CC Minutes - 09/26/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ditch was dammed in the summer and shut down in the winter and all manner of plants and trees were grown on the farm. He said there were places where the ditch had been filled in and built upon. Wayne Evans , 1423 Springwood Drive, wished to address two issues: 1) the exemption of his immediate area from the Goal 5 inventory; and 2) the management of the shoreline vegetation. He stated that he submitted testimony in May. He provided pictures of the land in question. He asserted that the greenway width in question as currently designated was more than adequate to protect the valuable resources included therein. He said his home was located in the village of Spring Creek, the initial building of which had begun over three years earlier in the Santa Clara area. Mr. Evans averred that the development was platted and approved with the valuable Spring Creek resource in the forefront of the developer’s plans. He stated that lots in this development that bordered the greenway stopped at the fences and did not go to center or the edge of the creek. Mr. Evans included, for the council’s review, the plot map for the development. He pointed out that the distance between the properties that bordered the creek, from back fence to back fence, was approximately 140 to 200 feet. Additionally, he noted several restrictions that were already in place regarding the cutting of existing trees. He provided pictures in order to demonstrate the magnitude of the area in the reserve. He opined the area was huge and supported a thriving wildlife population. He could not imagine that migratory fish could navigate the densely grassed waterway, however. He asserted that the existing protected area was more than adequate to cover the protection of the stream. He related that he received conflicting responses from different city entities regarding how to manage the area outside of the property in the greenway. He said the Planning Commission indicated that trees could be planted and this would help protect the waterway, but the Parks and Open Space division came through that area with weed eaters and mowers and cut down the brush. nd Eben Fodor , 394 East 32 Avenue, spoke in support of the natural resources study and the ordinances before the council. He had hoped to testify in support of a temporary limit on development on some of the “highest value” resources in Eugene. He said he documented the existence of pileated woodpeckers and red legged frogs, sensitive federally listed species, on the property with which he was concerned. He stated that the property on which the the frog lived was likely to be developed soon. He acknowledged that the study was looking to protect stream corridors and wetlands, though not all of the wetlands in Eugene, given the abundance of them. He felt many things were not in any City inventory. He noted populations of rare plants, such as bugbane, in the high valley resource areas he was referring to. He asserted that the 40-foot stream corridor would not provide enough protection for the red legged frogs, among other species. He felt many of the best resources would be gone before the council realized the level of protection they needed. Cathryn Treadway , 2820 Friendly Street, vice chair for the Crest Drive Citizens Association (CDCA), conveyed the CDCA’s support for a 20-foot-or-less setback instead of the proposed 40-foot setback for Goal 5 site E-81, the Lorane Highway riparian area. She related that the main issue the CDCA had with it was that the State recognized that drainage ditches of this type required no protection whatsoever. She said the property owners in this situation did not feel they had any representation in this issue. Bruce Wild , 931 Lorane Highway, observed that the original purpose of the Goal 5 process was to identify the State’s natural resources, including wetlands, uplands and riparian sites. He recalled that for future preservation of significant sites, a municipality could use the Safe Harbor designation or if the city or county felt a site was endangered by property owners, a regulated setback could be applied. He said this was the current proposal from Eugene Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff. He lived in the area MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session