The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance No. 20200 ORDINANCE NO. 20200 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS PLAN BY ADOPTING NEW OR REVISED WETLAND DESIGNATIONS FOR VARIOUS SITES WITHIN THE PLAN BOUNDARY AND RELATED POLICY AND TEXT AMENDMENTS; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. On May 20, 1992, the Eugene City Council adopted Ordinance No.19853 adopting the West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study, a refinement plan to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, subsequently amended in part by Ordinance No. 19867 adopted by the City Council on August 10, 1992. B. On March 6, 1995, the Eugene City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20002 amending the West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study and changing the name to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. C. The City of Eugene has initiated additional amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to amend Plan policies and text, and to adopt wetland designations for certain properties located within the Plan boundary. D. On March 19, 1996 the Eugene Planning Commission conducted a joint public hearing with the Lane County Planning Commission on draft amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. E. On May 6, 1996 and on May 5 and May 12 and December 8, 1997, the Eugene Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. On June 4, 1996 and on September 16 and December 16, 1997, the Lane County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. F. On February 18 and April 8, 1998, the Eugene City Council conducted a joint public hearing and a joint work session with the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County on amendments to the policy and text of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. G. On May 20, 1998 the Eugene City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20119 amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to establish new Planned Transportation Corridor and Utility Corridor wetland designations, and on February 22, 1999, adopted Ordinance No. 20147 adopting Planned Transportation Corridor wetland designations for City of Eugene properties located within Ordinance - 1 the West 18th and West 1 ph Avenue road improvement projects. On June 24, 1998 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Board Ordinance No. PA 1117 amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to establish new Planned Transportation Corridor and Utility Corridor wetland designations and, on April 21, 1999, adopted Board Ordinance No. PA 1129 adopting Planned Transportation Corridor wetland designations for City of Eugene properties located within the West 18th and West 11 th Avenue road improvement projects. H. On July 8,1998 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20126 amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by adopting new or revised Plan policies and revising Plan text. On November 10, 1998, after deleting policies related to criteria for protection, development and restoration, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Board Ordinance No. P A 1106, which adopted the other policy and text amendments of Ordinance No. 20126. The Board of County Commissioners and the Eugene City Council established the CouncillBoard Committee on West Eugene Wetlands Policy Amendments to review alternatives and prepare a joint recommendation to the Board and the Council on amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan criteria for protection, development and restoration. I. On August 4, 1999, the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held a joint public hearing on the proposed wetland designation criteria recommended by the Council/Board Committee. On October 11, 1999, the Eugene City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20171, amending Ordinance No. 20126 and adopting new and revised Plan policies related to the criteria for wetland designations. The Board of County Commissioners adopted Board Ordinance No. PA 1133 adopting the new and revised Plan policies on November 23, 1999. J. On April 12, 2000, the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held a joint public hearing on wetland site designation amendments, text and policy amendments related to specific sites, and a policy amendment related to wetland mitigation replacement ratios. K. Evidence exists within the record that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 and the requirements of applicable state and local law as described in the findings adopted in support of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The West Eugene Wetlands Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 19853 and amended by Ordinance No. 19867, Ordinance No. 20002, Ordinance No. 20119, Ordinance No. 20126 (as amended by Ordinance No. 20171), Ordinance No. 20147 and Ordinance No. 20171, is further amended as set forth in attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Ordinance - 2 Section 2. The Eugene City Recorder, with the concurrence of the City Attorney and County Counsel, is authorized to administratively renumber any provisions of the West Eugene Wetland Plan (Plan) at the time the provisions adopted herein are incorporated into the Plan, and to correct any cross-references necessitated by the renumbering. Section 3. Although not part of this Ordinance, the findings in attached Exhibits B and C are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter of 1976, amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan adopted by Exhibit A to this Ordinance shall not become effective until identical provisions are adopted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this 26th day of July, 2000 26th day of July, 2000 /1' ~Re~~7 Ordinance - 3 Exhibit A Multiple Site Ordinance Wetland Designation Map Changes Proposed Plan (map) designation changes are described below to supplement the maps (following page 8 of this exhibit) and to provide a cross-reference for the maps. If there are conflicts between the written descriptions and the attached maps, the maps prevail. I Proposed Wetland Designation Changes Item Site Existing Designation Proposed Designation No. Name 1. Ala Development Protection, except for Planned Transportation Corridor along Green Hill Road. 2. I Alb I Protection No change * , except for Planned Transportation Corridor along Green I Hill Road. I i 30__1 A2a Protection/Development No change. \ Development No change. 4. A2b 5. A2d No Change. Development Sa. A3a Protection Planned Transportation Corridor (PTC) and Utility Corridor along I Green Hill Road. 6. I A4a Protection, except for two portions F or strip along Greenhill Road, I designated Development along W. change to Planned Transportation I I 11 th (Hwy. 126) and Greenhill Corridor, for remainder of area along Greenhill Road designated for Development in plan, change to Protection, for area along W. 11 th, change to Protection, change two southeast "arms" to Development, for area along proposed southern Parkway alignment designated Development, change to Protection. Designate Utility Corridor running east-west at north end of site. -- Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 1 8 Item Site \ Existing Designation Proposed Designation No. Name A4d I Protection, except for Parkway Change area of proposed southern alignment (Development) alignment of West Eugene Parkway to Protection. A4e Protection, except for Parkway F or area of proposed southern West alignment (Development) Eugene Parkway alignment change to Protection, designate corrid~:~1 along existing sanitary sewer line as Utility Corridor. 9. A5 Protection, except for Parkway Change undesignated area to alignment (Development) and home Development, change former site (undesignated) Parkway alignment from Development to Protection, change strip along Greenhill Rd. from Protection to Planned Transportation Corridor, change the western 175 fuetoflot1704310000101 to I Development and the western (approximately) 75 feet to Restoration. Designate Utility Corridor running east-west at north end of site. 10. AA Undesignated Development. II. AB Undesignated Development. ---~ 12. Bl Protection No change.* 13. B2 Protection No change.* - 14. B3 Restoration 1 No change.* 15. B4 Protection No change. 16. B5 Protection No change. ~ 17. B6 Restoration Change strip along Greenhill Road to Planned Transportation Corridor. 7 Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 2 2 -2 Item Site I Existing Designation Proposed Designation I No. Name 18. B7 Restoration/Protection Change strip along Greenhill Road to Planned Transportation Corridor. No change to remainder of site.* 19. B8 Restoration Change strip along Greenhill Road to Planned Transportation Corridor. --- O. BI0 Undesignated Restoration. -- I. BA U ndesignated Change strip along Green Hill Road I Protection to Planned Transportation Corridor, change remainder to Restoration. 22. C2 Change area within W. 11th right-of- way to Planned Transportation Corrid0r. Change corridor along Amazon to Utility Corridor. 23. C3a Protection/Development Change corridor along existing storm sewer line to Utility Corridor, and change corridor along existing sanitary sewer line to Utility Corridor. No change to remainder of site. * 23a. C4 Protection Change corridor along existing storm sewer line from Protection to Utility Corridor. 23b. C5 Protection Change corridors along existing i storm sewer lines from Protection to I Utility Corridor. I 24. C6a-b Development/undesignated Change whole site to Development. 25. C6c-e Undesignated, except for former site Change whole site to Protection, C6d (was designated Development except change tax lot 400 on west in error) and C6e (Protection) end to Restoration and corridors along existing storm sewer lines to Utility Corridor. --- f---- 26. C6f U ndesignated/Development Change whole site to Development. 27. C6g U ndesignated/Development Change whole site to Development. Has been partially filled. \ Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 3 ,---- ---,- , Item Site Existing Designation Proposed Designation No. Name 27a. C8 Undesignated (new site) Restoration. 28. CA I U ndesignated Development. ! 29. CB I Undesignated Development. ---;-- 30. CC U ndesignated Development. -- 3I. CE Undesignated Has been filled. 32. DA Undesignated, except for portion Change whole site to Development. formerly mapped as part of B5 (Protection) 33. DB Protection of Danebo pond, Leave Danebo pond designated undesignated in field to south Protection, designate wetlands south of pond for Development. 34. I DC U ndesignated, except for area Change whole site to Development. previously mapped as D2a (Development) - 35. DD Undesignated, except for area Change whole site to Development. previously mapped as D2b (Development) 3~1 DH Undesignated Development. 37. Ela-b Development Change strip along Bertelsen Rd. to Planned Transportation Corridor, change remainder to Restoration. --- 38. E2a Protection/undesignated Change strip along Bertelsen Rd. to Planned Transportation Corridor. Change corridor along existing sanitary sewer line to Utility Corridor. Change corridor along I Stewart Road and corridor near 2nd and Wallis to Utility Corridor. For newly mapped undesignated wetlands near Wallis and 3rd, designate wetlands owned by BLM for Restoration, designate remainder for Development. ~- 39. I E2b Development, undesignated Change whole site to Development. ---t- 3?~_________J E2e _I Undesignated (new site) Restoration. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 4 4 ~-,-- Item Site Existing Designation Proposed Designation No. Name O. EC U ndesignated Development. I. EE U ndesignated Change area within Bailey Hill Road and West 5th Ave. r-o-w from undesignated to Planned Transportation Corridor, change remainder to Protection. --- -- 2. EF Undesignated, except for area Change northern portion (owned by previously mapped as E3 BLM) to Protection, except for small (Development) Utility Corridor areas at NW, NE and SE corners. Designate lots 1704341301800 and 1704341301900, and southern 96 feet of 1704341301400 for Development. The wetlands on 1704341302100 have been filled and developed. 42a. EG Undesignated (new site) Development. 43. GA U ndesignated Development. ---+ 44. 1GB U ndesignated I Development. -- 45. GD U ndesignated Development. Southern half of site has been filled. 46. HI Protection Change strip along Gimpl Hill Rd. to Planned Transportation Corridor. Change north-south corridor at south end of property to Utility Corridor. 47a. H2 Development/Restoration/undesigna The Eugene Speedway property ted (1704334000300) is not included in this ordinance. Designate remainder ofH2 site (1704334000400 and 1704334000600) for Development. - -~~-- I 4 4 Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 5 I I Item Site Existing Designation Proposed Designation No. Name -- 48. H3 Protection Change eastern portion of northern arm of H3 to Development (error in earlier table, map was correct). I Leave remainder of site as currently designated, except for Utility I Corridor running north-south near east property line of 1704330001000. -- 49. HC Undesignated, except for area Change undesignated wet prairie formerly mapped as part of H3 area east of storage buildings and (Protection) south of 13th to Protection (dividing line is diagonal from 13th r-o-w to buildings, see map), except for small i Utility Corridor area along West I I 13th. Designate remainder for Development. Northern portion has been filled. 50. HD Undesignated Development. 51. HE U ndesignated Change wetland on 180403004602 and 1804030002900 to Development, change strip along Bertelsen Road (north of 1804030002900) to Planned Transportation Corridor, designate I areas mapped as NR on Metro Plan diagram Protection, change remainder of site to Restoration. 52. HG U ndesignated The Hyundai property is not included in this ordinance. 53. HK Undesignated Development. -- 54. 11 Development/undesignated Change whole site to Development. I i Protection. 15~~ IA Undesignated Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 6 Item No. --;ite 1 Name ~ Existing Designation Proposed Designation 56. IB U ndesignated Designate east-west corridor along existing sanitary sewer line for Utility Corridor, designate remainder for Protection. Lot 201 no longer has jurisdictional wetlands per ODSL determination. 157. 1- -J I_~. _+JD I ~--- I IE 160. 1 I i IC U ndesignated Development. Wetlands on lot 1804032301600 have been filled and developed. Development. Undesignated L c. U ndesignated I I Update Map 3 as follows: a. Incorporate most recent approved wetland boundary information from Wetland Conservation Plan Inventory map Remove goldenrod shading ("upland mitigation areas" are incorporated into wetland concept map) Add two intermittent streams which flow into the west branch of Willow Creek to Map 3 as protected streams. Development. I All I b. 1 The term "restoration" is used here and throughout this document to mean the designation on Map #3 of the current Plan entitled "Wetlands to be enhanced for Mitigation Credit". *The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions recommended that these sites be designated wholly or in part for Planned Transportation Corridor to accommodate the proposed northern alignment of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). However, the amendments for the WEP will be processed at a later date, and are therefore not included in this ordinance. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 7 Policy Amendment 79. Delete the existing Policy 4.17 and replace it with the following: 4.17 The City of Eugene shall calculate mitigation requirements for all wetland impacts within the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area using the applicable ratio from Table 1 below ,subject to the provisions in A through D below. In no case shall a ratio of less than 1: 1 be allowed. A. For impact sites with recent disturbance, the City of Eugene shall determine mitigation ratios based upon an analysis of habitat type on the site as of April 2, 1999 as determined by aerial photo analysis. No reduction in ratios for fair to poor quality habitat shall be allowed for recently disturbed impact sites. B. The City of Eugene shall calculate mitigation requirements for impact sites with more than one habitat type by multiplying the appropriate ratio by the number of acres impacted for each habitat type and summing the resulting acreage for each habitat type. C. Ratios shown in Table 1 for wet prairie, shrub/scrub, forested and emergent wetlands are for impacts to good to excellent quality habitat. Impact sites that contain one or more plant species designated as rare in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan shall be considered good to excellent habitat. Impact sites containing these habitat types of fair to poor quality can be evaluated for lower replacement ratios only if the applicant submits field data according to the following provisions: (1) Habitat quality shall be determined by the City of Eugene, based upon field conditions as represented in field data submitted by the applicant on forms provided by the City. Field data shall be collected between May 1 and July 30 by a qualified professional, shall include distribution data for all plant species present and shall include data from sampling points in the center of the wetland area. (2) For sites containing wet prairie, shrub/scrub, forested and emergent wetlands of fair quality the ratio can be reduced by 0.25:1 arid for sites containing these habitat types of poor quality the ratio can be reduced by 0.5: 1. D. The ratios for privately constructed mitigation (Le., not purchased through a state/federal approved wetland mitigation bank) are based upon construction of the mitigation concurrent with the permitted filling of a wetland. If private mitigation is constructed prior to the wetland impact, the ratio can be reduced by 0.25: 1. Table 1 Mitigation Replacement Ratios for Good to Excellent Quality Habitat (mitigation acres: impact acres) Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 8 Private Mitigation Mitigation2 Wetland Habitat Restoration1 Creation Enhancement Bank Type (impact site) Wet Prairie 2:1 2.25: 1 2.5: 1 1.75:1 -- Other WetIand 1.5: 1 1.75:1 2:1 1.25: 1 Types: shrub/scrub, emergent, forest Disturbed 1:1 1.25:1 1.5: 1 1:1 Wetlands: Agricultural, crop land, pasture, old field, fill i Notes: (1) Restoration is the preferred mitigation method for the West Eugene Wetlands program. To encourage restoration, it is given the lowest ratio of the three mitigation methods. (2) This column shows the mitigation replacement ratios that will apply to those who are meeting their mitigation requirements through a public or private mitigation bankor mitigation bank program approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (i.e~, these ratios apply to "customers" of the "bank"). Participants in the mitigation bank pay a fee into the "bank" in lieu of constructing their own mitigation project. The mitigation replacement ratio determines how many acres of mitigation credit must be purchased for each acre of wetland impact. The ratio does not address how credits are produced by the bank. The ratios are lower than for private mitigation because state and federal approval of mitigation banks requires that the majority of mitigation projects be constructed prior to selling credits. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 9 Text Amendments 34. Update Conceptual Plan Map (was Map 4) 45. In Appendix C, delete all but the section on Wetland Value Criteria and update that section as follows: "Wetland Value Criteria The following criteria shall be used to determine wetland value categories for applying setbacks, buffer requirements and other protection measures applied to wetlands designated for protection on (Map 3). High value wetland sites must meet at least five out of the following seven criteria: a. site is' relatively undisturbed b. site contains rare plant species, Deschampsia cespitosa, or other unique and diverse plant communities c. site is large or is contiguous with another wetland or waterway d. site is actually or potentially part of a connected wetland system e. site contains a locally significant or rare habitat type f. site received a Wetland Evaluation Technique rating of 50 or greater g. site received a Wildlife Habitat Assessment rating of 60 or greater High value wetlands to be protected include: A4a, @11~A4e, C2, C3a, E2a, tmd HI. Moderate value wetland sites are all those sites that do not fit under the High Value or Low Value categories. Moderate value wetlands to be protected include: A3a, A4d; A4f; B 1, B2, B5, B+, E2c, E2d, E2e, A2c, A2e, Lo vv value vv~etland sites W~~nl~1?lff~t~~~lillm!m~~il~lll~all di3tttrbed agricultural wse~I.lsites ag mappcd in thc VwTe3t Eugenc Vletlflftdg Spccial.t\rca Study Tcclmical Rcport d~~iil~!llfltB~~]II~!ilm~IM~lill#~n~~!I]Rli!I~~!~I~mll~lml. La vv value wetlands to be protccted include:.@I~~~I~I!), A3b, A3e, A5;- B3, B4, B6, B7, B8, and H2. 46. Add to Appendix C a Wetland Types Map (Map 7). Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit A (Plan Amendments) Page 10 Exhibit B Findings of Consistency with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is a local comprehensive plan acknowledged by the state's Land Conservation and Development Commission, and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan is an adopted refinement plan to the Metro Plan. This document contains findings that address the consistency of the attached amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan with applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals (City of Eugene File RA 96-001). These amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan will result in changes to existing locally adopted inventory information regarding three land use categories: natural resources, industrial and commercial lands, and residential lands. Accordingly, this analysis addresses Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources), Goal 9 (Economic Development) and Goal 10 (Housing). Other Statewide Planning Goals are not specifically implicated by this ordinance. This document also contains analysis, findings and conclusions on the impacts of the amendments on the supply of industrial, commercial and residential lands in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area. This analysis concludes that these refinement plan amendments are consistent with applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. Background The amendments analyzed herein are changes to the Wetland Designations Map (Map 3) of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. This map applies one or more of several defined wetland designations to each inventoried wetland in the study area. Each designation and its effect on buildable lands is explained in general terms below. Protection: This designation is generally applied to wetlands of exceptional value, and, together with state and federal regulations, has the effect of preventing fill, disturbance or development within wetlands so designated. Where this designation is applied to wetlands that were previously considered buildable, it is treated as a subtraction from the buildable lands inventory. Where this designation is applied to wetlands that were previously designated for restoration it is ignored in this analysis. Restoration: This designation is generally applied to lower quality wetlands whose value is determined primarily by their size, location and connectivity to other wetlands or waterways. These wetlands are very important to the functioning of the larger wetland and hydrologic system because of their place in the landscape and their potential to be rehabilitated into higher quality wetlands. Where this designation is applied to wetlands that were previously considered buildable, it is treated as a subtraction from the buildable lands inventory. Where'this , Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 1 - ------ ---------- -- - --- designation is applied to wetlands that were previously designated for protection it is ignored in this analysis. Development: This designation is generally applied to wetlands that are highly disturbed, and isolated and have services available for urban levels of development. Where this designation is applied to a site that was previously not designated, it is treated as having no impact on the buildable land inventory. Where this designation is applied to a site that was previously designated either for restoration or protection, it is treated as an addition to the buildable lands inventory . Planned Transportation Corridor: This designation is applied to areas previously designated for restoration or protection to allow needed roadway improvements. Since the application of this designation occurs only in non-buildable areas (i.e., wetlands designated for protection or restoration) and it only allows road improvements, it does not affect the buildable land inventory . Utility Corridor: This designation is applied to areas previously designated for restoration or protection to allow necessary maintenance and repairs to existing utilities. It also would allow construction of new underground facilities under certain circumstances. Like the Planned Transportation Corridor above, this designation does not affect buildable lands except where it is applied to new wetland sites. Only one new wetland site has a portion designated Utility Corridor, and this is reflected in the attached table. Goal I-Citizen Involvement Statewide Goal 1 calls for local governments "to develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." The planning and adoption process for these amendments has incorporated many opportunities for citizen involvement at all phases of the process as detailed below. 1. This process began with a wetland inventory project in 1993, for which all affected property owners were contacted to obtain permission for the study to be conducted on their property. Only properties where owners gave permission were included in an on-site study. 2. After the wetland inventory was completed, the results were presented at a public workshop held on December 11, 1993. All affected owners, and everyone on the West Eugene Wetlands Plan interested parties list (more than 800 people) were sent notices about the workshop. 3. After studying the new wetland inventory data and incorporating citizen comments from the 1993 Workshop, a second workshop was held to present to the public preliminary staff recommendations for amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. This workshop was held on June 28, 1994 and notices were sent Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 2 - --- -------- -- - - -- to all those that got the earlier notice plus any who requested to be on the mailing list. 4. A third public workshop was held on December 5, 1995 to present revised staff recommendations for amendments to the public. Again, notice was sent to all affected property owners and more than 900 interested parties. Citizen and agency comments from this workshop were incorporated into the staff recommendations forwarded to the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions. 5. On March 18, 1996, a public hearing was held before the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions regarding these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Notice was sent to all affected property owners, all owners and occupants within 400 feet of affected properties, affected neighborhood groups and more than 900 interested parties. Bright orange notices were posted next to each affected property regarding the hearing. 6. On December 17,.1997, a second public hearing was held before the Eugene Planning Commission and the Lane County Planning Commission regarding four specific plan amendments. Notice was sent to all affected property owners and all who requested to receive notice, and all who participated in the Planning Commission proceedings. Notice was sent out more than 20 days before the hearing. The amendments and supporting documents were posted on the City of Eugene' s World Wide Web Homepage before the hearing. 7. On February 18, 1998 a public hearing was held before the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding amendments to the policies and text of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Notice was sent to all affected property owners and all who requested to receive notice, and all who participated in the Planning Commission proceedings. Notice was sent out more than 20 days before the hearing. The amendments and supporting documents were posted on the City of Eugene's World Wide Web Homepage before the hearing. 8. On April 12, 2000 a public hearing was held before the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding these amendments. Notice was sent out more than 20 days before the hearing. The amendments and supporting documents were posted on the City of Eugene's World Wide Web Homepage before the hearing. We find that the opportunities for citizen involvement detailed above are beyond what is necessary to achieve consistency with Goal 1. Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 3 GoalS, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Areas The purpose of Goal 5 is to protect natural resources, and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. In addition to the Goal, the Land Conservation and Development Commission has adopted an administrative rule to aid local government in achieving the requirements of the Goal. The original Goal 5 Rule, OAR 660, Division 16, was adopted in 1991; revisions to the Goal 5 Rule were adopted in 1996 as OAR 660, Division 23. The 1991 Goal 5 Rule continues to apply to post-acknowledgment plan amendments, such as the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments, initiated before September 1, 1996. Goal 5 and the 1991 Goal 5 Rule focus on the process required to prepare a Goal 5 inventory and develop a program to achieve the goal on a site-specific basis, through preservation of a resource site; allowing conflicting uses and the loss of the resource; or mitigating negative impacts associated with the conflicting uses through partial protection. Findings: The West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) is an approved wetland conservation plan as defined in ORS 196.800(15). Approval for the existing plan as a Wetland Conservation Plan was granted by the Oregon Division of State Lands on September 13, 1994. ORS 196.684(8) specifies the relationship between Wetland Conservation Plan approval and compliance with Goal 5: "Wetland conservation plans approved by the Director of the Division of State Lands pursuant to ORS 196.668 to 196.692 shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of any statewide planning goals related to wetlands, other than estuarine wetlands, for those areas, uses and activities which are regulated by the plan." [See also, ORS 197.279] Approval of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) as provided by law, satisfies all the requirements of any applicable statewide planning goal related to wetlands (including Goal 5) for those areas, uses and activities which are regulated by the plan. The amendments clarify and further refine the WEWP. The findings of goal compliance made as part of initial adoption of the WEWP remain essentially unaffected by these amendments. Amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan adopted in 1998 and 1999 to revise the wetland designation criteria and add new wetland designations for Planned Transportation Corridor and Utility Corridor have been acknowledged for compliance with Goal 5. The site designations in these amendments are consistent with those acknowledged criteria, as outlined in Exhibit C to this ordinance. Plan policy and text changes do not significantly alter the function, design and structure of the WEWP. The fundamental program developed for Goal 5 compliance essentially remains unchanged. The policies and criteria of the WEWP operate as a tool to further Goal 5 Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 4 compliance by assisting in determining the significance of wetland resources, the conflicts and the economic, social, environmental and energy values involved in protecting the resource. That analysis approaches the wetlands of West Eugene as part of an interconnected natural system rather than as separate, discrete sites. The focus remains inside the West Eugene Wetlands Special Study Area, keeping in mind that the larger system of which these wetlands are a part extends beyond this and other political boundaries. As detailed in Exhibit C, the amendments are consistent with the applicable policies of the Metro Plan and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Those are the same policies previously acknowledged as being in compliance with statewide planning goals; and, in the case of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan policies, deemed to be in compliance with applicable statewide goals by DSL. approval of the WEWP as a wetlands conservation plan. The inventory and significance determinations for individual sites meet the DSL requirements, and the plan amendments comply with ORS 196.681 to 196.684 and OAR 141-120. For those reasons, these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Methodology for Goal 9 and 10 Analyses To address consistency with Statewide Planning Goals 9 and 10, the amendments were analyzed to document additions or reductions to the supply of industrial, commercial, and residential lands within the Metro area, due to these amendments to the Plan. This analysis is based on existing inventory, supply and demand data provided in three source documents: the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, the Eugene Commercial Lands Study, and the "Supply and Demand Analysis in Acres" table for residential lands contained in the Metropolitan Area General Plan. The analysis also relies on site information not included in these existing land use inventory studies. The tables include areas that involve a change in designation from "protect" or "restore" status to development (an increase in supply), and areas that involve a change from "development" or "undesignated" status to "protection" or "restoration" (a decrease in supply). Designation changes that allow development, but do not affect the inventory of available land are also shown in the accompanying tables. The affected areas were identified, their square footage was calculated, and this was in turn translated into approximate acreage. In some cases, the acreage figures were estimated using manual calculation methods, while most often computer mapping analysis was used. This information has further been. categorized by land use type and Metro. Plan designation (see Tables 1-8 below). This information was used to summarize the potential impacts that these refinement plan amendments would have on the existing supply of commercial, industrial, and residential lands in the Metro area. Narrative summaries of the results of this analysis are included under each of the applicable Statewide Planning Goals below. Tables 1-8, which are attached following the end of this narrative, show the acreage figures for each site and category. Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 5 The following additional points will clarify the scope of this analy'sis: 1. All sites directly affected by these amendments are considered in the following analyses. 2. This analysis only considers impacts to the local inventory of buildable land resulting from these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. It does not take into consideration changes resulting from other local plans, policies, or actions. 3. The Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report (July 1993) identifies a projected demand for industrial land in a range from 650 acres to 1,172 acres. This projected demand was not broken down into any sub-categories, such as size, type or location. As a result the analysis here does not address these sub- categories. The Eugene Commercial Lands Study identifies a projected demand for 523 acres of commercial land, including 109 acres of office commercial and 432 acres of non-office commercial land. There were no further break-downs of the demand into other sub-categories such as size or location, and consequently these sub-categories are not addressed here. The "Supply and Demand Analysis in Acres" table for residential lands contained in the Metropolitan Area General Plan separated out the aggregate demand for residential land into three sub- categories: low density, medium density and high density residential. No other sub-categories, such as size, or location were included in the analysis. Consequently the analysis herein only addresses these three categories. 4. The three source documents relied upon here for analysis of available buildable land include land inside the adopted urban growth boundary, which encompasses land both inside and outside the Eugene city limits. Urban services are available to all properties within the city limits, but are not immediately available to properties outside the city limits. These properties outside the city limits must annex to the City of Eugene in order to receive urban services. Consequently, if . land outside the city limits is removed from the buildable lands inventory, it has a less immediate effect because these properties are not developable until they are annexed. One wetland site outside the city limits was removed from the buildable lands inventory (site BA, amendment #21) and it totals 2.13 acres. 5. All areas designated by these amendments for protection and restoration are vacant, undeveloped areas. Therefore, these amendments will not apply to existing development, and do not apply new land use restrictions to existing development.. Some wetland site designations affect an undeveloped portion of a partially developed parcel. Of thirteen such sites, ten are designated at least in part for Development. The partially developed lots are shown in the table below: Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 6 Site Name Map Number Lot Number New Designation Acreage A4a 17-04-32-00 200 Development 0.3 A4a 17-04-32-00 602 Protection 0.14 BA 17-04-20-00 2200 Restoration 2.13 CA 17 -04-28-42 700 Development 0.76 CB 17-04-28-43 2600 Development 0.73 DA 17-04-28-00 400 Development 23.35 EC 17-04-26-23 100 Development 0.83 GA 17-04-35-20 2300 Development 0.43 GB 17-04-35-20 1800 Development 0.28 GB 17-04-35-20 1900 Development 1.45 GD 17-04-35-23 2800 Development 0.96 HE 18-04-03-23 2900 Development 2.56 IA 17-04-35-42 900 Protection 1.69 IA 17-04-35-42 901 Protection 2.33 IB 17-04-36-33 200 Protection 1.22 IE 17-04-35-33 4600 Development 0.33 Two of the four partially-developed sites (A4a, IA) where wetlands are being protected were undeveloped when the original recommendations for amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan for these sites were being developed. The third site (Site BA) is approximately 2/3 mile beyond the city limits and does not have full urban services. The fourth site (Site IB) is in the process of being acquired by the City of Eugene and the Bureau of Land Management. 6. The accompanying tables do not include those parcels where a change in designation was proposed from one non-developable category to another (e.g., from "protect" to "restore," or from "restore" to "Planned Transportation Corridor"). 7. Two additional wetland sites are proposed to be designated in separate ordinances (Sites H2 and HG). Since designations for wetlands on these two sites have not been adopted yet, no exact calculation of their impact to the buildable lands Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 7 --- - - ----- -- --- -- - - ---- inventory can be given in this document. In order to assess the cumulative impact to the buildable lands inventory of all the amendments, including those in this ordinance along with those on sites H2 and HG, this analysis assumes that none of the wetlands being designated on Sites H2 and HG would be available for development. For the Site HG (Hyundai), this amounts to 54.6 acres of wetland designated for campus industrial (special light industrial) use. On Site H2, most of the wetlands are already designated in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. For the purposes of this analysis, only those wetlands proposed to be designated or re- designated are included (as opposed to the entire site). This amounts to 7.7 acres of wetland designated for medium density residential, 14.3 acres of wetland designated for high density residential, 19.1 acres of wetland designated for light medium industrial, and 4.8 acres of wetland designated for commercial. Assuming that all of the wetlands on these sites are unavailable for development, allows this analysis to conclude, no matter how much of those two sites is designated for protection or restoration, whether sufficient land remains in the buildable lands inventory. Goal 9 - Economic Development The purpose of Goal 9 is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, wealth, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Findings: Industrial Lands: The Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, including both the Inventory Report and the Policy Report, describes the long-term supply and demand for industrial lands metro-wide. In 1992, these documents were approved by the Eugene City Council, the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. According to the data and findings contained in these reports (as of January 1, 1989), there were approximately 3,600 acres of buildable industrial land in the Metro area. I This figure is broken down into separate industrial land use categories in the "Buildable Acres" table below. The twenty-year demand projection for buildable industrial land was between 650 and 1,172 acres.2 Wetland designation changes to protection or restoration included in this ordinance would decrease the available inventory of industrial land by 57.8 acres (see Table 2 below). Wetland designation changes from protection or restoration to development would make available 2.2 acres of inventoried industrial land that were formerly unavailable for development (see Table 1). Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report, Lane Council of Governments, 125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon, 97401, July 1993, p.73. 2 Ibid., p.?3. Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 8 - - --- ------ -- ---- -- - The net change based on these calculations would be an overall decrease of buildable industrial land by 54.8 acres. This represents a reduction in the overall supply of industrial land of 1.5%, leaving 3,549.5 acres of industrial land unaffected by these refinement plan amendments. This represents a supply that is 2,377.5 acres more than the maximum projected twenty-year demand for 1,172 acres. Although the industrial land inventory is broken down into different types of industrial land, the demand projection analysis does not break down industrial land into smaller categories. Buildable Acres3--Industrial Land Heavy Special Light Special Mixed/ Non- Total Industrial Heavy Medium Light University Industrial (all cate- Indus- Indus- Industrial gories) trial trial Eugene 254.18 500.41 1,230.78 734.52 43.12 132.48 2,895.49 UGB Springfield 198.34 0.00 198.77 255.17 4.22 52.29 708.80 UGB Metro 452.52 500.41 1,429.55 989.69 47.34 184.77 3,604.29 UGB Total Impacts to Industrial Lands Inventory from WEWP Amendments4 Net Impact 0.0 0.0 -44.2 -10.6 0.0 0.0 -54.8 of Amdmts. (acres) Percentage .0.0% 0.0% -3.1% -1.1% 0.0% 0.0% -1.5% Impact Inventory 452.5 500.4 1,385.4 979.1 47.3 184.8 3,549.5 Remaining (acres) Within the light-medium industrial category, 24.3 acres of the land removed from the buildable lands inventory is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is being operated as a wetland mitigation site. An additional 19.3 acres of Light Medium Industrial land are owned by 3 Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report, Lane Council of Governments, 125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon, 97401, July 1993, p. 47 4 See Table 2 of this document. Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 9 --- ------ - ---- state and local agencies who manage these lands for conservation of wetlands. So while these acres are included in the analysis above, the land was not truly available for industrial development before these amendments were proposed. The net impact to privately owned, Light Medium Industrial land, then, is a decrease of 11.5 acres. One wetland site outside the city limits was removed from the buildable lands inventory (site BA, amendment #21) and it totals 2.13 acres. This site is designated for light medium industrial use. It does not currently have urban services. Most of the reductions to the buildable lands inventory occur within the city limits where services are available. However, within the city limits, 55 acres of wetlands with high development value and low wetland value are designated for development, in part to recognize the available services there. No industrial land outside city limits was designated for development in these amendments. These reductions to the buildable lands inventory affect a proportionately small area in comparison to the total supply of available industrial land. The amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan leave adequate industrial land within the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area within the 20-year planning period. Therefore, these amendments are consistent with Goal 9 with respect to industrial land. If all of the developable industrial land on the HG and H2 sites were designated for Protection or Restoration (see assumptions above), this would remove an additional 73.7 acres from the industrial buildable lands inventory. Together with the reductions from amendments included in this ordinance, these designations would bring the total reduction in buildable industrial land from all three ordinances to 13I.8 acres. This would leave 3,417.4 acres of buildable industrial land available, which represents a supply that is 2,245 acres more than the maximum projected twenty-year demand for 1,172 acres of industrial land. Therefore, no matter how much wetland on the HG and H2 sites is designated for Protection or Restoration, after all of the amendments are adopted, there will be sufficient buildable industrial land remaining to meet the projected 20- year demand. Commercial Lands The Eugene Commercial Lands Study (1992), provides an analysis of the supply and demand for commercial land within Eugene. The study was prepared by the Eugene Planning Commission, and it serves as a refinement to the Metropolitan Area General Plan. According to the findings contained in this study, the total supply of commercial land was 702 acres (adjusted total supply).5 The projected twenty-year demand for vacant commercial land (within the Eugene portion of the Urban Growth Boundary only) was 532 acres, including 109 acres of developable office land and 423 acres of non-office commercia1.6 For the purposes of this analysis, 5 Eugene Commercial Lands Study, Eugene Planning and Development Department, 777 Pearl Street, Room 106, Eugene, Oregon, 1992, p. 1l-15. 6 Ibid., p.Il-15. Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 10 developable office is land designated in the Metropolitan Area General Plan for commercial use, which is zoned GO General Office. No land zoned General Office was affected by the amendments. Therefore, there is no impact to the supply of office commercial land as a result of these amendments. Wetland designation changes to protection or restoration resulting from this ordinance would, in effect, decrease the inventory of commercial land by 5.3 acres (see Table 3). This represents a reduction in the overall supply of commercial lands of less than 1 %, leaving about 697 acres of inventoried commercial land. This is 165 acres more than the projected twenty-year demand. Since no office commercial lands were impacted, it must be assumed that all impacts are to the non-office commercial category. The projected demand for this category is 423 acres. According to the Commercial Lands Study, the inventory of buildable commercial land includes 465 acres of land designated in the Metro Plan for commercial use, but not zoned for office use. An additional 197 acres is included in the inventory that is not categorized between office and non-office use, though a percentage of it can be assumed available for non-office commercial. U sing only the 465 acres explicitly denoted in the Commercial Lands Study, after subtracting the 5.3 acres removed by protection of wetlands in these amendments, 460 acres are left, which is 37 acres more than the proj ected demand for this category. Given a supply of commercial land greater than the projected demand for all commercial and non-office commercial after the reductions associated with these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, the amendments leave an adequate supply of commercial land within the Urban Growth Boundary for the 20-year planning period. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 9 with respect to commercial land. If all of the developable commercial land on the HG and H2 sites were designated for Protection or Restoration (see assumptions above), this would remove an additional 5 acres from the commercial buildable lands inventory. Together with the reductions from amendments included in this ordinance, these designations would bring the total reduction in buildable commercial land from all three ordinances to 10 acres. This would leave 692 acres of buildable commercial land, which represents a supply that is 160 acres more than the maximum projected twenty-year demand for 523 acres of commercial land. Therefore, no matter how much wetland on the HG and H2 sites is designated for Protection or Restoration, after all of the amendments are adopted, there will be sufficient buildable commercial land remaining to meet the projected 20-year demand. Goal! 0 - Housing The purpose of Goal 10 is to provide for housing needs of the citizens of the state. Findings: Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page II The Metropolitan Area General Plan, as amended by Ordinance No. 20159 on July 12, 1999, includes a summary analysis of the supply and demand for residential lands within the Eugene- Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. According to the summary table ("Supply and Demand Analysis in Acres"), there were 5,802 acres of vacant, buildable residential land in the Metro area in 1999. The twenty-year demand projection for vacant, buildable residential land was between 3,968 and 5,040 acres. Wetland designation changes to protection or restoration as a part of these amendments would, in effect, decrease the available inventory of residential land by 31.1 acres (see Tables 7 and 8). This represents a reduction in the overall supply of inventoried residential lands by 0.5%, leaving 5,771 acres of inventoried residential land. This represents a supply of 731 acres beyond the maximum projected twenty-year demand for 5,040 acres. Given the remaining supply of available residential land, and given the minor impact associated with these amendments to the overall supply, these amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10. Of the wetlands on residential lands that are designated for Protection or Restoration, 22 acres are in public ownership, and are being managed for wetland conservation. Even though these acres are included in Tables 7 and 8, they were previously removed from the supply of buildable lands by public acquisition. Another 4.5 acres of residential land designated for protection are currently in the process of being acquired by the City of Eugene and the Bureau of Land Management (Site IB). Residential Lands Buildable Acreage Low Medium High Total Density Density Density Metro UGB Total 4,780 828 195 5,802 Impacts to Residential Lands Inventory from WEWP Amendments Net Impact of -22.8 -8.3 0.0 -31.1 Amendments Percentage 0.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% Impact Inventory 4,757.2 819.7 195.0 5,770.9 Remaining If all of the developable residential land on the HG and H2 sites were designated for Protection or Restoration (see assumptions above), this would remove an additional 22 acres from the residential buildable lands inventory. Together with the reductions from amendments included in Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 12 this ordinance, these designations would bring the total reduction in buildable residential land from all three ordinances to 53.1 acres. This would leave 5,717.9 acres of buildable residential land, which represents a supply that is 678 acres more than the maximum projected twenty-year demand for 5,040 acres of residential land. Therefore, no matter how much wetland on the HG and H2 sites is designated for Protection or Restoration, after all of the amendments are adopted, there will be sufficient buildable residential land remaining to meet the projected 20-year demand. Conclusions The above findings show that these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan are consistent with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 1,5,9 and 10. This conclusion is based on: 1) the relatively minor impact (through restrictions of land use) that wetland designation changes will have on the overall supply of industrial, commercial and residential land, 2) the fact that these minor impacts will not prohibit or significantly interfere with meeting the projected twenty- year buildable land demands as it is indicated in each of the inventory reports noted above, 3) the abundant opportunities provided for citizen involvement throughout the planning process and 4) approval of these amendments by the Oregon Division of State Lands as amendments to the West Eugene Wetland Conservation Plan. No further analysis of Statewide Planning Goals is necessary for these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (RA 96-1). Multiple Site Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 13 tb ell tb as e u .5 ell C) as U) e .!! u < .c ell as :is t- as U) :E .U; "5 ~ m "is .c c - c:( l fI) .!! "tJ 0 C ..J as "is ..J 1: CD - tb :c = "tJ as .5 :E "tJ "S ell - m u ai t! < ~ :c ~ ell :c :is >< ~ w - ~ ~ .e .e E I ,g .0 - ::J:E ::J- (/)...1 (/)0 N co N ,.... <"Ii 0 N ...,. N CO N ...,. M 0> ~ <"Ii 0 0 N b 8 0 ~"i 0_ ">= fa&. D- o t: 0 0 0 0 4ft C t! ... 0 ~ 0 0 S 0 1) 0 Gl 0 '0 ~ f g .e 0 I/) Gl Q: N ...,. N <0 C. N ...,. M 0> 0 N 0 0 N 'i) > Gl C to ::J E en C - 0 c ~ 00 ~ Gl Gl = e e e 0 Q.. Q..Q.. C ~ IV 1ij C 0) 'C "ii 1;) Gl ::J 1ij 1ij C "0 'C 'C C -= 1;) 1;) - E ::J ::J ii: ::J "0 "0 i -= -= ~ I/) Ul :E ::J ::J Gl a. a. :E 1: E E Ol IV cu :::i 00 ~... N co! M · E E = c( c ~ <( cu cu 0 ...,. ...,. en <( ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...,. <0 N ...I 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIO N N 0- N M M - ~ ~~ :E ~ ~~ ...,.CIOMOlIO...,.M Bci~;~~~~ ~ >- iii~ 50!! >= Gla&. ~ Q. t: o o to C t! ... M o o ~ :s ::J ...,. CIOO OlIO...,. 1) ~~;~~~ J!l 2 D- f .e I/) Gl Q: tb ell tb as e u ell C ell C) as e u < ell :is as :E 'S m .c - 'i .!! o ..J "is 1: - tb ~ "tJ .5 "tJ ell - u t! < N ell :is as t- c. o 'i) > CD o to ::s B en 1: g- g- g- g- g- g- g- ~Q)'i)'i)Q)Q)Q)Q) 0= ~~~~~~~ 0000000 c ~ - c 0) "ii Gl1ij1ij1ij1ijftiftiiii ~ ~iii~i~ _ = ::J ::J ::s ::J ::J :l ii: ~~~~~~~ i ~~~~~~~ :E ~~~~~~~ cu CU CU cu CU CU CU 0000000 ~! Gl E E ::s <( c ~ cucuCU"OGlGlCU tb <<<<<<8 ~ ~C;gC;~c;g j regcogcogl() ggggggg OlOlNOlOlOlClO t!i!i~!i!i!i!i :E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ M o o tl ~ a. -=-- .e ~ 15 :l- (/)0 ~ ~ ..... wi CD :is III .- 8) ~ III ~ 8) '0 C III ...J CD :is \'0 :E '5 m ~C;g~g~~~~8;~~~~~~~~;~c; oooNoooooooooooooo~o~o c; o co <0 0...,. 00 CIO o o o o o 00 00 00 M o o c; o c; o ~~g~8;~~~~~~~ 0000000000000 o CIO 00 ON ~~~c; ~o~o ..... ...,.0 ,.... 0 00 ciicccii~iiiiiiiicccc ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JJ..JJJWWWW.WW.W.WJJJJ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gl Gl C C Gl Gl Gl C C C C C C C C C C C Gl Gl Gl Gl OO::J::JOOO::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::JCOOO iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiftiiiiiiiftiiiiiiiiiiiii ~iii~iiiiiiiiii~iiiii ::J :l ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J :l ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J :l ::J ::J ::J :l ::J :l "O"O"O"O"O"O~~~~~~~"O"O"O"O"O~~~ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=.s-=-=.s-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= iii "C 1;) ~ E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E C .2 ~ .2 .2 ~ .2 .2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .2 .2 .2 ~ ~ .2 .2 .2 .2 ~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ~:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E~:E:E:E:E~:E:E:E:E:E E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CUOlOlOlO)O)O)O)O)O)OlOlOlOlO)OlOlO)OlOlOlOl O:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i:::i CIO~~MI()I()I()I()I()I()I()I()I()I()IOI()I()""'''''''''''''''' NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMM CUGl<(<(-X!X!!XXXXXXXXCUCUIVCU M""'mmM~~~~~~~~C<O<O<O<O~~~~ 0< OOOOOOOOOOOOOO~~~~ g~gggggggggggg~gggg8~g ~CON~~CO~""'I()CO""'CIOOl~_~~I()NNN~ O~~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOgO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,....,.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ en G) :c cu I- .!l en ~ <<i c <C en "C c cu ..J G) :c cu :2 .5 OJ ai i ::J .5: C 8 N G) :0 ~ ... ;g .c >< W ~ ~i 0_ >= G)IL Q: ~} G) E E = < c: ~~~c;~~~~~~ggg Ellicicocicicici........cicicici ~ t: o o 41) c: f ... NCOO 000 cicici ~ 5 ~C;gg cicicici ... o .! e Q. ,...ONNNIO~,...OOO cooooo~~oooo cociddci........ddcici ,... e ~ .s III QI ex: c. o a; > QI o 41) ~iiiiiccciiiii ~-----G)Q)Q)----- U) ~~~~~EEE~~~~~ 1: Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl C. C. C. Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl ~ .~.~.~.~.~~~~.~.~.~.~.~ =-g-g-g-g-g~~~-g-g-g-g-g 0;:);:);:);:);:)000;:);:);:);:);:) c: 8 .ftI c: Cl Vi QI o c: ftI ii: e l) ::I: iijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiij 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C :c 'C 'C oc oc 't: 1i)1i)Ui1i)1i)u;7i)1i)1i)1i)1i)1i)Cii ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J '0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0 .!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!: E E E E E E E E E E E E E ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J i'2:giii'2i=gi'2i'2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..,..............,...............,..........,... .c..c..c..c..c..c..c..c..c..c..c..c..c. ClClClClClClClClClClClClCl ::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i ;~~~~~~~~~~~~ (") ell G)WWWWl.Ll.LILl.Ll.LOOO ~ tJj W W W U' ill W W W W J: J: J: 'OgC;~C;ggggg~ggg ..J~~~g~IOCO:!:!N~~~ ~gggg~~~~~ggg c.