Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9.7415(5). On September 28,2007, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was <br />published in the Register-Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. The Planning Commission <br />public hearing was held on October 18,2007, with deliberations held on November 5 and 19,2007 <br />and action take on November 19,2007. An additi.onal public hearing before the Eugene City <br />Council is scheduled for February 19,2007. Notice to interested and affected parties will also be <br />provided for that hearing. <br /> <br />In response to the Planning Commission public hearing notice, aside from phone calls, two letters of <br />written testimony were received. One letter is regarding concerns for increased traffic and does not <br />support the proposed zone changes. Traffic, regarding compliance with the Transportation Planning <br />Rule, is discussed below under Goal 12. The other letter is from the SCCO. The letter states that: <br />"the applicant's willingness to apprise the SeeD if its intentions and gather feedback has been <br />greatly appreciated. Although we agree in concept with the idea of a mixed-use development, we <br />differ with the applicant in the implementation of that idea." They state that there is an imbalance <br />with too much commercial proposed, there is a lack of a truly public gathering space and adequate <br />amounts of pervious surface, and a lack of transition between the proposed e-2 and the existing R-l <br />to the east. The SCCO letter includes comments regarding several adopted plan policies which are <br />addressed under the applicable criteria below. The seeo letter also includes several suggestions to <br />meet the needs of the Santa Clara community. As noted in.the. SCCO letter, the applicant met with <br />the neighborhood group early in the application process. At the Planning Commission public <br />hearing, aside from the applicant's party there were nine people that spoke in favor of the proposal, <br />and six people that spoke against it. <br /> <br />The process for adopting these amendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal 1 since it <br />complies with the requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions. <br /> <br />Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a <br />basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for <br />such decisions and actions. <br /> <br />The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that <br />provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State <br />in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and record show that <br />there is an adequate factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed amendments. <br />Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected govenunental units and that <br />opportunities be prov~ded for review and comment by affected governmental units. To comply with <br />the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of these amendments with all <br />affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the State Department of Land <br />Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Lane County, and <br />the City of Springfield. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, <br />the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. <br /> <br />Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. <br /> <br />Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any <br />agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban growth <br /> <br />Findings~ November 19,2007 <br />Page 2 <br />