Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20171ORDINANCE NO. 20171 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO, 2012G; AMENDING THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS PLAN BY ADOPTING NEW AND REVISED PLAN POLICIES RELATED TD THE CRITERIA FOR WETLAND DESIGNATIONS; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. The City Council of the City of Eugene Ends that: A. on May 24,1992, 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 6,1992, the Eugene City Council adopted ordinance No. 24042 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 far City of Eugene properties located within ordinance -1 the West 18th and West 11~' Avenue road improvement projects. 0n June 24,199$ the Board of County Commissioners adopted Board ordinance No. PA 1117 amending the West Eu ene g Wetlands Plan to establish new Planned Transportation Corridor and Utility Corridor wetland designations and, on April 21, 1999, adopted Board Ordinance No. PA 1129 ado tin Planned . p g Transportation Corr~.dor wetland des~gnat~ons for Clty of Eugene properties located within the Nest 1 S~~ and Nest 11 ~' Avenue road improvement projects. H. 0n 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. ~n November 10,1995, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County adopted Board ordinance No. PA 1106, which adopted the provisions of Ordinance No. 20126, except that the Board first 1 ~} deleted policy amendments 62, 64 and 66, ~2} deleted non-policy amendment 44, and 3 amended ~~ policy amendments 68 and 80. The Board also forwarded alternative amendments related to the criteria to the Eugene City Council for consideration. I. The Board of County Commissioners of Lane County and the Eugene City Council established the CounciUBoard Committee an 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. J. The CouncillBoard Committee on West Eugene W etlands Policy Amendments has completed its work and forwarded a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and the Eugene City Council. 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. L. The City Council has conducted a public hearing on the recommended Plan amendments and is now ready to take action on these amendments as set forth in Section 1 and Exhibit A. NUV~, THEREFURE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DUES URDAIN AS FULLUV~S: Section 1. ordinance No. 20126, adopted by the City Council and approved by the Mayor on July 8,1998, is hereby amended as follows: 1. Exhibit A, attached to Ordinance No. 20126 is amended by: a. deleting policy amendments 62, 64 and 66; ordinance - 2 b. deleting non-policy amendment 44; c, amending policy amendment 68 by deleting the words "Policy 3.17" and replacing them with "Appendix B"; and d. amending policy amendment 80 to read as follows: 4.19 Allow development of wetlands that meet the criteria for wetland development contained in Appendix B of the Plan as illustrated on the wetland Designations Map Map 3}. 2. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20126 is deleted. Section 2. 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 has amended by section 1 of this Ordinance}, and Ordinance No. 20147, is further amended as set forth in attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth. Section 3. 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 4. Although not part of this Ordinance, the findings in attached Exhibits B and C are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 5. 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 6. 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 11th day of ~ctober,1999 ~~ ~~ City Recor er Approved by the Mayor this 11th day of October, 1999 Mayor Ordinance - 3 Exhibit A Amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan Deletions are shown in ,additions are ' >>„'. Policy Amendments Move the protection and development criteria from Appendix B to Chapter 3, upgrade criteria to policy status and amend as follows formerly amendment #62 in Ordinance Na. PA 11 ~6 } .:~'~' . ,.........:~t:.« r ~T~'~'UteC~~ . ~.,, „~.~~.~~~~ ............... ~n,,.,....v~n::mF.aao~hj . , t~~td~~ ,.......,.~... «««:,:kk~,::,,.,~.. . , r ., {~F Situ .. des~gn~.td't ~ atural f~~r ~ a ~ 1 a ~ ~ ~ ,:,..:.,.~ Resource" ~an,~ , ~~e~~{~,e~tr~~'~h~an~~.Are`~; $k ~~.era~ P1a~ d~a~r~~: sh~~ Policy Amendments D~dinance, ExhibitA List of Amendments) Page 1 •? ` ~~~~~~~` n.. ,f . . << `~1 iin.b.. .../ •~. ~3. ~4. fr.5. Site contains a high diversity of wildlife habitat or contributes to the diversity, of .wildlife habitat within the region. :6. 3 o site w er the goals and ob'ectives of =.j~.,f ' ould forth ~ ~~ fX~} .: va.~CC.s c r....\n....' 'etland.s~ Pia. $:7. Presence of unique Willamette Prairie Grassland plant community. s, o x.1 ,.yff } Deve~~. men . , tection Policy Amendments drdinance, ExhibitA List of Amendments) Page Z Site ~s ~~~~ 1 ,,:.:a ~;;;.>, ~;, fur r;. /~e~~o'~~~a~F ........ ~ ..k... ,M~:. . Move Policy 4.20 to Chapter 3 and amend as follows formerly amendment #66 in Ordinance No. PA ~ 106}: ~~ ~~ ~ ? ~n ~~~ ~ nk~ ~~ a Apply ~ tl~~ criteria ~ ~c~y ~ . ,2 to y ne el~.neate ~ „ to determine t a~ , , y ~.; we~~~,n~s .'il ~• ~A +'M •t•+~{~ .. Ff 1 Fh •. \. ,n••C ;. vn••~ / ^~C W+ }S{+^. \ l0.N C ~ ~.. .. .. .s e. mn, ~ ..... ~ ~. .nX~S,•c s .. .. .. .i . }...... m . ,..... ~~ ~~~t~~~ their ~pr ~,tee~~onl~,~~op~e~;~~~~~,a~~~ status." Amend the new policy adopted as amendment #68 in Ordinance No. PA 1106 as follows: Pursue interim protection of sites which contain rare species, but do not meet the criteria for protection in oe~}F~3ti~ through conservation easements or other measures until either ~ 1 }the affected s ecies are de-listed or 2 conservation a reem P (} g ents are reached between the property owner and affected natural resources agencies to address the rare species populations. Amend Policy 4.19 previously amended by ordinance No. PA 1106, amendment #S0}: .19 Allow develo ment of wetlands that ~' P art dr~~~g~~.ted' ~r develo me ~ ~ .. , ~.. ~,,,~,,,.