Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett offered justification for undertaking a marketability analysis. <br />He said that if the council's goal is to find a reasonable total replacement, <br />it should not eliminate any of the sites without having further discussion. <br />He predicted that the industrial lands study will depict that the general <br />demand for industrial lands will remain the same. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan recommended that a process similar to that of Enid-Awbrey be used <br />to discuss the possible initiation of Sites 1 through 6 and possibly the <br />Central Eugene Industrial Area. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer expressed frustration with the amount of time that has taken for <br />this process and urged the council to make a decision on this as soon as <br />possible giving consideration to recommendations from the Planning Commission <br />and staff. <br /> <br />Responding to a comment from Mr. Boles, Ms. Decker said that the Planning <br />Commission recommended that the council not attempt to identify industrial <br />replacement lands now because it felt the issue of industrial land need was <br />being addressed comprehensively in the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Study. <br />Ms. Childs added that the industrial lands study draft report is due out in <br />July. She underscored that any hearings on site initiation would draw away <br />staff resources which, in turn, would make it more difficult to complete <br />present projects. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said that if there is no immediate demand for industrial lands, the <br />council should follow a comprehensive planning method as called for in the <br />industrial lands study. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to call for a public <br />hearing to consider the initiation Metropolitan Plan <br />amendments affecting Sites 1 and 5. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett reiterated the importance of not limiting the council's options <br />with respect to site initiation and suggested that Site 4 be included in the <br />public hearing process. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to amend Mr. <br />Holmer's motion to include Site 4. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles cautioned that because of the tenuous nature of the final <br />compromise that was made regarding the Awbrey-Meadowview site, including Site <br />4 in the call for a public hearing might be taken by those initial litigants <br />as a direct violation of that agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett's amendment passed, 5:1; with Councilors Rutan, <br />Schue, Bascom, Holmer, and Bennett voting in favor and <br />Councilor Boles voting against. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer's motion passed, 5:1; with Councilors Rutan, Schue, <br />Bascom, Holmer, and Bennett voting in favor; and Councilor <br />Boles voting against. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 11, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />