Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

7.7 Ryan. Eleanor. Supports adoption of Goal 5 recommendations. No response needed. 7.8 Scott. Richard & Mariorie. Questions about wetland mapping. Staff response: The Eugene Local Wetland Inventory was approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) in January 2005. Only the DSL has the authority to determine whether an area is wetland or not. Staffhas spoken with Mr. Scott and members of his family on several occasions to provide information regarding wetland mapping on his land. Concerns about the wetland mapping need to be addressed to the DSL, which has the authority to review and approve changes to the mapping. The wetlands on Mr. Scott's property are not recommended for protection in the Planning Commission's Goal 5 recommendations. 7.9 Segel. Laurin 000 Friends. Supports Goal 5 protections, suggests changes to regulations: A. Consider applying /WR zone to all public properties. B. Consider revising EC 9.4920(5) so that it exempts only legal development. C. Consider revising EC 4930(2)(a) to limit removal of refuse to non-woody debris. D. Consider revising EC 9.4930(3)(b) to require public improvements be shown to serve the public good. E. Consider revising EC 9.4940 to clarify that maintenance access roads be outside the setback area. F. Consider revising EC 9.4950 to include a sunset clause. G. Consider revising EC 9.8025 to establishing the basis for waiving the requirement that a professional prepare the application and include AICP planner in the list of professionals. All of the above issues were raised before the Planning Commission and responded to in detail in memos to the Planning Commission dated May 31, 2005 and June 7, 2005. Brief responses to the individual issues are given below. A. Staff response (apply /WR to all public lands): Planning Commission recommendations for Goal 5 resource sites are each based on the ESEE analyses for that site or a group of similar sites. In order to recommend protection or partial protection of a site, at a minimum, the City must make findings that "both the resource site and the conflicting uses are important compared to each other" [OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b)]. In a Goal 5 site on publicly-owned land with very low habitat value, it is difficult to conclude that the resource site is sufficiently important relative to the value of conflicting uses that would be allowed on the site if it were not protected. For example, in a City park with jurisdictional wetlands that are essentially mowed lawn areas (e.g., wetland site AMA- lIA, wetland site AMA-6A), the Planning Commission judged that the social and economic benefits of maintaining or allowing active recreational uses in these areas were more important than preserving wetlands of such low habitat value. In addition to land owned by the City of Eugene, public land would include both rights-of-way and legal tax lots owned by Lane County, the State of Oregon, School District 4-J, School District No. 52, the University of Oregon, the US Bureau of Land Management, and other local, state, and federal agencies and government bodies. No changes recommended. B. Staff response (limit exempt development to legal uses): The Planning Commission responded to this testimony by revising EC 9.4920(5) to clarify that the existing development must be legal. C. Staff response (limit removal of refuse to non-woody debris): Staff believes that resource conservation objectives would not be addressed by this suggestion. Large woody debris within a