Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comprehensive Plan identifies the park and recreational needs of City <br />residents and sets forth strategies for meeting the identified needs. The <br />PROS Comprehensive Plan does not acquire, rezone or regulate any land <br />inside or outside the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, <br />Goal 3 is not relevant and the ordinance does not affect the area's <br />compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3. <br />Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands. Goal 4 is not applicable to <br />this ordinance as the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not affect any forest <br />plan designation. The PROS Comprehensive Plan identifies the park and <br />recreational needs of City residents and sets forth strategies for meeting <br />the identified needs. The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not acquire, <br />rezone or regulate any land inside or outside the acknowledged urban <br />growth boundary. Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the ordinance <br />does not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4. <br /> <br />Because adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan does require an <br />exception to Goal and Goal 4, the requirements set forth in OAR Chapter <br />660, Division 34 or inapplicable to this matter. <br /> <br />Regarding the testimony directed at the City's separate adoption of the <br />PROS Priorities and Projects Plan, see staff's response to Planning <br />Commission question 10, above. <br /> <br />d) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 6, above. <br /> <br />13. Dan Arkin testimony (October 11, 2005) states that he was a member of the <br />PROS committee and stressed the visionary nature of the plan. He stated that <br />people do not consider political boundaries when choosing recreational <br />activities. He emphasized that the interests of people with disabilities was well <br />represented throughout the planning process and the process was very inclusive. <br /> <br />Staff Response: No response required. <br /> <br />14. Mike Altucker, Eugene Sand and Gravel, testimony (October 11,2005) states <br />the following concerus: <br />a) The PROS Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with Rivers to Ridges by <br />removing the voluntary participation criteria as stated in Rivers to <br />Ridges and sets the City up to be in the condemnation business. <br />b) The projects, maps, capital priority projects, maintenance estimates and <br />other costs are removed from the PROS Comprehensive Plan. <br />c) PROS Plan was not available on the website. <br />d) PROS has serious implications to the future buildable lands inventory <br />and transportation planning. <br /> <br />Attachment A <br /> <br />October 31, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 12 <br />