Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

the Frequently Asked Questions About GoalS Natural Resources pamphlet, question number 1S, "Does Measure 37 apply to the proposed Goal 5 regulations?" is answered as follows: "The regulations that will be proposed for conservation of Goal 5 resources have provisions included to ensure that they will not reduce the real market value of any development site. If you need additional infonnation about Measure 37 and how it might apply to your situation, contact an attorney." In other words, the rightful owners of these properties are told to pay for answers if they are interested in specifics that address real consequences and our interests are offered no representation or protection during this process. Our property was purchased in the 1960s. The house was in disrepair, the grounds were a mess. After decades of restoration, building, and careful cultivation, this has become our valued home and work environment as well as a major part of our retirement assets should we become unable to remain here. The proposed restrictions on our property mean we would lose the right to add a small (maximum SOO square feet) second home/rental, an option that currently adds considerably to our property's resale value. Although we have been tofd additional setbacks will increase the value of our property, we find such statements ludicrous in light of reality. E8i was considered to be of low significance during the inventory process, again supporting our contention that the proposed setbacks are grossly excessive. The site received a small score because of its "limited size, species diversity and seasonal water" (attachment 2). ES1 does not contain unique features, rare or threatened plants, birds, or animals, Field visit documentation (attachment 3 - 5 pages) indicates the species observed were "kinglet, jay, crow". A note on the site description (attachment 2) suggests ES1 may provide "habitat for some reptiles and amphibians", but there is no indication that statement reflects anything other than wishful thinking. In fact, a neighbor became so concerned about the lack of life in the ditch, she had the water tested to ensure it is not toxic to her dogs. In addition, the drainage ditch often runs dry during summer, when water is needed most, and in reality, residents provide water and habitat for wildlife in more instances than does the ditch. We wonder why and how this insignificant site morphed into a "medium- to higher-quality site" worthy of setbacks of 40', almost half of the setbacks proposed for protecting the Willamette River and identical to setbacks proposed for Alton Baker Park? Additional concerns include increased fire danger, increased exposure to intruders, and other undesirable outcomes that have not been addressed. ES1 is located in the South Hills and introducing some of the recommended vegetation significantly increases fire danger. The "Home Protection Guide" provided by the Eugene Fire Marshall's office recommends a yard well-trimmed and free of debris and states, "A well-pruned and watered landscape around your home will serve as a green belt and fire line preventing it reaching the walls of your structure" . Yet here is a recommendation to increase brush and undergrowth? That recommendation speaks of ignorance of this area and a complete lack of interest in the well-being of those of us who live here. This is a well-established residential area, yet to read the recommendations one should assume this to be a preserve of some sort. In addition, for years we have had increasingly severe problems with transients using this area to establish camps and conduct "business", and with resulting break-ins and vandalism. With the help of the Eugene Police Department, the neighborhood worked diligently to get rid of these intruders. As instructed, we cleared the area of hiding places (in particular patches of underbrush), demolished camps, posted signs, and finally managed to mostly rid the area of transients. Reestablishing underbrush in residential areas such as ours is an indefensible proposition - unless the City intends to assume responsibility for the consequences of such recommendations and patrol the areas. Last, we would like to add the following. Wildlife has historically existed here and will continue to do so. However, there are some unpleasant truths when it comes to the City of Eugene's stewardship of local - wildlife. Aside from posting deer crossing signs and picking up dead animals if they happen to be decomposing on public property, there is no attention paid to the care of existing wildlife or birds. Protecting our ditch from us will guard it for wildlife, but while encouraging an increased wildlife population in our backyards, there is no attempt to protect the public from increased use of the deer crossing on the public road in front of our house. And as you protect and ensure an increase in the number of wild