Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Between the verbal testimony received at the May 19 public hearing and the written testimony received <br />through May 19, several major themes emerged, including: why the setback is needed; what other <br />options were considered; expected benefits; the basis for reducing the number of miles proposed for <br />protection compared to the June 2006 proposal; questions about permitted uses including maintenance <br />of fences and lawns; how the map was developed; how the setback measurement points were defined; <br />what the process is for challenging the setback location; and site specific issues. In addition to these <br />themes from the public testimony, concerns were expressed by City Councilors at the May 14 work <br />session and May 19 public hearing. See Attachment A for staff response to public testimony and <br />councilor’s concerns. Item I.B on Attachment A is specifically in response to Councilor Clark’s <br />questions related to whether other options were considered besides the proposed water quality waterway <br />protections, and what the City is doing to address the water quality impact of homeless camps adjacent <br />to waterways. <br /> <br />Recommended Revision to Ordinance to Clarify Limit on Creation of New Lots / 33% Issue <br /> <br />Staff have been alerted to a problem with one of the amendments proposed in the draft ordinance. The <br />ordinance is intended to prohibit the creation of any new lot in the /WQ overlay zone (i.e. through a <br />subdivision or partition) if the proposed lot would be configured in a way that would immediately be <br />eligible for a setback reduction. Instead, new lots in the /WQ overlay zone should be configured so that <br />they can be developed without the need for a reduction in the setback. Such a prohibition already exists <br />for the Water Resources (/WR) overlay zone (Goal 5). In adding this same prohibition for the /WQ <br />Water Resources overlay zone, the draft ordinance deleted a phrase pertaining to the /WR overlay zone <br />(the deleted phrase is: “making the lot immediately eligible for an adjustment under EC 9.8030(21)(a)”). <br />Based on additional communication with PDD, staff believe that the subject language should not be <br />deleted and that, instead, similar language should be added to pertain to the /WQ overlay zone. Unless <br />the council directs otherwise, staff intend to revise the draft ordinance, for your July 14 action date, so <br />that sections 9.8055 (cluster subdivisions), 9.8215 and 9.8220 (partitions), 9.8320 and 9.8325 (planned <br />unit developments), 9.8515 and 9.8520 (subdivisions) reflect the following code change: <br /> <br /> or the /WQ Water Quality Overlay <br /> Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone <br />Zone <br />, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by <br />either: <br /> <br />1.T <br /> [t]he combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water <br />Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback, making the lot <br />or <br />immediately eligible for an adjustment under EC 9.8030(21)(a); <br />2. The /WQ Management Area, alone or in combination with a /WR Conservation Area, <br />making the lot immediately eligible for an adjustment under EC 9.4778(2) or <br />9.8030(25)(a). <br /> <br />Additional Recommended Revisions to the Ordinance for Council Consideration and Direction <br /> <br />In response to public testimony, staff recommends revisions to the ordinance in the following areas: <br /> <br />·9.4780(2)(h)(12) – Uses Permitted within /WQ Management Area: Add new sub-section which <br />would allow maintenance and expansion of existing telecommunication facilities as a permitted use <br />(to address COBI testimony). Note that two alternatives are provided for council consideration. The <br />difference between the two alternatives is whether mitigation of water quality function impact would <br />be required for expansion of telecommunications facilities. Staff recommends requiring water <br />quality function mitigation (see Attachment C-1). It is staff’s understanding that COBI would prefer <br />that water quality function mitigation not be required for expansions given space constraints on the <br />property (see Attachment C-2). <br /> Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080618\S080618A.DOC <br /> <br />