|
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />'reservoirs. ~e said critical greenway areas ~~re' iaentified by'riumb~;,loc~tion,
<br />left or right bank, acreage, characteristics, intensity of human uses which relate "
<br />~ to soil problems, vegetation, fish or wildlife sensitivity, all with the idea that ,
<br />,., Ithat analysis would determine the suitability of varying degrees of human activity. :
<br />He said the greenway plan was primarily a State plan of State-wide significance in
<br />protecting the River in its present condition, continuing existing uses of urban
<br />,
<br />jareas but with regulation and control to avoid conversion to urban uses in the future.
<br />. . t".:
<br />
<br />Mr. Sena pointed out the greenway boundary on a map and described it as a strip 150 feet:
<br />on each side of the River from minimum low water level, not exceeding 320 acres per ..
<br />river mile. He said ownership would be both public and private but managed by the ;:,
<br />public and wi th the potential for public use. Local planning agencies would determine I"
<br />, the best areas for that public use, taking into account "river influence" area in
<br />: local zoning - that area beyond the gree~way boundary but influenced by the River.
<br />
<br />1 Mr.' Ironside added that presentations of this preliminary report to local agencies as
<br />(indicated by LCDC would continue to about the middle of December after which any re-
<br />,visions resulting from those presentations would be made. So any comments or sug-
<br />gestions! he said, could be presented in the next couple of months to Georg,~ Churchill,
<br />· director of the GreenwaY' Associa tion, or to the LCDC.
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Campbell asked for clarification of critical areas. She thought the en-
<br />:tire length of the River was to be considered a critical area. She asked if LCDC had
<br />~authority in that regard and how the plan would be implemented, how it would be funded.
<br />.., Mr. Ironside explained that the entire River could be declared a critical area. , Mr.Sena '!
<br />added that probably a State management plan would be prepared but it would be up to
<br />local planning agencies to initiate and establish greenway areas or develop plans to
<br />see that access to the River is provided. He said State funds would be available.
<br />
<br />,Councilman McDonald asked if city and county planning commissions would have authority
<br />to say what kind of development would or would not occur in the greenway areas.
<br />Mr. Ironside answered that local jurisdictions would have authority so long as develop-
<br />ments were consistent with the greenway plan. The concept, he said, was that private
<br />development could occur according to local plans ~_ ifi t had som~ rela tionto theRi~e..r
<br />
<br />;and if maximum public access to the River was provided. He said there probably would
<br />!have to be a lot of dialogue in cases of clear cut violations and differences between ,
<br />,local planning agencies and LCDC, in interpretation of the plan. \
<br />\:
<br />
<br />!Co~n~ilwoman Beal noted that l~nd use categories in ~he pland~signated ar~as of \
<br />'cr~tlcal concern yet also cons~dered them as areas w~th potent~al for publ~c use. She ~
<br />wondered if the entire River should be designated a critical area by the LCDC and sub-
<br />ject to regul~tions under the land use legislation (S.B.lOO). She asked about the
<br />mechanism for accomplishing conservation and maintenance work to be done in the critical:
<br />,areas. Mr. Sena and Mr. Ironside explained that the purpose of the plan was to point :
<br />4It ,out sensitive areas critical in the senseof preserving the gre~nway, those areas need- !
<br />ing careful and intensive management. The plan organizes and establishes a scale with \
<br />regard to sensitivity,and potential public or private use would be graded according to \
<br />that scale. The report itself stated that LCDC designation of the entire River as a
<br />critical area would help in implementation of the plan and greenway management. '
<br />
<br />:In response to Assistant Manager, Mr. Sena pointed out the delta area at the confluence \
<br />'of the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers as one of the critical spots in the metropolitan
<br />! Eugene/Springfield area. . I
<br />I ,
<br />,
<br />[Councilwoman Campbell asked what agency could control the greenwayareas if there was
<br />an attempt at the local level to allow more development. Mr. Ironside said that S.B.lOO
<br />regulations would prevail through the local comprehensive plan and LCDC.
<br />
<br />,John Porter, planning director, commented that the greenway plan as presented provided
<br />,a good framework for more detailed planning, al though ,i t appeared the ci ty would be
<br />facing more problems and additional work to ensure preservation of the Willamette River.
<br />! He said the direction was there, given by the State, and it was now up to the city to
<br />proceed.
<br />
<br />'Assistant Manager suggested staff review and, if necessary, planning commission review .,J
<br />tIJ' : of the plan with report to be brought back to the Council within 60 days. ~ 1
<br />
<br />...'.....
<br />I Councilwoman Beal commended the consultants on the manner in which the plan was formulated~
<br />; She hoped the LCDC would be funded to the extent that this type of planning could be ex- \
<br />
<br />, ten8ed to preserve and maintain what exists in the entire State. She reserved the right~~l
<br />: to comment on the plan in future discussion. Mr. Sena welcomed comments and offered ,.','
<br />
<br />extra copies of the plan should they be needed. "
<br />~-- . ............ n. _, ___.--.-___ . ..___~.._.._ -'~--.-~----...--.,.......:.:-..:..:.,:';O"~....;::"~-::..-:.'~.Jj"--~:...7,,~:. _..b ,.....__~,. ...;I~\',;;'::'" ..:' ___
<br />
<br />
<br />~()~ 11/25/74 - 5
<br />
|