Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20295 ORDINANCE NO. 20295 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE GOAL 5 INVENTORY V~ITHIN THE EUGENE URBAN GROWTH APd~A; UPDATING THE INVENTORY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section L The criteria attached as Exhibit A are hereby adopted as the Cky's additional crkefia for determining the significance of riparian corridor sites and stream corridors w/thin uplar~d w/ldlife habitat sites as provided in OAR 660-023-0030(4)(c). The criteria for determining the significance of upland wildlife habitat sites, excluding stream corridors, are the "safe harbor" criteria at OAR 660-023-0110(4). Section 2. The list and map (which consists of four tiles) entitled "Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites Within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary" attached as Exhibit B are hereby adopted as a part of the inventory of significant Goal 5 resources for those areas listed/depicted thereon that, as of the date this Ordinance is passed by the City Council, are located outside the City limits and w/thin the urban growth boundary of the City of Eugene ("the Eugene Urban Growth Area"). Section 3. In addition to the portions of the list and map referred to in Section 2, the inventory of significant Goal 5 resources for the Eugene Urban Growth Area shall include, and be limited to, the resource sites shown for that area on the following documents: the April 12, 1978 Sand and Gravel Working Paper, the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, the April 12, 1978 Willamette River Green-way Working Paper and the April 12, 1978 Archeological Sites Working Ordinance Paper, the December 1, 1976 list of historic land marks and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Section 4, Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the Legislative Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit C in support of this action. Section 5. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective upon the date that all of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been acknowledged, (b) at least 30 days have passed since the date the ordinance was approved, and (c) the Lane County Board of Commissioners has adopted an ordinance containing provisions having the same effect as those contained in Sections 1,2, and 3 of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this 28® day of July, 2003 Recorder Approved by the Mayor this 28th day of July, 2003 Ordinance - 2 Exhibit A Goal 5 Significance Criteria ibr Riparian Corridor Sites and pland Wildlife Habitat Stream Corridors A riparian corridor site or an upland wildlife habitat stream corridor site shall be included on the list of significant resource sites if (in addition to consideration of the criteria at OAR 660-023-0090(4) for riparian corridor sites and to those at O.a2q 660-023-0110(3) for upland wildlife habitat stream corridor sites) it is descr/bed in at least one of the following Tier One Criteria and if its listing is consistent with both of the following Tier Two Criteria: Tier One Criteria: 1. Areas mapped as wetland on the State/National Wetland Inventory (S/NWD. 2. Streams and other water bodies identified by the ODF or ODFW as fish:bearing streams. Undeveloped areas that contain natural vegetation (non-cultivated, including forests, natural prairies. and meadows) and are within sites larger than one acre. 4. -Undeveloped natural areas that are contiguous with a water feature. Areas that are undeveloped, and which in their natural state are un-vegetated (e.g., rock outcrops, gravel bars). LOcations of plants listed as threatened or endangered, or considered official candidates to be listed as t~eatened or endangered by state or federal government. Documented habitat ofani~!s listed as threatened or endangered, or considered officiat candidates to be liSted as ~hreatened or endangered by state or federal government. Native plant cO--unities within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)floodway and 100-year floOdPlain. 9~ Ecologically si~ificant areas identified by local expels in the natural resource sciences, such as witdlife biOlOgy, botany, fiSherieS; hydrOlogy, and landsCape architecture. Tier Two criteria: At the time of inventow adoption; areas that have been filled or substantially altered to the degree that they no longer meet any of the Tier 1 Criteria shall be removed fkom the Goal 5 inVent°rY. Sites With a Wildlife Habitat Assessment (WHA) rating of 17 or greater shall be included on the Goal 5 inventory-. P:kGO~L 5\Council 7,28-03\ORD-EXA CRIT 7-03.wpd(07/21/03) EXHIBIT B GOAL 5 RIPARIAN AND UPLAND WILDLIFE HABITAT SITES WITHIN THE EUGENE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY Ju~y 2003 Site Name Page I of 2 ~Key: !!R!, = dparian cer~dior iiUi' = u~iand wildlife habitat Stream corridOr RiPar an Corr dot sites: UPland Wildlife habitat Stream corridor sites: TOtal acres: 980~8 186:5 1167;3 Page 2 of 2 0 025 0~5 UPland wildi~e habitat steam corridors Eugene city limits Ripadan corridors West Eugene Wetland Boundary Urban GrOWth Bounda~ ' i Tax lots E35 I E35 0 0.25 0.5 O~TH Uplar~d wildlife habitat stream comdors ~ I Eugene city limits