~ ~...~~~t« }....~ .., P nt or%tthe ~;: Polley Amendments Qrdinance, Exhibit A (fist of Amendments} Page 3 r ~ ~~ Wetland Designations Map Map 3} ofthe Wept ~~ e~e~, et1'ads~r~"~a g Non-policy Amendments Delete Appendix B (formerly non-policy amendment #44). Add the following terms and definitions to the Glossary: C:IWINDQWSITEMP199WEW1'~l .WPD - October 15,1999 Policy amendments Ordinance, Exhibit a List of Amendments} Page 4 Exhibit B Findings of Consistency with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals The Eugene-Springf eld Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan} is a local comprehensive plan acknowledged by the state's Land Conservation and Development Commission, and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan is an adapted 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. These amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan ~WEWP} will result in changes to existing locally adopted policy that address four land use categories: natural resources, Industrial lands, commercial lands, and residential lands. Accordingly, this analysis addresses Dregon Statewide Planning Goal 1 Citizen Involvement}, Goal 5 ~Dpen Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources}, Goal 9 Economic Development} and Goal 10 Housing}. This analysis concludes that these refinement plan amendments are consistent with applicable Dregon Statewide Planning Croats. Background The amendments analyzed herein are changes to policies and text of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. The amendments include 1 } changes to the criteria used to designate wetlands for protection, restoration or development and 2} changes to related policies and plan text necessary to maintain consistency with the new criteria. These amendments will not change the plan designation of any land. These amendments clarify and further ref ne the WEWP. The f ndings of goat compliance made as part of initial adoption of the WEWP remain essentially unaffected by these amendments. The amendments do not significantly alter the function, design or structure of the WEWP. Goal 1-Citizen Involvement Statewide Goal 1 calls for local governments "to devetop 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. l . Preliminary staff recommendations for policy and text amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan were first presented to the public in a workshop held on June 28,1994. Notices were sent to all affected owners, and everyone on the West Eugene Wetlands Plan interested parties list amore than 80o people}. Policy Amendments d~dinance, Exhibit B Statewide Planning Goat Findings) Page ~ 2. Another 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. 3. 4n 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. 4. Gn 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. 5. 0n February 18,1995, a public hearing was held before the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding amendments which included some of the amendments in the present ordinance. The record was held open for 14 days until March 4,1995} for written comments. 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 ear~ng. 6. Gn June 24,1999, notice was sent to all interested parties notifying them that a new proposal had been developed for the wetland designation criteria, and explaining where to view the proposal on the world wide web and where to obtain a paper copy. The mailing also included the date, time and place for the August 4, 1999 public hearing. 6. Gn August 4,1999, a public hearing was held before the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding these amendments. we find that the opportunities for citizen involvement detailed above are beyond what is necessary to achieve consistency with Goal 1. ~'olicy Amendments G~dinance, Exhibit ~ Statewide Planning Goal Findings) gage 2 Goal 5 - Upen 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. ~n 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 GAR. 660, Division 23. The 1991 Goal 5 Rule continues to apply topost-acknowledgment plan amendments, such as the Nest Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments, initiated before September I, 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-specif c 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 DRS 196.500 15}. Approval for the existing plan as a wetland Conservation Plan was granted by the Oregon Division of State Lands on September 13,1994 and amended on September 11, 1997. ORS 196.6845} 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 GRS 196.665 to 196.69 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 I97.279j Approval of the west Eugene Wetlands Plan by the Oregon Division of State Lands ~DSL} as provided by law, satisf es 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. The amendments do not signif candy alter the function, design and structure of the WEWP. The fundamental program developed for Goal 5 compliance remains essentially unchanged. The policies and criteria of the wEWP operate as a tool to further Goal 5 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 Policy Amendments Grdinance, exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal .