Item 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management

Home Browse Search

inventories make up the entire inventory of significant Goal 5 resources within the City of Eugene Urban Growth Boundary: · "Sand and Gravel Working Paper," 1978 · "Scenic Sites Working Paper," 1978 · "Willamette River Greenway Working Paper," 1978 · "Archeological Sites Working Paper," 1978 . '"List of Historic Landmarks," 1976 Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0250 (Division 23) establishes the applicability of Goal 5 rules to Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (PAPA), and specifies certain procedures and requirements for local governments to follow in the adoption or amendment of all plan or land use regulations pertaining to Goal 5 resources, The rule states: "(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA ([Ifrets a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affret a Goal 5 resource only ff (a) The PAPA creates or amend..\' a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a sign!fieant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b) The PAPA allows ne"w uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c) The PAP A amends an acknowledged [fGB and factual i1?formation is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UOB area. " The following findings will demonstrate that this application raises none of the issues which would require the City of Eugene to apply Goal 5, Firstly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(a): The changes proposed by the application do not create or amend the area's list of Goal S resources, nor a portion of an acknowledged plan, nor a code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, and therefore, with regard to OAR 660-023-250(3)(a), the proposed PAP A does not affect a Goal 5 resource and the City is not required to apply GoalS. Furthermore, in Larson v. Wallowa County, 23 Or LUBA 527 (1992), the Land Use Board of Appeals ruled that if property is not included in the Goal 5 inventory of the acknowledged comprehensive plan, and a proposed zone change does not affect that inventory, a local government is not required to consider whether the property should be included on that inventory. The same logic is rightly applied here. Secondly, addressing OAR 660-023-250(3)(b): The changes sought by this application '>\Till not allow new uses that could conflict with a significant Goal 5 resource site. There are no Goal 5 Santa Clara - Metro Plan Amendment Application Written Statement - August 2, 2007 Page 9 of 32