03/09/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e land that will produce the kinds of jobs the community needs. He said the City needs every avenue at its disposal to help in the economic transition from wood products to other industries. Ms. Ehrman said she is concerned about expenditures that would likely be made in the expanded UGB. She said she does not support the amendments because of the money that would be taken away from other services. Ms. Schue said she is unhappy with the growth/no growth label. She said the question of if and when the land is developed depends on who one talks to. She pointed out a discrepancy between Springfield and Eugene staff notes that Awbrey/Meadowview would compete with the southeast Springfield site referred to as the Natron site. She said the council needs an overview of the entire heavy industrial picture before making a decision. Ms. Bascom said the process thus far has been fair. She said the community does not make itself attractive enough to keep its youth in the area. She said she is concerned about the costs of the annexation to the City, although she said the long-term benefits would outweigh those costs. e Mr. Bennett asked if it is true that once the agricultural land is used for rail access, it cannot be utilized again for agricultural purposes. Ms. Bishow said the land physically devoted to the rail spur cannot be used for agriculture. She said the acreage south of the rail spur alignment will still be available for farming, although it is uncertain whether that is economically feasible. Mr. Bennett said he is in favor of the motion. He said Awbrey/Meadowview is a unique site that has more of a competitive edge than other industrial sites in the area. He said the site provides the potential to create jobs that the community would want to have. He said the City has to take risks and project what types of firms would be interested in coming to the area. Mr. Bennett said he is also concerned about the amount of public money that might be spent. He disagreed that approving the amendments is abandoning the City's commitment to compact urban growth because of the flexibility that exists within the constraints of the UGB. Mr. Holmer commended staff and the Planning Commission for their work in assembling the data on the issue. He noted the Metropolitan Partnership, in addition to the Planning Commission, has endorsed the amendments. He pointed out the motion will undergo further review before the City of Springfield and the Lane County Board of Commissioners before the council considers in more detail the infrastructure questions. He said he also disagreed that approving the amendments is a violation of the compact urban growth philosophy. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 1988 Page 9