~indings~ Page 3 in mind that the larger system of which these wetlands are a part extends beyond this and other political boundaries. The Plan as adopted in 1992 struck a unique balance between protection and development of wetlands within the Plan area. Dver 250 acres of wetlands were designated for development, but a much larger area, over 1,000 acres, was designated for protection or restoration. The magnitude of wetlands designated for both development and protection was unprecedented in Oregon. The current amendments maintain the balance established by the original plan by keeping the policies in line with those in the original Plan. As detailed in Exhibit D, 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 plan amendments comply with 4RS 194.681 to 196.654 and DAR 141, Division 120. For those reasons, the policy and text amendments to the west Eugene Wetlands Plan comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Goa19 -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 Dregon's citizens. Findings: The analysis below considers effects of the proposed changes to the policies and text of the west Eugene Wetlands Plan on the supply of buildable industrial and commercial land. The key in this analysis is the examination of the potential impact to buildable lands of the proposed criteria for designating wetlands compared with that of the criteria currently in the plan. The narrative analysis below shows that the changes do not change the criteria towards protecting more wetlands than would be protected under the criteria currently in the Plan. Policy Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B Statewide Planning Goal Findings} page ~ Existing Protection Criteria Proposed Protection Criteria Impact of Change 1. Presence of rare plants 1. Site contains population~s~ Change from very broad of one or more rare plant or definition of rare plants in animal species and contains existing plan glossary to list sufficient and suitable habitat of species in policy, which far the long-term protection of narrows number of sites that the populations}. The will meet criterion. criterion is not met if only Specifies size, habitat and small occurrences of a rare distribution characteristics, plant species are found on a and excludes small site with limited suitable occurrences of rare plants, habitat that is isolated from which also means that other undeveloped parcels, potentially fewer sites would meet the criterion. This change favors development slightly more than existing criterion, but reflects original plan intent. 2. Site has Metropolitan Plan Changed to a standard, and The change in wording is designation of Natural reworded as follows: for readability only. The Resource. only sites with the Natural Sites designated "Natural Resources designation in Resource" on the Metropolitan the Metro Plan were already Area General Plan diagram designated in the original shall be designated for 1992 plan, Na impact. protection, 3. Site is within the 100 year 2. Site is primarily within the Distinguishes between sites floodplain. 100 year floodplain. where a tiny portion is within the floodplain from those where most of the site is within it. This will mean that fewer sites will meet the criterion. This change favors development somewhat more than existing criterion, but reflects original plan intent. Policy ~imendments a~dinance, Exhibit B Statewide Planning Goal Findings} Page 5 Existing Protection Criteria 4. Site is near a perennial waterway. 5. Site is connected geographically or hydrologically to other wetlands or waterways. 6. Site contain a high diversity of wildlife habitat or contributes to the diversity of wildlife habitat within the region. 7. Protection of site would further the goals and objectives of this plan. Proposed Protection Criteria 3. Site is within 100 feet of a waterway stream} designated for protection on Map 3 of the West Eugene wetlands Plan. 4. Site has a direct perennial or intermittent surface water connection to a wetland designated for protection on Map 3 of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, 5. Site contain a high diversity of wildlife habitat or contributes to the diversity of wildlife habitat within the region. 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 would further the goals and objectives of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Impact of Change Considered together with the change to the next criterion, this criterion would identify the same wetlands as the original criteria 4 ~ which identif es wetlands next to perennial waterways and 5 addresses those next to other waterways}. No change. By narrowing the field of sites that can meet the criteria to only those with surface water connections to protected wetlands, this change slightly moves the criteria toward development. No change in this criterion, This change adds an additional factor of unique characteristics to the existing criterion. Since they are j oined by "and", a site must have both unique characteristics AND further plan goals and obj ectives to meet this criterion. This added factor would, if anything, slightly reduce the number of sites that would meet this criterion, Policy Amendments 4~dinance, Exhibit P Statewide Planning Goal Findings Page ~ Existing Protection Criteria S. Presence of unique Willamette Prairie Crrassland plant community. Proposed Protection Criteria 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. Impact of Change i uin i.o.