Item A: Water Quality Waterways - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment A Staff Response to Public Testimony and City Council in implementing the Goal 5 /WR Conservation Overlay Zone. Issues raised included that: Goal 5 setbacks provide significant water quality protection benefits; that two sets of regulations (Goal 5 and Goal 6) on the same property would be onerous for the property owners and complex to administer; and that the one-size-fits-all 75 foot setback proposed for all approximately 90 miles did not take into account the different waterway characteristics and potential impacts. As a result of the issues raised, significant revisions were made to the proposal. Water Quality Protections would be proposed only for those water quality waterways that have no existing protections or for which established waterway protection policy decisions have been made. Of the 89.6 miles of waterways identified for water quality protection, 71 are also significant Goal 5 resources, and a significant amount of water quality protection is incidentally provided by the Goal 5 /WR Conservation Overlay Zone. An additional 3 of the 89.6 miles reside within the boundaries of the West Eugene Wetland Plan area and the Royal Node Special Area Zone. Under the current proposal, where waterways that have an important water quality function but do not have this incidental protection the miles of WQ Waterways was reduced to 15.6. This is the number of miles affected by the proposal that was presented to the Planning Commission earlier this year. In response to Planning Commission testimony regarding specific properties and recent development, staff has made additional modifications to the Water Quality Waterways map, and the number of miles affected by this proposal is now 13.6. Setback widths were revised from the initial proposal (75 feet) to match existing wildlife habitat setback distances. Specifically, the proposed setback distances are 40 feet measured from centerline on each side of the waterway for headwater streams, and 25 feet measured from the top of a high bank on each side of the stream for all other identified waterways. The rationale for proceeding with this approach includes the acknowledgement that, when viewed as a component of the broader, big-picture set of protections (including Goal 5), the 13.6 miles of waterways recommended for protection fill a significant gap in addressing the City’s water quality issues. E. The approach is flawed: staff relied on studies conducted in other part Oregon DEQ, in its Willamette Basin TMDL, references some of the same resources used by City staff to develop the Water Quality Protected Waterways proposal of the country; tree planting required but shading of intermittent (see response to I.A.). Tree planting is required only under certain circumstances: for certain Uses Subject to Standards Review (9.4780(3)) and when the Water streams would not be effective; setback width of 25 ft. too narrow and Quality Function Rating System is used (9.4782). Even for seasonal streams, tree planting adjacent to waterways would provide a seasonal cooling affect.. The would make the water quality situation worse not better. (13) proposed setback width of 25 feet for non-headwater streams is on the lower end of the spectrum but without any setback at all, stream bank stability and other water quality impacts would result. F. Not opposed to applying the ordinance to raw (vacant) land, but Construction related activities are addressed by the City’s erosion prevention program. While it is true that the most construction-related impacts of any existing applying the regulations to developed private property is too “big development would have likely occurred, this proposal would limit future development within the setback area so as to prevent long-term adverse water quality impacts brother.” Unfairly impacts land already developed. Once including lost water quality function through vegetation removal and long-term stream bank stability problems caused by development adjacent to the waterway. development has occurred, construction-related impact to water quality has occurred, so what is gained by this proposal? (12) G. We support improving water quality but a setback that impacts Comment is noted. Ordinance includes allowances for maintenance, repair and replacement of existing fences, maintenance of existing landscaped areas, and AISAttachment D improvements on my property (fences, etc.) is unnecessary and construction of minor accessory structures. See also II.C for proposed ordinance revision related to maintenance and replacement of fences ( ). objectionable. (2, 7) H. Provide maximum leeway for owners to address regulations if Staff acknowledges that the ordinance is long and complex. It is so in part because staff has aimed to achieve a balance between water quality protection and flexibility adopted. (20) There are pages and pages of exceptions and for property owners to utilize their property for its intended use. adjustments; if you know someone and have a lot of $$ you can get around it by getting exceptions and adjustments. (12) Concerned about code allowances for expansion in the regulated area (CC) BT I. Water quality data should be obtained for waterways in River Road The proposal protects waterways with a significant relationship to those that water quality data indicates are not meeting state standards (i.e. the “303(d)” waterways). area prior to applying the proposed regulations (13) While data does not exist for every tributary to the listed waterways, if a waterway has a water quality function and drains to a water quality impaired waterway, it would not have to be impaired itself in order to warrant protection under this proposal. It is performing a function that is beneficial to water quality and in order to hold-the-line on downstream receiving water quality that function should be retained and future impacts should be prevented. The DEQ is taking a “watershed approach” to addressing the Willamette Basin TMDL which means that all sources within a contributing watershed should be addressed. J. Proposal is one piece of an extensive program that the City has in Comment noted. Staff concurs. place to address water quality concerns. It addresses a gap that exists to provide protection for streams that have direct relevance to those not meeting WQ standards. Streams perform an important WQ function. Easier to protect what you have in place than to reverse the damage once it has occurred. (18) WQ Protected Waterways Attachment A to June 18, 2008 AIS (page 3 of 6)