Eugene Ordinance Exhibit J <br />[Lane County Ordinance Exhibit G] <br />(C) Analyze the ESEE Consequences <br />660-23-0040(4) - Local governments shall analyze the ESEE consequences that could result <br />from decisions to allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use. The analysis may address each <br />of the identified conflicting uses, or it may address a group of similar conflicting uses. A <br />local government may conduct a single analysis for two or more resource sites that are <br />within the same area or that are similarly situated and subject to the same zoning. The <br />local government may establish a matrix of commonly occurring conflicting uses and apply <br />the matrix to particular resource sites in order to facilitate the analysis. A local <br />government may conduct a single analysis for a site containing more than one significant <br />Goal 5 resource. The ESEE analysis must consider any applicable statewide goal or <br />acknowledged plan requirements, including the requirements of Goal S. The analyses of <br />the ESEE consequences shall be adopted either as part of the plan or as a land use <br />regulation. <br />For the Santa Clara UGB expansion area, the ESEE analysis is described in a memo from Alissa Hansen <br />dated November 28, 2016, <br />Winterbrook's analysis conducted an ESEE analysis for the significant riparian corridor site in the Clear <br />Lake UGB expansion area. That detailed analysis is set out at pages 21 - 67 of its December 8, 2016 <br />report, which is included at Appendix F to these findings. <br />(D) Develop a Program to Achieve Goal 5 <br />660-023-0040(5) Local governments shall determine whether to allow, limit, or prohibit <br />identified conflicting uses for significant resource sites. This decision shall be based upon <br />and supported by the ESEE analysis. A decision to prohibit or limit conflicting uses protects <br />a resource site. A decision to allow some or all conflicting uses for a particular site may <br />also be consistent with Goal 5, provided it is supported by the ESEE analysis. One of the <br />following determinations shall be reached with regard to conflicting uses for a significant <br />resource site: <br />(a) A local government may decide that a significant resource site is of such <br />importance compared to the conflicting uses, and the ESEE consequences of <br />allowing the conflicting uses are so detrimental to the resource, that the <br />conflicting uses should be prohibited. <br />(b) A local government may decide that both the resource site and the conflicting <br />uses are important compared to each other, and, based on the ESEE analysis, the <br />conflicting uses should be allowed in a limited way that protects the resource site <br />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 <br />resource site, and must indicate why measures to protect the resource to some <br />extent should not be provided, as per subsection (b) of this section. <br />For the Santa Clara UGB expansion area, as described in a memo from Alissa Hansen dated November <br />28, 2016, the City determined that a limited protection program (application of the /WR Water <br />16 <br />May 2017 <br />