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