~ nim n~io. - umoim~n. Updates terms, makes format consistent with other criteria and adds qualifers of size and quality. The added qualifiers reduce the number of sites that will meet this criterion. This change favors development slightly more than the existing criterion, but reflects original plan intent. Existing Development Proposed Development Impact of Change Criteria Criteria 1. Prior to adaption of this Changed to a standard, and Addition of the phrase " at Plan, the site has an appraved reworded as follows: the time of designation of the wetland impact permit from site" potentially allows more the Oregon Division of State The site shall be designated for sites to meet this criterion, Lands and U. S. Army Corps of development if, at the time of since it includes sites that Engineers, or an approved designation of the site in the received permit approvals Final Environmental Impact west Eugene Wetlands Plan, it after plan adoption, but Statement has a valid, approved wetland before designation of the site impact permit from the Oregon in the plan. This change Division of State Lands and the favors development slightly, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. but reflects the intent of the existing plan. The phrase "or an approved Final Environmental Impact Statement" has been removed since it was originally added only to address the west Eugene Parkway. The Parkway alignment would be designated Planned Transportation Corridor, and thus does not need to be addressed in these criteria, so that change has no impact. Policy Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 7 Existing Development Proposed Development Impact of Change Criteria Criteria 2. The site is relatively I. Site is relatively isolated or No change. isolated or disconnected from disconnected from the larger the larger system of wetlands system of wetlands and and waterways. waterways. 3. The site is served by 2. Site is served by existing No change. existing streets, roads, streets, roads, sanitary sewers sanitary sewers and and municipal water municipal water 4. The site is adjacent to or 3. Site is adjacent to or No change. surrounded by existing surrounded by existing development development 5. The site has frontage on a 4. Site has frontage on a major No change. ma j or highway or street. highway or street. NIA 5. Site has unique This new criterion was characteristics which make it added to allow of special importance to the consideration of factors economic development of such as a scarce land use west Eugene, and allowing category or a unique development of site would location in relationship to further the goals and objectives the larger picture of of the Nest Eugene wetlands economic development in Plan. the plan area. This change was intended to give more "weight" in the development criteria for these unique sites, and make it more likely that they would be designated for development. This change favors development somewhat, and is consistent with the goals and policies in the plan. Policy Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit B Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 8 Existing Development Proposed Development Impact of Change Criteria Criteria NIA ~. Site characteristics, This criterion was added in including size, location and order to place a higher surrounding uses and activities development value on sites are such that there exists a high that cannot physically be probability that the site cannot protected and maintained as be protected in perpetuity wetland. This criterion through the West Eugene slightly favors development, Wetlands Program. since wetlands that are environmentally valuable would be rated higher for development value if they could not adequately be protected from adjacent uses. Existing Restoration Proposed Restoration Impact of Change Criteria Criteria NIA Standard: No impact under any circumstances, since state Any site or portion of a site and federal law require that that is providing compensatory mitigation sites cannot be wetland mitigation as part of developed. an approved state or federal wetland fill permit shall be designated for restoration. Policy Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit .B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 9 Existing Restoration Proposed Restoration Impact of Change Criteria Criteria NIA 1. Site contains hydric soils. In the original west Eugene Wetlands Plan, there were no criteria listed to identify sites suitable for the NIA 2. Site i ~ s either a disturbed restoration designation. . agricultural wetland or These criteria fit closely . reviou I ' ' p s y exhibited wetland with the saes designated for .. . characteristics. restorationlmitigation in the original plan. So, with NIA 3. Site is capable of providing respect to the intent and adequate wetland hydrology. effect of the original Plan, these criteria do not represent a change. They NIA 4. Site does not currently only clarify how such sites are to be identified. Since benefit from municipal the make it neith y er more infrastructure and urban . Iikel nor less lik y ely that a services. given site will be allowed to NIA 5. Site is either larger than 15 develop, the addition of acres or is contiguous with a these criteria is treated as waterway ~stream~ designated neutral with respect to for protection on the wetland impacts to buildable lands. Designations Map Map 3} of the West Eugene wetlands Plan. In summary, the above tables show that nearly all of the proposed changes slightly favor the development designation compared to the criteria in the existing plan. However, the changes are so minor that they can be considered essentially neutral when considering their impact on future site designations. In fact, the changes were both proposed and adopted with the intent that they would clarify existing