon lives of people in our community. He urged,
that an special interests will continllec~ob.e a part of the continuing
process ina constructive manner and felt that this'would get the job
done sooner and better for all interests for all people.
The meeting was turned over to Mayor Courtright for ,closing..c.omments.
Courtright stated that because of ' the legal problem ,involved in ,Spring-
field City Council taking action on. this matter the Council will decide
whether to adopt or not to adopt the 1990 Plan at ,its meeting on April
3. He stated that if the plan is adopted the general public will have
an opportunity to add to the changes and revisions that are made. He
expressed hope that citizens would continue to come forward to give
elected officials help that they need.
.
Eugene City Council. President Fred Mohr commented in terms of what
adoption of the plan might mean to the general public. He stated that
by adopting this plan it would not mean that a law is being adopted. ,
The city has been guided since 1968 by a similar set of guidelines
called Planning Guidelines for the City of Eugene. These guidelines
are statements that were drawn up by a citizens' committee of how
citizens think this city should be and state what we might be wanting
to do as a community. From these guidelines the council will prepare
laws that will express how this plan should be implemented. Hesti'essed
that this is a continuing process and felt it was important for people
to realize that we would not be adopting a binding law that cannot be
changed, The law is subject to public testimony and public criticism
at all points,
e
A motion was made by Councilman Teague to postpone taking any action at
this hearing on this particular resolution to adopt the 1990 General
Plan and that this item be placed on the agenda for consideration of
theC,ity Council for this coming Monday -- March 27, 1972. He further
stated that since there are only five members present, including one
new member, that it would be best to wait until the regular Council
meeting to take action on this matter. The motion was seconded by
Jim Hershner.
Councilman Hershner added that he had not been entirely clear.that the
Council wa~~going to be voting ,on this matter at this hearing and felt
that marly. of the other members felt that the purpose of the ,meeting was
to take public testimony and act at a later time.
Mr Bradshaw said that he would welcome any additional time to discuss (,
items with members of the planning committee.
Upon call for the question the motion carried unanimously.
.
Commissioner Hill said that since both of the cities postponed their
decision to take action on this matter he felt the County Commissioners
should do the same; He moved that this item be placed on the agenda
for Wednesday, March 29,1972. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Hayward.
Mrs. Hayward commented. that .she .wasparticularly impxessecLahout...comments
regarding the "imperfectability" of the plan. She ,suggested..that in
order to comfort those of us who have disagreementwith.certain,parts
of the plan whe would like .to remind them that ,the ,plan does provide'
for the review aspect which would be able to,take into consideration
the LCC and airport area. She also expressed her interest in the comments
made by,Mr. Golden regarding controlling growth of the area. She stated,
however} this is not an easy issue to come to grips with.
~ ....,.......
U.Fc:l~.~a~ 1_ :r;:"qr.-:_the _9uestioIL..t..hfLilloti_Qn_ ~gl'J:'ie9. ~Dl3:ntmo1,1_~ly'! c
70
3/22/72
.... -:=':":-":::.- -,)''>-:',..,.,-.
-'-
Freel !\1ohrstated: he would like the record to show that this matter of
public hearing on the 1990 General Plan is complete and that public
testimony would not be taken at the Council meeting Monday evening.
President Mohr declared the Eugene City Council meeting as adjourned
until next Monday evening, March 27, 1972.
Chairman Omlid expressed appreciation to those who have participated
in the discussions, He adjourned the meeting of the Lane County Commissioners
until WednesdaYJ March 29, 1972.
~:.
The public hearing was then adjourned at 9:30 p,m.
Attachment A
Mrs. Floyd (Shirley) Hulegaard
, Assis. State CO-Ordinator of The
Oregon Legislative & Reseach Comm.
As Assistant State Coordinator of the Oregon Legislative & Research
Commission, I have previously stated that our organization opposes
the 1990 plan in principle. We don't think it is moral for some of
our citizens (no matter how many) to establish a policy governing the
use of other citizens PRIVATE property. One of the principles.of our
association is that the sole legitimate function of government is to
PROTECT life, liberty and property. Protection means that each
citizen should be defended by law from coercion, force or fraud used
by other citizens. It does NOT mean controls, regulations and pro-
~hibitions which RESTRICT reasonable actions. It does NOT mean
governmental agencies may step in and use the legal powers of the
state to force SOME citizens to give up their rights while other
citizens benefit.
.
A lot has been said about certain "vested interests" who obj ect to
the 1990 Plan.
First, every citizen who pays a tax has a "vested interest" in this
plan. It is his money that is paying for the planners and agencies
which drew up this plan which will dispose of his private interests
without his assent. Every citizen who pays a tax has a vested'interest
in how his money is spent. Every property owner in Lane County has
a vested interest in this plan.
But secondly, and more importantly, this plan is a bonanza for the
large real estate vested interests. They couldn't ask for more. This
plan plays right into their hands. Let me refer you to page 10 of the
revised plan,..# 1 under definitions: "The 'Urban Service Area' is
the actual geographic portion of the metropolitan area at any point
in time in which a 'MINIMUM LEVEL OF URBAN SERVICES' are available or
will be imminent . The limits of such an area will be extended from
time to time through the cooperation of the developer and local
government."
