Item A: Water Quality Waterways - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment A Staff Response to Public Testimony and City Council VI. Site Specific Issues A. COBI site with existing telecommunication facilities (10, T) See Item II.F. DD See AIS Attachment C-1 and C-2. ? B. Coca-Cola (1) - Existing ODOT wildlife habitat conservation Staff confirmed the presence of a conservation easement in the general location of the proposed /WQ management area. The primary function of the easement is to easement makes it unnecessary and inappropriate to impose local provide wildlife habitat, and it is acknowledged that the dimension and vegetative character of the easement will also provide water quality benefits. However, staff waterway protection in an area where easement is already in place. does not recommend removing the parcel from the /WQ map for the primary reason that there would be no guarantee that the physical condition and use of the easement would remain beneficial to water quality purposes over time as there is no third-party to monitor and oversee enforcement needs as there would be with the proposed /WQ regulations. Having local authority to oversee and enforce the application of water quality regulations on a consistent and fair basis provides greater certainty the City’s water quality program policies will be achieved. State easement pre-empts local regulation. The State easement does not pre-empt the City’s authority to apply the overlay zone to the site or to enforce its requirements. Remove from the map areas that are already developed. Areas that are already developed are excluded from the /WQ Management Area as described in 9.4778(3). Existing data and staff resources are inadequate to confirm up-front all development that may be excluded as per 9.4778(3) and the ordinance is clear about what is excluded. C. Combs (13, 22) - Property drains to A3 Channel, which is water The property in question drains to Upper Flat Creek which drains to the A1 Channel, which drains to Amazon Creek. The A3 Channel is located in west Eugene’s quality limited for industrial pollutants not related to residential uses industrial area. – does not make sense. Map is inaccurate for the waterway on my lot (13) Aerial photos (2004) and City’s waterway location data shows the waterway alignment along the property line between lots 400 and 500. D. Herold (3) – Property is technically still in Goal 5 and should not be The Goal 5 process included the following steps: 1) inventory of sites; 2) determination of these sites that are “significant” and are to be further evaluated under the included in the WQ waterways proposal. Setbacks are inconsistent ESEE assessment. If not significant, no further analysis occurs and the site is not protected for Goal 5 purposes; 3) For significant resource sites, the ESEE analysis along the waterways with neighboring properties; “slough” is results in a determination that the site either merits protection or development or a combination of both; 4) In Eugene, sites recommended for development are seasonal, dry 8-9 months of the year. designated “Not designated for protection” on the Goal 5 map and no protections are applied, i.e. do receive /WR overlay protection; sites recommended for protection or protection/development are shown on the Goal 5 map as designated for protection with a specific setback distance varying from “no setback” to 20’, 25’, 40’, 50’, 60’, and 100.’ The protected sites are then rezoned to include the /WR protection overlay zone. Protections recommended by /WQ apply only to waterways that did not meet the Goal 5 resource definition (these appear on the Goal 5 map as “Non-Goal 5 Streams & Channels”) or for Goal 5 inventory sites that were determined either to be “not significant” or determined not to merit protection. Thus, none of the /WQ waterways recommended for protection are already protected by Goal 5. However, it is possible that some of the /WQ affected tax lots are affected by /WR due to the presence of another nearby Goal 5 resource site. E. Schmaedick (8) – Property may be impacted by relocation of north Staff received drawings from ODOT of the new alignment and it does not appear that the property in question has been affected by the I-5/Beltline flyover project and Beltline floodway/I-5 flyover project. The impact of the relocated associated waterway re-alignment. The waterway re-alignment begins further to the east than the subject property. ditch and new setback requirements would constitute a takings. Consider modifying the regulations to mitigate the situation for properties along this ditch. F. Murphy Company (LaFranchi, 16) – Reclamation projects to redesign Water quality improvement projects, such as is described in the testimony and follow up voicemail message from Mr. LaFranchi, including reconfiguration of channels drainage ditch to a more natural state with native vegetation and and pond banks are permitted subject to certain development standards. reclamation of adjacent wood waste landfill sites are planned. Access roads from Prairie Rd to the east are proposed for future access to The ordinance includes allowances to construction of a private street under certain circumstances (9.4780(3)(e). The degree to which these provisions would address the NE end of the site reducing traffic flow accessing the site from Irving, Murphy Company’s plans would depend on the specific situation, including alternatives for site access outside of the /WQ Management Area. which is the only access at present. G. Wilson (9), Blakley (11) – Drainage ditch was relocated in 1980 and The issue expressed by some property owners is the unfairness of relocating waterways to a different location causing lots to become impacted that otherwise wouldn’t closer to my property, and as a result the 25 ft setback affects my be, or to become more impacted. North Beltline Floodway at the I-5 intersection is an example of this occurrence. While it is unfortunate that previous waterway property. I should not inherit a setback because of what was done on relocations have caused impact or greater impact to lots as a result of /WQ proposal, the proposal is to protect water quality in existing waterways in their current an adjacent property. location. Steps have been taken in the proposed ordinance to prevent this occurrence in the future. See subsection 9.4780(3)(b)2. H. T, CC – Why are the lots to the south of Cody Avenue along the These lots are not included because the waterway to the south of Cody Avenue does not appear to provide a drainage function, based upon topographic and stormwater JMJS same waterway not included on the map of protected waterways? system information, and confirmed by staff’s site visit. WQ Protected Waterways Attachment A to June 18, 2008 AIS (page 6 of 6)