Eugene Ordinance Exhibit J <br />[Lane County Ordinance Exhibit G] <br />(A) Water-dependent or water-related uses; and <br />(B) Replacement of existing structures with structures in the same location that <br />do not disturb additional riparian surface area; and <br />(b) Removal of vegetation in the riparian area, except: <br />(A) As necessary for restoration activities, such as replacement of vegetation with <br />native riparian species; <br />(B) As necessary for the development of water-related or water-dependent uses; <br />and <br />(C) On lands designated for agricultural or forest use outside UGBs. <br />For the Santa Clara UGB expansion area, as described in a memo from Alissa Hansen dated November <br />28, 2016, the conflicting uses are described in the City's 2005 "Conflicting Uses and ESEE Analysis" <br />document. <br />For the Clear Lake UGB expansion area, conflicting uses are addressed in detail on pages 16 - 21 of the <br />December 8, 2016 ESEE analysis prepared by Winterbrook, which is included at Appendix F to these <br />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 <br />use regulations may be considered sufficient to protect the resource site. The <br />determination that there are no conflicting uses must be based on the applicable <br />zoning rather than ownership of the site. (Therefore, public ownership of a site <br />does not by itself support a conclusion that there are no conflicting uses.) <br />(b) A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource <br />sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource site. The local <br />government shall determine the level of protection for each significant site using <br />the ESEE process and/or the requirements in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023- <br />0230 (see OAR 660-023-0020(1)). <br />Conflicting uses have been identified, so subsection (a) is inapplicable. The consultant did not determine <br />that any significant Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource site, so <br />subsection (b) is inapplicable. <br />(B) Determine the Impact Area <br />660-23-0040(3) - Local governments shall determine an impact area for each significant <br />resource site. The impact area shall be drawn to include only the area in which allowed <br />uses could adversely affect the identified resource. The impact area defines the <br />geographic limits within which to conduct an ESEE analysis for the identified significant <br />resource site. <br />For the Santa Clara UGB expansion area, the impact area is described in a memo from Alissa Hansen <br />dated November 28, 2016. For the reasons stated at pages 15- 16 of its December 8, 2016 (in Appendix <br />F to these findings) Winterbrook determined that the entire Clear Lake UGB expansion area is the <br />impact area. <br />15 <br />May 2017 <br />