,.a
.,
This specifically means that some person or group of persons in local
government will have the power to allow the urban service area to be
extended, Think about that a moment...
If you were a large developer how would you know where to buy land?
How would you know what area would become eligible for the minimum
level of urban services which this plan says will be available from
"time to time." There are no criteria...no standards...there are no
qualifications written into this plan. The decision of where and when
to allo~_further deve~opment would bean ARBITRARY decision left up
to a group of officials~ -
Now lam sure that most people have the best interests of their
community at heart and can be persuaded to act in the wisest and most
reasonable way when they have the facts. If I thought that reasonable
objections would not be considered, I would not be here. But ,I ask
you. . .how can you, gentlemen or any person make a fair and equitable:,
deCision.whenputin the position of deciding what areas of this'
county are ready for large development and urban services and what
areas are n~t?......especially when you know such a decision will be
.
~
:1
3(22(72
'II
profltable to the areas where you allow development.??? Aren't you
, or 'any group, of persons going to be subject to political pressures,
:social pressures. ..appeals from friends, appeals from the media...?
" How do we, ,the citizens, (Whose money is supposedly paying for urban
services) investigate possible conflicts of interest? Dowehave
to be at every hearing to check out who is getting the favors?
Because.o.make no mistake about it...every decision means someone
is winning tax paid benefits and someone is losing. Everydecision
means some person's land values will go up and other person~s land
'v'alues will go do\m.
..~ -
"
r'
What about the recommendation on Page 16 for opportunity areas? It,
suggests that "a public, private or public-private partnership should
be formed to acquire, lease or otherwise develop or hold existing
large tracts for the wide variety or urban uses that require sites of
such size and location." This suggests to me that anyone participating
in this "partnership" would have a highly profitable venture going
on for himself. This "opportunity" recommendation is an opportunity
for vested interests..oif I ever saw one. It suggests private land
can be bought with public funds...and then taken off the market to
be held for, what amounts to, speculative purposes. 'It suggests
politicians be given the power to invest public money in arbitrary
ways. The arbitrary authority which this phm gives officials is
alone sufficient, reason for the.. concept of an urban service area to
be dropped. The proposal for having appointed or elected officials
decide which areas may receive sewers, water, power, streets, curbs
and gutters, without any pre-determined criteria for the acceptance
of these areas is completely unacceptable to our organization. Such
a policy is an open invitation for pressure politics to be used by
vested interests.
..
.
I would also like to challenge the concept of preserving designated
agricultural. (page 17) lands. The persons responsible faT the wording,
in this plan are naive in the field of economics. It is apparent they
think that if the ground is good for growing. ..it should be used for
growing, They are not aware...evidentally...that the problem of
agriculture in this country today is NOT finding the land....it is
SELLING the crops once they are grmm. As a resident pointed out
last week. . . it requires more than 600 acres for a farmer to make a
living from agriculture. The use of land should be determined by
consumer demand. If farming is profitable.. .people will be looking
for land to farm. But if building houses is more profitable.. .and
there is an oversupply of farm products in some areas...land should
be used for houses...not crops. There is no way a group of citizens
can anticipate the demand of the public in this respect. Estimating
trends of housing and food demands, is the job of the builder,
developer. andfarmer...not a group of NON-economists.
I sincerely urge this group to look at this 1990 plan once more and
remove the restrictive and coercive elements. Allow it to be what
you say it is...a real guideline which allows local residents to
determine where they want to live and what they want to do with their
land. We have the necessary laws already to stop one citizen from
damaging the property of another, if such can be proven. Let's not
find our citizens guilty before they are charged with any crime.
Let's not seek to prevent damage to the environment, or to attain
orderly growth at the expense of the freedom of action which responsible
Americans cherish so highly. Let's not ham-string our developers and
entrepreneurs with restrictive 'and prohibitive policies which will
only drive away innovation and progressive ideas. Let's work towards
voluntary orderly growth...voluntary cooperatibn and voluntary guide-
lines instead of restrictive and coercive plans.
Thank you.
Attachment B
.'
Presented by Ralph Barrett
The Citizens'Committee in, ~upport of the ~9ge Plan
Statement before the Joint Planning ~ommission Hearing on the
1990 General Plan -- January 26, 1972
~:: T
,...
""~ ...
The Oi ti.zens' 'Committee lD Support of the 1990 Plan would like to
reiterate ,its recommendation for ~doption of the proposed 1990 General
P Ian now.before you .In addition we s.hould like to speak specifically,
to th.e__.~Ll:.:t~_~~--,- ~f th~~;.c.5:1usi~I!.._q:Lt,!1~LC~_are~Jro1T!..!h~ _urban service
7Z
3/22/72
area, We (}6 not believe that any further development of the LCC area.
at this time would be of sufficient benefit to the entire community
to justify either its added expense to the taxpayers or its strain
on our limited resources.
My, Hugh Mitchell, in advocating immediate development of this area,
has made a number of contentions with which we do not agree. Specifically,
--He. contends that freedom of choice in. living areas would be restricted.