policy, not substantially change it. There is no evidence that proposed criteria for designating wetlands will result in more protection of industrial or commercial lands than the current criteria. Industrial Lands The Metro olitan Industrial Lands S ecial Stud ,including both the Invento Re ort and the Polio Re ort, 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 Policy Amendments Ordinance, exhibit P (Statewide Planning Goal Findings) Page 10 and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. According to the data and findings contained in these reports has of January 1,1959}, approximately 3,600 acres of buildable industrial land were available in the Metro area.' The twenty-year demand prof ection for buildable industrial land was between 650 and 1,172 acres. wetland designation changes to protection or restoration as a part of these amendments would decrease the available inventory of industrial land. Wetland designation changes from protection or restoration to development would increase the supply of available industrial land. The proposed policy changes would result in some sites being protected and same being allowed to develop. For the sake of analysis, let us assume that all the undesignated wetland sites would be designated for protection. If this were true it would reduce the buildable industrial land supply by 179.5 acres. This represents a 5% reduction in the overall supply of industrial land, leaving 3,420.5 acres of inventoried industrial laud unaffected by these refinement plan amendments. This represents a supply that is 2,24$.5 acres more than the maximum projectedtwenty-year demand for 1,172 acres. Commercial Lands The Eu ene Commercial Lands Stud ~ 1992}, provides an analysis of the supply and demand of vacant commercial land within Eugene. The study was prepared by the Eugene Planning Commission, and it serves as a refinement to the Metro olitan Area General Plan. According to the findings contained in this study, 702 acres dad justed total supply} of vacant commercial land were available.3 The proj ectedtwenty-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 ofnon-office commercial.4 For the purposes of this analysis, developable off ce island designated in the Metropolitan Area General Plan for commercial use, which is zoned GO General Office. There is no land zoned General Office that contains undesignated wetland. Therefore, there will be no impact to the supply of office commercial Land as a result of these amendments. wetland designation changes to protection or restoration as a part of these amendments would, in effect, decrease the available inventory of commercial land. Designation changes from protection or restoration to development would increase the supply of available commercial land. ~ , an Indus,,,,,,, ial Lands Inventor,~e,~ort, Lane Council of Governments, 125 East 8th Metropolit,, - ~' ~,~~~„. .~.,.,_ -- Avenue, Eugene, Oregon, 97401, July 1993, p.73. ~ Ibid., p.73. 3 Eu ene Commercial Lands Stud ,Eugene Planning and Development Department, 777 Pearl Street, Room 106, Eugene, Oregon,1992, p. II-15 . 4 Ibid., p.II-1S. Policy Amendments Qrdinance, Exhibit B Statewide Planning Goal Findings) page .il Under the proposed amendments, some wetlands would be designated for protection or restoration, and some for development. There are currently 1$.$ acres of commercial land that contains undesignated wetlands within the WEWP area. If all of these acres were removed, it would represent a 2.7°/a reduction in the overall supply of inventoried commercial lands, leaving about 6$3.2 acres of inventoried commercial land still available. This is 150 acres more than the projected twenty-year demand. Since no office commercial lands were impacted, it must be assumed that all reduction would be to the non-office commercial category. The projected demand for this category is 423 acres. According to the Commercial Lands Study, the inventory of buildable commercial land includes 465 acres of land designated in the Metro Plan for commercial use, but not zoned for office use. An additional 197 acres is included in the inventory that is not categorized between office and non-office use, though a percentage of it can be assumed available for non-off ce commercial. Using only the 465 acres explicitly denoted in the Commercial Lands Study, after subtracting the 1$.$ acres that could be removed by protection of wetlands in these amendments, 451 acres are left, which is 23 acres more than the projected demand for this category. The foregoing analysis concludes that even if all of the commercial and industrial undesignated wetlands were removed from the buildable lands inventory by designating them for protection, there would be adequate land in the inventory to the meet the project 20-year demand for industrial and commercial land. Since the policy changes clearly do not move the Plan toward more protection, and since even removing the maximum possible acres from the land supply would leave adequate buildable land in both categories, these amendments are consistent with Goal 9. Goal to -Housing The purpose of Goal 10 is to provide for housing needs of the citizens of the state. Findings: As discussed and analyzed above, the proposed policy amendments do not move the plan toward protecting more wetlands. There is no evidence that the proposed criteria for designating wetlands will result in more protection of residential lands than the current criteria. The Metro olitan Area Residential Land Stud : Su 1 and Demand Anal sis ~1991~, describes the supply and demand for residential lands within the Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. This report is the 19$9 update to the residential supply and demand analysis prepared for the Metropolitan Area_ ~ene~al Plan. According to the findings contained in this report, Policy ~4mendments Ordinance, Exhibit B (Statewide Planning Goal Findings Page 12 11,414 acres of vacant, buildable residential land were available in the Metro area in 1989.