Resolution No. 4780 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

governments] must provide an adequate explanation for why the Modified Project will be compatible with adjacent agricultural uses or what 'measures designed to reduce adverse impacts' will render it compatible with those adjacent uses. * * * [A]n adequate description of the nature of those agricultural uses followed by a discussion of how they might be impacted by construction of the Modified Project would seem to be a logical way to proceed in providing that explanation." Response and Explanation of Findings: The adopted findings specifically address the Goal 2, Part II(c)(4) requirement cited by the Petitioners and LUBA. In doing so, the findings describe the agricultural uses adjacent to the Modified Alignment and explain that the Modified Alignment will be compatible with those uses. What follows is a description and explanation of how the local government findings conclude the actions adequately address Statewide Planning Goal 2, Part II(c)(4). The local governments adopted exceptions to specific Statewide Planning Goals through the following enactments: Eugene Ordinance No. 20258, Lane County Ordinance No. P A 1174, Springfield Ordinance No. 6022 and Lane Transit District Resolution No. 2002- 028. Each of the local governments based their actions on findings contained in Exhibit C to their enactments. Exhibit C is composed of four documents (Exhibit C, Exhibit C-1, Exhibit C-2 and Exhibit C-3). The findings adopted as Exhibit C-1 ("C-1 findings") quote the Goal 2, Part II(c)(4) requirement at page 8. In response to that requirement, the findings refer to and incorporate analysis provided in later portions of the findings, concluding that the requirement is satisfied. C-1 findings, page 8. On pages 9-12 of the C-1 findings, the local governments state and conclude that: "[o]utside the UGB, most of the affected land is zoned for agricultural use. However, for reasons explained in more detail in the Compatibility Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference, much of the adjoining agricultural land is being used as open space for wetland mitigation or to protect threatened and endangered species. See Figure 2; see also Compatibility Memorandum at Figure 1. In terms of impacts on commercial farm enterprises, the northward realignment of the WEP does not result in any acreage loss of the four large commercial farms in the project vicinity. In fact, compared to the Approved Design, it reduces adverse impacts to commercial farm operations by moving the facility farther from the large cattle operation south of West 11th Avenue. West of Goble Lane, the facility essentially occupies the same area as the Approved Design, rendering no real impact differences from that alignment. Except for these places, there are no commercial farms in the project vicinity. Instead, this area is checkered with a pattern of hobby farms that do not contribute significantly to the commercial agricultural enterprise. The Modified Project creates no new parcels outside the UGB, and it should not increase the potential for encroachment beyond that associated with the Approved Design." 2