03/09/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e supported the partnership.s testimony that heavy manufacturing industries are becoming more concerned with the aesthetics of their plants and are changing in the nature of their external impacts. Mr. Smith said a key change has occurred in the primary metals industry whereby new aluminum smelters now have more stringent emmission standards than existing smelters. Ms. Wooten asked why finding ten is a finding of fact. Ms. Bishow said findings ten through fifteen do not need to be text amendments to the Metro Plan. In response to a question from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Bishow said finding eleven is an attempt to show some justification for a need to expand the UGB. Ms. Wooten asked if finding twelve would be judged heresay in a court because of a lack of validation. Ms. Bishow said the Metro Partnership provided a list of who the firms are. She said the partnership in some cases used code names for confidentiality. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to tentatively adopt the Metropolitan Plan amendments as shown in Exhibit A and to refer the amendments to the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Rutan said the council needs to make a policy decision on the issue. He said there has been enough technical analysis to make such a decision. He said the issue is essentially four areas of concern: 1) the council is not doing anything out of the ordinary from what it has done in the past; 2) the council has enough of a description of potential firms and allowable uses to approve the amendments; 3) the council has enough substantiation that approving the amendments is consistent with City, metropolitan, and State policy; and 4) putting the decision off further will not generate new information. Mr. Rutan said the issue is clearly a growth versus no growth concern. Ms. Wooten disagreed that the UGB expansion is consistent with local and State policy. She said City policy is to promote compact urban growth, which means the City should not go beyond its urban growth boundary without demonstrating need. In approving the amendments, Ms. Wooten said the City is asking Lane County to make an exception to Statewide Goal 3 of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Ms. Wooten said there is adequate information from the director of LCDC that the need for UGB expansion has not been demonstrated. She said she objects to the findings of the Federal Reserve Bank notes being included in the plan. She said the council has no idea of the true costs of expanding the UGB and annexing the property. The council should consider whether or not the exception to the agricultural goal will withstand an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Mr. Miller said the issue is essentially whether the City has the type of MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 1988 Page 8