Eugene Ordinance Exhibit J <br />[Lane County Ordinance Exhibit G] <br />and its attached Wetland Determination Data Forms. Therefore, the remainder of these wetland <br />findings pertain only to the Clear Lake expansion area. <br />For the significance determinations in the Clear Lake expansion area, PHS complied with this rule as <br />demonstrated in substantial detail in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of its May 2014 report. Based on its analysis, <br />PHS identified seven significant wetlands in the Clear Lake expansion area (and found that ten wetlands <br />were not significant). As noted above, the Clear Lake Area Local Wetland Inventory was submitted to <br />Division of State Lands in 2014, who conducted an initial review and generally concurred with the <br />analysis, inventory and findings of significance. <br />(C) OAR 660-023-0100(3)(b) - Adopt the list of significant wetlands as part of the <br />comprehensive plan or as a land use regulation. <br />The list of significant wetlands (all within the Clear Lake area) is added to the adopted list of significant <br />wetlands in the City / County Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan as part of this action. See <br />section 9 of City's Ordinance. <br />2. Through the following 4 steps, use the ESEE Decision Process to analyze the impacts of <br />protecting the significant resource sites or, instead, allowing some or all uses that could <br />conflict with the resources; determine whether the significant resource sites should get full <br />protection, partial protection or no protection. (OAR 660-023-0040) <br />(A) Identify Conflicting Uses <br />660-23-0040(2) - Local governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or could <br />occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. To identify these uses, local <br />governments shall examine land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones <br />applied to the resource site and in its impact area. Local governments are not required to <br />consider allowed uses that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because existing <br />permanent uses occupy the site. <br />660-023-0010(1) - "Conflicting use" is a land use, or other activity reasonably and <br />customarily subject to land use regulations, that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 <br />resource Local governments are not required to regard agricultural practices as <br />conflicting uses. <br />This requirement is addressed in detail on pages 16 - 21 of the December 8, 2016 ESEE analysis <br />prepared by Winterbrook, which is included at Appendix F to these findings. <br />660-23-0040(2) - The following shall also apply in the identification of conflicting uses: <br />(a) If no uses conflict with a significant resource site, acknowledged policies and land use <br />regulations may be considered sufficient to protect the resource site. The determination <br />that there are no conflicting uses must be based on the applicable zoning rather than <br />ownership of the site. (Therefore, public ownership of a site does not by itself support a <br />conclusion that there are no conflicting uses.) <br />(b) A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource sites <br />are conflicting uses with another significant resource site. The local government shall <br />May 2017 <br />