Laserfiche WebLink
The safe harbor approach was chosen for the area outside the UGB because: the <br /> protection measures provided under the safe harbor approach are reasonably <br /> adequate given the lower level of development and the more intact natural <br /> systems outside the UGB; State zoning and density restrictions already limit <br /> development outside the UGB; the safe harbor approach is more affordable and <br /> fits within funding constraints for the study; and the safe harbor approach is more <br /> clear and objective and less subject to legal challenge. <br /> <br /> Recommendation: No change. <br /> <br /> d. Text Written "As If" Adoption Already Has Occurred <br /> Issue: The draft Metro Plan findings and policies to implement the Natural <br /> Resources Study (NR Study) in the materials for the February 10, 2004 Joint <br /> Elected Officials Public Hearing refer to the inventory outside the UGB as if it <br /> already has been adopted. This is confusing and inaccurate. <br /> <br /> Staff Analysis: Writing the draft text "as if" the items being processed have been <br /> adopted is a standard technique that allows those revieWing the draft to see the <br /> changes as they would appear in final format upon adoption. Finding and policy <br /> language clarify that there are additional Goal 5 requirements that Springfield and <br /> Eugene must meet. Proposed new finding gl 1 (page 14, Exhibit B) indicates that <br /> Springfield and Eugene are required to complete Goal 5 requirements for <br /> wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat inside the UGB. Proposed new <br /> policy C.9, which revises existing policy 19 (page 14, Exhibit B), directs the cities <br /> to meet the Goal 5 requirements for these three resources for the area inside the <br /> UGB. <br /> <br /> Recommendation: No change recommended. <br /> <br />6. Statewide Planning Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality <br /> <br /> a. Airport Noise Finding <br /> Issue: Is there an updated reference for airport noise data in existing finding 31 <br /> (new finding 21 on page 21 of Exhibit B)? <br /> <br /> Staff Analysis: This comment came up during legal review of Exhibit B in <br /> preparation for the February 10, 2004, Joint Elected Officials Public Heating. <br /> Staff requested updated information from Bob Noble, Manager of the Eugene <br /> Airport. <br /> <br /> Recommendation: Staff recommends changing the proposed revisions to <br /> existing finding 31 (new finding 21 on page 21 of Exhibit B) to reflect the <br /> updated data. The revised finding would read as follows: <br /> <br />Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 17 of 28 <br /> City Council Agenda page 319 <br /> <br /> <br />