Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

buildings and patios. Within their existing footprint, these buildings and structures can be remodeled, and can be rebuilt if damaged by fire or other causes. E. Staff response (impact on property values): See information related to Measure 37 issues in the Agenda Item Summary for this item. F. Staff response (owners expected 20' setback): During field visits to properties included in Site E81 in 2004, staff told several owners that no recommendations for setback distances on this site would be available until 2005. For comparison, staff told these owners that in the existing West Eugene Wetlands Plan regulations, a stream of comparable size to the stream in Site E8 I would receive a 25 foot setback. During the ESEE analysis, staff concluded that for streams of this size in the South Hills, where steep slopes and steep stream gradients prevail, larger setbacks (than in the relatively flat West Eugene Wetland area) were warranted to address the higher potential for stream bank and channel erosion. G. Staff response (site was dynamited): Site E81, like most sites in the Goal 5 inventory has been altered by human activities. However, given the topography of the ravine in which Site E81 exists, staff believes there is clear evidence that there was a stream in this location prior to excavations that were made for the sewer line. On several lots, the sewer easement is only 7 feet wide, indicating that the excavation in those areas was minor. In these areas where the easement is narrow, the stream is outside of the easement. Staffhas concluded that E81 contains a natural stream that has been altered by human activities. H. Staff response (top of bank): On the stream in Site E81, the top of bank is the edge of the stream channel itself. Areas adjacent to the stream (such as those mentioned in the testimony) are beyond the top of bank. I. Staff response (fire hazards and transients): Recommendations by fire officials to reduce fire hazard typically center on creating a "clear zone" around structures that is free of debris such as wood piles next to walls, tree branches overhanging a roof, and tall, dry grass. These recommendations generally do not encourage clearing areas of live, green vegetation or removal of live trees. Riparian vegetation along a stream is no more likely to present a fire hazard than vegetation elsewhere on forested lots in the South Hills. On the contrary, being adjacent to a water source is likely to keep the vegetation in a more hydrated condition, making it more fire resistant. Allowing removal of all riparian vegetation along a stream corridor (i.e. not establishing a protective setback) based on potential fire hazard assumes that the entire riparian area would pose a threat, when the degree to which fire hazard could be attributed specifically to vegetation along a stream would depend on a number of variables, such as the proximity of a structure, whether the vegetation is dead or dry, etc. Based upon a staff recommendation, the Planning Commission added to the proposed ordinance provisions to allow removal of vegetation that constitutes a fire hazard in draft section EC 9.4830(2)(j). J. Staff response (setback would take up 30% ofIot): On the Verrijt/Wild property, the proposed conservation area (including a 40' setback on each side of the stream) would occupy a maximum of O. I 3 acre, of which 0.05 acre is within the current sanitary sewer easement. The total site acreage is 0.61 acres. The proposed conservation area would therefore occupy a maximum of 2 I % of the lot, without taking advantage of provisions that allow the conservation area to be decreased. The area within the conservation area that is outside of the existing easement is approximately 0.08 acre, or 13% of the lot area.