Ordinance No. 19383 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

After review of the available sites, the South Hiiis ar Good asture Isl ea and p and areas were selected for acquisition based on the . South Hi11s Study and greenway acquisition oais, Those~ar identified on Ma , 9 eas are p 1 of that Working Paper which ~s attached to these findings. 0. Land which was included on the Park and O en S ace o ' i n entar ~ P P w rk~ n,g Paper ,_ v y was restricted to ex~stTng property owned by a general purpose government and sand to be acquired by such governments because of explicit adapted pal i cy direction. This ref 1 ects that without the fact control of property by a generai purpose gov.e.rnment ~generaiiy through purchase either from a wiilin sei g ter or through condemn~atian proceedings} local governments have no abilit require ro ert be made Y to P P Y available for park and recreation or open .space purposes for the generai pubs i c. Preclusion of al 1 level o meat by open space designation for rivate -~ P p ly held land or land not held by a generai purpose government may work to be an inverse condemnation of the property. This policy about Goal 5 inventor ~ exclusi ' reaffirmed. There have b Y on ~s .een.no changes in adapted general policy which necessitate re-exam~nat~on of the ~nventar criteria. Y P. The LCDC, through the acknowledgment rocess for the M ' P etropol~tan Plan, reviewed the working papers includin the inventor o laced on th 9 Y f land . P e park and open space inventory and other inventories of Gvai 5 resources. These working papers. were art of the ack P p age of planning materials which received acknowled meet b LCDC in 1982. Goal 5 a ,g Y June, cknowledgment was delayed unto] August, 1982 in order to ~ camel ete Goal 5 analysi s and comply with .the administrative rule: Q: .Through the inventories of variou s resources, e.g., vegetation, wets ands and open space, the DLCD and LCDC determined which ar would require ESEE analysis. ~ eas R. Seven areas in the metro olitan area ~' ~ ~~ De P were ~dentif~ed by the partment of Land Conservation and Development as re ui~r~in ESEE conflict resolutions. Land i q g w thin the R~verfront Park Special Area .Study boundaries was not identified for ESEE anal si s as acknowled meat Y part of the g process under Goai 5. The seven areas required to undergo ESEE analysis became part of the opens ace inventor fo Eu ene-S ri n fie. P Y r the 9 p g ld metropolitan area. S • No evidence was submitted as part .vf the on i nai ' the R' ~ 9 hear7ng process on ~verfront Park Special Area Study which allowed the Council to conclude that the factors used to determine when land should eith be placed on the inventor of arks er . Y p and open space ~e.g., ownership . by a.general purpose government for ark ur oses mode P P P } should be feed. T. The North Campus Plan adapted by the Universit re re ~ Y of Oregon does not p sent a change Tn factual circumstances relating to the decision not to include the ~~subject site on the Goa] 5 o en s ace ar .sceni c site i nventori es~.. The P P subject site is still not owned by a general purpose government. The North Campus Plan does not reflect an change in the City of Eu ene ]and us y 9 e policy regarding Goal 5. 1t has not been adopted as a land use tannin dacumen ' Eu ene P 9 t by the City of g or any general purpose government with land use plannin 9 PAGE•~3