Eugene Ordinance Exhibit J <br />[Lane County Ordinance Exhibit G] <br />(a) A local government may decide that a significant resource site is of such importance <br />compared to the conflicting uses, and the ESEE consequences of allowing the conflicting <br />uses are so detrimental to the resource, that the conflicting uses should be prohibited. <br />(b) A local government may decide that both the resource site and the conflicting uses are <br />important compared to each other, and, based on the ESEE analysis, the conflicting uses <br />should be allowed in a limited way that protects the resource site to a desired extent. <br />(c) A local government may decide that the conflicting use should be allowed fully, <br />notwithstanding the possible impacts on the resource site. The ESEE analysis must <br />demonstrate that the conflicting use is of sufficient importance relative to the resource <br />site, and must indicate why measures to protect the resource to some extent should not <br />be provided, as per subsection (b) of this section. <br />This requirement is addressed in detail on pages 66 - 67 of the December 8, 2016 ESEE analysis <br />prepared by Winterbrook, which is included at Appendix F to these findings. The City is proposing to not <br />protect the wetlands locally, consistent with (c) above. As described in the ESEE, this "No Local <br />Protection Program" means the wetland areas can be developed, consistent with other regulations that <br />will apply (e.g. zoning, wetland banking, inter-agency coordination, stormwater management planning, <br />the application of the Goal 6 /WQ Water Quality overlay zone to two major stormwater conveyance <br />channels, and a city-approved area-wide stormwater master plan that incorporates green <br />infrastructure). Furthermore, the wetlands will continue to be regulated by the Oregon Department of <br />State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers. <br />Riparian Areas (Standard Process) <br />For riparian resources, the standard Goal 5 process (not the "safe harbor" process) was used. The <br />standard Goal 5 process for Riparian Areas includes the following steps, addressed in the findings <br />below: <br />1. Conduct an Inventory Process to compile a list of significant resources in the UGB expansion <br />areas by taking the following 4 steps: <br />(A) Collect Information about Goal 5 Resource Sites <br />(B) Determine the Adequacy of the Information <br />(C) Determine the Significance of the Resource Sites <br />(D) Adopt a List of Significant Resource Sites <br />2. Through the following 4 steps, use the ESEE Decision Process to analyze the consequences of <br />completely protecting the significant resource sites or, instead, allowing some or all uses that <br />could conflict with the resources, then determine whether the significant resource sites <br />should get full protection, partial protection or no protection. <br />(A) Identify Conflicting Uses <br />(B) Determine the Impact Area <br />(C) Analyze the ESEE Consequences <br />(D) Develop a Program to Achieve Goal 5 <br />3. Adopt Protection Measures for those significant resource sites identified for protection under <br />2. above. <br />10 <br />May 2017 <br />