02/08/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e written comments. Mr. Saul said that analysis had examined opportunities for redesignating other areas, but other sites were not appropriate options because of the impossibility of rail service, recommendations in the Alternative Industrial Growth Areas Study, or because of the location of the proposed West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Saul said material included options outside the urban growth boundary that might be considered to meet needs, but he noted that rail facilities were relatively fixed to the west and north of Eugene, through Glenwood, south to Roseburg, and the natron area in southeast Springfield. He said the owners thought evidence fully supported inclusion of the area in the urban growth boundary now, and not waiting for the update, which could take from two to two-and-one-half years, on an optimistic schedule. Mr. Saul said the range of permitted uses was an issue arising because the amendment first had been owner-initiated in the mid-period review but ultimately had become council-initiated. He said that may have resulted in some variance between the owners' perspective and the special heavy category crafted for this review process. He said the owners' consistent intent had been for an industrial park with large parcels, all served by rail. He said the owners believed evidence clearly indicated a shortage of such parcels, adding that because of a Statewide Goal exception being needed, a correlation should exist between the justification for the amendment and the expected uses. He said the justification was the size of parcels and the rail service, not whether processing would be primary or secondary. He cited a report from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission, stating that the limitation to primary existed only as currently written, but the council had the opportunity for changing the amendment. Mr. Saul said he hoped by February 16 to submit in writing more specific proposals as to how the council might address the issue of allowable uses. He said permitted uses could be changed by the council, and he thought the council should focus on distinguishing characteristics of the property. He asked why medicinal chemicals or silicon should be precluded in the area, as long as needs included a large parcel with rail service. Mr. Saul said a question had been raised about other areas, and he hoped to receive additional information from the Port of Portland by February 16. He submitted copies of an article in the January 31, 1987, edition of The Oregonian, about a 483-acre industrial park being developed in the Hillsboro area. Speaking In Opposition: Arthur Farley, 3281 West 16th, representing the Lane County Audubon Society, spoke in opposition to the amendments. Mr. Farley said the Lane County Audubon Society included about 1,100 members, and its membership was growing as people realized the importance of the environment, which often was one of the reasons they lived in the area. He asked the council to defeat the annexation proposal and to defer it for consideration as part of the metropolitan plan update. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1988 Page 5