Ordinance No. 20295 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(a) The quality, quantity, and location info~ation; ~) Supplemental or superseding significance criteria set out in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660~023~0230; and (c) ~y additional criteria adopted by the local government, provided these criteria do not conflict with the requirements of OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230." The inventory being adopted was developed using two sets of Goal 5 Significance Criteria that were applied based upon the type of resoUrce(S) that a site contained. In addition to the quality, quantity and location information, and the inforrnation gathered as required by O~ 660~023~0090(4)~ the City adopmd additional criteria (consistent with the requirements of-0090)to be applied m fipafim corridors and upland wildlife habitat stream corridors using the standard Goal 5 inventory process. The additional criteria are made up of Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria. Each of the Tier l and Tier 2 criteria applied to riparian corrdors and uplmd wildlife habitat stream corrdors further addresses the quantity, quality or location of the resources. In addition to the quality, quantity md location info~ation, md the info~xnation gathered as required by 660-023-0110(3)~ the City applied the State's "safe harbor" criteria at OAR 660~023- 0!t0(4) to non-stream areas of the identified upland Mldlife habitat sites. None of these habitat areas meet these criteria. As such, only those portions of the habitat sites that are stream corridors meeting the standard criteria (discussed above) are on the inventory of significant sites. The CitY's approach to evaluating the si~ificance of habitat sites was approved by DLCD as being consistent with Goal 5: The following clarification was included in an email from DLCD representative Mark Radabaugh, dated JulY 3, 2003: "A city may divide use of the standard and safe harbor approach fbr a single resource site when it is determined t~ough the standard proceSs that there are si~ificantlY different on, site characteristics that would allow a clear distinction mong various potions of the site, For example, an upland habitat site that includes a significant wildlife habitat corridor(s) under the standard process, and is also identified in the safe garbor conditions called out in O~ 660z023-0110(4), could be mmaged under a partitioned Goal 5 approach if si~ific~t distinctions inthe on-site characteristics allow' defining a clear boundary between adjaCent apPliCation of the standard process and safe harbor approaches. Under both approaches, the city is required to develop a resource protection program for its upland resources." On four uptand wildlife habitat sites standard Goal 5 invemo~ process was applied to a portion of the site and safe harbor invento~ process was applied to the remainder of the site. The portions where standard process was applied were the s~eam coMdors that flowed through the upland wildlife habitat sites. These wate~ays were identified during the standard process, and their presence clearly defines trek character as different from the remainder of the -upland wildlife habitat si~es where stream coMdOm do not exist. Eugene's application of standard and safb harbor inventory processes is consistent with both the applicable OAR (660-023-0110) and with DLCD staff's clarification as given above.