Riparian corddors l_ ......... I 'West Eugene Wetland Boundary Urban Growth Bour~dary Tax lots 4 Riparian & Witdlife Habitat Sites - Tile 3 July 15, 2003 Upland wildlife habitat stream corridors Riparian corridors Urban Growth Bounda~ 0 0.25 0.5 I Miies Eugene city timits West Eugene Wettand Boundary Tax lots NORTH ES~ Ju~y 15, 2003 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mi~es UCand wildlife habitat stream corridors L ; Eugene city limits Riparian corddors t ....... I West Eugene Wettand Boundary U~an Growth Boundary Tax lots Exhibit C Findings of Consistency With Criteria for Approval of Metro Plan Amendment The criteha for approval of a Metro Plan amendment are found in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code at 9.7730(3): Chteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following chteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan aruendment application: (a) (b) The amen~ent must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals. Goal i - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen invotvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has ackno~vledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for citizens m be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The adoption oF these ordinances does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for adopting them complied with Goal 1 since it complied with, and surPassed the requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions. The process for adopting a Goal 5 Inventory for the area within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary has provided numerous opportunities for citizen involvement. A public involvement plan for the Goal 5 process was reviewed and approved by the Joint Planning Commission Committee [n May, 2000. In June 2000, two public workshops were held to provide an overview of the Goal 5 process for Springfield, Eugene and Lane County within the Metro Plan boundary. In April 2001, a public workshop has held to review the draft inventory and significance criteria for Springfield, Eugene and Lane County within the Metro Plan botmdary. On December 17, 2002, a public hearing was held before the Eugene Planning Commission on the Goal 5 inventory of riparian and-upland wildlife habitat sites within the urban growth boundary. All ovcners of affected and adjacent properties were notified, in addition to a large list of interested parties. The Eugene Planning Commission opened the pub lic record for additional w~tten comments from February 3~ 2003 to February 7, 2003 and fi.om March 17, 2003 to March 28, 2003. The Eugene Plarming and Development Department staffheld a public information meeting on May 21, 2003 on the status of the Goal 5 inventory. On June 9, 2003 a public hearing was held before the Eugene City Council. In addition to pubhc meetings and mailed notices, printed materials related to these proceedings were made available at Ptarming and Development Department ofl2ces and via the City's Internet site prior to each meeting. As described above, the opportunities that have been provided for citizen involvement are more than adequate to achieve consistency with Goal 1. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Storewide Planning Goal t. Goal 2- Land Use Planning, To establish a land useptanning process and policy fi'amework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro P1an) is the acknowledged policy framework document that is used as the basis for land use decisions in Eugene, The Eugene Goal 5 inventory is being adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base to support these Metro Plan amendments, as Goat 2 requires. Further, the Goal 2 coordination requirement is met. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of the amendments will all affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to: USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, Oregon Divisio~ of State Lands~ Oregon Department of Transportation~ Oregon Department of En-vironme~qtal Quality, Lane County~ City of Springfield, and Eugene Water and Electric Board. There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Storewide Planning Goal 2. Goo! 3 ~ Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural ]ands. Goal 3 is not applicable to the proposed plan amendments as the subject sites and actions do not affect any agricult~al ptan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban ~owth boundary from the definition of a~culturai lands. Since Eugene's Goal 5 In:v'entory is entirely within its acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3. Goal 4 - ForestLands, To conserve forest lands by maintaining &e forest land base and to protect the state~s forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management qf soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. Goal 4 is not applicable m the proposed plan amendments as the subject sites and actions do not affect any forest plan desi~ation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and, therefore, does not apply m the adoption of a Goal 5 inventory within Eugene's UGB (OAR 660-006~0020), Therefore~ Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendrnents do not affect Metro Plan compliance