McLoughlin neighbors protest city's plans
Residents in the neighborhood are upset with plans to expand public works facility
Oregon City's McLoughlin neighborhood residents are raising strong protests at the city’s plan to expand its public works facility into the neighborhood, potentially impacting homes, traffic and other livability aspects in the historic area.
The city commission is expected to rule later this month on an appeal of the city’s public works master plan, which includes an expansion of the current facility at First and Center streets.
The McLoughlin Neighborhood Association (MNA) submitted an appeal with 16 points of contention, including that the plan would adversely impact Waterboard Park, which cannot be changed without voter approval because it was created in the city charter; that the city did not investigate other sites on which to build a public works facility; that the immediately adjacent roads aren’t adequate to serve the facility; that the site would cause pollution and noise to the neighborhood; that the entire site should be reviewed by the Historic Review Board; and more.
Senior Planner Tony Konkol addressed those issues at a meeting last month, saying the appeal raised no issues that would preclude the city commission from approving the plan. He said similar issues were raised when the planning commission reviewed the plan, and that the commission addressed the areas necessary for the plan to comply with city code.
Nancy Kraushaar, the city’s public works director, said the plan is also innovative and respects the character of the neighborhood.
“We wanted to make sure we met both current and future needs of the consolidated public works department,” she said. “We want to celebrate the historic and uniqueness of the site. This is a special site and it needs to be respected. We want to design a showcase for innovative and sustainable storm water management and we also want to promote smart growth and compact development, these are things we’ve been talking about in our comp plan for years and these are things that we really want to be really exemplary.”
Still, residents weren’t sold on the plan. Many offered testimony in person and others sent in letters of protest.
Jim Paul, one such resident, said the city shouldn’t disregard concerns simply because they don’t specifically address city code.
“In a letter to the commission … (Kraushaar) referred to several key points made by the MNA as ‘generalized objections’ and having no direct relation to an ‘Oregon City code standard.’ While this is the opinion of the public works director, the points are nonetheless important facts voiced by the neighborhood association and should be carefully considered as relevant to not only the neighbors at large, but the city as a whole.”
Specifically referring to the city’s lack of obligation to consider other sites, he said, “I believe the point was being made not that the public works concept plan wasn’t following code by reviewing other sites; however, the city being responsible keepers of millions of taxpayer dollars owe it to those residents to review other locations.”
The city will consider the issue again at its Nov. 18 meeting.