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.