Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

Letter to Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 2 of2 conflicting uses. Mid-Propertv Site. The City's inventory includes a site feature that runs west to east along the middle portion of the property. The feature collects on-site runoff. The feature begins and ends on-site and is identified on Goal 5 Map 16B as containing significant Upland Wildlife Habitat specifically designated E37D and Significant Riparian Corridor specifically designation E86H. City staff and the planning commission are recommending limiting conflicting uses, categorizing the resource as a Category D stream, imposing a 20 foot setback and imposing the IWR overlay zone on the subject property. Staffs ESEE conclusions and recommendations, adopted by the planning commission, are unsupported. Staffs analysis and the planning commission's decision fail to address the fact that sites E37D and E86H, which are wholly contained on the subject property, are, in their entirety, subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit (Master Plan)(CU 95-2). The Master Plan governs development adjacent to the feature and approves cemetery plots and other development over most of the area proposed for regulation. Furthermore, the Master Plan requires the entire property to be fenced, limiting use of the features by wildlife. The result is that this area is effectively "developed" and any proposed regulation will be trumped by the Master Plan. Based on this information, the existence of approved development makes this site a "relatively lower quality site" and a proper ESEE analysis would recommend "allowing" conflicting uses Based on the above, the property owner recommends removing restrictions proposed for the above sites. Si]cery ~;.R. O'Dea Cc: client