with State-wide Planning Goal 4. Goat' 5 - Natural Resources. To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The adoption of an inventory of riparian and upland wildlife habitat sites within Eugene's Urban Growth Boundary is a specific response to the requirements of Goal 5. The inventory was conducted in accordance Mth the administrative roles for Goal 5 inventories for riparian corridors and wildlife habitat areas, as prOvided for in OAR 660-023, as detailed below. OAR 660~023-0090(4) sets out requirements for gathering information as part of a standard Goal 5 inventory for riparian condors: (4) When fbllowing the standard inventory process in OAR 660-023-0030, local governments shall collect information regarding all water areas, fish hab/tat, riparian areas, and wetlands wkhin ripar/~ corridors. Local gove~ents may postpone determination of the precise location of the r/p~an area on lands desi~ated for farm or forest use until receipt of applications for local permits fbr uses that would conflict with these resources. Local governments are encouraged, but not required, to conduct field investigations to ver/f}f the locmion, quality, and quant/ty of resources within the riparian corridor. At a minimum, local governments shall consult the following sources, Where available, in order to inventory riparian condors along rivers, lakes, and streams within the j urisdiction: (a) Oregon Department of F°restry stream classification maps; (b) United States Geological Serv'ice (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps; (c) National Wetlands Invento~ maps; (d) Oregon Department offish and Wildlife (ODF~ maps indicating fish habitat; (e) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps; and (f) Aerial photo~aphs. The City collected information reg~ding all water areas, fish habitat, r/parian areas and wetlands within r/parian corr/dom. None of the areas affected by this adoption are desi~ated ~%r fhrm or forest use. A geat deal of field investigation was performed. ~ addition to site visits during the application of the Wildlife Habkat Assessment, follow-up field investigations were performed on a case~by-case basis, where necessary to collect additional information on a particular site. The Goal 5 Inventory of Ripman and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary incorporated multiple reviews of data sources listed in (4)a-f above, dur/ng the development of the inventory. O~ 660~023-0110(3) sets om requirements for gather/ng information on w51dlife habitat sites dar/n,, g the preparation of the inventory: (3) When gathering information regarding wildlife habitat under the standard inventory process in ©~ 660~023-0030(2), local govements shall obtain ctt~ent habitat inventory infbrmation fkom the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW), and other state and federat agencies. These inventor/es shall include at least the fbllowing: (a) T~eatened, end,gered, and sensitive wildlife species habitat information; (b) Sensitive bkd site inventories; and (c) W~ldlife species of concern and/or habitats of concern identified and mapped by ODFW (e.g., big game winter range and migration corridors~ golden eagle and prairie falcon nest sites, and pigeon springs); The Goal 5 Inventory of Riparian and Upiand Wildife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary incorporated multiple reviews of the data sources li)sted in (3)a-c above, during the development of the inventory. OAR 660-023-0030(3) requires that the local government determine that its inventory data is adequate: "The information about a particular Goal 5 resource site shall be deemed adequate if it provides the location, quality and quantity of the resource as follows: (a) Infbrmation about location shall include a description or map of the resource area for each ske. The information must be sufficient to determine whether a resource exists on a particular site. However, a precise location of the resource for a particular site, such as would be required for building permits, is not necessary at this stage in the process. (b) Information on quality shall indicate a resource site's value relative to other lmo~ examples of the same resot~ce. 'While a regional comparison is recommended, a comparison with resource sites Mthin the jurisdiction itself is sufficient un!ess there are no other local examples of the resource. Local governments shall consider any determinations about resource quality provided in available state or federal inventories. (c) Information on quantity shall include an estimate of the relative abundance or scarcity of the resource." The Eugene Goal 5 Invento~ of RiParian and Upl~d Wildlife Habkat Sites within the Eugene Urb~ Growth Boundary includes maps that show the location of each site with sufficient accuracy to determine whether the resource exists for each site. Corrections to site boundaries based upon public testimony were made at each stage of the adoption process. Each site was evaluated using the Wildlife Habitat Assessment method, which provides a numerical, relative rating of habkat values for each site in the inventory against other s~tes within the Eugene-Springfield area. Portions of same sites were deemed significant, the rule