We contend that with an estlmated 38% of the land now zoned for re-
sidential use vacant within the projected urban service area, including
hillside areas, freedom of choice obviously exists now. Complete
freedom of choice has already been shown to be unworkable--costly to
the 'taxpayers and wasteful of our land and natural resources.
./
:J~":-.'
--He objects to the exclusion from the urban service area of areas of
economic opportunity that are presently attracting investors. We
doubt that these investors would be adding more to the economy of the
ar-ea than development of t,he LCC basin at this time would add to the
taxpayers' burden.
--ML Mitchell calls "misleading" the $7.4 million figure for capital
expenditures to provide services to the area. And yet this figure
is the estimated public cost only; it does not include cost for
provision of lateral sewer lines, for example, which the developer
traditionally builds. Nor does it include permanent sewage treatment
facilities which would have to be provided, at significant cost, at a
fu"Cure date if not now. Many of these costs may be amortized over a
long,period of time, but right now, at least, the taxpayers are counting
pennleso
.
--He contends that the LCC area has been singled out on the basis of
its inabi~ity to pay for itself when every development is paying for
serVlces In other areas. However, simply because other areas were
allowed to develop in the past without adequate consideration for the
pr~~~Si?n of urban services is no reason to compound our present
dlttlculties by adding more--especially since this proposal would
be leapfrogging development away from the existing urban framework
and (hus even more costly to provide with urban' servi'ces. r.. '" ~,
--He contends that development of the Lec area would help accomnli~h
compact growth, We fail to see how openIng-up anew area is con-
tributing to compact urban growth. Until we fill in some of the
present urban sprawl and develop land that is already provi~ed with
urban services, we see little reason to extend development Into
comparatively virgin territory.
--Mr Mitchell contends that the agriculturally unproductive LCC
land should be traded for presently productive land. But what land is
he talking about? Does he mean that areas already serviced, though
not yet developed, should be abandoned? Hardly an act to win the
support of the taxpayers. Other agricultural land within the
service area has been encroached on by existing developments to such
an extent that it is no longer viable for agricultural use.
.
--He suggests that if a planned development does not go into the
LCC area, it will be broken up into rural 5 acre lots, thus hindering
future efficient development of the land. We believe that the .
difficulty and expense of putting in satisfactory septic tanks will
continue to discourage, as it has up to now, this type of development
in the area,
--He agrues that development of the LeC basin would add to the vari~ty
of open spaces and to our park system. But he does not make clear
who would be paying for the development of these parks and the
provision of recreation programs. Traditionally it has been the
taxpayer and not the developer.
We do not believe that Mr, Mitchell has justified development of the
LCC (iI'ea at this time, As long as there are existing developed areas
not yet services and serviced areas not yet developed, the taxpayers
would be correct in objecting to the use of public funds to expand
into new areas, Mr, Mitchell argues that the public cost would not
be so great because Lane Community College needs a sewer system and
a firestation in any case. But he failst.o add that extensive develop-
ment of that area would require, in addition, widening of 30th Avenue
and additional access roads, expansion of sewage treatment facilities,
either new schools or busing to existing ones, and added police pro-
"/3
'.
3(22(72
.\
tection and recreation programs. The concept of orderly growth~would dictate that development
of any new area be postponed until other more deserving areas have been serviced and developed.
It may well be that this will occur before 1990. Under the review procedures of the proposed
plan, an adjustment of the urban service area could be made when the need has been more clearly
demonstrated. We urge adoption of the proposed 1990 Plan with nQ modification of its pro-
jected urban service area.
Mrs. Spencer Alexander, Spfld.
Dorothy D. Anderson, Eug.
Joyce Andrews, Eug.
Ralph Barrett, Spfld.
Ann Bryerto~, Eug.
Robert E. Moulton ,River Rd.
Eleanor Mulder, Eug.
Marilyn [, Michael Neill, Eug.
Margaret Patoine, Eug.
Robin Pierce, Eug.
Robert Campbell, Eug.
Margaret Ellis, Spfld.
Margaret Endicott, Eug.
Louis Farnsworth, Eug.
Irene G. Flynn, Eug.
Mrs. J. _R. Pine, Eug.
Marge Post, Eug.
Tom [, Margaret Powell, Eug.
F. J. Reithel, Eug.
Nan [, Steven Rendall, Eug.
Marian B. Frank, Eug.
Dorothy Hansen, Spfld.
Vera Hansen, Spfld.
Dan Herbert, Eug.
Joe [, Gladys Holaday, Lane Cty.
Cindy Rose, Eug.
Mary Sherriffs, Eug.
George Streisinger, Eug.
Wallace, Swanson, Eug.
Donald Watson, Eug.
.
Harold Holets, Eug.
Lois Jackson, Eug.
Jean [, Don Johnson, Eug.
Richard W. Lindholm, Eug.
William Maddron, Eug.
A. M. Westling, Eug.
W. Ed Whitelaw, Eug.
Ray G. Wolfe, Eug.
Charles R. B. Wright, Eug.
Alan Kimball, Eug.
$~
A. K. Martin
Asst. City Manager
.
.
-74
3/22/72