04/29/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4It Testimony in Favor - e James Kovac, 3000 North Delta Highway, identified himself as an employee of Eugene Sand and Gravel, and offered his support for the proposal. He voiced concern that his employer was not given an opportunity to comment on the revised habitat proposal, particularly in light of the fact that it encourag- es wildlife to use their pond. He felt that the restrictions that have been placed on Blue Water Boats have been outrageous and said that the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area. Tom Tinsley, 443 Riverview Boulevard, Springfield Planning Commission member, testified in favor of the proposal. He noted that the development of non- timber-related industry is needed in the area and said that the ability of industry to co-exist with habitat is important. He submitted written testi- mony further outlining his position on this matter. David Johnson, 645 G Street, testified in favor of the Blue Water Boats de- velopment proposal and voiced concern with the impact that the environmental movement is having on development in general. Testimony in Opposition Hudson Dodd, 61 East 20th Avenue, indicated that he is speaking on behalf of several persons and offered his strong opposition to the proposal. He indi- cated that the proposal would violate Statewide Planning Goal 5. Noting that the land is on the National Wetlands Inventory, he pointed out that the pond is ranked as one of the most diverse wildlife habitats in Lane County. Mr. Dodd said he is concerned with the impacts of high-speed boat testing on surrounding wildlife and said that the substances used during the boat manu- facturing process would be hazardous to both humans and wildlife. He also noted that Springfield does not have easy access to safety personnel respon- sible for hazardous material containment, should an unexpected problem arise. He pointed out that there is no assurance that the facility would increase jobs to the extent indicated and said that the jobs provided would not be family-wage jobs. He urged denial of the proposal. Mr. Nicholson asked whether boat testing on this site, as opposed to the current testing sites, would be more destructive to wildlife. In response, Mr. Dodd said that he feels that boat testing would be hazardous on any site. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Dodd said that the wildlife mitigation plan would not be acceptable to Save our Ecosystems. Sharon Teague, 1404-1/2 Villard Street, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Noting that she is familiar with aquatic ecology, she voiced concern with the detrimental impacts of boat testing on wildlife in the area and suggested that the site might be better used by a business that would have less impact. She testified that boat testing on larger bodies of water has a lesser impact on the surrounding wildlife. She urged the jurisdictions to deny the request MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1991 Springfield City Council Lane County Board of Commissioners Page 9