06/28/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e situation that provides rationale to justify an urban growth boundary expansion. Mr. Gordon considered it reasonable to assume that some percentage of the west Eugene wetlands will be protected and the inventory of usable land will be reduced. Ms. Schue commented that there is no disagreement between herself, Mr. Holmer, and Mr. Rutan about the fact that there is a need to replace industrial land, but the issue is how that is to be accomplished and the timetable governing it. Ms. Ehrman interpreted Mr. Holmer's memorandum as suggesting that something be done while the wetlands study is underway, not that the study itself could be completed more quickly, and she agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Ehrman asked how the Awbrey-Meadowview Metro Plan Amendment would affect the need for additional industrial land. Ms. Decker explained that part of the problem is that until the wetlands and natural resources studies are completed, the exact acreage impacted by wetlands and the type of land needed for replacement is unknown. Staff wants to avoid adding land to the urban growth boundary that is not the appropriate type or that may be needed for wetlands mitigation. She said that Mr. Rutan's suggestion of a "floating figure" approach would require Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) approval, and the additional information the studies will provide would have to be known in order to determine that number. She added that the number of acres specified for industrial development was not based on demand but on policy that arose from e the fact that at the time of the adoption of the Metro Plan, there was more industrial land inside the UGB than could be justified based on demand. Because of the complexity of the wetlands issue, Mr. Bennett suggested that the MPC time table is too optimistic. Saying he shared the concerns expressed by Mr. Holmer and Mr. Rutan, Mr. Bennett said he regarded the 465-acre figure skeptically because it does not include all the particular parcels that could be affected by the wetlands issue and he expected more than 465 acres to be removed from the market, adversely affecting the community's ability to compete in industrial development. He hoped that some land that already is supplied with services and that would not be considered for mitigation property would be available to replace the lost inventory. Mr. Boles recognized the difficulty of the situation being faced by the Metro Partnership, but because he believed the necessary information on which to base a decision was lacking, he urged the council to await the results of the studies to decide where and how much industrial land is needed to replace that removed from the inventory by the wetlands designation. Mr. Boles stressed the need for careful consideration and balancing of the environmental, as well as the economic, impacts of wetlands. < Responding to Mr. Boles's reference to a concern that replacement be demand-driven, Ms. Decker explained that the earlier Metro Plan update was justified to the DLCD based on the policy of diversification, and she considered it reasonable to again make a case on the basis of attempting to e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 1989 Page 8