does not require thai the comparative value analysis be applied to portions of sites. Information gathered in conjunction with the invemory includes the number and acreage fbr all s~tes~ including a total for each category, which provides an estimate of the relative abundance for each resoume type w/thin Eugene's jurisdicfion~ O~ 660-023-0030(4) requires that the local jurisdiction determine the significance of resource sites~ "The determination of significance shall be based on: (a) The quality, quantity, and location info~ation; ~) Supplemental or superseding significance criteria set out in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660~023~0230; and (c) ~y additional criteria adopted by the local government, provided these criteria do not conflict with the requirements of OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230." The inventory being adopted was developed using two sets of Goal 5 Significance Criteria that were applied based upon the type of resoUrce(S) that a site contained. In addition to the quality, quantity and location information, and the inforrnation gathered as required by O~ 660~023~0090(4)~ the City adopmd additional criteria (consistent with the requirements of-0090)to be applied m fipafim corridors and upland wildlife habitat stream corridors using the standard Goal 5 inventory process. The additional criteria are made up of Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria. Each of the Tier l and Tier 2 criteria applied to riparian corrdors and uplmd wildlife habitat stream corrdors further addresses the quantity, quality or location of the resources. In addition to the quality, quantity md location info~ation, md the info~xnation gathered as required by 660-023-0110(3)~ the City applied the State's "safe harbor" criteria at OAR 660~023- 0!t0(4) to non-stream areas of the identified upland Mldlife habitat sites. None of these habitat areas meet these criteria. As such, only those portions of the habitat sites that are stream corridors meeting the standard criteria (discussed above) are on the inventory of significant sites. The CitY's approach to evaluating the si~ificance of habitat sites was approved by DLCD as being consistent with Goal 5: The following clarification was included in an email from DLCD representative Mark Radabaugh, dated JulY 3, 2003: "A city may divide use of the standard and safe harbor approach fbr a single resource site when it is determined t~ough the standard proceSs that there are si~ificantlY different on, site characteristics that would allow a clear distinction mong various potions of the site, For example, an upland habitat site that includes a significant wildlife habitat corridor(s) under the standard process, and is also identified in the safe garbor conditions called out in O~ 660z023-0110(4), could be mmaged under a partitioned Goal 5 approach if si~ific~t distinctions inthe on-site characteristics allow' defining a clear boundary between adjaCent apPliCation of the standard process and safe harbor approaches. Under both approaches, the city is required to develop a resource protection program for its upland resources." On four uptand wildlife habitat sites standard Goal 5 invemo~ process was applied to a portion of the site and safe harbor invento~ process was applied to the remainder of the site. The portions where standard process was applied were the s~eam coMdors that flowed through the upland wildlife habitat sites. These wate~ays were identified during the standard process, and their presence clearly defines trek character as different from the remainder of the -upland wildlife habitat si~es where stream coMdOm do not exist. Eugene's application of standard and safb harbor inventory processes is consistent with both the applicable OAR (660-023-0110) and with DLCD staff's clarification as given above. The above review of administrative rules pertaining to Goal 5 indicates that this inventory was conducted consistent with apPlicable Oregon Administrative Rules. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Goal 6 addresses waste and procesS disCharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from impacts bom those diSCharges. AdoPtion of a Goal 5 inventory will not directly influence such discharges or their impaCts, since there is no effect on land use, land deVeloPment or associated discharges solely fr°m adoPtiOn of the inventory. Later steps in the Goal 5 process can lead to protective measures that may provide protection for air~ water or land resource quality, but the adoPtion of the inventory will not. Therefbre, the amendments d° not affect Metro Plan comPliance with Statewide Planning Goal 6. Goal 7 ~ Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards. Goal ? requires that local gove~ent planning pro,ams include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as land slides. The Goal 5 inventory does not include infbnnation about natural disasters and hazards, These hazards are addressed by separate smd/es and protection measures. