Ordinance No. 20258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

W~ST EU~NE PA~AY ~ODIF~ED PROJECT-~CONSiSTENCY WiTH THE STA~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRANS~TATION Pi. ANN~NG RULE "(3) The long term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site; and "(4) The proposed uses are compatible with other adiacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse ' ~" ~mpacts. As explained below in the discussion of compliance with Transportation Planning Rule requirements, unless exempted under OAR 660-012-0065, the location of a new transportation facility outside an urban grey, lb boundary requires goal exceptions. Because the Modified Project would constitute an urban use that falls outside the listed exemptions, and because the facility would pass through rural lands designated for agricultural and forest uses, exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 are required. The applicable goal exception standards for transportation projects are set out in OAR 660-012-0070. Because those standards are met for the reasons set out in detail below and incorporated herein by this reference, the Modified ProJect complies with Goal 2 Part II. Goal 3 {Agricu tura Lands) Goal 3 requires counties to preserve and maintain agricukural lands for farm uses. Counties must inventory agricultural lands and protect them by adopting exclusive firm use (EFU) zones consistent with ORS 215.203 et. seq. The Modified Project crosses agricultural lands that are zoned for exclusive farm use. ORS 215.213(1) and (2) identify a variety of transportation uses that are permitted on agricultural lands without the need for an exception to Goal 3.13 HOwever, the Modified Project does not fall among those listed uses. Accordingly, a Goal 3 exception is required. See ORS 215.213(10)(a). The justification for an exception to Goal 3 is included below in the analysis of compliance with the TPR. Goa 4 (Forest Lands) Goal 4 requires counties to conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and protecting the state's fbrest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices. Goal 4 is implemented through LCDC's administrative rule on Forest Lands, OAR 660, Division 6. The Modified Project crosses over or near a small area of land designated by Lane County, as forest land. However, under OAR 660 Division 6, the WEP is not among the uses permitted on forest land. Accordingly, a Goal 4 exception is required. The justification for an exception to Goal 4 is included below, in the analysis of compliance with the TPR. Goa 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources) Goal 5, amended in 1996, requires local governments to adopt programs to protect natura~ resources and conserve scenic, historic and open space resoumes for present and future generations as provided in LCDC's Goal 5 administrative rule, OAR 660, Division 23. When Lane County amended its comprehensive plan in 1986 to authorize the Approved Design, it took an exception to Goal 5.TM The County took the exception because the project would impact bem, een 7.8 to 10.7 acres of wetlands plus some wildlife habitat. However, the exception noted that 13 ORS 2~5.213 appI~es to ~marginal lands" coan~J~s. Lane County kq a ~marginal ~ands~ county. ~4 Given the nature of the Goal 5 process, ~t is questionable whether §oal exceptions to Goal 5 are appropriate or necessary. The issue need not be, and is no[ addressed as part of this ahab/sis. Should ~he ~ssue later adse, ~t is a ~e~al matter that should be considered by the Department of Justice. EXH~BF~ C-1 - FINDINGS