$ The twenty-year demand proj ection for vacant, buildable residential land was between 7,410 and 8,230 acres.6 Wetland designation changes to protection or restoration as a part of these amendments would, in effect, decrease the available inventory of residential land. The total area of residential land that contains undesignated wetlands is 72 acres. 1f all of these acres were protected and removed from the buildable lands inventory it would represent a 0.6% reduction in the overall supply of inventoried residential lands, leaving about 11,342 acres of inventoried residential land still available. This represents a supply of several thousand acres beyond the projected twenty-year demand for between 7,410 and 8,230 acres. The foregoing analysis concludes that even if all of the residential undesignated wetlands were removed from the buildable lands inventory by designating them for protection, there would still be adequate land in the inventory to the meet the projected 20-year demand. Since the policy changes clearly do not move the Plan toward more protection, and since even removing the maximum passible acres from the residential land supply would leave adequate buildable land to meet the projected 20-year demand, these amendments are consistent with Goal 10. Conclusions The above findings show that these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan are consistent with nregon Statewide Planning Goals 1, 5, 9 and 10. This conclusion is based on the following: l }the abundant opportunities provided for citizen involvement throughout the planning process 2} the proposed policy amendments do not move the plan toward protecting more wetlands, 3}the maximum acreage that could be removed by designating currently undesignated wetlands would still leave adequate industrial commercial and residential lands to meet the proj ected demands far the 20-year planning period and 4} these amendments do not significantly alter the basic structure and function of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and its protection of wetland resources. No further analysis of Statewide Planning Goals is necessary for these amendments to the Nest Eugene Wetlands Plan. Metropolitan Area Residential Lands Study, Eugene Planning and Development Department, City of Springf eld Development Services Department, Lane Council of Governments, ~une,1991, p.44. mid., p.103. Policy Amendments Ordinance, Fxhibit B Statewide Planning Goal Findings Page 13 Exhibit C Findings of Consistency with Refinement Plan Amendment Criteria Eugene Code section 9.145 provides the criteria to determine whether a ro osed lan amendment P P P should be approved. The proposed amendments must be consistent with the criteria in EC 9.145 to be approved. Section 9.145~~} "~a} The plan amendment is consistent with the Metro olitan Area A General Plan;" Findings: The attached ordinance does not .contain any plan diagram changes. Therefore these amendments are consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. The Metro Plan contains the following policies which address the proposed amendments related findings follow each policy}: Policy 1, page ZIl-B-4: "Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those providing above average wage and salary levels, an increased vane of .. ~' fob opporturut~es, a rrse ~n the standard of living, and utilization of our existin . g comparative advantage 1n the level of education and skill of the resrdent labor force." Proposed Policy 3.17 acknowledges the value of existing and new industrial development. This policy continues to provide a framework for allowing wetlands of lesser value to be developed with planned industrial uses, and for those wetlands to be replaced through the mitigation bank with greater ease. Policy 5, page 1B-B-5: "Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion." Proposed Policy 3.17 does not specifically address preservation of land for expansion of existing industrial development. However, the criteria for identifying sites suitable for development acknowledge the economic value of certain, sites in criteria 3 -6. Zn addition, proposed Policy 3.17 includes a new criterion for designating sites for development that acknowledges the unique characteristics of asite which make it off' greater importance to the economic value of the area. Under some circumstances, this criterion could address expansion of existing businesses. Policy 18, page lII-C-9: "Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development on hillsides and in water bodies and restrict development Policy Amendments ordinance, Lxhibit C ~Re~nement Plan Amendment Findings) page 1 in wetlands in order to protect the scenic quality, surface water and oundwater uali ~ q ~'~ forest values, vegetation, and vv~ldlzfe values of those areas." This policy sets direction for future legislative implementation of the oats and g policies of the Metro Plan and is nat intended to be applied to a s ecific action or .. P proposal. In addition, the West Eugene Wetlands Plan as a whole is a Ian which P outlines a program for management of development in and around wetlands t 0 protect values as described in Policy I S. Policy 19, page III-C-9: "Local governments shall develop olicies and lacal con p trots far