02/08/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e contend there does not have to be data showing that a company was forced to look elsewhere because of a lack of industrial land. Those opposing the amendment think there should be such data before the site is developed. Ms. Anderson said the amendment's fundamental flaw is that the existing special heavy industrial category is too narrow. She added there is also a need to update the present industrial zones. Mr. Bennett asked if there is any way to measure the uniqueness of the Awbrey/Meadowview site. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said the law requires the City to state its reasons why expansion must occur on agricultural land versus other land. However, the law is not specific about what those reasons need to be. He said the council should be specific in its rationale when it ultimately rules on the amendments. Mr. Bennett said if the City is going to market itself to industry, it should have sites already developed to offer potential new firms. He asked for a legal interpretation of Mr. Ross's letter. Mr. Sercombe said there are different ways to apply the issue of need. He said it is his opinion that OLCO is focusing on the "exception criteria" that the City might cite as reasons why the land should not be subject to the present statutes. He said OLeO is saying the City will have to show apparently more objective data than what has been gathered so far to demonstrate a need to change the land use. Ms. Wooten asked if staff has developed a response to the Goal 5 wetlands issue raised in Mr. Ross's letter. Ms. Bishow said the City contracted with L-COG to conduct a GoalS analysis. L-COG hired a Portland biologist to examine the area. She said the only GoalS resource identified was a drainage ditch. Since the ditch has been used for drainage for a lengthy period of time, the staff report concluded there would be no adverse environmental impacts. She said the report does recommend improving the landscaping around the ditch to create a more conducive habitat for wildlife. She added the report should not be a key item since there were no other Goal 5 resources identified. Ms. Nathanson said part of the reason she studied the issue so carefully is because Oregon treats the subject of agricultural land seriously. She noted the City would not have to meet as many stringent requirements if the amendments did not involve agricultural land. One option still open to the City is to redefine unused, existing industrial land to avoid having to use agricultural land. In response to a question from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Nathanson said the land is currently used for growing grass seed. Mr. Miller asked what other land parcels are able to meet the rail access and ownership criteria that Awbrey/Meadowview does. Ms. Bishow said according to testimony there are four to ten possible sites, some in the Enid/Awbrey and Murphy Mill area. However, she said matching ownership MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 6