Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

Since the basic rights mentioned in this testimony are preserved under the /WR overlay zone and since there is no indication that this easement provides adequate protection of this significant Goal S resource, staff finds no basis for changing the Planning Commission recommendation. 6. Testimony Regarding Individual Properties 6.1 Baird. Stan/Marilyn Rothbard. Provides map of area proposed for residential construction. Has expressed concerns that stream is mapped in wrong location; that setback removes buildable area, particularly when construction and clearing for home sites began over a year ago. Staff response: This issue was raised before the Planning Commission. Staff visited the site with the owner on May 19, 200S to review the location of GoalS resources. A portion ofthe site is being cleared and prepared for a development. There are 2 upland stream corridors on this parcel. One corridor was incorrectly mapped; the actual location of this stream is on the north side of areas cleared for development. During the Planning Commission review, the Inventory map was corrected to show the correct alignment of the southernmost stream on the site. The proposed conservation areas of these stream corridors, as currently mapped, appear to be mostly outside of the area being cleared for development. No change is recommended. 6.2 Beck. Ward. States that he is unsure if his property is affected. Staff response: Mr. Beck's property at 2S02 Highland Drive is not affected by the proposed Goal S regulations. In the initial mailing of notices for the Council public hearing on September 26, 200S, Mr. Beck was erroneously sent a notice indicating that his property was affected. This was corrected, and a revised notice was sent indicating that the earlier notice had been sent in error. 6.3 Beyerlein. Rich & Lori. States that the corridor along their property, E37Q, Spring Knoll, has been filled, should not be on the Goal S inventory. Staff response: Staff conducted a site visit, and verified the presence of the stream and steep slopes. Staff clarified with the owner where top of bank was located. Essentially, the top of bank on this small stream is located within a foot or two of the channel, not at the top of the wide ravine, as the owner had assumed. The proposed 40-foot conservation area will have very minor affect on this developed property. No change is recommended. 6.4 Bushell. Rich. Complaints about process and notice. Staff response: Mr. Bushell's property is not affected. Staff visited the property with Mr. Bushell in May 200S. Based on his testimony, field conditions, and further research, the GoalS Inventory map at the Bushell property (Site E48 B-2) was corrected by the Planning Commission, removing the Bushell property from the Inventory. Staff emailed this information to Mr. Bushell. 6.S Evans. Wayne. Concerns regarding ES8A-B, RSC-36 (Village at Spring Creek). Believes existing "protected area" on Spring Creek next Springwood Drive is adequate protection. Staff response: The "protected area" along Spring Creek to which Mr. Evans refers is owned by the City of Eugene and is managed as a natural area. Such ownership and management does not meet the definition in the Oregon Administrative Rules for protecting Goal S sites (OAR 660-023- OOSO(1 )), which requires the adoption of comprehensive plan provisions and land use regulations to implement Goal S protection decisions. In practical terms, city ownership does not necessarily