~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :E~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ,g E .9 .c - ::J~ (I)..J co ~ cO ~ o en r-..: lO 8 c:i ~ c:i N c:i IX) ...,. -.i N r-- It> N (") 8 c:i OCO ....0 Edd o ... ~ ~i .g= ~u: Q: t: o o 41) c f ... ~ :5 ... o .! e Q. e .s III QI ex: C'lS CI) L. <( CI) :c C'lS ~ 'S m .5 CI) C) c C'lS .c o o Z .c ... 'i J!l o ..J 'is "I: ... fn ::s "C .E "C CI) ... u ~ <( M CD :c C'lS J- o IX) c. .... 0 o d c:i a; > G) o III ::J '0 '0 ~ Q) Q) U) 10 10 ... 6, 6, ~ .~ o~ = '0 '0 o :5:5 c 8 ftI C Cl Vi ~ ~ ~ c (;j (;j III ::J ::J ii: ~ ~ e III III l) ::J ::J ::I: ~ ~ ftI ftI 00 -g} QI E ~~ 1! m m fn < < '0 g ~ ..J N N 00 00 0) 0) C.NN III ~ ~ :E ~ ~ ~ .e ~ 15 ::J_ (1)0 CD .... ci ~ .e E .9 .c ::J_ (l)J: N co N N C;g~~~g~C;~Rre~~~~g~~ ciddcicicicocicillicid.........cicici 000000 000000 ciddddci 000 000 ddd C;g~co~g~C;~Rre~~~~g~~ ddddddcoddllidci.........cidd ~~~~~~~~~~~~~jjjjj ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftIftI C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C ClClClClClClClClClClClClClClClClClCl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) G) Q) G) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) '0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c: c c c ;:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:);:) iij Eiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiijiij 1Il't:'t:'t:'t:'t:E't:'t:'t:'t:E't:E't:E't:'t: ~(;j~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~ .!:~'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O Ill.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!:.!: C.E::J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI ftI Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) G) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) OJ:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J:J: regggg~~~~~~~~~~~~ m<oooo<mmmmmoooooO <OOOOOOOOOCOCOCCCW ~gC;~~gggggggggC;ggg re""NNN~""'~N(,,)~CO~~~~~.... g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O)....IONN 00)0 N ddcidd 00000 00000 cidddd ~C;;~N~ ddddd ~~iii ftlftI10101O c c c c c ClClClClCl 'iij'iij ~'iij'iij Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) '0'0'0'0'0 C C C C C ;:);:);:);:);:) iijiijiijiijiij oc 'C oc 'C 'C 1;)1i)cn'fiiUi ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J '0'0'0'0'0 .!:.!:.!:.!:.!: E E E E E ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J iiiii ~~~~~ .... .... ... .... .... .c. .c. .c. .c. .c. Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl ::::i::::i::::i::::i::::i ~~cococo NNNNN ~~U>U)U) BBOOO gC;ggg ....IOCO,... 00(")(")(") C;;C;;NNN (")(")~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ N Cl i' a.. fIi Cl :is II I- ., "ii ~ II ~ ., '0 C II ...J Cl :is cu :E 0:;; m eI) CD :c CO I- eI) .; ~ (i c c( fI) "C C CO ..J CD :E CO :2 .5 m i oi~ c 8 ... :s :c >< w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ! ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ !'i 0_ ~ii: t t: o o . c ~ ~ 5 - u .1!! e Q. e s ., Q) 0::: ~~~g~gg~~~g~gggN~~~~gg~~g~~~g~gg~g~~gg~g~g~g~~~ ~dddcicicicicicicicicici~ci~Nciciciciciciciciciciddcicicicicicicicicicicicidci~cici > Q) c '" ~jjj~~~jjj~jjjjj~~~j~~~iiiijijjiijjj~i~iiiijijj o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ~ ~ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m _ c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~~~~g~g~~~g~g~~g~gg~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ; ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~ ; ~ ; ; ; ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ c o !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Q.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~22~~~2~~~~~~2~2~222~~~~22~ eii~i~~iiiiiii~~~i~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~iii~~~ii ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E~~~~~~~~~E~~~~E~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ggg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Q)~ ~~ ~ ~E ~~~ggggg<<mmmm<mcxm~mDDD~~~~~~~OOO<<CCCCCCCCOOO o 0 0 0 q 0.'.' () 0 0 0 0 0 0 cae C t1Ili1 t1Il11li1li1 w w w w w w w w w w C) C) C) C) C) C) :L :L :L :L J: :L :L ogggggggggggggggggg~~~g~gggggSS~~~ggggggooggggg ~~~M~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~M~~~M~~~~NNNNNN~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <"i CD :0 ~ MMMMMMMNOMMMOON~MMMOOMMMM~M~~~OOOOO~~~MOOOOOOO ~~~~~~~re~rerere~~re~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CO) ., i a.. ~ ., :E III l- on .ij ~ III ~ '" '0 C III ...J ., :E III :!:! "5 m en G) :c <<S I- en .en ~ (ij c < en " c <<S ..J Q) :c <<S ::E os OJ oj ... :E :E >< w - .2 ~ .D - :::J::!: (/)..J ~ .... t") N 0 0 It) 0 ~ It) 0 t") 0 C") ~ ci ci ci N ci ~ t- O 0 0 0 0 CO) >- 0 0 0 0 0 0 !-g ci ci ci ci ci N 0_ >= CD"- ... Q. t 8 0 d 0 ., c f t- ~ 8 ci S - 8 u ci GI - e Q. e 8 S ci l/l GI 0::: N 0 0 It) 0 C;; Co It) 0 t") 0 0 ci ci ci N d N G; ICl > CD Q ., ::s '0 i i i~ i $ en tU aJ tU aJ tU - C C C C C C 01 01 01 01 01 ~ 'en "en c;; "en 'en CD CD CD CD CD ::s '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 C C C C C 0 ::> ::>::> ::>::> c ~ tU (ij(ij (ij(ij (ij c en 'C "C 'C "C 'C Ii - - 1;)1;; Ui Ul Ul CD ::s ::s :::J :::J :::J Q '0'0 '0'0 '0 C 55 55 5 ta E E E E E ii: :::J :::J :::J :::J :::J e ii ii i t) ::!:::!: ::!:::!: ::!: ~ - - 1:1: 1: .r. .r. "21 SP SPSP SP ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J 'O~ ~;1; ..,...,. ;1; c! It) It) CD E ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ en :I: -. 0 0 N 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 i 0 Q) Q) .... N :::J t") .... .... C - 0 0 0 0 0 C 8 t")t") t")t")t") c<i c. ~~ ~~~ ta ~~ ~~~ CD s: ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... :0 - - - ... .... ~ en Q) en cu e o .E CD C) cu ! u < CD :is cu :E '5 m .s::. - l J9 o ..J Ci u 1: CD .E E o o "C .! u ~ < ~ Q) ::c ~ N 0 N ..... co ~ ci d 0 0 ~ 0 ~-g 0 0_ s:= CD"- ... 0- -- 0 t: 0 0 0 0 ., c f t- - -0 ~ 0 0 S -- 0 t) 0 CD ci e Q. ~- 0 e 0 0 ci 't;j CD 0::: N feN Co ..... ....CO 0 d dO G; > CD Q f-- ., :::J i en - c yy ~ :::J ee 0 O-Q. - - c ~ ta C 01 "0 CD Q c ta ii: (ij(ij g 'e "e CD ~ ~ ~ E E 0 0 ~ U 'g! co co ..,...,. CD E ~~ -- ~ t") t") en :I::I: co '0 00 co co ..J .... 0';:- g~ c. t") t") ta ~~ ~ ~~ Q) C) CU e u < Q) :is CU :E '5 m .E en Q) en cu e u Q) C .s::. - oi J9 o ..J Ci u 1: CD E E o o "C .! u ~ < Ii; Q) ::c ~ 0 0 ;! m t") 0 N :; N 1.0 0 0 co ..... It) .... 0 ~ ci d d d N d d d .... cD t- o ~ 0 ~-g c:i ~- >= CD"- tt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci ci ci d d ci d d d c:i 0 ., c f t- o 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 ..... ~ 0 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 ..... ci ci ci ci d d d d ci 0 S 0 0 :! Q) N 0 0 0 0 ~ t) 0 0 co co 0 0 0 0 ~ i ci d ci ci N d d d d M Q. 0 0 0 0 0 0 N "it N 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 It) co 1.0 ~ d ci ci ci ci d d d T"" N CD 0::: c. 0 0 0 c:i G; > CD Q ., :::J ~~ '0 ~ '0 '0'0 E ~ ~ ~~ en tU tU tU tU tU tU tU - C C 0.. Q. C C C C C C 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ~ "en 'en 0 0 'en "en "j;) 'j;) "en CD CD J G) CD CD CD CD CD '0 '0 ii 'C'C '0 'C '0 ;:, C C CD C C C C C 0 ::> ::> 00 ::>::> ::> ::>::> c ~ ta C 01 .. CD Q c ta ii: (ij(ij (ijai (ij(ij aiai ai e 'Q "e "Q "Q "Q "f~ 'e "Q 'e ~ ~ CD ~ CD CD CD CD CD 1) E E E E E E ~ E E E E E E E E E o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 ou uo uo ou u 'g! m m coc:o m - - ~ ~ ..,...,. ..,. ,...:,...: .......... CD E NN NN ~~ ~ UU tU tU uco co co co CI) xx ~~ xU 00 u 00 NO 0 0 0 N t") '0 00 00 0 0 0 0 ~~ c:oc:o 0 N t") t") t") ..J .... N N N N 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 t") t") 00 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ <'IN t") a. t") t") t") t") t") t") t") .. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ :IE ~~ t:t: t:t: t:t: ..... T"" .... Cl Q III Q. vi Cl :c III ..-- In .~ iii ~ In '1:l C ~ Gl :c 10 :g ':; al CD a ca f u < CD :E ca :5! .S m .5 en fI) CD CD a :E s::: ca tU .s::: I- 0 fI) 0 <<; Z .s::: ~ - (i l c IJ c( 0 fI) ..J "C "i c u ~ 1: CD CD E :E E as 0 ~ () "C .S G) - m u ai ~ < ... CD :a G) :E ;C >< ~ W c; ~ M L() ": 0'> ~ ci ..... ..... N t- o ~ 0 ~'i c:i 0_ >= CDl.L ... Q. 0 t 0 0 c:i 0 . c l! t- o ~ 0 ~ c:i 0 ... 0 u c:i .s 2 Q. 0 f 0 2 c:i . CD 0:: C; ~ M L() c. ": 0'> 0 ci ..... ..... N "ii ~ Q . ! -g -g~ a; - - en ell ell 1: c c C 01 01 01 ~ 0;; 0;; 0;; CD CD CD ::J "0 "0 "0 C c c 0 ::> ::>::> c 0 :;:l co C 01 ";i CD Q c co - - - ii: ell ell ell 2 oe e oe CD ~ CD li E E :E E E E 0 0 0 00 0 -g} 0) 0) ~ ~~ ~ CD E ~~ CD 00 co :t:= (/) :x:: :x::. (I) . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <10 0 0) ..J ..... ..... g 0 0 0 N M M \t) C. M M M co ~~~ :E ..... ..... ~ ..... ..... ~ ~'i g= >- CDl.L ~ 4i CIl III ~ III Cl :c III :2 :; .c 'ii C Q) 'U fii e ~ <II :ll III Q) o oS o c G) ~ G) 4i .J::. t:.. (1) a ca (1) ... o < (1) :E ca :5! .S m .S en (1) en ca e u (1) o .s::: - .i s o ..J "i ; s::: CD "C -;; (1) D:: "C C1) - u ~ < ;.:. G) :E ca I- ~ ,g ~ 150:: ~9 0) ..... N N OO~~O""'''''''''''OOO'''''.....OOOO<lO..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cici ~ . t- 00 t~~ o o . c l! t- (100) 0..... cici ~ ~ ... u .s 2 Q. o o ci o o ci gg~c;gggg<lO:: cicicicicicicicicici f ~ (II 0:: ~~O.....Mo)O ~~~~~~~ ..... c. o "ii ~ Q II) !~~~~~~~~jjijiiijjji CI) ell ell ell coco co ell ell ell ell co co ell ell ell co co coco ... CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (II U)U)U)U)U)U)U)II)U)U)U)U)U).U)UlIIOUIUI t CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ::J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::> c o :;:l COmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 01 C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c ";i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ glllll)))111IllI1lll ;0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0:: ii:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ t CD.CI ~~ 0)0).............................................\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t) ..........\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~$~~~~ oggg8~gggggC;gggggggC; ..J~N~~~M~~~O)O)~~~N~~O)O) oOOOg~~M~gO""''''''''''''''''''''''''''NN C.~~aasssss~~~~~~~~~~ ~RR~~~~~~~~~~RRRRRRR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~N~~g .....Nci.....M M ..... ci ..........~O<OO) ~~~~~;; -g-g~-g~~ fticaascuaico c c c c c C 010101010101 oit) oit) 0;; oit) Ui 0;; CD CD CD CD CD CD "0"0"0"0"0"0 C C C C C c ::>::>::>::>::>::> ~~~~~~ cccccc CD CD CD CD CD CD "0"0"0"0"0"0 0;; 0;; 0;; 0;; 0;; 0;; CD CD CI) CI) CD CI) 0::0::0::0::0::0:: ~~~~~~ 110 UI fI) U) U) fI) c c c c c c CD CD CD CD CD CD 000000 E E E E E E =' =' =' =' =' =' i'iiii'g ~~~~~~ \t)\t)<O~<O<O \t)\t)\t)\t)\t)\t) ~~~~~!B gC;8g~S o)o)o)NNN \t) NNNMC')C') ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ,.-.- ,g s go:: .CIo ~~ <0 N cO to G) ir n. iii G) :c III ~ ~ ~ III ~ <II 't:l C III ...J G) :c III :2 05 m O)L() :;~ M o o c:i ....... N c:i ("') ...... c:i u; ex) L() ...... N N o o c:i oS) ~ ().. i ~ y " ~ ~ ~ ~ III "\ ~ ~ , "& 6... ~ ~ ~ .~ tp ~ " t ~ ~ to ~ ~ """ 0 41' ~ .~ s;.. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i, ~ ~ a) en ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ C) ~... ~ ~ 0; .~ !: .~ ~ ~~ Exhibit C Findings of Consistency with Eugene Code, Metro Plan and West Eugene Wetlands Policies Table of Contents I. General Findings For All Sites In This Ordinance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Background Information ............................................... 3 B. Analysis of Proposed Amendments Against Approval Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Metro Plan Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. West Eugene Wetlands Plan Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3 . West Eugene Wetlands Plan Policies ............................... 12 4. Table 3, Consistency with Refinement Plan Amendment Criteria. . . . . . . . . 15 II. Supplemental Findings on EWEB's Proposed Crow Substation Site (A5) . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. Consistency with Adopted Wetland Designation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Protection Criteria . . . . . ',' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2. Development Criteria ........................................... 19 3. Restoration Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4. Summary of Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria ............ 21 B. Consistency of Proposed Designations for the proposed EWEB Substation Site with Approval Criteria for Refinement Plan Amendments .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1. Metro Plan Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2. WEWP Goals ................................................. 26 3. WEWP Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4. Summary of Consistency with Adoption Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 III. Supplemental Findings on Utility Corridor Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 A. Background on Utility Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . 30 B. Utility Corridor Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 C. Analysis of Proposed Utility Corridor Designations For Consistency with Approval Criteria for Proposed Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1. Metro Plan Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2. WEWP Goals ................................................. 36 3. WEWP Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4. Summary of Consistency with Adoption Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 1 I. General Findings For All Sites In This Ordinance These findings apply to all of the amendments in the accompanying ordinance. Additional findings on specific site amendments are included under Sections II and III of this document. In the analysis below, the sites are first analyzed against West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) criteria wetlands designation. These criteria were adopted by the Eugene City Council on October 11, 1999 and by the Lane County Board of Commissioners on November 23, 1999. These criteria for designation of wetlands were analyzed for consistency with all applicable policies from the Metropolitan Area General Plan as well as the remaining policies of the WEWP at the time of adoption. Therefore, site designations that are consistent with these criteria are considered consistent with the Metro Plan and WEWP policies as well. Even though demonstration of consistency with the WEWP criteria would be sufficient to establish consistency with the Metro Plan and remaining WEWP policies, this document also includes a general analysis of the sites against the Metro Plan and remaining WEWP policies themselves. With the exception of site HG (Hyundai) and a portion of site H2 (the Eugene Speedway property), summary tables for all sites for which amendments are proposed are included in Exhibit C, showing how each site meets the standards and criteria for Protection, Development and Restoration. Sites HG and H2 are addressed in separate ordinances. They are referred to in this discussion only generally and only where necessary to describe or quantify the cumulative impacts of all of the proposed amendments. Since the site specific amendments for the Hyundai and Speedway sites have not been adopted, the distribution of wetland acres among the wetland designation categories is not known. The amendment for the remaining (i.e., not part of the Speedway property) portion of site H2 has been re-numbered as Amendment 47a, and it is included in this ordinance. This ordinance includes three new sites (C8, E2e and EG) that were not included in the previous recommendations from the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions. These sites were either mapped or restored to wetland after the Planning Commission review was completed. Three site amendments (Amendments 15, 16, and a portion of 48) recommended by the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions are not included here. These sites are sites currently designated for Protection in the WEWP, and based upon staff recommendations after analyzing the sites under the new wetland designation criteria, we conclude that there is not sufficient reason to re-designate them. These amendments also include sites or portions of sites proposed for either the Planned Transportation Corridor designation or the Utility Corridor designation. Both of these designations are protective designations, and are considered "Conservation" designations under the state rules for Wetland Conservation Plans. This means that they allow somewhat wider uses than the Protection designation. These designations do not have their own criteria because they are intended to be applied to protected wetlands or wetlands that (1) would otherwise be protected, and (2) either contain existing utilities or were previously identified for planned transportation improvements. Therefore, the analysis for these proposed designations relies Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 2 primarily on consistency with the goals and policies in the Metropolitan Area General Plan and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Most of the Utility Corridor sites were identified based upon information submitted to the City following the Planning Commission review. These new Utility Corridor sites have either been added to an existing proposed amendment, or given a new amendment number (a number followed by a letter). A. Background Information In the text below, each amendment will be referred to by number only, as numbered in Exhibit A. Exhibit A contains maps showing the proposed amendments. Exhibit A also describes in narrative form the proposed changes to the wetland designations map. These items are numbered and listed in Exhibit A in alpha-numeric order by site name. The numbers assigned to each amendment are the same as those used throughout the amendment process since 1996. New sites and some of the newly identified Utility Corridor amendments have been given site labels with a number followed by a letter (e.g., 39a). B. Analysis of Proposed Amendments Against Approval Criteria Section 9.145 of the Eugene Code gives the criteria used to determine whether a proposed plan amendment should be approved or not. The proposed amendments must be consistent with the criteria in section 9.145 to be approved. Section 9.14S (2) "The planning commission shall review the proposed amendment and receive evidence, and decide whether the proposed change is consistent with the following approval criteria: (a) The plan amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Area General Plan;" Findings: The Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) diagram designates the affected properties for a variety of land uses including heavy industrial, light-medium industrial, special light industrial, commercial, high density residential, medium density residential, low density residential and agriculture. Metropolitan Plan designations for each affected tax lot are given in a separate document entitled "Affected Properties (all ordinances)." Where apparent conflicts exist between Metro Plan policy and the Metro Plan diagram, the text prevails. The analysis here relies primarily on the text of the Metro Plan. Eighteen of these proposed amendments would designate all or a portion of a site for Protection or Restoration. These are shown in Table 1 below (see key following table for Metro Plan Designation abbreviations.) Table 1 Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 3 Amendment Site Number Affected Metro Plan Public Number Acreage Designation Ownership 1 Ala 3.3 AG 6 A4a 6.4 SLI Yes 7 A4d 1.4 SLI Yes 8 A4e 4.6 SLI Yes 9 A5 5.4 AG 20 BI0 1.5 FO 21 BA 2.1 LMI 25 C6c-e 5.0 LMI Yes 27a C8 2.6 C Yes 37 Ela-b 24.6 LMI/SLI Yes 38 E2a 1.1 LMI Yes 39a E2e 5.5 LMI Yes 41 EE 7.1 LMI Yes 42 EF 3.1 LMI Yes 49 HC 2.6 CC, HDR, MDR 51 HE 26.4 NR, LDR Yes 55 IA 4.1 MDR 56 IB 4.5 MDR (Yes )* Totals for 18 sites 111.3 11 sites 87.8 acres KEY: AG=Agriculture, CC=Community Commercial, FO=Forest Land, LDR=Low Density Residential, MDR=Medium Density Residential, HDR=High Density Residential, SLI=Special Light Industrial, LMI=Light Medium Industrial, HI=Heavy Industrial *The City and BLM are in the process of acquiring this site. The sale had not closed at the time of this writing. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 4 Of the 111.3 acres in the above table, 87.8 acres (79%) are owned by public agencies or non-profit conservation organizations, and are managed for wetland protection and restoration. The 87.8 acres of publicly owned land that are proposed for a protective designation will have no impact on private property owners. Some additional acres are governed by conservation easements required by state/federal wetland fill permits and are, therefore, not part of the buildable land base. Table 1 does not include the Hyundai site (site HG) or the Speedway site (portion of H2), since these sites are addressed in separate ordinances, which have not been adopted. The impacts to the availability of developable land are spread across many categories of land use type. Taken in total, the impacts to each category are not significant for the Metro Plan area as a whole. The thrust of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan has been to attempt to balance development within wetland areas with protection of the most valuable wetlands, and to replace lost wetlands through mitigation. This approach is continued by these amendments. Furthermore, this approach is supported by Metro Plan policies listed below, which call for both protection of wetlands and maintaining adequate land for development. The process of designating wetlands for Protection and Development is, in part, directed by state and federal laws, which set forth guidelines for determining whether a given wetland can be filled and developed. Within this regulatory context, the proposed amendments are appropriate and consistent with Metro Plan policy. The West Eugene Wetlands Plan proposes Metro Plan diagram amendments for sites designated for Protection following acquisition by one of the West Eugene Wetlands Program partners (the City, BLM, and the Nature Conservancy). These amendments will be pursued following adoption of the present wetland plan amendments for all sites designated for Protection in the Plan. These future Metro Plan amendments will help the diagrams of the two plans to be more closely aligned. 1. Metro Plan Policies This section analyzes the sites against applicable goals and policies of the Metropolitan Area General Plan. Listed below are Metro Plan policies used in the analysis of the amendments in the March 19, 1996 staff report to the planning commissions. These are all of the Metro Plan policies we believe apply to this refinement plan amendment proceeding. Not all these policies apply to site designations, as is stated where appropriate below. Policy 1, page III-B-4: "Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those providing above average wage and salary levels, an increased variety of job opportunities, a rise in the standard of Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 5 living, and utilization of our existing comparative advantage in the level of education and skill of the resident labor force." The proposed amendments numbered 6 (portion), 11,24,26,27,28,29,30,32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42 (portion), 42a, 43, 45, 50 and 54 involve designating wetlands for Development that have a Metro Plan designation for industrial use (approximately 57 acres). Of these amendments, 18 out of22 affect privately owned property. By designating wetlands for Development on a majority of privately owned sites, these designations would "demonstrate a positive interest" in industrial development on these sites. Twelve proposed amendments (amendments 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 21, 25, 33, 37, 39a, 41, 42) would designate wetlands for Protection or Restoration on industria1land (a total of65 acres).I!INine of these sites (amendments 6,7,8,25,33,37, 39a, 41, 42) are partly or wholly in public ownership (50 acres). These changes will not have a substantial negative impact on the overall development of industrial land in the area, especially given that these are wetland areas regulated by state and federal law. Each site included in the amendments was carefully weighed against criteria for Protection and Development, and for these twelve sites, natural resource values were judged to outweigh development values. By designating a majority of the privately owned sites for Development and a majority of the publicly owned sites for Protection, these amendments demonstrate a "positive interest" in industrial development, and, therefore, these amendments are consistent with Policy 1. Policy 5, page III-B-5: "Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion." Sixteen amendments (numbered 24,26,27,28,29,32,33,38 (portion), 39 (portion), 40, 42 (portion), 42a, 43, 44, 45, 50 and 54 (portion)) would designate wetlands for Development that are adjacent to existing industrial development. These sites could potentially pro:vide land for expansion of those developments. Five proposed amendments would designate land next to or near existing industrial development (numbers 25,37,38,42 (portion) and 49) for Protection or Restoration. These five amendments would not have a substantial impact on the supply of industrial land in the west Eugene area. Of the 23 sites next to or near existing industrial development, 17 would be designated wholly or in part for Development. By designating a majority of the wetlands adjacent to existing industrial development for Development, these amendments are consistent with Policy 5. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 6 Policy 18, page III-B-6: "Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan)..." Proposed amendments numbered 2, 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 37, 38, 41, 46 and 51 would designate all or a portion of a wetland site for "Planned Transportation Corridor" (total of 8.4 acres). This designation would make this Plan consistent with TransPlan priorities for construction of new streets and improvements to existing streets. These sites all occur within an area primarily designated for industrial use in the Metro Plan, and these amendments would facilitate needed transportation improvements, which is consistent with the above policy. Policy 18, page III-C-9: "Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development on hillsides and in water bodies and restrict development in wetlands in order to protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation, and wildlife values of those areas. Proposed amendments numbered 1,4,6 (portion), 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 25, 27a, 37, 38, 39a, 41, 42 (portion), 49, 51, 55 and 56 involve designating wetlands for Protection and Restoration (a total of 111.5 acres), which will prevent those valuable wetland areas from being developed. By protecting wildlife habitat, water quality and vegetation on these sites, these proposed amendments are consistent with the above policy. . Policy 19, page III-C-9: "Local governments shall develop policies and local controls for protection and management of wetland areas by completion of the next Metro Plan Update." The West Eugene Wetlands Plan, which contains policies and local land use controls for wetlands in west Eugene, was adopted in 1992. The current proposed amendments will update the 1992 Plan. The proposed text amendments do not affect policies which prescribe the primary wetland protection measures to be implemented: wetland acquisition, wetland buffers and waterside setbacks. The proposed amendments would increase the area of wetlands designated for Protection or Restoration. Policy 27, page III-C-I0: "Local governments shall encourage further study by specialists of endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area." The amendments that designate sites do not directly encourage or discourage Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 7 study of endangered plants and animals. The sites with the most significant habitat for rare plants and animals (amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 37, 38, 39a, 41, 49, 51, 55 and 56) are proposed to be designated for Protection, as are the sites with the most significant rare plant populations (amendments 6, 7, 8, and 9). These are primarily sites with wet prairie habitat and habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly. The Protection site designations will help ensure that rare plant populations are available for study throughout the Plan area, and are therefore consistent with this policy. Two sites with disturbed wet prairie habitat are proposed for a Development designation, while portions of two other sites with wet prairie are proposed for Development. Policy 28, page III-C-l 0: "Local governments shall protect endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species, as recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notice and opportunity for public input." There are three plant species known to occur in the Plan area that are listed as threatened or endangered by the State of Oregon: Lomatium bradshawii (Bradshaw's desert parsley), Aster curtus (white-topped aster) and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy). The occurrence of these species on sites considered in this amendment package is summarized in Table 2 below. In this table, "PTC" stands for the Planned Transportation Corridor designation. A question mark in the column for one of the plant species means the site has not been formally surveyed, but contains suitable habitat. Table 2 Listed Rare Plant Species on Affected Sites Amendment Site Erigeron Lomatium Aster Existing Proposed Number Name decumbens bradshawii curtus Designation Designation var. decumbens 6 A4a Yes Yes Yes Develop Protect! PTC 7 A4d Yes No Yes Develop Protect 8 A4e Yes No Yes Develop Protect 9 A5 Yes No Yes Protect Protect! PTC 12 Bl No Yes Yes Restore No change* Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 8 14 B3 Yes Yes Yes Restore No change* 49 HC ? ? ? Undesignated Protect -- 50 HD No Yes No U ndesignated Develop 55 IA No Yes No U ndesignated Protect 58 ID Yes No No Undesignated Develop *These sites along the potential northern alignment of the West Eugene Parkway were part of the original amendment package have been removed and will be considered at a later date. The table above shows that nine sites or portions of sites affected by proposed amendments are known to contain a listed rare plant species. One additional site (HC) may contain them, based on known populations nearby on the same lot. Seven of the nine are recommended for Protection, in part to protect the rare plants. Portions of two rare plant sites are recommended to be redesignated to Planned Transportation Corridor (PTC), and these are within potential alignments of a proposed Green Hill Road widening project. The adopted policy for the PTC calls for designs that minimize impacts to rare plants. The result should be the protection of most of the rare plants on these two sites. Two rare plant sites . (amendments 50 and 58) are recommended for Development, due largely to their isolation from other habitat areas by surrounding development. In the case of amendment #50 (site HD) a high level of disturbance also contributed to this conclusion. These sites, and the two sites along Green Hill Road proposed to be designated for Planned Transportation Corridor, would be reviewed for rare plant impacts as part of the required wetland fill permit process. This review would provide an opportunity to take measures to protect or move those populations or mitigate for any impacts to them. Under the proposed amendments the majority of known populations of listed rare plants would be protected, with the possibility that through the wetland permitting process, all of the plant populations would be protected. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with this policy. Policy 29, page III -C-ll: "Local governments shall work with owners of designated environmentally-sensitive areas to require that reasonable actions are taken to protect these lands, e.g., the heronry at the confluence of the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers and the site of the Aster curtus in the Willow Creek Basin." There are two sites within the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area that are designated in the Metro Plan as environmentally sensitive. They are the Willow Creek Natural Area and Bertelsen Slough. The Bertelsen Slough area is owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management as a protected natural resource Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 9 area. The Willow Creek Natural Area is owned by the Nature Conservancy and is also managed as a protected natural area. The proposed amendments will not change the fact that both Bertelsen Slough and Willow Creek are being actively managed by their respective owners for protection of natural resqurces. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with this policy. Policy 2, page III-E-3: "Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainageways shall be protected and retained to the maximum extent practicable, considering the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences in th~ design and construction of urban development and landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those natural features." Twenty proposed amendments (numbered 1, 5,6 (portion), 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 25, 27a, 37, 38, 41, 42 (portion), 49, 51, 55 and 56) involve designating additional wetlands for Protection and Restoration, which will prevent those valuable wetland areas from being developed, and consequently will protect water features and natural vegetation on those sites. These areas include a total of 111.5 acres, which result in a net increase in protected wetlands of 88.5 acres. By protecting wildlife habitat, water quality and vegetation on these sites, these proposed amendments are consistent with the above policy. This analysis does not include the Hyundai site (site HG) or the Speedway site (portion ofH2), since these sites are addressed in separate ordinances, which have not been adopted. Thirty-three proposed amendments (numbers 6 (portion), 9 (portion), 10, 11,24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 (portion), 34, 35, 36, 38, 39,40, 42 (portion), 42a, 43, 44,45, 47a, 48, 49 (portion), 50 (portion), 51, 53, 54, 57, 58 and 59) involve designating wetlands for Development. These areas include a total of 91.5 acres. These sites are lower quality wetlands than those being recommended for Protection, due to small size, disturbance, or isolation from other habitat areas. When analyzed according to the adopted criteria wetland designation, the development value of these sites outweighs the value of the sites as natural resource areas. Other sites are recommended to be changed to Planned Transportation Corridor, which includes a policy calling for minimizing impacts to wetland functions and values and rare species. . The overall impact of these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, would be to protect the majority of wetlands in the Plan area (1,058.5 acres out of 1,411 acres). This includes protecting natural vegetation on these sites and restoration of native habitat on several hundred acres. Based upon the high level of protection of these features, the amendments are consistent with this policy. This analysis does not include the Hyundai site (site HG) or the Speedway site (portion ofH2), since these sites are addressed in separate ordinances, which have Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 10 not been adopted. Summary Conclusions: Metro Plan Consistency The findings above indicate that the proposed amendments are consistent with all applicable Metro Plan policy. (See also Table 3, Consistency with Approval Criteria, on page 15 of this document). Section 9.14S(2)(b) "The plan amendment is consistent with remaining portions of the refinement plan;" 2. West Eugene Wetlands Plan Goals The West Eugene Wetlands Plan contains the following applicable Goals (related findings follow each Goal): Goal 3.1 "Protect and enhance water quality, wildlife habitat, flood storage sediment and toxicant removal and other wetland functions and values." The proposed amendments add to the area of protected wetlands, and do not remove or change any of the protection measures prescribed in existing plan. Proposed amendments numbered 1,3,6 (portion), 7, 8, 9, 11,20,21,25, 37,41, 42 (portion), 49,51,55 and 56 involve designating wetlands for Protection and Restoration (111.5 acres), which will prevent those valuable wetland areas from being developed. Protection of these wetland sites will contribute to the protection and enhancement of water quality, habitat, and other wetland values, and is therefore consistent with Goal 3.1. Goal 3.2 "Minimize economic hardship on private property owners due to protection of wetlands and other valuable environmental resources." The proposed amendments aim to protect the most valuable wetlands, while allowing development on lower value, disturbed, isolated wetlands. Allowing this development lessens the overall adverse economic impact of wetlands in the study area. The thirty-three amendments (numbered 6 (portion), 9, 10, 11,24,26,27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39,40,42 (portion), 42a, 43, 44, 45, 47a, 48, 49, (portion), 50 (portion), 51, 53, 54, 57, 58 and 59) involve designating wetlands for Development. Allowing development on these wetlands will reduce impacts to the buildable land supply and thereby reduce hardship on land owners. Therefore, these amendments are consistent with Goal 3.2. Goal 3.5 "Protect and Expand current populations and habitats of rare plants and animals that currently exist in west Eugene." Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 11 Amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan that were adopted by Eugene and Lane County in 1999 included adoption of a list of rare plants and animals. Rare plants on the list are: Lomatium bradshawii (Bradshaw's desert parsley), Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette Valley daisy), Aster curtus (white-topped aster), Lupinus sulphureus (Kincaid's lupine), Horkelia congesta (shaggy horkelia) and Cicendia quadrangularis (timwort). Table 2 above shows sites affected by proposed amendments that contain a state- listed rare plant species. There is one additional site (II, which is not in that table, because the plant is not state-listed) affected by the proposed amendments known to contain a non-listed "rare" plant. This site contains a population of timwort. The site is proposed for a Development designation in amendment #54. The analysis of this site under the adopted criteria for wetland designation concludes that development values outweigh wetland values on this site. Goal 3.6 "Achieve state and federal requirement of "no net loss" of wetlands in both quantity (area) and quality (functions and values)." The West Eugene Wetlands Plan addresses the "no net loss" policy through protection of valuable wetlands and the restoration of degraded wetlands to replace those that are filled. This approach is not changed by the proposed amendments. Goal 3.7 Protect an interconnected system of wetlands within a sustainable, ecologically sound system, with a high likelihood of long-term survival. The proposed amendments add to the existing interconnected system of wetlands by designating two wetland sites adjacent to Amazon Creek for Protection (site 1A--amendment number 55, and site 1B-- amendment number 56.) None of the proposed amendments would have the effect of further fragmenting the existing system of protected wetlands. 3. West Eugene Wetlands Plan Policies The West Eugene Wetlands Plan criteria for designating jurisdictional wetlands are applied to each site in the matrices at the end of this exhibit. This discussion addresses the following additional applicable policies in the WEWP (related findings follow each policy): Policy 3.1 "Seek acquisition of protected wetland sites by federal, state and local public agencies and private, non-profit conservation organizations." The proposed amendments do not affect the on-going efforts of the West Eugene Wetlands Program to acquire wetlands designated for Development in the Plan. The amendments do add additional sites to the protection category that will, if Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 12 approved, be added to the sites being pursued in the acquisition program. Policy 3.5 "Along with Lane County and the State of Oregon, protect wetlands on public lands in the Eugene wetlands study area and restore wetlands on public lands consistent with Wetlands Designations Map (Map 3)." There are 114 acres of publicly owned wetlands that are affected by these amendments. These sites are either owned by Oregon Department of Transportation, the Bureau of Land Management, the City of Eugene, Lane County or The Nature Conservancy or are within public right-of-way. Of these 114 acres, 85 acres are proposed at least in part for Protection or Restoration. The remaining 29 acres contain wetlands designated for Development (13.5 acres), Planned Transportation Corridor (6.9 acres) or Utility Corridor (8.7 acres). The Utility Corridor is essentially a protection area that allows maintenance and repair of existing utilities, with restoration of impacts required. In summary, out of 114 acres of publicly owned wetland considered, 93.5 acres are proposed for a protective designation. By protecting the vast majority of wetland on public lands, these amendments are consistent with Policy 3.5. Conclusions: The above findings indicate that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable policies in the remainder of the WEWP. The proposed amendments meet the criterion of consistency with the remainder of the refinement plan. Section 9.14S (2)(c) "The plan amendment is found to address one or more of the following: 1. An error in the publication of the plan;" Findings: Two of the proposed plan designation changes are to correct an error in the original plan. Site BI0 (#20) was inadvertently left out of the existing plan because it was part of a larger wetland site to the north that was removed from the plan area. This area is proposed to be added back into the Plan and designated for Restoration. Site C6d (now part of site C6c-e, amendment # 25) was erroneously designated for Development on the map in the existing Plan. It should have been designated for Protection. This site is proposed to be redesignated to Protection. Conclusions: Two of the proposed amendments meet this criterion. Section 9.14S (2)(c) 2. "A change of circumstances in a substantial manner not anticipated in the plan;" Findings: Several sites are recommended to be re-designated as a result of changes in the planned alignment of the West Eugene Parkway. This planned new road was originally planned to be constructed on the south side of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, between Amazon Creek and Green Hill Road. Due to the discovery of rare plants and western pond turtles in this area, this alignment was Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 13 abandoned. Sites that were formerly within the planned alignment were re- evaluated under the new wetland designation criteria and several are recommended to be re-designated from Development to Protection (amendments numbered 1, 6 (portion), 7, 8 (portion) and 9). Section 9.14S (2)( c)3. "Incorporation into the plan of new inventory material which relates to a statewide goal; or" Findings: The incorporation of new wetland sites into the plan (amendments numbered 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 27a, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 ,39, 39a, 40,41,42, 42a, 43, 44, 45, 47a, 49, 50,51,53,54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59) is an incorporation of new inventory material which relates to statewide Goal 5. In the case of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan the Goal 5 ESEE analysis requirement is met through the approval process for a state-sanctioned Wetland Conservation Plan as provided for in ORS 196.684(8). Conclusions: The proposed amendments listed above meet this criterion. Section 9.14S (2)(c) 4. "A change in public policy." Findings: Proposed amendments numbered 1,6,9,17,18,19,22,37,38,41 and 51 involve designating all or a portion of a wetland site for "Planned Transportation Corridor". The "Planned Transportation Corridor" is a new Plan designation adopted in amendments approved by Eugene and Lane County in 1999. This designation is considered a "conservation" designation under state rules, which allows more uses than would be allowed within a wetland designated for Protection. These amendments respond to recent changes in the Oregon Administrative Rules which govern the Oregon Division of State Lands administration of the state's wetland regulatory system. These state rule changes, approved after adoption of the Plan in 1992, included provisions for allowing "utilities and transportation facilities not built, but specifically identified in the acknowledged local comprehensive plan" within otherwise protected areas (OAR 141-120-030(2) and 141-120-130(2)(a)). The amendments listed above, made possible by the changes to OAR, ensure consistency between the Plan designation and policy contained in TransPlan, a refinement plan to the Metro Plan. Following adoption of the Plan in 1992, new state rules were adopted governing wetlands designated for Protection in an adopted Wetland Conservation Plan. The West Eugene Wetlands Plan is the only approved Wetland Conservation Plan in Oregon. The new state rules specified the activities allowed within Protected wetlands, and raised uncertainty about whether certain maintenance or repair activities on existing utilities would be allowed. In order to address this conflict, / a new policy was adopted to establish a special designation for existing utilities / within protected wetlands, which is called Utility Corridor. This designation is Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 14 considered a "conservation" designation under state rules, which allows more uses than would be allowed within a wetland designated for Protection The WEWP limits the additional uses that can occur within these areas to utility maintenance and repair and under certain conditions, construction of new utilities. The following amendments include areas proposed for the Utility Corridor designation: 5a, 6, 8, 9, 22, 23, 23a, 23b, 25, 38, 42, 46, 48, 49, and 56. Conclusions: The proposed amendments listed above, which address planned transportation projects and utility maintenance and repair, respond to changes in state regulations and thus are consistent with this criterion. Summary Conclusions: Each of the proposed amendments meet the criteria under Eugene Code sections 9. 145(2)(a) and (2)(b) and one or more of the criteria for approval of a refinement plan amendment as set forth in Eugene Code section 9.145(2)(c). Based upon the discussion, findings and conclusions herein (above) The Eugene City Council finds the proposed amendments to be consistent with the criteria contained in Eugene Code section 9.14S. Table 3 Matrix of Consistency With Refinement Plan Amendment Criteria All Amendments must Each Amendment must meet at least meet these Eugene Code one of these Eugene Code (EC) criteria (EC) criteria Amend Site EC9.145 EC 9.145 EC 9.145 EC9.145 EC 9.145 EC 9.145 # # (2)(a) (2)(b) (2)(c)1. (2)(c)2. (2)(c)3. (2)( c )4. 1 Ala X X X X 5a A3a X X X 6 A4a X X X X 7 A4d X X X 8 A4e X X X X I 9 A5 X X X X X 10 AA X X X 11 AB X X X 17 B6 X X X ~ 18 B7 X X X I 19 B8 X X X I 20 BI0 X X X X I I 211 BAI X X X 1__ Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 15 Amend Site EC9.145 EC 9.145 EC 9.145 EC9.145 EC 9.145 EC 9.145 # # (2)(a) (2)(b) (2)(c)1. (2)(c)2. (2)( c)3. (2)(c)4. 22 C2 X X X 23 C3a X X X 23a C4 X X X 23b C5 X X X 24 C6a-b X X X 25 C6c-e X X X X X 26 C6f X X X 27 C6g X X X 27a C8 X X X 28 CA X X X 29 CB X X X 30 CC X X X 32 DA X X X 33 DB X X X 34 DC X X X 35 DD X X X 36 DH X X X 37 Ela-b X X X X 38 E2a X X X X 39 E2b X X X 39a E2e X X X 40 EC X X X 41 EE X X X X 42 EF X X X X 42a EG X X X 43 GA X X X 44 GB X X X 45 GD X X X 46 HI X X X 47 H2 X X X 48 H3 X X X 49 HC X X X X 50 HD X X X 51 HE X X X X 53 HK X X X 54 11 X X X 55 IA X X X 56 IB X X X X 57 IC X X X 58 ID X X X 59 IE X X X Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 16 II. Supplemental Findings on EWEB's Proposed Crow Substation Site (AS, portion) A. Consistency with Adopted Wetland Designation Criteria The Eugene Planning Commission recommended designating the wetlands in the western 175 feet ofEWEB's proposed Crow Substation site (about 0.09 acre) for Development and retaining the Restoration and Planned Transportation Corridor designations on the remainder of wetlands on the site. The recommendation was based upon new wetland delineation information and findings of consistency with criteria for adoption of refinement plan amendments. The Planning Commission's proposed designations for the EWEB Crow Substation site are analyzed below for consistency with the criteria for Protection, Development and Restoration adopted by the Eugene City Council on October 11, 1999 and by the Lane County Board of Commissioners on November 23, 1999. 3.17 The following standards and criteria shall be used to designate newly identified wetland sites or portions of sites (i.e., undesignated wetlands within the West Eugene Wetlands Plan boundaries) for protection, development or restoration on the Wetlands Designation Map (Map 3) of the West Eugene Wetland Plan. These standards and criteria provide the framework for maintaining a balance within the plan area between environmental protection and sound urban development, consistent with state and federal wetland law. For each site or portion of a site, designations shall be based upon either 1) finding that the site meets at least one of the standards, or 2) a thorough consideration of how all the criteria apply to the site. A wetland site need not meet all of the criteria for a given wetland designation in order to be given that designation. The restoration designation shall be used to identify sites considered important primarily for their location and function in the larger wetland system, and the restoration criteria shall be applied when a site does not clearly meet either the protection or development standards or the protection or development criteria as a whole. Protection Standard 1. Sites designated "Natural Resource" on the Metropolitan Area General Plan diagram shall be designated for protection. This site is designated for agriculture in the Metropolitan Area General Plan and therefore does not meet this standard. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 17 Criteria 1. Site contains population(s) of one or more rare plant or animal species and contains sufficient and suitable habitat for the long-term protection of the population(s). This criterion is not met if only small occurrences of a species are found on a site with limited suitable habitat that is isolated from other undeveloped parcels. This 1.15 acre site has 0.18 acre of jurisdictional wetland. It has been used as pasture for at least 20 years. No rare plants have been found on this site. However, no systematic rare plant survey has been conducted. Due to the level of disturbance of the plant community from both drainage and grazing, rare plant species are unlikely, but still possible. 2. Site is primarily within the 100 year floodplain. None of this site is in the 100 year floodplain. Therefore, this site does not meet this criterion. 3. Site is within 100 feet of a waterway (stream) designated for protection on Map 3 of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. At its nearest point, Amazon Creek is 0.9 miles from this site. The A-3 Channel is further away. Therefore, this site does not meet this criterion. 4. Site has a direct perennial or intermittent surface water connection to a wetland designatedfor protection on Map 3 of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. This site is contiguous with protected wetlands to the south and appears to have a surface hydrologic connection with those wetlands. Therefore, this site meets this criterion. 5. Site contains a high diversity of wildlife habitat or contributes to the diversity of wildlife habitat within the region. This site is small and contains pasture. It does not contribute appreciably to wildlife habitat in the region. Therefore, this site does not meet this criterion. 6. Site has unique characteristics which make it of special importance to the functioning of the larger wetland system in West Eugene, and protection of site wouldfurther the goals and objectives of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. This site is small, contains 0.18 acre of wetland and has been disturbed by continuous grazing for 20 years. Protection of the site would not further the goals and objectives of Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 18 the WEWP, and therefore this site does not meet this criterion. 7. Presence of unique Willamette Prairie Grassland plant community. Site contains indigenous wet prairie habitat. This criterion is intended to apply to areas of wet prairie habitat that are large or of moderate to high quality. This site contains disturbed pasture. Although scattered individuals of wet prairie plant species are found on the site, the wet prairie plant community is not found on this site. Therefore, this site does not meet this criterion. Development Standard 1. The site shall be designated for development if, at the time of designation of the site in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, it has a valid, approved wetland impact permit from the Oregon Division of State Lands and the us. Army Corps of Engineers. This site does not have an approved permit or environmental impact statement, and, therefore, does not meet this standard. Criteria 1. Site is relatively isolated or disconnected from the larger system of wetlands and waterways. This site is next to and hydrologically connected to protected wetlands to the south, and, therefore, does not meet this criterion. 2. Site is served by existing streets, roads, sanitary sewers and municipal water. This site is served by streets and roads, but not sanitary sewers or municipal water. Although the use proposed by EWEB for this site does not require either of the urban services that are lacking, the site does not meet this criterion as written. 3. Site is adjacent to or surrounded by existing development. There is no adjacent existing development, and, therefore, this site does not meet this criterion. 4. Site has frontage on a major highway or street. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 19 This site has frontage on Greenhill Road, which functions as an arterial between West 11 th Avenue and the airport, therefore this site meets this criterion. 5. Site has unique characteristics which make it of special importance to the economic development of West Eugene, and allowing development of site would further the goals and objectives of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. This site is situated at the intersection point of an existing power line corridor and Greenhill Road, along which a future power line is proposed. EWEB has planned for a substation at this site for 18 years, to serve future development in West Eugene. Construction at this site would be less costly than on other nearby sites that are not immediately adjacent to Greenhill Road because of additional power line extensions that would be required from the Greenhill lines. This substation would provide service to development throughout the west Eugene area. These characteristics make this site of special importance to the overall economic development of West Eugene. 6. Site characteristics, including size, location and surrounding uses and activities are such that there exists a high probability that the site cannot be protected in perpetuity through the West Eugene Wetlands Program. This site is contiguous with a large protected wetland area to the south and is adjacent to wetlands on all four sides. Currently there are no adjacent land uses that have adverse impacts on the site. Large-scale development in the immediate future is unlikely because urban services have not been extended to this area, which is outside the urban growth boundary. Taken together, the location and surrounding uses are such that this site could be protected in perpetuity, and therefore the site does not meet this criterion. Restoration Standard 1. Any site or portion of a site that is providing compensatory wetland mitigation as part of an approved state or federal wetland fill permit shall be designated for restoration. This site is not currently providing wetland mitigation for a permitted fill, and therefore does not meet this standard. Criteria 1. Site contains hydriC soils. The entire site contains hydric soils, and therefore this site meets this criterion. 2. Site is either a disturbed agricultural wetland or previously exhibited Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 20 wetland characteristics. This site contains both current wetlands disturbed by grazing and areas that were previously wetland, and therefore the site meets this criterion. 3. Site is capable of providing adequate wetland hydrology. This site has wetland hydrology within the wetland areas, and wetland hydrology to the rest of the site could be restored if the present drainageways were altered or manipulated. Therefore, the site meets this criterion. 4. Site does not currently benefit from municipal infrastructure and urban services. The site currently does not have urban services, and therefore meets this criterion. 5. Site is either larger than 15 acres or is contiguous with a protected waterway as depicted on Wetland Designations Map (Map 3) of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. The wetland site is only 0.18 acres and is not contiguous with a protected waterway. Therefore, the site does not meet this criterion. 4. Summary of Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria The tables below summarizes our analysis of how this site meets the proposed criteria for Protection, Development and Restoration. Protection Description Met Criterion # 1 NR designation in Metro Plan No Protection Description Met Criterion # 1 Rare species populations ? 