Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

higher elevation; and (2) a riparian area adjacent to the pond should not be included, as it contains mostly ornamental vegetation. Staff response: Staff visited the site with Mr. Hammer to view the areas in question on May 17,2005. (a) Regarding the construction of the slough and the presence of fish: See staff response to Commissioner Belcher's question, #IS above. (b) Regarding 2 adjacent riparian areas: As discussed in response to Question #15 above, staff concludes that the channel adjacent to Mr. Hammer's property to the south does not meet the state definition for "stream" and therefore vegetated areas adjacent to it do not meet the definition for riparian area. Therefore, staff recommends amending the inventory to remove the areas adjacent to E48 B-2 from the GoalS inventory. The area noted by Mr. Hammer as being mapped as riparian habitat adjacent to Ayres Pond consists of an overstory of mostly native trees adjacent to a small stream that flows into Ayres Pond, with an understory of unknown species that is periodically mowed. Based on review of historical aerial photos, this small stream is a remnant of the historic eastern arm of Dodson Slough. This riparian area lies primarily on the property to the north of that owned by Mr. Hammer. No change is recommended for this area. 56. Hasse. Fred & Gladys, 481 Naismith, Eugene. Regarding ES8, Spring Creek; this parcel within city limits; one lot south of NaismithlMackin site is outside city limits. Says that the creek has been blocked for years; contains only storm drainage; and is dry in summer. Staff response: Staff will respond to issues related to hydrology in riparian corridors in the River Road/Santa Clara area in the Planning Commission packet for June 13,2005. 57. Hittenberger, Shawn, and Welsh, Jim for Association of Realtors (no address). Regarding Inventory in general and availability of buildable land for housing. Staff response: Staff will address this issue in the June 13, 2005 Planning Commission packet, together with testimony received from the Homebuilders Association and the Eugene Chamber of Commerce. 58. Heer. Doug & Sharon, 1786 Moonshadow, Eugene. Regarding Site E37 0, South Hills at Barber; within city limits. His testimony notes that the stream in Site E37 0 is intermittent and flows out of a roadside ditch, that two streams that flow year-round are not included in the inventory, and that it is these two other streams that flow into the wetland area AMA-14 ("Barbur Park") rather than the stream mapped as E37 O. Staff response: Mr. Heer has presented information in his testimony that was not incorporated into the staff recommendation. Staff will review this testimony in more detail and bring back a recommendation on whether to amend the staff recommendation for Site E37 0 based on the new information. 59. Horn, John, 640 Elwood Court, Eugene. Regarding E50, Debrick Slough; within city limits. Concerned that proposed setback will affect his storage shed approx. 12 feet from ~