Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

.The criteria for approval are based on whether the City erred when it identified either 1) the location of a Goal 5 Water Resource Site, at the time the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Map was adopted; or 2) that a lot contained a Goal 5 Water Resource Site or a /WR Water Resources Conservation Area, at the time the City applied the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone to the property. The applicant has not alleged that the City erred in application of the /WR Overlay Zone. As such, criterion (2) is not applicable. Therefore, the remaining evaluation will address criterion (1). As discussed in the provided application materials, the applicant has alleged that the subject sites described in the application materials were not appropriately mapped within the adopted Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Map. The applicant asserts that, at the time the Goal S Water Resources Conservation Plan Map was adopted, existing knowledge of the natural areas on the subject properties was not considered and should have been considered in determining the appropriate level of natural resource protection to apply to the sites. Regarding the applicant's request to include resource E75 B-3 in the list of resources to be protected, it is noted that the adopted ESEE analysis found that this site, along with E75 B-5, were not recommended for protection. The applicant's request appears to be for a change in the level of protection for the site, rather than a mapping correction. If this is the case, the time for consideration of the level of protection would have been during the original public process for adoption of the Goal 5 protection measures. However, the applicant contends that the resource area should be larger based on historic data of the resource site found in record materials for the original Planned Unit Development for the site (City File PD 84-1). While historic documents contain important context, the applicant's assertions that they should be a primary basis for expanding the resource area fails to take into account changes in the riparian resources that have occurred since the original PUD and subsequent modifications were approved. Based on the inclusion of these riparian areas in the initial inventory of riparian resources, it would appear that the sites were taken into consideration during the ESEE analysis, but it was determined that only some of the resources warranted protection. The applicant did not supply any other evidence, mapping, or ecological science that would otherwise constitute a sound reason to correct the mapping for resource E75 B-3 on Tax Lot 422 based on an error made at the time the mapping occurred. Additionally, because E75 B-3 was not designated for protection through the ESEE analysis, it is noted that an expansion of the resource area would not constitute a change in the level of protection. Regarding Tax Lot 00033, the applicant asserts that the forested area of the property, which is located outside of the mapped riparian resource or any /WR Conservation Area Setback, should be included in the Goal 5 protected resource area. The nearest riparian resource to this area is riparian resource E75 B-1 and wetland resource WKZ-513, so it would stand to reason that the request is to extend this mapped area to include the area referenced by the applicant. Similarly to the rationale provided for changes to E75 B-3 above, the applicant argues that the City should have applied a more significant level of protection to the resources purported to be September 2025 Findings & Decision of the Planning Director Page 5 of 6 Valley River Village PUD (OC2 25-01)