2 100 Year Floodplain No 3 Within 100 feet of protected waterway No 4 Surface connection to protected wetland Yes Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 21 5 Habitat diversity No 6 Unique Environmental Characteristics No 7 Contains Wet Prairie No Total Protection Criteria Met (out of 7) 1 Development Description Met Standard # 1 Valid Corps and DSL fill permits No Development Description Met Criterion # 1 Isolated or Disconnected from System No 2 Has Roads, Sewers, Water No* 3 Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4 Maj or street frontage Yes 5 Unique Economic Characteristics Yes 6 Cannot be protected in perpetuity No Total Development Criteria Met (out of 6) 2 * Substation does not require sanitary sewer or municipal water service. Restore Description Met Standard # Mitigation site under approved permit No Restore Description Met Criterion # 1 Hydric soils Yes 2 Disturbed Ag or Previous Wetland Yes Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 22 3 Wetland Hydrology Yes 4 Lacks Infrastructure Yes 5 Larger than 15 acres or contiguous with No protected waterway Total Restoration Criteria Met (out of S) 4 The EWEB site has low values for both Protection and Development criteria, but meets four out of five Restoration criteria. In recent re-mapping of the wetlands on this site, only a small percentage was shown to be jurisdictional wetland. According to the new wetland delineation mapping, approximately half (0.09 acre) of the wetlands are concentrated in the eastern 75 feet of the site. Approximately 0.09 acre of wetland is scattered throughout the western 175 feet of the site (see figures 1 and 2, attached). If this eastern area were allowed to be developed, it could accommodate a smaller substation facility, while preserving 50% of the wetlands and allowing space for on-site mitigation to replace the wetlands displaced by the substation (see figure 2, attached). This designation is supported by several characteristics of this site: 1) no wet prairie habitat or other moderate to high quality wetland habitat exists on the site, 2) the amount of wetland impact would be extremely small (0.09 acre) and 3) there is enough suitable land in the eastern portion of the site to accommodate mitigation for all wetland impacts on-site. The designation incorporates the Planned Transportation Corridor designation for wetlands within 20 feet of the eastern property line, along Greenhill Road, which would only impact 0.007 acre of wetland along the eastern edge of the site. B. Consistency of Proposed Designations for the proposed EWEB Substation Site with Approval Criteria for Refinement Plan Amendments Section 9.145(2) of the Eugene Code gives the criteria used to determine whether a proposed plan amendment should be approved or not. The proposed amendments must be consistent with the criteria in section 9.145(2) to be approved. The analysis below considers the planning commission recommendation to designate the western 0.09 acres of wetland for Development and retain the Restoration designation on the remainder of the wetlands. Section 9.14S (2) "The planning commission shall review the proposed amendment and receive evidence, and decide whether the proposed change is consistent with the following approval criteria: (a) The plan amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Area General Plan;" 1. Metro Plan Policies Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 23 This section analyzes the site against applicable goals and policies of the Metropolitan Area General Plan. Listed below are Metro Plan policies used in the analysis of the amendments in the March 19, 1996 staff report to the planning commissions. These are all of the Metro Plan policies we believe apply to this refinement plan amendment proceeding. Not all these policies apply to site designations, as is stated where appropriate below. Policy 1, page III-B-4: "Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those providing above average wage and salary levels, an increased variety of job opportunities, a rise in the standard of living, and utilization of our existing comparative advantage in the level of education and skill of the resident labor force." This site does not involve industrially designated land, so this policy does not directly apply to the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission recommendation would help facilitate provision of electrical service to future development in the area that could support industrial development, along with other types of development. Policy 5, page III-B-5: "Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion." This site does not involve industrially designated land, so this policy does not apply to the Planning Commission recommendation. Policy 18, page III-B-6: "Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) . . . " The Planning Commission recommendation includes applying the Planned Transportation Corridor along Greenhill Road, which will facilitate improvements to Greenhill Road, which serves industrial properties near the airport. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with Policy 17. Policy 18, page III-C-9: "Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development on hillsides and in water bodies and restrict development in wetlands in order to protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation, and wildlife values of those areas. The West Eugene Wetlands Plan includes policies and programs to protect and manage wetlands. Policy 18 also identifies specific values to be protected. No forest habitat exists on this site and wildlife habitat, scenic resource and vegetation values are very low on this site due to constant grazing for more than 20 years. The Planning Commission Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 24 recommendation would protect approximately 50% of the wetlands while providing for on-site mitigation. This designation will address water quality through protection and restoration of wetlands. The Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with this policy. Policy 19, page III-C-9: "Local governments shall develop policies and local controls for protection and management of wetland areas by completion of the next Metro Plan Update." This policy is not directly applicable to the designation of a specific site. The West Eugene Wetlands Plan was originally adopted in 1992, and addresses protection of wetlands. Policy 27, page III-C-I0: "Local governments shall encourage further study by specialists of endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area." The designation of this site would not significantly affect future study of rare plants and animals, since this is a very small, highly disturbed site, and a large expanse of protected habitat with rare plants is nearby to the south. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with this policy. Policy 28, page III-C-I0: "Local governments shall protect endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species, as recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notice and opportunity for public input." No systematic rare plant survey has been conducted on this site. However, due to a 20 year history of grazing on the site, rare plants that would typically be found in wet prairie habitat are unlikely on this site. Until a rare plant survey has been conducted, no firm conclusion about consistency with Policy 28 can be reached. Policy 29, page III-C-l1: "Local governments shall work with owners of designated environmentally-sensitive areas to require that reasonable actions are taken to protect these lands, e.g., the heronry at the confluence of the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers and the site of the Aster curtus in the Willow Creek Basin." This site does not contain a high value, environmentally sensitive area such as those listed in Policy 29. Therefore, this policy does not apply to this site. Policy 2, page III-E-3: "Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainageways shall be protected and retained to the maximum extent practicable, considering the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences in the design and construction of urban development and landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those natural features." Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 25 The wetlands on this site have been significantly altered by grazing and historic draining activities to the extent that very little native vegetation grows there. We conclude that the "natural vegetation" and "natural waterways" addressed in Policy 2 do not exist on this site, and therefore this policy is not applicable. Section 9.14S(2)(b) "The plan amendment is consistent with remaining portions of the refinement plan;" 2. WEWP Goals The West Eugene Wetlands Plan contains the following applicable Goals (related findings follow each Goal). These broad goals apply to the plan as a whole. The Plan defines goals as "broad statements of philosophy and are adopted by the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners. They may never be completely attainable, but they describe the hopes of the people and help establish direction (WEWP preface, page x)." Goal 3.1 "Protect and enhance water quality, wildlife habitat, flood storage, sediment and toxicant removal and other wetland functions and val ues. " Due to the extremely small area of wetland (0.18 acre) on this site and the 20 year history of grazing and agricultural drainage, the functions and values mentioned in Goal 3.1 are very low on this site. The Planning Commission recommendation would protect approximately 50% of the wetlands. Given the small area, and low values, this level of protection is consistent with Goal 3.1. Goal 3.2 "Minimize economic hardship on private property owners due to protection of wetlands and other valuable environmental resources. " This site is publicly owned, so this goal does not apply. Goal 3.3 "Minimize adverse impacts to protected wetlands from adjacent development. " The Planning Commission recommendation for a Restoration designation would allow a small development to occur on part of the lot, while preserving and restoring wetlands on the remainder. This could introduce some impacts depending upon the use of the site and how the development is designed. The Eugene Code requires wetland buffer setbacks on upland that is next to protected wetland, so some protective buffering would be required. These provisions would help ensure that impacts are minimized, which makes the Planning Commission recommendation consistent with Goal 3.3. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 26 Goal 3.5 "Protect and expand current populations and habitats of rare plants and animals that currently exist in west Eugene." No rare plant or animal populations have been found on this site, and the site does not have suitable habitat due to its 20 year history of grazing, therefore this policy does not apply to this site. Goal 3.6 "Achieve state and federal requirement of 'no net loss' of wetlands in both quantity (area) and quality (functions and values)." The Planning Commission recommendation would meet the "no net loss" test by protecting two-thirds of the wetlands, and allowing for on-site mitigation for the remainder. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with Goal 3.6. Goal 3.7 "Protect an interconnected system of wetlands within a sustainable, ecologically sound system, with a high likelihood of long-term survival." The small acreage of low-quality wetlands on this site does not appreciably contribute to the sustainability or long-term survival of the wetland system. However, the Planning Commission recommendation would maintain the same acreage of wetlands on-site, and maintain hydrologic connections to adjacent wetlands to the south, so it is consistent with this goal. Goal 4.3 "Achieve compliance with federal and state wetland law, policies and guidelines." The designation of this site is being processed in accordance with local and state land use laws. The West Eugene Wetlands Plan has been approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers, and these amendments will be submitted to them for approval following local adoption. The amendment process has been coordinated with a Technical Advisory Committee composed of members from all affected state and federal agencies. These facts support the conclusion that the designation of this site is consistent with federal and state wetland laws, policies and guidelines. Goal 4.4 "Increase certainty in the development process." The West Eugene Wetlands Plan increases certainty in the development process by 1) facilitating mapping of wetland boundaries and 2) by identifying before the state and federal individual permitting process those wetlands that are most valuable and in need of protection and those that are least valuable and suitable for fill and development. The Plan attempts to achieve certainty by identifying where wetlands exist and where and how Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 27 development of wetlands can take place, not by guaranteeing that all owners can develop their wetlands. The designation of this site, in light of new information submitted, will provide that clear direction and will assure certainty for any party considering development of this site. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with this policy. Goal 4.5 "Minimize reductions to the existing industrial and commercial buildable lands inventory as a result of wetland protection." The designation of this site will not affect any industrial or commercial buildable land, so this goal does not apply. 3. WEWP Policies The West Eugene Wetlands Plan contains the following applicable Policies (related findings follow each Policy). The Plan states that "policies provide the basis for consistent action to move the community toward its goals. Policies are adopted by the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners. These polices are used to evaluate actions relative to the Plan (WEWP preface, page x)." Policy 3.8 "Establish, maintain and protect physical and hydrologic linkages between protected wetland and adjacent transitional and upland wildlife habitat and natural areas." The Planning Commission recommendation 'would maintain hydrologic connections between on-site wetlands and the larger wetland complex to the south. It would also ultimately maintain the same wetland acreage. By preserving this linkage, the Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with this policy. Policy 4.1 "Mitigation efforts shall help to reestablish a connected system of wetlands, waterways and upland resources." The Planning Commission recommendation would allow restoration of on-site wetlands and maintain connections with the larger wetland complex to the south. It would also ultimately maintain the same wetland acreage, while consolidating the wetlands in the east side of the site. By preserving these wetlands and their hydrologic connections, the Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with this policy. The following sections address the remaining Eugene Code approval criteria for refinement plan amendments. Code sections are in bold text and applicable fmdings follow each section. Section 9.14S (2)(c) "The plan amendment is found to address one or more of the following: 1. An error in the publication of the plan; Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 28 Not applicable. Section 9.145 (2)(c) 2. "A change of circumstances in a substantial manner not anticipated in the plan;" Not applicable. Section 9.14S (2)(c)3. "Incorporation into the plan of new inventory material which relates to a statewide goal; or" A new wetland delineation for the site has been conducted and accepted by DSL and the Corps. In addition, new information has been submitted regarding the type and quality of habitat on this site. This new inventory material relates to statewide Goal 5, which meets this criterion. Section 9.14S (2)(c) 4. "A change in public policy." Not applicable. 4. Summary of Consistency with Adoption Criteria The above analysis concludes that the proposed site specific amendments are consistent with goals and policies in the Metro Plan and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and, therefore, these amendments are consistent with the adoption criteria in the Eugene Code for refinement plan amendments.. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 29 III. Supplemental Findings on Utilities within Protected Wetlands A. Background on Utilities within Protected Wetlands In June 1996, EWEB contacted city planning staff regarding potential work on an existing water line at the edge of a wetland protected by the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP). This contact led to discussions with Oregon Division of State Lands staff. These discussions revealed that the state's recently adopted administrative rules included restrictions on uses that can be allowed within a wetland designated for Protection in a wetland conservation plan (OAR 141-120-030(2) and 141-120-130(2)(a)). Excavation for construction of or connection to utilities is not allowed within the Protection designation. Maintenance work or repairs on a water or sewer line that passes through a protected wetland site may also be prohibited in some cases. Many utility lines predate the plan, and the locations of most were unknown to wetland planning staff until 1996. The state rules which restrict such activities within protected wetlands were adopted following local adoption of the plan in 1992. Over a period of two years, staff attempted to gather all available information on the location of both underground and above-ground utilities within wetlands designated or proposed for Protection. Staff sent several letters and made several phone calls to each utility that owns facilities in west Eugene. The information showed that several sites contain existing utilities within protected wetlands. No information was received from US West or AT&T Cable services about their facilities in the area. The information obtained to date is summarized in the table below. Utilities within Protected Wetlands Site Name Utility Type General Location (see attached maps) A3a Gas, EWEB North-south along Green Hill Road A4a EWEB East-west through northern part of site A4e Sanitary , North-south within Terry S1. right of way, east-west EWEB through north end of site A5 EWEB East-west along northern edge of site C2 Gas Along north edge of site, adjacent to Amazon Creek C3a Sanitary follows Terry St. right of way C3a Sanitary , from Pacific Ave. south to east-west sanitary line north Storm, EWEB of Spectra Physics Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 30 C3a Sanitary from Pacific Ave. south along east side of Spectra Physics C4 Storm East-west line through middle of site C5 Storm, EWEB 2 short lines cross east end of mitigation site to outflow in Amazon Creek C6c-e Storm, EWEB Line from Oscar St. cul-de-sac south to Amazon, Line from Nolan S1. cul-de-sac south to Amazon E2a Sanitary, Gas East-west line along former W. 5th Ave. right of way, North-south line from Grimes St. to 5th Ave., along Steward Road at Steward Pond, at 3rd and Wallis E2d Sanitary North-south line through west end of site EF Gas, EWEB Small areas in northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of proposed protected area. HI EWEB Along north edge of site, along W. 18th--rare plant site, short north-south line just north of Gimpl Hill Road. H2 Sanitary , Along north edge along W. 11th Ave. and along service EWEB road to Speedway facility. H3 EWEa North-south line through eastern half of site HC Gas At northeast comer of site HG EWEB East-west line through southwest field IB Sanitary east-west line through middle of wetland B. Utility Corridor Policy The Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted a new policy on utilities within protected wetlands. This policy ensures that these areas will continue to be given adequate protection, while allowing maintenance and repairs of existing utilities. New utilities can only be constructed under very unusual circumstances, when a strenuous alternatives analysis concludes that it is the best way to minimize overall wetland impacts. "Future fill or removal within the "utility corridors" as designated on the Wetland Designation Map (Map 3) shall be conducted with an applicable U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and/or Division of State Lands dredge and fill permit(s), and shall be limited to the minimum impacts necessary to:' I) conduct emergency repairs to existing utility lines, Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 31 2) conduct essential maintenance (e.g., work to maintain or optimize performance) on existing utility lines, including line locating, 3) construct connections to existing utility lines, 4) construct new utility lines, 5) move existing utility lines when necessary to maintain service or conduct emergency repairs, and when at least one of the following is true: a) the utility line must be moved to protect it from erosion or some other natural threat; b) construction of public facilities that are consistent with this plan and that conflict with an existing utility line, where such public facilities cannot reasonably be constructed without moving the utility line; or c) the utility line must be moved in order to maintain or repair another utility line in the same vicinity. 6) place new utility poles or replace existing utility poles, only when necessary to maintain performance or safety of above-ground utility lines. Above-ground utility lines may not be replaced with underground utility lines within wetlands designated for restoration or protection. No other impacts are authorized by this policy. The following shall also apply to these corridors: a. The corridors for underground utility lines shall be 20 feet wide for excavations or pipes up to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs), 30 feet wide for excavations or pipes from 10 to 15 feet bgs, and 40 feet wide for excavations or pipes deeper than 15 feet bgs. Where two utility lines are close to each other, the corridors for the lines may overlap, but impacts for work on one line are allowed only within the corridor width for that line, not the combined width of both lines. b. The corridors for above ground utility lines shall be 10 feet wide for single pole structures and 20 feet wide for double pole ("H-style") structures. c. The utility corridors shall be centered on an existing utility line, extending an equal distance (half the allowed width) on both sides, except for corridors for new utility lines, which shall be located as specified in subsection d below. d. Construction of new utility lines and new connections to existing utility lines within wetlands designated for protection shall require an amendment of this plan to change the designation from "protect" to "utility line corridor." Such amendments will only be allowed where it is demonstrated that: 1) an alternatives analysis has concluded that locating . the new utility line within a protected wetland is the best alternative. The alternatives analysis shall compare alternatives that are completely outside of protected wetlands and compare them to any alternatives that impact protected wetlands. The alternatives shall be evaluated by weighing engineering requirements and total environmental impacts including impacts to rare species and their habitat, and to wetlands designated in the Plan fororestoration or protection. 2) the new construction cannot reasonably be constructed completely outside Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 32 of wetlands designated for protection as demonstrated in the above- referenced alternatives analysis; 3) the utility lines are located so as to reduce the impact to wetlands designated for protection as much as possible, and in no case shall a cumulative area greater than 1 acre be re-designated from "protection" to "utility corridor" for a new utility line; 4) unavoidable impacts will be mitigated through restoration of the project's entire impact area; 5) there are no impacts to wetlands from new utility lines installed within the Willow Creek Natural Area; and 6) impacts to rare plant and animal species will not occur. e. Other than the activities described in this policy, these corridors shall be treated as protected wetlands. Allowed activities shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize adverse impacts to the maximum extent possible upon the wetlands within the corridor itself and within surrounding protected wetlands. Wetland impacts shall be limited to the minimum area necessary. Utility agencies shall use the best feasible technology to pinpoint the location of needed repairs prior to excavation in order to limit the area of impact. f. Except for emergency repairs, these activities shall be planned and timed to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. g. All impacts shall be followed by restoration activities including: 1) backfilling with existing native soil within three feet of the surface whenever possible, and in no case less than two feet; and 2) grading and re-seeding and/or replanting with appropriate native plant species. h. Any unavoidable impacts to rare plant species shall be mitigated through coordinated transplanting or other measures." This ordinance includes amendments to the Wetland Designations Map to designate corridors within protected wetlands, as shown on the attached maps and narrative descriptions in Exhibit A. C. Analysis of Proposed Utility Corridor Designations For Consistency with Approval Criteria for Proposed Amendments Section 9.145(2) of the Eugene Code gives the criteria used to decide whether a proposed plan amendment should be approved or not. The proposed amendments must be consistent with the criteria in section 9.145(2) to be approved. The analysis below considers the proposed amendments to designate certain corridors containing utilities as Utility Corridor, which would allow maintenance, repairs and connections to existing facilities, and construction of new facilities if protective conditions are met. In a few cases, the Utility Corridor designation is proposed on a site that is currently undesignated, but which would otherwise be proposed for Protection. These sites total 1 Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 33 acre in the Plan area. Given that this area is relatively insignificant (0.06% of the total wetland area), the discussion below primarily refers to those sites that are currently designated for Protection, although it is acknowledged here that a few sites that are currently developable are proposed for this designation. The impact is so small that it is not considered significant in terms of the policies below. Section 9.14S (2) "The planning commission shall review the proposed amendment and receive evidence, and decide whether the proposed change is consistent with the following approval criteria: (a) The plan amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Area General Plan;" 1. Metro Plan Policies This section analyzes the site against applicable goals and policies of the Metropolitan Area General Plan. Listed below are Metro Plan policies used in the analysis of the amendments in the March 19, 1996 staff report to the planning commissions. These are all of the Metro Plan policies we believe apply to this refinement plan amendment proceeding. Not all these policies apply to site designations, as is stated where appropriate below. Policy 1, page III-B-4: "Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those providing above average wage and salary levels, an increased variety of job opportunities, a rise in the standard of living, and utilization of our existing comparative advantage in the level of education and skill of the resident labor force." Both new and existing industries depend on continued operation of utility facilities, such as municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm sewers. The proposed Utility Corridor designations would facilitate continued operation of these facilities, and is therefore consistent with Policy 1. Policy 5, page III-B-5: "Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion." The proposed amendments to designate land for Utility Corridors primarily affects land that is already designated for Protection, and, therefore, unavailable for development. These amendments would not affect the available land for industrial expansion, so this policy is not applicable. A total of 1.4 acres scattered across 9 sites is proposed for the Utility Corridor designation where the previous designation was not Protection. This is the case for new sites otherwise proposed for Protection or sites proposed to be re- designated to Protection. This acreage is very small in relation to the available industrial land, and would not significantly reduce the land available for expansion. Therefore these amendments are consistent with this policy. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 34 Policy 18, page III-B-6: "Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by implementing the" policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) . . . " Not applicable. Policy 18, page III-C-9: "Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development on hillsides and in water bodies and restrict development in wetlands in order to protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation, and wildlife values of those areas. The Utility Corridor designations will result in requirements for avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts and restoration of wetland impacts that are necessary. These requirements restrict development in wetlands to protect the values listed in Policy 18, and therefore the proposed amendments are consistent with it. Policy 19, page III-C-9: "Local governments shall develop policies and local controls for protection and management of wetland areas by completion of the next Metro Plan Update." The Utility Corridor policy is a local policy calling for protection and management of wetland areas, while allowing specified utility activities, and, therefore, is consistent with Policy 19. These sites are proposed for designation under that policy, and therefore, these amendments are also consistent with Policy 19. Policy 27, page III -C-l 0: "Local governments shall encourage further study by specialists of endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area." This policy does not apply to the proposed amendments that apply the Utilities Corridor designation. Policy 28, page III-C-I0: "Local governments shall protect endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species, as recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notice and opportunity for public input." The adopted Utility Corridor policy requires that construction of new facilities avoids any impacts to rare plant and animal species (as listed in the WEWP). Where rare plants are growing over an existing underground line, repairs to that line would have unavoidable impacts. The policy calls for these impacts to be mitigated through transplanting or other suitable measures. These measures to protect rare species would be applied to all areas proposed for the Utility Corridor designation, and these amendments would, therefore, be consistent with Policy 28. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 35 Policy 29, page III -C-l1: "Local governments shall work with owners of designated environmentally-sensitive areas to require that reasonable actions are taken to protect these lands, e.g., the heronry at the confluence of the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers and the site of the Aster curtus in the Willow Creek Basin." The Utility Corridor policy includes conditions and requirements that utility companies must follow to protect wetland resources near their facilities. These requirements would apply to all areas proposed for the Utility Corridor designation, and these amendments are, therefore, consistent with Policy 29. Policy 2, page III-E-3: "Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainageways shall be protected and retained to the maximum extent practicable, considering the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences in the design and construction of urban development and landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those natural features." Not applicable. Section 9.14S(2)(b) "The plan amendment is consistent with remaining portions of the refinement plan;" 2. WEWP Goals The West Eugene Wetlands Plan contains the following applicable Goals (related findings follow each Goal). These broad goals apply to the plan as a whole. The Plan defines goals as "broad statements of philosophy and are adopted by the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners. They may never be completely attainable, but they describe the hopes of the people and help establish direction (WEWP preface, page x)." Goa13.1 "Protect and enhance water quality, wildlife habitat, flood storage sediment and toxicant removal and other wetland functions and values." The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands would apply several requirements to these area that would minimize impacts to wetlands and help protect wetland functions and values. The Utility Corridor designation would only allow impacts for underground utility work, and requires that wetland impacts are minimized through planning, timing, design and restoration. These elements, along with the recommended action calling for development of guidelines for utility companies working in and around wetlands will help protect wetland functions and values, and make the . proposed designations consistent with Goal 3.1. Goal 3.2 "Minimize economic hardship on private property owners due to protection of wetlands and other valuable environmental resources." Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 36 The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands would not place additional restrictions upon the use of private property, since these areas are otherwise protected. On the contrary, it would facilitate maintenance and repair of utility facilities which private developments depend upon, which is of benefit to the owners of those developments, therefore the proposed Utility Corridor designations are consistent with Goal 3.2. Goal 3.3 "Minimize adverse impacts to protected wetlands from adjacent development. " The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands do not directly address development outside of protected wetlands. Therefore, this goal is not applicable. Goal 3.5 "Protect and expand current populations and habitats of rare, endangered and threatened plants and animals that currently exist in west Eugene." The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands would apply provisions to address rare plants and animals as part of utility maintenance, repair and construction. The provisions call for avoiding rare species impacts for new construction, ~d minimizing impacts associated with maintenance and repair through transplanting and restoration of habitat. These provisions will help to protect and expand rare species populations, given necessary maintenance and repair to existing underground utilities; therefore, the proposal is consistent with Goal 3.5. Goal 3.6 "Achieve state and federal requirement of 'no net loss' of wetlands in both quantity (area) and quality (functions and values)." The requirement to restore wetland conditions after construction or repairs makes the proposed Utility Corridor designations consistent with Goal 3.6. Goal 3.7 "Protect an interconnected system of wetlands within a sustainable, ecologically sound system, with a high likelihood of long-term survival." The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands includes several elements that minimize impacts to wetlands and help protect wetland functions and values. The new designation would only allow impacts for utility work, and requires that wetland impacts are minimized through planning, timing, design and restoration. These elements, along with the recommended action calling for development of guidelines for utility companies working in and around wetlands will help protect wetland systems, and make the proposed Utility Corridor designations consistent with Goal 3.7. Goal 4.3 "Achieve compliance with federal and state wetland law, policies and guidelines. " Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 37 The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands are consistent with state rules that allow for partial protection ("conservation" as opposed to "protection") of wetlands; therefore, this proposal is consistent with Goal 4.3. Goal 4.4 "Increase certainty in the development process." The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands will not affect certainty for development of private land. Goal 4.5 "Minimize reductions to the existing industrial and commercial buildable lands inventory as a result of wetland protection." The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands will not affect the supply of buildable land, since it only applies within otherwise protected wetlands. 3. WEWP Policies The West Eugene Wetlands Plan contains the following applicable Policies (related findings follow each Policy). The Plan states that "policies provide the basis for consistent action to move the community toward its goals. Policies are adopted by the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners. These polices are used to evaluate actions relative to the Plan (WEWP preface, page x)." Policy 3.8 Establish, maintain and protect physical and hydrologic linkages between protected wetland and adjacent transitional and upland wildlife habitat and natural areas. The proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected wetlands attempts to maintain linkages between wetlands and adjacent transitional or upland wildlife habitat through post construction restoration. Restoration should be effective at maintaining physical linkages. Subsurface hydrological linkages may be altered somewhat by construction of new lines, due to deposition of gravel in the trench around a new pipe. In these cases, backfill with native soil is required by the proposed policy within three feet of the surface. This requirement and the avoidance and minimization requirements will help maintain existing linkages. These provisions will minimize disruption of existing linkages between protected wetlands and, therefore, proposed Utility Corridor designations are consistent with Policy 3.8. Policy 4.1 Mitigation efforts shall help to reestablish a connected system of wetlands, waterways and upland resources. Not applicable. Policy 4.3 Mitigation efforts shall concentrate on restoring wetland type, habitat, Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 38 functions and values that represent the historic ecological landscape of the Amazon Creek basin. Not applicable. Section 9.14S (2)(c) "The plan amendment is found to address one or more of the following: 1. An error in the publication of the plan"; Not applicable. Section 9.14S (2)(c) 2. "A change of circumstances in a substantial manner not anticipated in the plan;" The changes to the Oregon Administrative Rules regarding allowed activities within protected wetlands are a change of circumstances that was not anticipated at the time the original plan was adopted. Section 9.14S (2)(c)3. "Incorporation into the plan of new inventory material which relates to a statewide goal; or" Not applicable. Section 9.14S (2)(c) 4. "A change in public policy." The changes to the Oregon Administrative Rules regarding allowed activities within protected wetlands are a change in public policy that substantially affects the implementation of the Plan. 4. Summary of Consistency with Adoption Criteria As shown in the discussion above, the proposed Utility Corridor designations within protected and undesignated wetlands would allow essential maintenance and repairs to existing facilities, and would allow new construction only if stringent criteria are met. The proposal includes provisions for minimizing wetland impacts and requires restoration of all impacts. The discussion above shows that the Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with applicable policies in the Metro Plan and with applicable goals and policies in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\7-24_Multi-sites Ordinance Ex C Findings-Sites.wpd-C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\7-24_Multi-sites Ordinance Ex C Findings-Sites.wpd Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 39 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site Ala Amendment #1 PROTECTION STANDARD l. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Agriculture/urban reserve, Special light industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS l. Population ofrare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No This area was surveyed for rare plants in 1993 and 1994, and no rare plants were found. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No At the closest point, these wetlands are over 2,500 feet from Dead Cow Creek, the nearest protected waterway. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Site Ala is connected with protected site A5. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Access to these areas is from Green Hill Road, which is a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORA TION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 3.3 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate strip along Green Hill Road from Development to Planned Transportation Corridor. Re-designate remainder from Development to Protection. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: This site is somewhat disturbed, but contains unique pond habitat that is scarce in west Eugene, and may provide habitat for the western pond turtle. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 40 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site A2a Amendment #3 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Agriculture/urban reserve, Special light industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No This area was surveyed for rare plants in 1993 and 1994, and no rare plants were found. 1993 surveys for western pond turtles showed turtles were using..nearby wetland ponds. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No At the closest point, these wetlands are over 400 feet from Dead Cow Creek, the nearest protected waterway. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Scrub/shrub habitat next to wet prairie site. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives I 17. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No I DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS- DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes This wetland is near to, but not contiguous with, other protected wetlands. They are separated by land that has been disturbed by a previous industrial use. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Access to these areas is from Green Hill Road, which is a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities ? There is on-site disturbance from previous uses, but surrounding parcels are primarily protected wetlands. I RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 1.5 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate from Development to Protection. City Council Decision: Leave as currently designated (Development). Notes: These wetlands are somewhat disturbed, and are surrounded by a heavily disturbed fonner mill site. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 41 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site A2b Amendment ##4 PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Special light industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes This area was surveyed for rare plants in 1993 and 1994. and no rare plants were found. 1993 surveys for western pond turtles showed turtles were using site A2b regularly and site A2e incidentally. Western pond turtles also were found in the J?ead Cow Creek drainage system. and could be using other nearby wetland ponds. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No At the closest point. these wetlands are over 400 feet from Dead Cow Creek. the nearest protected waterway. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No S. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Perennial pond. 6. Unique. of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated. disconnected wetland Yes These ponds are near to. but not contiguous with. other protected wetlands. They are separated by land that has been disturbed by a previous industrial use. 2. Sanitary sewer. municipal water. street access No 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Access to these areas is from Green Hill Road. which is a minor arterial. S. Unique. of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene. and deyelopment would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities ? There is on-site disturbance from previous uses. but surrounding parcels are primarily protected wetlands. RESTORA nON STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes S. Over IS acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.13 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate from Development to Protection. Notes: Leave as currently designated (Development). This wetlands is somewhat disturbed, but contains unique pond habitat that is scarce in west Eugene. and provides habitat for the western pond turtle. However. the previous land use resulted in much of the site being covered with gravel and asphalt. These areas are exempt from wetland setback provisions since they were previously developed. which means that there would not be adequate protection of the ponds from any new development. City Council Decision: Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 42 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site A2d Amendment #5 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Special light industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No This area was surveyed for rare plants in 1993 and 1994, and no rare plants were found. 1993 surveys for western pond turtles showed turtles were using..other nearby wetland ponds, but not this one. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No At the closest point, these wetlands are over 400 feet from Dead Cow Creek, the nearest protected waterway. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes These ponds are near to, but not contiguous with, other protected wetlands. They are separated by land that has been disturbed by a previous industrial use. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Access to these areas is from Green Hill Road, which is a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities ? There is on-site disturbance from previous uses, but surrounding parcels are primarily protected wetlands. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.04 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate from Development to Protection. City Council Decision: Leave as currently designated (Development). Notes: This site is somewhat disturbed, and is surrounded by pavement and other remnants of the former mill site. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 43 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site A4a, southwest corner Amendment #6 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Special Light Industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes Erigeron decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No Nearest sanitary and water lines are more than 1500 feet to the east. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes/No Westernmost portion has development within 50 feet to north and south. Eastern portion is more than 500 feet from the nearest development. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes West 11 th, Green Hill Road 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Affected areas are part of larger 70 acre site. Total Wetland Acreage: 4.95 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate 2 areas at Green Hill Road and West 11th from Development to Protection, change narrow strip along Green Hill Road to Planned Transportation City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Rare plants discovered in Green Hill Road and West 11th blocks since original plan adoption. Those areas are now owned and managed by BLM for conservation. "Finger" areas of marginal wetland quality (not prairie). Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 44 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site A4a, southeast corner Amendment #6 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Special Light Industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Pennit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No Nearest sanitary and water lines are 400-1200 feet away. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development YesINo One portion on the east side of site A4a is within 60 feet of a commercial development, while the small area to the northwest is more than 1,200 feet from any existing 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes West 11th, Green Hill Road 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West Yes Protection of these two tiny wetland areas would prevent Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives development and access to a disproportionately large area of special light industrial land. 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORA TION STANDARD 1. Penn it-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or fonner wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Affected areas are part of larger 70 acre site. Total Wetland Acreage: 0.77 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate two narrow wetland fingers in middle and SE comer of site from Protection to Development. City Council Decision: Same, except add east-west Utility Corridor at north end of site. Notes: "Finger" areas of marginal wetland quality (not prairie). Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C {Refinement Plan Amendment Findings} Page 45 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site A4d Amendment #7 PROTECllONSTANDARD MET COMMENTS 1. NR Metro Plan Designation No Light medium industrial, Heavy industrial, Parks and Open Space, Special light industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Aster curtus, western pond turtle 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Over 80% of the area is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet of WEWP protected waterway Yes Most of this area borders either Amazon Creek or Dead Cow Creek, both of which are protected under WEWP. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes These wetlands have a surface water connection with protected wetlands to the south. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes These wetlands include significant wet prairie adjacent to Amazon Creek, as well as ponds providing habitat for western pond turtle and waterfowl. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No Sanitary sewer is over 1400 feet away. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Other than railroad tracks, surrounding area is all protected wetlands. 4. Major highway or street frontage No No street access. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Total Wetland Acreage: 1.4 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate from Development to Protection. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: This area was formerly designated for Development to accommodate the West Eugene Parkway, which has subsequently been moved to the north. Owned and managed by BLM for conservation. These wetlands contain wet prairie and rare plants contiguous With other protected wet prairie habitat. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C {Refinement Plan Amendment Findings} Page 46 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site A4e Amendment #8 PROTECTION STANDARD MET COMMENTS 1. NR Metro Plan Designation No Light medium industrial, Heavy industrial, Parks and Open Space, Special light industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Aster curtus, western pond turtle 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Over 80% of the area is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Most of this area borders either Amazon Creek or Dead Cow Creek, both of which are protected under WEWP. 4. Surface water cOnnection to protected wetland Yes These wetlands have a surface water connection with protected wetlands to the south. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes These wetlands include significant wet prairie adjacent to Amazon Creek, as well as ponds providing habitat for Western pond turtle and waterfowl. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No Sanitary sewer is over 1400 feet away. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Other than railroad tracks, surrounding area is all protected wetlands. 4. Major highway or street frontage No No street access. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent 'uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Total Wetland Acreage: 4.6 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate from Develop to Protect. City Council Decision: Same, except add Utility Corridor along Terry Street right of-way. Notes: This area was formerly designated for Development to accommodate the West Eugene Parkway, which has subsequently been moved to the north. Owned and managed by BLM for conservation. These wetlands contain wet prairie and rare plants contiguous with other protected wet prairie habitat. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 47 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Site AS Amendment #9 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Agriculture/Urban Reserve PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes Aster curtus, Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens. Cicendia quadrangularis, all outside ofEWEB parcel 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected creek, Dead Cow Creek, is more than 1,400 ft. away 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Large prairie area 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Rare plant site, large wet prairie site would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit . COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET' COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No Large protected wetlands to north and east, separated only by streets. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No Outside UGB, services not available. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Adjacent uses are agriculture and open space. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Frontage on Green Hill Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No EWEB parcel disturbed by long-term grazing. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes Outside UGB, services not available. 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Site is over 40 acres. Total Wetland Acreage: 45 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate two existing home sites for Development. Re- designate former southern West Eugene Parkway alignment from Development to Protection. Re-designate narrow strip along Green Hill Road from Protection to Planned Transportation Corridor. DesignateEWEB parcel for Development in western 175 feet, remainder to Restoration and Planried Transportation Corridor. City Council Decision: Same, except add east-west Utility Corridor at north end of site. Notes: Majority of site has rare plants and wet prairie. EWEB parcel has minimal wetland acreage, and wetlands are disturbed from long-term grazing. Residential lots disturbed with cultivated lawns. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C {Refinement Plan Amendment Findings} Page 48 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site AA Amendment #10 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Medium density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No No rare plants found during wetland mapping. No systematic rare plant survey conducted. Rare plants unlikely due to lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within the flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected waterway, Dead Cow Creek, is 1500 ft. away. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Plant diversity limited by grazing. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes Nearest wetland is 1000 feet to east. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No Outside city limits, so service not available yet. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Has panhandle access to West lIth, a major arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West Yes Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No Current adjacent uses are open space, agricultural. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Pengra silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Site is small and nearest waterway is 1200 feet to west. Total Wetland Acreage: 2.2 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Wetland is small, degraded by grazing, isolated from other wetlands and waterways. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 49 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site AB Amendment #11 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Special light industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No This area was surveyed for rare plants in 1993 and 1994, and no rare plants were found. 1993 surveys for western pond turtles showed turtles were using other nearby wetland ponds, but not this site. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No At the closest point, these wetlands are over 400 feet from Dead Cow Creek, the nearest protected waterway. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes These ponds are near to, but not contiguous with, other protected wetlands. They are separated by land that has been disturbed by a previous industrial use. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Access to these areas is from Green Hill Road, which is a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities ? There is on-site disturbance from previous uses, but surrounding parcels are primarily protected wetlands. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4'. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.24 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate site AB for Protection. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: This site is sOmewhat disturbed, and is surrounded by pavement and other remnants of the former mill site. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 50 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria BI0 Amendment #20 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No No rare plants found during wetland mapping. No systematic rare plant survey conducted. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of the site is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Part of larger restoration site. would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Penn it COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage No 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Penn it-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or fonner wetland Yes 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Total Wetland Acreage: 1.46 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate for Restoration. