Posted by Kevin Matthews on May 28, 2002 at 14:13:10:
Latest apparent proposed revisions to the process for our Goal 5 (Natural Resources) update process
PS: It may be that an updated process allowing Eugene to take responsibility for its own inventory is a good thing. Thoughts?
From: HOWE Kent
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 4:38 PM
To: DWYER Bill J; GREEN Bobby; MORRISON Anna M; WEELDREYER Cindy H;
Cc: VANVACTOR William A; SNOWDEN Oliver P; COLE John A; CHILDS Jan W;
MOTT Gregory; WIEDERHOLD Kathi M; 'lauri segel'
Subject: RE: NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DELAY
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 14, 2002
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM : Kent Howe, Planning Director
Land Management Division
SUBJECT: Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area Natural Resources
On April 25, 2002, the Metro Natural Resources Study staff of
Eugene, Springfield, and LCOG, the Metro Planning Directors and legal
counsels met with representatives of the Dept. of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) and the Division of State Lands (DSL). Several Goal 5
issues have come up with the study and the purpose of the meeting was to
discuss proposals for dealing with the issues and to gain concurrence from
the state agencies that the approaches are valid. Please refer to the
attached memo (below) for the specific details.
The Planning Directors of the Metro jurisdictions recommend the
entire Metro Natural Resources Study be done under the new Goal 5 Rule.
All three Metropolitan Area jurisdictions would jointly develop and adopt
Metro Plan Policies for the Metro Plan Natural Resources Element.
However, each jurisdiction would conduct their own inventory work and
develop their own separate work program and process for achieving
compliance with the new Goal 5 Rule requirements.
As our Work Program previously stated, Lane County will utilize the
"Safe Harbor" provisions of the new Goal 5 Rule for the natural resources
located outside the Urban Growth Boundary. The cities of Eugene and
Springfield will each separately apply the provisions of the new Goal 5
Rule for the natural resources located inside their Urban Growth
A couple of related issues, specific to Lane County were discussed:
1) regarding the "safe harbor" approach for riparian corridors, and; 2)
how to deal with wetlands and riparian corridors in existing Sand and
Gravel designations. These two issues are dealt with in Issues 2 and 3 of
the attached memo. Staff have reached agreement on issue 2. Staff
believe issue 3 has been resolved, but we await a formal response from the
state agencies, which I expect we will receive next week.
====== End Forwarded Message ======
Citizens Nature Project! http://www.NatureProject.org/nature.html
Neighbors Forum! http://www.SoutheastNeighbors.org/sen_forum.html
Kevin Matthews, firstname.lastname@example.org
541-345-7421 vox, 541-345-7438 fax, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, OR 97440