Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

fish-bearing waterway can provide valuable habitat elements, while piles of woody garden pruning debris or waste lumber within a conservation area could pose a significant fire hazard or smother underlying native plants. Staff does not consider refuse to include large woody debris within a fish bearing waterway, and removal of woody debris in a channel is not allowed through the draft provisions. Woody yard waste would be considered refuse, and would be allowed to be remove.. No change recommended. D. Staff response (public improvements must serve the public good): The draft provisions require that these public improvements are either (1) required by the land use code, or (2) specified in an adopted plan. In either case, a prior public adoption process has determined that these improvements are consistent with the Metro Plan, and, therefore, serve the public good. Therefore, staff believes no further documentation of this is required. No change recommended. E. Staff response (maintenance roads should be outside the conservation area): Staff believes this approach would not work in many cases where there is an existing maintenance easement within the proposed setback area. Furthermore, the purpose of the maintenance access road is to bring equipment close enough to the waterway to conduct essential maintenance activities to prevent property damage from flooding. To require maintenance access to be only outside the conservation area, would be to deny maintenance access to the waterway altogether. The draft provisions in section 9.4930(3)(h) minimize impacts from such roads by requiring that construction of such access road be consistent with applicable /WR development standards through a Type II application process. No change recommended. F. Staff response (regarding Measure 37 sunset clause): The City attorney has recommended changes to the draft provisions related to Measure 37, and this comment no longer applies. G. Staff response (application requirements): Regarding suggestion to amend 9.8025 to establish criteria on which the planning director would base a waiver of the requirement for an appropriate professional: This requirement is in the existing land use code. It is exceedingly difficult to predict circumstances under which an application may not need to be developed by one of the listed professionals, which could include a case where another accredited or certified professional is determined to be adequate. Staff recommends keeping this provision consistent with the existing code provision. No change recommended. 7.10 Thurston. Peter. Questions fish access in upper Spring Creek; supports mitigation and replacement of natural values where conflicts exist. Staff response: The ESEE analysis states "While fish have not been documented in the southern section of Spring Creek, there are no known barriers to prevent fish from using this habitat." The term "barriers" as used here refers to physical blockages that would prevent fish from passing, even during high flow events. Mr. Thurston is correct in noting that significant flowing water at the south end of the Spring Creek system is rare. The statement quoted above simply notes that fish could reach this area if sufficient water was present, because there are no known physical barriers to impede passage under such conditions. 7.11 Willener. John. Supports G5 recommendation for E45. Provides information on history of site E45. No response needed. 8. Additional Information