Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

available, a change to the draft /WR provisions is required. Staff will work with the City Attorney to draft language to address this issue. As noted in the ESEE analysis, this site is a relatively higher quality site, with mature riparian trees, that supports the adjacent wetland and the hydrology of the Amazon basin below. While the stream itself does not have a very steep gradient, the surrounding topography contains slopes over 25 percent. Staff recommends: 1) correction of the Inventory map to add the omitted stream segment to E370 (from South Shasta Loop down to the boundary of wetland AMA-14); 2) correction of the Inventory map to remove the drainage ditch from site E370 and 3) revisions to the recommended conservation area to reflect these changes in the inventory map. Staff believes that, with these corrections, the Category C Stream classification is still appropriate for this site. This change will remove the conservation area from the majority of the Heer property, and add a very small acreage of conservation area to an adjacent tax lot (Barnhardt) that is already affected by the conservation area previously recommended for site E370. 69. Linton, Richard & Wiley, Diane for Univ. of Oregon & Riverfront Research Park, Eugene. Regarding W AlWillamette, E40/Millrace, WR-4 at Riverfront Research Park (RRP). States that the RRP master plan provides for natural resource protection, including a management plan for riparian areas; concerned about the effect of the proposal on the RRP approved Conditional Use Permit. Staff response: At the May 10, 2005 public hearing, the Commission heard testimony from several individuals questioning the applicability of the Goal 5 standards to projects that have received prior approval from the city or may be in process when Goal 5 is adopted. The issue of "vested rights" is a familiar and important discussion point with most major legislative actions. As the memo from the city attorney (dated May 31,2005) indicates, the legal thresholds for determining when a vested right has been established is heavily dependant on the individual characteristics ofa given situation. Given this level of uncertainty, the city has established vesting guidelines with other previous legislative actions, most notably, the update of the Land Use Code. Generally speaking, the city has determined that a land use application or permit that was submitted prior to the adoption of a new regulation would be allowed to proceed under the rules in place at the time of submittal. For example, a PUD submitted prior to the adoption of the Goal 5 regulations would be allowed to proceed through the PUD process based on the criteria and regulations in place at the time the application was submitted to the city. Where this policy becomes more difficult to apply is situations in which the vested application does not include a full development proposal. For instance, a partition (creating 3 or less parcels) submitted prior to the adoption of the regulations would be allowed to proceed under the rules in place at the time of submittal. However, partitions do not typically include any proposed structures. Assuming the subsequent building permit was submitted after the adoption of the Goal 5 regulations, it is likely this permit would be #~