protection and management of wetland areas by com letion of the next Metr P o Plan Update." The west Eugene Wetlands Plan, which contains policies and local land use control s for wetlands in west Eugene, was adopted in 1992. The current ro osed PP amendments will update the 1992 Plan. The proposed text amendments do not affect policies which prescribe the primary wetland protection measures to be im lemented: ... P wetland acqu~s~t~on, wetland buffers and waterside setbacks. Policy 2$, page III-C-10: "Local governments shall protect endan ered and threatened . g ... plant and w~ldl~fe species, as recognized on a legally adopted statewide list after notice and opportunity far public input." Protection criterion # 1 under proposed Policy 3.17 addresses rotectian of rare . P plants. This criterion places hugher value on wetlands with rare lams on sites with P potential for long-term protection and management. It helps to ensure that wetlands with rare plant species are given strong consideration for long-term rotection in . P con~unct~on with cons~deratzon of other crxter~a. Proposed policy 3.17 is consistent with Policy 2S. Policy 2, page III-E-3: `natural vegetation, natural water features, and draina ewa s g Y shall be protected and retained to the maximum extent racticable, considerin the P g economic, social, environmental and energy consequences in the design and construc~on of urban development and landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those natural features." The criteria in proposed Policy 3.17 for designating wetlands sites or ortians of . ~ P sites} includes cntena far protection andlor restoration of wetlands, which will prevent disturbance of wetlands, water features and natural vegetation on those site. By protecting wildlife habitat, water quality and vegetation on sites that meet these criteria, these proposed amendments are consistent with the above olic . P Y The reference to "economic, social, environmental and energy im acts" comes from • .. P statewide planning Goal 5. See Exhibit B, ~~ncorporated herein by reference} for a Policy Amendments Qrdinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 2 discussion of consistency of these amendments with Goal 5. The overall impact of applying the policies in the proposed amendments to the West Eugene ~Uetlands Plan, if they are approved, is to continue to protect the majority of wetlands and waterways in the Plan area in the manner established by the original Plan. This includes protecting natural vegetation on the most valuable wetland sites and restoration of native habitat on suitable restoratian sites. Based upon the level of protection of these provisions, the amendments are consistent with this polic . Y Summary Conclusions: Metro Plan Consistency The findings above indicate consistency with all applicable Metro Plan policies. The ro osed . pp amendments meet the criterion of Metro Plan consistency. Section 9.145(2}fib}: "The plan amendment is consistent with remaining portions of the refinement plan;" in ~ngs: The West Eugene Wetlands Plan contains the following applicable Goals (related findings follow each Goai): Goai 3.1 "Protect and enhance water quality, wildlife habitat, flood storage sediment and toxicant removal and other wetland functions and values." The criteria in proposed Policy 3.17 for designating wetlands sites for portions of sites} includes criteria for protection andlor restoration of wetlands, which will prevent disturbance of wetlands, water features and natural vegetation an those sites. By protecting wildlife habitat, water quality and vegetation on sites that meet these criteria, these proposed amendments are consistent with the above goal. Croal 3.2 "Minimize economic hardship on private property owners due to protection of wetlands and other valuable environmental resources." The criteria proposed in these amendments far designating wetland sites for portions of sites} include criteria for identifying sites for future development. They include one criterion development criterion 6}that recognizes sites that are of particular importance to the economic development of West Eugene. This criterion can be used to recognize outstanding economic features of a site that contribute significant) to the economic y development of the area. These criteria are designed to preserve development values on sites where environmental values are low and development values are high. The amendments leave intact various provisions and policies addressing economic development values that are contained in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. These provisions support Goal 3.2. No new policies are introduced that contradict Goal 3.2. Policy Amendments Ordinance, Exhibit C (Refinement Plan Amendment Findings) Page 3 Goal 3.5 "Protect and expand current . populations and habitats of rare, endan erect and g threatened plants and animals ghat currently exist in west Eugene." Protection criterion # 1 under proposed Policy 3.17 addresses protection of rare Iants. . p Thzs cntenon places higher value an wetlands wzth rare plants on srtes~ with potential for long-term protection and management. It helps to ensure that wetlands with rare Iant . .p speczes are given strong cons~deratzon far long-term protection, ~n conjunction with consideration of other criteria. Previously adopted policies identify which s ecies are . p considered rare wrth~n the plan area. The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal. Goal 3.6 "Achieve state and federal.requirement of "na net loss" of wetlands in both uanti . q ~' urea} and quality ~funct~ons and values}." The West Eugene