Factor 4: Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest <br />activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB <br />The configuration of this expansion option includes direct adjacency to farm land bordering a single site. <br />While compatibility issues with this adjacency are likely to be minimal, there is a possibility of <br />undesirable impacts. <br />(4) Conclusion of Goal 14 Boundary Location Factors <br />Factor 1: Efficient accommodation of identified land needs <br />Efficient accommodation of identified land needs is best evaluated based on the most compact <br />configuration of sites. This can be measured by comparing the number of collateral acres that must be <br />included in each of the five options. Of the five options evaluated above, Option 1 was the most <br />efficient, based on the fact that it requires the inclusion of between 46.3 and 267.4 acres of collateral <br />land (depending on park expansion analysis). In order or efficiency, the other options were: <br />• Option 5 <br />- includes between 67.0 and 289.1 acres, <br />• Option 3 <br />- includes between 140.4 and 362.5 acres, <br />• Option 2 <br />-includes between 204.2 and 426.3 acres, and <br />• Option 4 <br />-includes between 253.1 and 475.2 acres. <br />Factor 2: Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services <br />In Eugene, where services can be extended to any of the areas, the most orderly and economic provision <br />of public facilities and services is maximized by expanding in the most compact way, in the fewest total <br />number of areas, allowing for master planned facilities and services. Of the five options evaluated <br />above, Option 1 allows for the most orderly and economic provision of services due to its concentration <br />in a single area. In order of most orderly and economic provision of services, the other options were: <br />• Option 5 - two close areas, <br />• Option 3 - two dispersed areas, <br />• Option 2 - three dispersed areas, and <br />• Option 4 - four dispersed areas. <br />Factor 3: Comparative environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences <br />Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences are dependent on the context <br />of the candidate expansion areas. Of the five expansion areas, Option 1 and Option 5 are evaluated <br />equally, with neutral environmental consequences, positive energy and economic consequences and <br />neutral to positive social consequences. In order of evaluation of consequences, the other options were: <br />• Option 2 - neutral/slightly negative environmental, neutral energy and economic, <br />neutral/positive social consequences; <br />• Option 3 - neutral for environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and <br />• Option 4- neutral/slightly negative environmental, neutral energy, neutral to negative <br />economic, and neutral social consequences. <br />Appendix B to Findings May 2017 Page 144 <br />