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Earlier mapping error left this wetland area unmapped. Surrounding wetland to south designated for Restoration. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 5 J Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site BA Amendments #21 PROTECTION STANDARD t. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS t. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat ? Not surveyed, off-site wetland delineation. 2. Primarily within tOO year floodplain Yes Entire site within floodplain. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Amazon Creek borders site to north and east. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Connected via channels and culvert to restored wetlands to the south. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD t. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA . MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No Outside city limits, services not currently available. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Adjacent uses currently agricultural and open space, except for small industrial use to the west. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Frontage on Green Hill Road, a minor arterial 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities ? Adjacent industrial uses may have degraded groundwater. RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Dayton silt loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Adjacent to Amazon Creek. Total Wetland Acreage: 2 (off-site wetland delineation) Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Restoration, except for Planned Transportation Corridor designation on narrow strip along Green Hill Road. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is adjacent to Amazon Creek, within the floodplain and appears suitable for restoration. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 52 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site C6a-b Amendments #24 PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population ofrare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants not likely due to agricultural disturbance of si~ 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Entire site is in flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes NW corner of site is within 100 feet of A3 channel 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No Street and berm provide barrier to flow. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Disturbed agricultural field. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 36" sanitary line at north property line, water lines at east and south property lines. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Bordered by development to east, partial to south, Beltline to west. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Beltline Road; major arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West Yes Large 1-2 industrial site with small disturbed wetland Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives acreage, part of site already designated for development. 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No Wetlands are within relatively large site. RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes 3. Existing ~r potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No I Total Wetland Acreage: 2.49, of which 1.49 is already designated for Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: New inventory data showed change in wetland bound;uy and smaller wetland area, but no evidence to support change in designation. Half of site is owned by BLM, other half owned by ODOT. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 53 Exhibit C, Consistency with WetIand Designation Criteria Site C6c-e Amendment # 25 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No Surveyed prior to restoration activities. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Entire site is within flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Adjacent to Amazon Creek. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Portion of interconnected site designated for protection. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Wetland/pond system adjacent to Amazon Creek. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes Water and sanitary in adjacent streets to east, north, west. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Industrial development within 100 feet to north. 4. Major highway or street frontage No Adjacent streets are local streets. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD MET COMMENTS 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site Yes Portions of site providing credit in the city's mitigation bank. program. RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Adjacent to Amazon Creek. Total Wetland Acreage: 5.8 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Protection, except for tax lot 400 on west end, designate Restoration. City Council Decision: Same, except add Utility Corridors along existing storm water lines. Notes: City-owned; part of mitigation bank.. New delineation showed site has higher quality, larger and more connected system of wetlands adjacent to Amazon Creek. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 54 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site C6f Amendment # 26 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but has not been systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to site disturbance and lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Entire site within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 200 feet north of Amazon Creek. 4. Surface'water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Development to north, east, southeast and southwest. 4. Major highway or street frontage No Local streets. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No Currently, development only on one side, with streets or undeveloped land on other sides. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 2.3 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Most of site is already designated for Development. New delineation showed site to be somewhat larger, but values are low. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 55 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site C6g Amendment # 27 PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Entire site within flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet of WEWP protected waterway No 200 feet north of Amazon Creek. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes 4. Major highway or street frontage No 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities ? Surrounding industrial uses, disturbance, small size. RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.61 acres (0.77 acres filled since PC recommendation). Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Portion of site previously designated for Development. New delineation showed site to be larger, but more than half the site has been filled. Site is still small, isolated, disturbed and with services available. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 56 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site C8 Amendment # 27a PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Entire site. 3. Within 100 feet of WEWP protected waterway Yes Adjacent to Amazon Creek. - 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Site contains confluence ofWiUow Creek and Amazon would further WEWP goals/objectives Creek. 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS Mitigation Bank site constructed 1995-1997. RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services ) No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Total Wetland Acreage: 2.6 Planning Commission Recommendation: None (site did not exist previously). City Council Decision: Designate site for Restoration. Notes: This site owned by BLM has been restored to wetland by removing fill and replanting wetland species. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 57 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site CA Amendment # 28 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes A-3 Channel is approximately 100 feet away, but is separated from this site by railroad tracks. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Seasonal pond with cottonwood trees provides habitat for waterfowl during winter. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes Water and sanitary sewer at west end of property. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Pond lies between Beltline and industrial site. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Beltline Road; major arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West Yes Site would be impacted by Beltline widening project. Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Runoff from Beltline, industrial uses. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy urban land complex 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 1.5 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Formerly thought to have a surface v'ater connection to Danebo Pond, but recent data shows it does not. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 58 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site CB Amendment # 29 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Parks and Open Space. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, and rare plants are unlikely due to lack of suitable habitat. However, the site has not been systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives . 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Penn it COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes/No Southern portion of site is long narrow channel next to Beltline Road, which would be difficult to protect. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Penn it-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils . No Soil mixed with foreign materials. 2. Disturbed agricultural or fonner wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 2.2 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Small, heavily disturbed site. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 59 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site CC Amendment # 30 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Heavy industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants not likely due to disturbance and lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Within 100 feet of A-3 Channel. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes No connection to other wetlands. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage No 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Heavily disturbed industrial area RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Adjacent to A-3 Channel. Total Wetland Acreage: 0.8 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Small, heavily disturbed site, formerly used as log deck for plywood mill. Isolated from other protected wetlands. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 60 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site CE Amendment # 31 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat ? Off-site wetland delineation. Rare plants not likely due to disturbance and lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Entirely within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 300 feet north of Amazon Creek. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes 4. Major highway or street frontage No 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Extremely small size and surrounding uses. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.1 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: None. Site has been filled and developed. Notes: Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 61 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site DA Amendment # 32 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Heavy industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants not likely due to disturbance and lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No Less than 10% of site is within the flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Site is over 400 feet from Amazon Creek, and over 350 feet from the A-3 Channel 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Connected to Site B5 to east. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Majority of site is scotch pine tree farm. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No Connected to Site B5 to east. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 21" sanitary in Danebo Ave., 8" and 10" water in Danebo. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Bordered by industrial and residential uses on three sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Tax lot has frontage on Danebo, which is a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Tree farm and mill use impacting wetlands. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam, A wbrig silty clay loam, Pengra silt loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes Disturbed by agricultural use. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Most of tax lot is not wetland. Total Wetland Acreage: 29.7 acres of which 2.2 acres is currently designated for protection. Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development, including area now designated as Protection. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is a tree farm, wetland area very disturbed, site has services available for development. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 62 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site DB Amendment #33 . PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Low density residential, heavy industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants not likely due to disturbance and lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No Flood hazard area confined to A-3 Channel. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes A-3 Channel borders property; 30-150 feet from 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Undesignated area appears to have surface water connection to currently protected Danebo Pond during heavy rainfall periods. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Complex of Danebo Pond, A-3 Channel and these adjacent wet fields provide important habitat. . 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No Contamination from adjacent site makes acquisition would further WEWP goals/objectives diffICUlt and may jeopardize potential of site for potential stonnwater treatment facilities. 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 21" sanitary in Danebo, 1 0" water in Danebo, A-3 Channel provides stormwater facility. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Surrounding land to north, east and southeast is undeveloped, with wetlands designated for development. To the west are industrial uses, within 100-300 feet of these wetlands, and to east is Beltline Road. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Danebo is a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Adjacent property has DEQ documented groundwater and soil contamination from lumber treatment facility. I RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam covers over 15 acres. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes I~etlands are within 30 feet of the A-3 Channel, a protected waterway. Total Wetland Acreage: 8.3 acres already designated for Protection, 6.6 acres undesignated. Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate wetlands on Tax Lot 400 (Bohemia) for Development, designate remainder of undesignated wetlands for Restoration. City Council Decision: Designate undesignated wetlands for Development. Notes: Site is important link in A-3 Channel habitat corridor, and while it could provide an important site for stonnwater treatment, the groundwater contamination makes acquisition difficult, and may jeopardize potential for wetland restoration and storm water treatment. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 63 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site DC Amendment #34 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Heavy industrial, light medium industrial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No No part ofthe site is in the flood hazard area. 3. Within ~OO feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Corner of site is over 130 feet from A-3 Channel. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Majority of site is former log pond with heavy blackberry growth and woody debris. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Site DC, together with sites DB, DD and DH comprise a would further WEWP goals/objectives large block of habitat and potential habitat at the northern end of the plan area 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No Site DC is part of larger complex containing sites DD and DH, both of which are recommended for Development. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 16" sanitary at north property line, 12" water in Roosevelt Boulevard. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Undeveloped land with wetlands on three sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Beltline Road (major arterial) to west, Bertelsen Road (minor arterial) to east. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Heavily disturbed, poorly drained soil. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No Former log pond (not natural wetlands). 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Total Wetland Acreage: 15.9 acres total, of which 7.8 acres is already designated for Development. Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is heavily disturbed, with dikes and fill composed of wood waste and other debris, possible contamination; urban services available. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 64 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site DD Amendment #35 PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to lack of suitable habitat. - 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of the site is within the flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No At its nearest point, A-3 Channel is over 400 feet away. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No Nearest protected wetland is Danebo Pond, and there is no surface water connection. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Site DO, together with sites DB, DC and DH comprise a would further WEwp goals/objectives large block of habitat and potential habitat at the northern end of the plan area 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No Sites DC and DH are adjacent to south and east. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 10" sanitary at north property line, 12" water in Roosevelt Boulevard. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Primarily undeveloped land to west and south. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site abuts Beltline Road (major arterial) and Roosevelt Boulevard (minor arterial). 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Wetlands impacted by on-site disturbance. RESTORA TION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes A wbrig silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No Previously used for industrial use. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 5.8 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Wetland area is in old field where past attempts to drain have been made, wetlands are low quality, urban level services available. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 65 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site DR Amendment #36 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected waterway, A-3 Channel, is over 1900 feet away. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Site DH, together with sites DB, DC and DD comprise a would further WEWP goals/objectives large block of habitat and potential habitat at the northern end of the plan area 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No Adjacent to Sites DD and DC. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 10" sanitary at north property line, 12" water line in Roosevelt Boulevard. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Primarily undeveloped land to south and west. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site abuts Roosevelt Blvd. (minor arterial) and Bertelsen Road (minor arterial) 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Existing on-site disturbance. RESTORATION STANDARD ' 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes A wbrig silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 2.3 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Wetland area is in old field where past attempts to drain have been made, wetland are low quality, urban level services available. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 66 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site Ela-b Amendment #37 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Majority of site within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest point is 125 feet away from Amazon Creek. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Connected to E2a to the east. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Enhanced and restored site contains open water, wet prairie and SOJ;lle forested habitat. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes Prairie on site has been restored by ODOT. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Development to south and east within 100 feet. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site has frontage on Bertelsen Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West Yes Designated in Metro Plan for Special Light Industrial, Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives which is relatively scarce in West Eugene. 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD MET COMMENTS 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site Yes ODOT mitigation site. DSL mandated re-designating this site to Restoration. RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Total Wetland Acreage: 25.1 Planrting Commission Recommendation: Change from Development to Restoration, except for Planned Transportation Corridor along Bertelsen Road. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is owned by ODOT and meets Restoration Standard. Oregon Division of State Lands required that this site be re-designated from Development to Restoration. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 67 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site E2a (portion) Amendment #38 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No This portion of Site E2a is outside the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Part of larger protected site to south. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Site is primarily wet pasture. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS l. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes 4. Major highway or street frontage No 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Part of larger site which borders Bertelsen Slough. Total Wetland Acreage: 2.2 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate northern 0.9 acres for Development (within projected West Eugene Parkway alignment), and designate southern 1.3 acres for Protection. City Council Decision: Designate wetlands on 1704274301200 and wetlands within R-O-W for Development. Designate remaining (southern) area for Restoration. Add Utility Corridors at north and south edges of site. Notes: Southern portion is owned by BLM. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 68 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site E2b Amendment #39 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site. - 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Site is over 400 feet from A-3 Channel. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Site contains primarily forested wetlands, which are generally rare in West Eugene. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Development on two sides within 15-60 feet. 4. Major highway or street frontage No 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD l. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No Site is forested wetland. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.69 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 69 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site E2e Amendment #39a PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Connected to protected portion of E2e. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Site contains open water, forested and wet prairie wetland types. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes Wet prairie has been restored on site. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site abuts Bailey Hill Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS Site was first Mitigation Bank restoration site. RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes Now restored. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 5.5 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate for Restoration. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Owned by BLM. Meets Restoration Standard. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 70 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site EC Amendment #40 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS . Heavy industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to disturbance and lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected waterway is A-3 Channel, which is over 2100 feet to the south. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Site is small disturbed wetland with primarily non-native plant species. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 8" sanitary in Baxter and Cross Streets, 12" water on site. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes 4. Major highway or street frontage No Abutting streets (Baxter, Alva Park, and Cross) are all local streets. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Surrounding industrial uses, water quality problems. RESTORATION STANDARD l. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS No RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Portion of wetland site mapped as Natroy Urban Land Complex. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.8 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Small disturbed wetland, surrounded by industrial development and impacted by water quality problems. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 71 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site EE Amendment #41 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light-medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site has not been systematically surveyed. Potential habitat may exist on this site for rare plants. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Site abuts A-3 Channel. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Surface water connection with Bertelsen Slough and Stewart Pond complex. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Mixed shrub/scrub, ash, willow, rose, spiraea, and meadow foxtail. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes This site lies between two already protected important would further WEWP goals/objectives wetland sites, E2a and E2e, and site is owned and managed by BLM for conservation purposes. 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 8" sanitary in Bailey Hill Road, 16" water at Bailey Hill and W. 7th Avenue. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Undeveloped/open space on three sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site abuts Bailey Hill Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORA TION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Total Wetland Acreage: 8.2 acres Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Protection, except for Planned Transportation Corridor along Bailey Hill and future extension of 5th A venue along north site boundary. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Owned and managed by BLM. Site provides high quality habitat and important habitat link between site E2a and site E2e. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 72 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site EF Amendment #42 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light-medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population ofrare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain Yes Three-fourths of site is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No At its closest point. Amazon Creek is over 200 feet away. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No - 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Remaining wetland site functions as part of Stewar.t Pond would further WEWP goals/objectives complex, site is owned and managed by BLM for conservation purposes. 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD MET COMMENTS I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit Yes/No Southern portion of site has been filled and developed under approved state and federal fill permits. Northern portion owned by BLM. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No For wildlife, this site functions as part of the Stewart Pond complex, and is separated only by Stewart Road, a dead. end street with very low traffic. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 8" sanitary in West 11th, 12" sanitary in Stewart Rd, 24" water in W. 11th, 16" water in Stewart Road. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Development on three sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes South end oflot has access from W. 11th Avenue, and this portion has already been developed. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes/No Southern end is developed. Northern end can be protected as part of Bertelsen Slough management unit RESTORATION STANDARD l. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy urban land complex. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 4.2, of which 2.1 acres were previously designated for Development. Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate tax lots 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2300 and 4400 (six southern tax lots) for Development. and designate remainder of site for Protection. City Council Decision: Same, except add Utility Corridor at NW, NE and SE comers of 1704341301400. (The lot configuration on this site has changed. The new lot numbers for the area to be designated for Development are 1704341301800, 1704341301900, and the southern 96 feet oflot 1704341301400.) Notes: Tax Lots have been consolidated and completely re- configured since Planning Commission review. BLM now owns and manages the northern portion of this site (lot 1400), which is recommended for Protection. BLM. acquired this parcel in a land trade. Habitat values high in the northern portion where a wet season pond provides waterfowl habitat Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 73 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site EG Amendment #42a PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No A-3 Channel is over 400 feet away at its nearest point. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Forested wetland add to diversity of system. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Development to the north is within 30 feet. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site fronts on Bertelsen Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.17 Planning Commission Recommendation: None--site newly mapped. City Council Decision: Designate site for Development. Notes: Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 74 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site GA Amendment #43 PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light-medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of the site is within the flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet of WEWP protected waterway No A-3 Channel is 120 feet to the north. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Site is a small, somewhat disturbed ash swale. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Penn it COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 21" sanitary in 5th A venue, 8" sanitary in Market St., 8" water in Market, 30" water in Seneca 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Site is partially developed with industrial use and parking up to wetland boundary. 4. Major highway or street frontage No W. 5th Avenue is a major collector street. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Small site, with development up to wetland boundary. RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.5 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Very small wetland on small industrial development site, full services available. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 75 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site GB Amendment #44 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Commercial (existing movie theater portion on of site). PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to disturbance and lack of suitable habitat. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of the site is within the flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected waterway is A-3 Channel, which is over 900 feet away. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS Fill Permit approved 11/23/99 FP-16093. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 12" sanitary in Seneca Road, 16" water in W. 7th, and 30" water in Seneca Road. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Commercial and Industrial development on four sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site abuts Seneca Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Site is small, surrounded by parking lots, and commercial and industrial uses within 30-100 feet on three sides. RESTORA TION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Pengra silt loam, Natroy silty clay loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 1.7 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is meets Development Standard. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 76 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site GD Amendment #45 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Some suitable rare plant habitat may exist within this site. - 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of the site is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Closest protected waterway is Amazon Creek, which is over 700 feet away. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes Site is small and isolated, but contains some moderate value wet prairie. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 8" sanitary in Tyinn, 8" water in Tyinn and 10th Place. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Industrial development on all four sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage No Abutting streets are local streets. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Small size, isolation and adjacent uses make long-term protection difficult. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No Site contains wet prairie habitat. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or n~xt to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: Site re-delineated at 2.0 acres. 1.1 acres filled, 0.9 acres of wetland still remain. Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is isolated, surrounded by development, has urban services available, southern 1.1 acre has been filled under permit FP-13504. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 77 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site H2 Amendment #47a PROTECTION STANDARD MET COMMENTS 1. NR Metro Plan Designation No Light medium industrial, Commercial, high density residential and medium density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No Less than 20% of site (at the north end) is within the flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No During major flooding, site would have surface water connection with protected wetlands to the east and south. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives - 7. Contains large or moderate to' high value wet prairie . Yes Majority of site is moderate quality wet prairie. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No Site is contiguous with larger wetland site and protected wetlands to the east. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 30" sanitary on site, 8" and 24" water in West lith, 16" water in Willow Creek Road and West 18th. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Protected wetlands to the south and east, and across from a portion of the northern boundary. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site has frontage on Willow Creek Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West Yes Site is one of very few that contains medium and high Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives density residential in west Eugene. 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No Site is wet prairie with moderate disturbance from agricultural activities. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Site is over 90 acres, and adjoins Willow Creek. Total Wetland Acreage: 2.9 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate all wetlands on 1704334000400 and 170433400060r for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Part of larger H2 site, but separated out here because the remainder of the site is addressed in a separate ordinance. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 78 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site H3, portion Amendment #48 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Commercial PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to disturbance on site. - 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of the site is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes This area is within 75 feet of Willow Creek. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Connected to protected wetlands to the south. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No Low wetlands value, and may not actually be wetland. would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No Adjacent to Willow Creek, and connected to protected wetlands to the south. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Eugene Speedway over 150 feet to the west; new subdivision over 100 feet to the north, abandoned buildings within approximately 300 feet to east. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Larger site has access from West 11 th, a major arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Site is already heavily disturbed, and may not be entirely wetland. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Soils are mapped as hydric. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology ? 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Total Wetland Acreage: 0.82 Planning Commission Recommendation: Re-designate from Protection to Development. City Council Decision: Same, except add Utility Corridor along east line of lot 1704330001000. Notes: Area is heavily disturbed. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 79 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site He Amendment #49 PROTECTION STANDARD MET COMMENTS 1. NR Metro Plan Designation No Commercial, Light medium industrial, medium density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat ? Rare plants found nearby to the south and site contains suitable habitat, but this area has not been systematically 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Site is over 900 feet from Willow Creek. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes Connected to protected wetlands to the south. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Site contains wet prairie habitat adjacent to protected wetland area 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes Portion of site contains relatively undisturbed wet DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 8" sanitary and water lines at 13th and Interior (400 feet to the east.) 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Development to east and north, wetlands to west and 4. Major highway or street frontage No Access is via West 13th, a local street 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes/No Part of site has significant disturbance from previous industrial use, remainder of site is intact and contiguous with other protected wetlands to the south. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS No RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No Site is partly wet prairie, partly disturbed by previous industrial use. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No S. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes This area is part of a larger contiguous wetland of 66 Total Wetland Acreage: 1.04 acres have been filled, 4 acres of site HC remain. Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate remnant prairie area south of racquet club and east of storage buildings (see map) for Protection, designation area of extension of West 13th and remainder of site for Development. City Council Decision: Same, except add Utility Corridor along West 13th Notes: Site includes northern extension of wet prairie site which contains populations of Aster curtus and Erigeron decumbens var decumbens. Portion of site at northern end has been filled under permit #FP-13686. Remaining wetland at northwest comer of site are disturbed and have higher development values. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 80 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site HD Amendment #50 PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No Two individual Lomatium bradshawii plants found on site in 1995. Significant site disturbance occurred in 1996. Plants not relocated. - 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within the flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected waterway is Amazon Creek, which is over 1000 feet to the north. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No Site is small, and recently significantly disturbed. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 8" sanitary in West 13th, 18" sanitary in Bertelsen, 8" water in West 13th, 20" water in Bertelsen. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Industrial development on all four sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site has frontage on Bertelsen Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Combination of surrounding uses on-site and on adjacent properties, combined with on-site disturbance. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy urban land complex. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services I No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway I No I Total Wetland Acreage: 3.1 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is heavily disturbed, surrounded by industrial development. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 81 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site HE Amendment #51 PROTECTION STANDARD MET COMMENTS I. NR Metro Plan Designation Yes/No A small portion of the site is designated NR on the Metro Plan diagram. The remainder of the site is designated Low density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes Kincaid's lupine and Fender's blue butterfly are found on this site adjacent to wetland areas. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of the site is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Willow Creek crosses north end of site. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland Yes 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Site provides valuable wetland and upland habitat. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Kincaid's lupine and Fender's blue butterfly, and site is would further WEWP goals/objectives owned by the Nature Conservancy. 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes Portions of site contain moderate value wet prairie. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 12" sanitary in Bertelsen, 2" and 12" water in Bertelsen. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No Primarily bordered by protected wetlands. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Bertelsen Road is a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Site is owned and managed by the Nature Conservancy. Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS . 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Panther silty clay loam, Pengra silt loam, Natroy silty clay loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes A portion of site is agriculturally disturbed. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Large site, partially bordering Willow Creek. Total Wetland Acreage: 29.3 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate wetlands on Tax Lots 4602 and 2900 for Development. Designate wetlands along Bertelsen Road for'Planned Transportation Corridor. Designate remainder of site for Restoration. City Council Decision: Same, except add north-south Utility Cva..j\jr north of Gimpl Hill Drive. Notes: Site is owned by The Nature Conservancy. It provides critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, as well as buffering and restoration opportunities along the east fork of Willow Creek. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 82 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site HK Amendment #53 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Medium density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to grazing on site. - 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected waterway, Amazon Creek, is more than 1700 feet away. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Disturbed pasture. 6. Unique, of special importance, to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes Nearest wetlands are over 900 feet away and are proposed for development. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access No Nearest sanitary and water lines are 600-900 feet away. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development No 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Tax lot containing these wetlands has frontage on West 11 th, a major arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Hydric soils not mapped, but confirmed through on site investigation to be A wbrig silty clay loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services Yes 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 7 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decisio~: Same. Notes: Site is disturbed, low quality and isolated from other wetlands and waterways. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 83 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site 11 Amendment #54 PROTECTION STANDARD I. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Light medium industrial. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes One portion of site contains Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens. Aster curtus and Lomatium bradshawii . 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No Approximately 25% of site is within flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Northern tip of site is within 90 feet of Amazon Creek, but is separated from the Creek by a street. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 17. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes A small portion of site is moderate to high quality wet prairie habitat. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes Site is large, but is mostly separated from other wetlands and waterways by industrial development. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 18" sanitary in Bertelsen, 30" sanitary in Wallis, 6" water line in Wallis, 20" water in Bertelsen Road. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Residential development to south, industrial development to west, north and east. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes A portion of site has frontage on Bertelsen Road, a major arterial street. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Existing disturbance, adjacent uses, and isolation from other protected wetlands limit protection options. RESTORA TION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy silty clay loam . 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Site is 24 acres. Total Wetland Acreage: 24 Planning Commission Recomrrndation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is relatively isolated, disturbed, surrounded by development, and has services available. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 84 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site IA Amendment #55 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Medium density residential PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes A small population of Lomatium bradshawii has been located on the northern end of the site. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No A small portion of the site is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Site is within 75 feet of Amazon Creek. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No Site is not connected to protected wetlands but may drain to Amazon Creek in high rainfall periods. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes Site provides significant Ash swale habitat, within Amazon Creek corridor further east than other sites. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Site provides unique habitat within Amazon Creek would further WEWP goals/objectives corridor and is highly accessible for educational and other I community purposes. 17. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated, disconnected wetland No 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 15" sanitary at south property line, 6" water in Oak Patch and Acorn Park Streets. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Residential development within 50' to west and south. 4. Major highway or street frontage No Oak Patch is a major collector. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORA TION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy urban land complex, Conser silty clay loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Adjacent to Amazon Creek. I Total Wetland Acreage: 4.1 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Protection. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is adjacent to Amazon Creek and bike path. Site is relatively undisturbed Ash swale, with rare plants. High recreational and educational potential. City has been in negotiations with the property owner to acquire the site. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 85 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site IB Amendment #56 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Medium density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal spe~ies with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but to our knowledge site has not been systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway Yes Wetland site is contiguous with Amazon Creek. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No May drain to Amazon Creek during high rainfall. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system Yes ash/meadow barleylHarding grass next to Amazon 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection Yes Site provides unique opportunities for education and would further WEWP goals/objectives restoration due to location and access. 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie I No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD MET COMMENTS 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit No Permit process is underway, but on hold pending negotiation for CitylBLM purchase of site. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No .Connected to and part of Amazon Creek corridor system. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 18" sanitary and 8" water in City View; 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Site is surrounded by apartments and single family residences, some of which are within 15 feet of wetlands. 4. Major highway or street frontage No Site frontage is on City View, a collector street. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No Adjacent uses are low intensity uses. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Contains hydric Soils Yes Natroy urban land complex 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway Yes Next to Amazon Creek. Total Wetland Acreage: Tax Lot 1704363300201 is no longer considered regulated wetland. New site acreage is 4.5. Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate frontage on City View for Development (170 feet from curb). Designate Tax Lot 200 for Development. Designate remainder of site for Protection. City Council Decision: Designate entire site for protection, except for east-west Utility Corridor through lot 1704363300202. Notes: Main part of site is unique in its location along the Amazon and its proximity to Westmoreland School, as well as in the level of waterfowl use of the site in an otherwise residentially developed area. City is nearing completion of acquisition of the site. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 86 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site IC Amendment #57 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Low density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site has not been systematically surveyed. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within the flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No Site drains to roadside ditch. 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland No Nature Conservancy Wetlands across the street to west. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 10" sanitary and 12" water (500 feet away) in Bertelsen. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Residential development on three sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Site abuts Bertelsen Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities No RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Pengra silt loam. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland Yes Site is agriculturally disturbed. 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: Northern lot 180323001600 has been filled. Remaining wetland acreage is 1.4. Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is small, disturbed by mowing and plowing, low habitat value, surrounded on 3 sides by development, northern half has bP.en filled. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 87 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site ID Amendment #58 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Low density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat Yes Small population of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, other species not surveyed for. 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of the site is within the flood hazard area. 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected waterway, Amazon Creek, is more than 1000 feet to the north. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Site contains wet prairie but is not connected to any other habitat area 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie Yes DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS I. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes Site is cut otTfrom all wetlands and waterways by residential development. 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 24" sanitary and 8" water in Bertelsen Road. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Residential development on all four sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes Lot has frontage on Bertelsen Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities ? Site is relatively small, isolated, adjacent lots are low density residential. RESTORATION STANDARD I. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Pengra urban land complex. 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing or potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No I 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No I Total Wetland Acreage: 4.3 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is very isolated from other wetlands, waterways and habitat areas, with residential development on all sides. Site contains wet prairie and some rare plants. Multiple Site Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 88 Exhibit C, Consistency with Wetland Designation Criteria Site IE Amendment #59 PROTECTION STANDARD 1. NR Metro Plan Designation COMMENTS Medium density residential. PROTECTION CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Population of rare plant or animal species with suitable habitat No None found during wetland mapping, but site not systematically surveyed. Rare plants unlikely due to lack of suitable habitat. - 2. Primarily within 100 year floodplain No None of site is within flood hazard area 3. Within 100 feet ofWEWP protected waterway No Nearest protected waterway, Amazon Creek, is more than 1,000 feet to the north. 4. Surface water connection to protected wetland No 5. Habitat diversity on site or adds to diversity of habitat system No Site is small pond surrounded by residential development. 6. Unique, of special importance to wetland system, and protection No would further WEWP goals/objectives 7. Contains large or moderate to high value wet prairie No DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Approved Wetland Impact Permit COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Isolated, disconnected wetland Yes 2. Sanitary sewer, municipal water, street access Yes 24" sanitary and 8" water in Bertelsen Road. 3. Adjacent to/surrounded by development Yes Residential development on all four sides. 4. Major highway or street frontage Yes One of two affected lots has frontage on Bertelsen Road, a minor arterial. 5. Unique, of special importance to economic development of West No Eugene, and development would further WEWP goals/objectives 6. Site cannot be protected from adjacent uses/activities Yes Site is small, surrounding by existing development and access for maintenance would be difficult. RESTORATION STANDARD 1. Permit-required wetland mitigation site COMMENTS RESTORE CRITERIA MET COMMENTS 1. Contains hydric Soils Yes Pengra urban land complex 2. Disturbed agricultural or former wetland No 3. Existing Ot potential wetland hydrology Yes 4. Lacks urban services No 5. Over 15 acres or next to protected waterway No Total Wetland Acreage: 0.9 Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate entire site for Development. City Council Decision: Same. Notes: Site is very small and isolated from other wetlands, waterways and habitat areas, and is surrounded by residential development. Multiple Site Ordinance. Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 89