Wetlands Plan addresses the "no net loss" policy through rotection p of valuable .wetlands and coordinated restarat~on of degraded wetlands to re Iace those p that .are f lied. This approach is not changed by the proposed amendments. Goal 3.7 Protect an interconnected system of wetlands within a sustainable, ecolo icall. sound . g Y system, wYth a high l~kel~hood of long-term survival. Proposed Policy 3.17, adds a new wetland protection criterion to the Plan addressing probability of achieving long-term protection. Together with proposed Protection criteria #3 and #4, which address interconnectedness with the stream system, this criterion directly expresses the value stated in Gaal 3.7. Tie near criterion would add consideration of the feasibility of Tong-term protection to other considerations when determining whether to protect a site. This is consistent with the Plan Goal of protecting a wetland system with a "high likelihood aflong-term survival". Goal 4.5 Minimize reductions to the existing industrial and commercial buildable lands inventory as a result of wetland protection. The criteria in proposed Policy 3.17 would help m~ni.mize reductions in buildable lands inventories by balancing environmental values of wetland sites with economic development values. This balancing will reduce the percentage of wetland sites that are designated for protection, which is consistent with Goal 4.5. The West Eugene Wetlands Plan contains the following applicable Policies related findings follow each policy}: Policy 3.8 "Establish, maintain, and protect physical and hydrologic linkages between protected wetlands and adj scent transitional and upland wildlife habitat and natural areas." Proposed Policy 3.17 includes changes to two of the criteria from the original plan which Policy Amendments Qrdinance, exhibit C ~Refrnement Plan Amendment findings) Page 4 address connectivity through the existing waterways. Proposed protection criteria 3 and 4 place a higher value on wetlands that are within 1 a0 feet of protected waterways and on wetlands with direct surface water connections to protected wetlands. These criteria will lead to protection of many of the wetlands with these connections, helpin to rovide g p the linkages called for in Policy 3.$. Therefore the amendments are consistent with Policy 3.$. Summary Conclusions: West Eugene Wetlands Plan Consistency The above findings indicate that the proposed amendments are consistent with the a livable olicies pp p in the remainder of the WEWP. The proposed amendments meet the criterion of consistenc with Y the remainder of the refinement plan. Section 9.145 ~Z}~c} "Thy plan amendment is found to address one or more of the fallowing: 1. An error in the publication of the plan;" Findings: Not applicable. Section 9.145 ~Z}~c} 2. "A change of circumstances in a substantial manner not anticipated in the plan;" Findings: Proposed policy 3.17 is introduced as a clarification of existing policy in the Plan. Property owners, developers, and various agency staff have on numerous occasions commented on the lack of clarity in the existing plan regarding how the protection and development criteria are interpreted and a lied and whether all wetlands on ublic land pp p were intended to be protected. The lack of clarity in these policy areas was not anticipated at the time of Plan adoption. Proposed Policy 3.17 addresses lack of clarity expressed by the public following adoption of the Plan. Therefore it responds to a situation not anticipated during Plan adoption and is consistent with this criterion. Section 9.145 ~~}~c}3. "Incorporation into the plan of new inventory material which relates to a statewide goal; or" Findings: Proposed Policy 3.17 includes changes to the criterion which addresses rare plants to respond to new information about rare plant distribution that was not available at the time of Plan adoption. Information gathered since adoption of the Plan shows that there are a number of small wetland sites, surrounded by development, with small rare plant populations which would be very difficult to protect due to their isolation from other habitat areas, small size, and surrounding uses. Due to their isolated nature these sites cannot be integrated or connected to the larger wetland system. When the Plan was adopted in 1992, it was thought that the rare plants existed only on the large, pristine wet prairie wetland sites such as the 'billow Creek Preserve. Proposed Policy 3.17 would require consideration of plant species listed Policy Amendments 4rdrnance, F~rhibit C (Ref nement Plan Amendment Findings) Page .5 in the Plan taken from the Qregon Natural Heritage Pro ram Lists 1 and 2 when g } evaluating new wetland sites for designation. This change is based u on the results p of recent plant surveys, which have revealed the distribution of rare lant s ecies on p p the adopted list. These rare plant surveys address Statewide Plannin Goal 5 which . g includes ecologically and scientifically significant sites such as rare lant habitat . p } Therefore, these amendments address new inventory information which addresses Statewide Goal 5, and are consistent with this criterion. Section 9,145 ~2}~c} 4. "A change in public policy." Findings: Not applicable. 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, Endings and conclusions herein above the ro osed amendment } p p $ are found to be consistent with the applicable criteria contained in Eu ene Code Section 9.145. g C:lUserINEILIWEWPAMICBWPA Proposal PacketlCBCWPA Findings, Exhibit C.wpd-July 27,1999 Policy amendments Drdinance, Exhibit C (Refinement flan Amendment Findings) Wage 6