08/25/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with the provision that it would be referred to LCOG, if there was no comment within 30 days, for ratification and incorporation into the text of the Plan. He added that because of the importance of this amendment, it had been referred to Springfield al- e ready, with resonse from them indicating they did not wish to comment on it. With re- gard to MAPAC, Mr. Saul said their function was as an advisory body to LCOG. Letter from MAPAC, he said, was primarily to express concern about referral of the amendment to other jurisdictions. He said that Springfield could not be compelled to become in- volved in view of their response that they did not care to comment. II-B-4 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the 1990 General Plan be amended to delete from the text the opportunity area designation on the Goodpasture Island area west of Delta Highway, and to modify the Plan diagram to indicate the area suitable for medium-density residential development; further to instruct staff to prepare a resolution effecting the amendment and provide for referral to the appropriate agencies for review and comment. Mr. Murray stated that the two major reasons for making the Plan change were to preserve the downtown area and to implement stated Council policy of compact urban growth. He cited statements in the L&B study indicating further commercial development in the Goodpasture Island area could lead to premature development of a third regional shop- ping center. Also, the housing needs have to be addressed and residential development of the large parcels on Goodpasture Island would not conflict with another neighborhood. He pointed out that use of the Goodpasture Island area for residential development would provide a worthwhile, distinct quality not available in other parts of the metro- plitan area and would preserve and enhance the natural features of that area. He said he thought the current opportunity area designation was an error that needed to be corrected. e Councilman Keller asked whether approval of the other jurisdictions was necessary to actual Plan amendment. Assistant Manager said that if there were disagreements, the agencies as in the past would probably meet to see what could be done. If the issue became one of territorial rights, he said, each body was sovereign and had the right of referring it to LCOG in order to preserve the Plan itself. He thought the dif- ferences might not be so significant that they couldn't be resolved under existing organizations. III-A-l Councilman Bradley inquired about placing residential development in a IOO-year flood plain area. Mr. Saul said that staff notes contained a complete analysis of the flood plain question. HUD is now evaluating the Eugene area, he said, to determine the 100-year flood plain area in Eugene. However, it could be two years before that de- termination is made. When it. is made, certain requirements must be met for any housing in such areas with regard to floor elevation. Although portions of Goodpasture Island are within the 100-year flood plan level, he said, the exact extent is unknown. Mr. Bradley then asked to what extent the city was legally or "policywise" responsible for protecting economic interests of one area of the community, sacrificing one area to another. Also, whether the protection was for public or private interests. He wondered whether there was any possibility of being discriminatory or exclusionary in protecting one area over another. Manager answered that the Council was charged with the well-being of the entire city and it seemed that protection of the downtown core area was for the general well-being of the entire city. He said that was a very legitimate action for the Council to consider. He added that all zoning laws and land use designations take some privileges and rights away from property owners for the e benefit of the community as a whole - this could come under that category. Councilman Murray objected to the terminology "sacrificing an area of the city" when in fact it might be the preservation of an area of the city. The only thing detrimental, he said, might be in not fulfilling the economic expectations of some land owners. He 4-73 8/25/75 - 9