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan comphar~ce with Storewide Planning Goat 7, Goal 8 ~ Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities inclUding destination resorts. The adoption ora Goal 5 inventory, while it may hold some potential for identifying and protecting open space that could contribute to Satisfying some of the comm~ity's recreational needs~ provides no actual ch~ge in the provision of recreational lands or services. Therefbre, the m:nen~ents do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 8. Goal 9 ~ Economic DevelO£ment. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of econOmic aCtivities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon ~s citizens. Adoption of a Goal 5 natural mso~ces inventory Mll not, in and of itself, have a direct impact on economic activities. Subsequent steps in the Goal 5 process will decide whether property on the ~nventory will be pro~ected, partially protected, or developed, and since the range of outcomes includes fhe possibility that no protections will be applied, no actual economic impact canbe assi~ed to the mere adoption of the inventory. Therefore, the amendments do not affbct Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Goal JO - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. AdOption of a Goal 5 natural resources inventory will not, in and of itself, have a direct impact on provision of housing. Subsequent steps in the Goal 5 process will decide whether property on the invento~ will be protected, partially Protected, or developed, and since the range of outcomes includes the possibility that no promctions Mllbe applied, no actual impact to the supply of housing can be assigned to the mere adoption of the invemory~ Therefore, the amendments do not affect MetTM Plan comPhance with Statewide Planning Goal 10. Goal 11 ~ Public Facilities and Sereices. To plan and develop a time/3; orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a firamework for urban and rural development. Goal 5 inventory si~es do not cu~ently require public services and in~?astruct~e. Some of the Goal 5 sites are open waterways that are pa~ of Eugene's stormwater conveyance system. Inclusion of these and other sites in the Goal 5 inventory wilt not, in ~d of itself, preclude providing stormwater or other services to other undeve!oped properties, since adoption of the inventory does not place an), restrictions on construction of public infrastructure. Therefore, the ~endments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11. Goal !2- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic tran3~ortation system. Adoption of a Goal 5 natural resources inventory Mil not significantly affect a transportation fac~lky. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 12. Goal 13 ~ Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. Adoption of a Goal 5 inventory will not affect energy use. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 13. Goal l~ - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Goal I4 deals with the estabhs~ent of urban growth boundaries and mendments to established urban growth boundaries, the purpose of which is to contain urban development inside the boundary. The Goal also states that the urban growth boundary shall be developed so fhat the "carrying capacity" of the area is not exceeded. C rrymg capamty refers to the capacity of an area to contain development while natural environmental processes continue functioning. To exceed the carrying capacity would result in the breakdo~ of these processes. AdoPtiOn of a Goal 5 inventory will contribute tothe ability to plan for developmem while ensuing that planned development does not exceed the carrying capacity of the environmental systems in the urban area. Therefore, these amendments are COnsistent with Goal 14. Goal I5 ~ Willamette River Greenway, To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities 2f lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. Adoption of a Goal 5 natural resources inventory will not, in and of itself~ have a direct impact on the Willamette Ri~er Greenway, The adoption of a Goal 5 inventory, while it may hold some potential for identif34ng andpmtecfing open space that could contribute to satisfying some elementS of the Greenway PrOgram~ provides no actual change in the provision of access to the Willamette River or other requirements of Goal 15. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compl/ance with Statewide Planning Goal 15. Goals ]6~19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and DUnes, and Ocean Resources. There are no estuarine 7reso-urces, coastal shorelands, beaches, dunes or ocean resources within Eugene's j-u~sdicfion. Therefore, Sta~ewide Planning Goals 16 through 19 do not apply to these amendments. (b) Adoption of the amendment mast not make the Metro Plan internally ~ncons~stent. Adoption of these Metro Pl~ amendments will not chm~ge any Metro Plan policies. The amendment Mll make changes only to background documents inco~orated into the Metro Plan by reference. The Goal 5 natural remurces invento~ elements (r/p~an, upland) adopted will replace any previously adopted inventories of the same type, preventir~g any possible conflict between this and previous Goal 5 inventory maps, Given these findings and the fact that no modification to the Metro Plan text is necessary or proposed, the amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.