Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

did not envision the Clear Lake Road would be used for heavy industrial uses but rather lighter industrial uses more compatible with housing. Associate Planner Jason Dedrick expanded on the remarks of Ms. Burke, explaining that staff had used the targeted industry clusters to identify suitable lands. In regard to the issue of Goshen versus the Clear Lake Road area, Mr. Dedrick emphasized that providing lands in one area did not preclude the need for lands in another area. The land in Goshen was unique and the industries interested in locating in Goshen might not be interested in the Clear Lake Road area. Conversely, an industry with more interest in being close to the airport might not be attracted to Goshen. Mayor Piercy called attention to staff’s response to a councilor’s question regarding potential restrictions on industry for the purpose of health or quality of life (page 84 of the packet) that emphasized the importance of not placing heavy industrial uses adjacent to residential uses, suggested such lands be zoned campus industrial or light/medium industrial, and specifically cited target industries such as solar panel manufacturing, food processing, and research. Mr. Zelenka asked Ms. Gardner and City Attorney Emily Jerome a series of questions clarifying the process and how staff would interpret the council’s direction while maintaining consistency with State law. Mr. Clark believed the City’s analysis regarding projected employment growth was lacking and he advocated for a more aspirational approach that accounted for job growth caused by nonresidents. He suggested that the City was not identifying sufficient land for employment growth. He also called for analysis of the impact of new land on the tax base over the next 20 years and the impact on the costs of operating a government that delivered the services citizens wanted. Mr. Clark left the meeting. Mr. Farr questioned the purpose of revisiting the work done by the Technical Resource Group at this point given the process that lay ahead. He supported moving forward with the original motion so the questions of concern to councilors could be answered and the outstanding issues resolved. Mr. Pryor suggested that no progress would be made without acceptance that the process was both about data and values. He called on councilors to be thoughtful and deliberate when it came to those “article of faith, belief, principled aspects” that the council had yet to discuss as a body. He acknowledged the process was not straightforward and would require the councilors to come to some policy consensus before it moved onto the technical aspects of the issues. Mr. Brown indicated that he would also ask the council to strike the provision in Attachment E calling for th council initiation of a plan and code amendment to redesignate the former Naval Reserve site on 13 Avenue to medium-density residential. He believed the proposal was premature given the fact the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors Board of Directors unanimously endorsed the site as a temporary homeless site and camping spot. He supported that goal. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, City Attorney Jerome clarified that the City had a legal need for more industrial land because State law required the City to take a comprehensive approach to the question of need that went beyond numbers and that encompassed policy questions such as what type of industries the community wanted and what it was best suited to support. From that basis, the City did not have a workable inventory of industrial lands. The City was also considering redesignation of its less suitable industrial lands for other uses, which reduced the inventory further; however, that exercise had MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2012 Page 3 Work Session