Laserfiche WebLink
<br />We find that Goal 4 is not applicable to this application. There has previously been a legislative <br />determination by the metropolitan jurisdictions, as embodied in the acknowledged Metro Plan, <br />that the subj ect property is not forest land. This determination is validated by the fact that are no <br />forest resources existing on the subject property or on any surrounding land and there are no <br />areas within the subject property that fall within the definition of forest land. Also, the soils of <br />the subject property (Chehalis silty clay loam, Newberg loam, Newberg fine sandy loam, <br />Newberg urban land complex and Camas gravelly sandy loam) have no designated Douglas Fir <br />site index according to Lane County's 1997 Soil Ratings for Forestry and Agriculture. <br /> <br />Statewide Planning Goal 5 <br />To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. <br /> <br />There has previously been a legislative determination by the Metro Plan jurisdictions that no <br />Goal 5 resources exist on subject site except wetlands, which are addressed in these findings. <br />The subject property has not been included in any inventory of needed open space or scenic areas <br />defined by Goal 5, nor has it been identified in the Metro Plan as having any historic, cultural or <br />natural resources which need to be preserved and/or protected. <br /> <br />With respect to wetlands, EGR & Associates, Inc., in its Evaluation of Aggregate Resources <br />attached to the application, determined that there is a wetland located within the meander scar <br />(aka East Santa Clara Waterway) along the northwest boundary of the subject property. This <br />wetland does not extend beyond the eastern bank of the meander scar and lies within the required <br />150-foot mining setback from the property boundary. Avoidance of wetlands in areas not <br />covered by existing DOGAMI Mining Permits and will be accomplished by limiting mining <br />operations to areas outside the applicable setbacks from the expansion property boundary, <br />according to draft County-imposed conditions of approval (see staff report for November 1,2006 <br />public hearing, Attachment 1, Exhibit C: Lane County draft Ordinance No. PA 1238, Conditions <br />Necessary to Minimize Conflicts). All wetland area within the 150 foot setback shall be <br />exempted from the administrative variance and the construction of the aquaclude would occur <br />outside of the wetland area. Two excavated ponds are located in the southern portion of the site, <br />which were previously used in aggregate extraction and are currently covered by DOGAMI <br />permits, and thus exempt from wetland regulation. (Exhibit 1, Exhibit E) <br /> <br />The Goal 5 Administrative Rule for mineral and aggregate resources specifically addresses other <br />Goal 5 resources and limits considerations of conflict to "Goal 5 Resource Sites" that have been <br />identified in the Metro Plan. The applicant claims that the subject property contains a significant <br />mineral resource site of the quantity and quality that establish the subject property as for <br />aggregate purposes pursuant to Goal 5 and the Oregon Administrative Rules implelnenting Goal <br />5. The administrative rules recognize that significant aggregate resources may be mined in areas <br />that contain other Goal 5 resources. The potential of such conflicts has been reviewed according <br />to the Goal 5 rule. <br /> <br />The City of Eugene finds that the applicant failed to show that the site's aggregate resources <br />were significant pursuant to Goal 5 and the Oregon Administrative Rules implementing Goal <br />5; therefore, the application to list the site as a Goal 5 resource is denied. This action is <br />consistent with Goal 5 and the rules that implement it as shown below. <br /> <br />Step 1 <br /> <br />Determine if the PAPA information is adequate <br /> <br />Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 4 <br />