Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Creek". Id. p.2. (Emphasis added). There was no mention by Public Works that piping the creek was involved, let alone 340 feet of pipe. Third, there is no evidence that piping 340 feet of the creek is necessary for stormwater management for the housing development. The applicant has not provided any expert evidence that piping the creek is necessary to handle the surface and stormwater runoff from the housing development. His only stated intent is to pipe the creek so he can pump water from his property and apparently from the creek to a reservoir to irrigate other parts of the cemetery. The staff report indicated that there are other ways of dealing with stormwater runoff that would not involve piping the creek. In discussing the possibility of a future denial of the proposed piping under the Water Resources Overlay, the staff noted "there would be other means of providing stormwater infrastructure necessary for the CIR housing without fully enclosing the stream corridor in a pipe". Staff Report of Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, July 8, 2016, p. 6. In addition, the Public Works Referral Response states that the proposed piping of the creek to the proposed pond should not be addressed through the CIR approval process. Public Works, at the end of its Response in a section entitled Informational Items, notes that "[t]he site plan shows piping an on-site creek, and diverting the water to a proposed pond. This proposal is not addressed through the CIR/CUP criteria and is not evaluated or approved through this process". Public Works Referral Response, P. 5. (Emphasis added). In sum, the piping of the creek is not necessary to get sanitary lines under the creek and is not necessary for management of the stormwater services for the housing development. Since the piping will be installed in order to pump water to irrigate other parts of the cemetery, and is not necessary for the housing development, piping the 340 feet of the creek that go across the applicant's property will unnecessarily remove attractive natural vegetation alongside the creek as well as downstream in violation of EC 9.724(2)(6)(1). The trail alongside the portion of the creek where the piping would be installed is part of a longer trail system that runs beside the creek. As the testimony of Ingrid Wendt shows, wildflowers bloom in abundance in the springtime on the banks of the creek. A large number of trees grow alongside the creek throughout the year. The construction of the piping will remove attractive natural vegetation. The pipe itself, in the area where it is located, will also deprive flowers and trees of water, resulting in the removal of more attractive vegetation. The pumping of water from the creek once the reservoir is completed will diminish the amount of downstream flow causing the loss of additional vegetation. And in the interim before the reservoir is completed, there will be an increase in the volume and velocity of the water caused by channeling the water into the pipe. This additional volume of water will also adversely affect wildflowers and trees causing their demise. 12