Ordinance No. 20289 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

depict the Lower River Road area as a nodal development area. On March 17, 2003, notice of the public hearing on the ordinance amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map was mailed to the owner of each lot proposed for rezoning as required by' ORS 227.286(4). On March 23, 2003, notice ofthe joint Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Cormnissioners public hearing was published in The Register-Guard and, on March 28, 2003, notice of the joint public hearing was mailed to property owners within the unincorporated area, to those who testified before the planning commissions or requested notice in writing and those Who had requested to be placed on the interested parties list for the amendments. On April 9, 2003, the elected officials held a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval, modification, or derfial of the amendment. These processes afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the amendments are consistent ~,¼th Statewide Planning Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process andpoticy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to aSSure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The tee°rd shows that (here is a adequate fac~l base to support these plan amendmems as Goal 2req~res, Fttrther' the Goal 2 coordination requ&emem is ~et, Goal 2 reqvSres that Plans be coordinated wkh the plans of affected gove~ental units and that opportunities be provided for reTiew and comment by affbcted governmental units. To comply vdth the Goal 2 coor~nation re the City-coordinated the review of these amendments with all affected govermnental Unks. Specific~ly, nOtice was mailed to: Lane County, Springfield, City of Eugene} Lane Transit District; and the following state agencies: Department of Land C°nse~mion and Development, Oregon Department of FiSh and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Parks;and Recreation, and Oregon Department of Transportation. There are no Goal 2 Exceptions requ/red for tbJs ordinance. Therefore, the amendments are consistent vdth StateMde Planning Goal 2. Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. This Goal is not apphcable to the proposed Plan amendment as the subject sites and actions do not affect any agricultural pl~ designation or use, There(om, ~s Goal is not relevant and the amendment does not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statew/de Plam6ng Goal 3. Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands kY' maintaining the fbrest land base and to protect the state ' s~/brest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of fbrest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management qf soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. T?ds goal is not applkable to the proposed plan amendment as the subject sites and actions do not affect any forest plan desi~atiOn or use. There are no forest lands related t?fis application. , this Goal is also not relevant and the arnendrnent does not affect Metro Plan Exl~ibit C - 2