Based on the determination of the economic, social,
environmental and energy consequences, a jurisdiction must "develop a program
to achieve the Goal." Assuming there is adequate information on the location,
quality, and quantity of the resource site as well as on the nature of the
conflicting use and ESEE consequences, a jurisdiction is expected to "resolve"
conflicts with specific sites in any of the following three ways listed below.
Compliance with Goal 5 shall also be based on the plan's overall ability to
protect and conserve each Goal 5 resource. The issue of adequacy of the overall
program adopted or of decisions made under sections (1), (2), and (3) of this
rule may be raised by the Department or objectors, but final determination is
made by the Commission, pursuant to usual procedures:
(1) Protect the Resource Site: Based on the
analysis of the ESEE consequences, a jurisdiction may determine that the
resource site is of such importance, relative to the conflicting uses, and the
ESEE consequences of allowing conflicting uses are so great that the resource
site should be protected and all conflicting uses prohibited on the site and
possibly within the impact area identified in OAR
660-016-0000(5)(c).
Reasons which support this decision must be presented in the comprehensive
plan, and plan and zone designations must be consistent with this
decision.
(2) Allow Conflicting
Uses Fully: Based on the analysis of ESEE consequences and other Statewide
Goals, a jurisdiction may determine that the conflicting use should be allowed
fully, notwithstanding the possible impacts on the resource site. This approach
may be used when the conflicting use for a particular site is of sufficient
importance, relative to the resource site. Reasons which support this decision
must be presented in the comprehensive plan, and plan and zone designations
must be consistent with this decision.
(3) Limit Conflicting Uses: Based on the
analysis of ESEE consequences, a jurisdiction may determine that both the
resource site and the conflicting use are important relative to each other, and
that the ESEE consequences should be balanced so as to allow the conflicting
use but in a limited way so as to protect the resource site to some desired
extent. To implement this decision, the jurisdiction must designate with
certainty what uses and activities are allowed fully, what uses and activities
are not allowed at all and which uses are allowed conditionally, and what
specific standards or limitations are placed on the permitted and conditional
uses and activities for each resource site. Whatever mechanisms are used, they
must be specific enough so that affected property owners are able to determine
what uses and activities are allowed, not allowed, or allowed conditionally and
under what clear and objective conditions or standards. Reasons which support
this decision must be presented in the comprehensive plan, and plan and zone
designations must be consistent with this decision.
