Laserfiche WebLink
S' <br /> i <br /> � •�' .. . ' . ; ' . ' ' . � . <br /> � . � '..' . .. . . : , ' ' <br /> :i . . . . . . . .. . . � .. <br /> •1 ' .. � ♦ � ' . . . . <br /> • . .i . . . . . � ' .. . <br /> - : DIBCIIBBZON/BITE DEVELOPiSENT CONBIDERI►TZONB ,, ', , ' - ' . ': � � <br /> � Accordinq to' the specific. wording of the City's ESA - <br /> '.ordinance, the' stream would be, classified as a Category II • • <br /> � ° stream because it contains year round flows. However, the � <br /> � •�stream appear5 to be much more characteristic of a Category <br /> IIi type stream. •: Present flow in the. stream is much less <br /> _' �'.than one CFS. ' This . flow' is reaor.tedly cominq from. leaky , <br /> - .underground storaqe. tanks` owned and maintained by the City� <br /> ,: of Everett: Although there' are sone smal: hillside seeps . ' <br /> along the ravine,� it 3s doubtful . that the stream has <br /> historically flewed year round. <br /> Downstream of the project site, there are several migratory <br /> _blockaqes to anadromous fish. � . The general nature of the <br /> �'� stream (small channel, shallow depth, proximity to <br /> headwaters, steep gradient) indicates that historically the <br /> stream was probably intermittent or ephemeral, and has never <br /> supported a fish population. <br /> According to the ESA ordinance, a Category` II. stream' would . <br /> require a SO foot buffer and a Category III stream would <br /> require a 25 foot buffer. These buffers are often measured <br /> from the top of adjacent slopes. � <br /> Reqarding. the alteration of Category II and III streams, the <br /> • ESA ordinance states: <br /> � <br /> a. Except as provided ' in this subsection no alteration <br /> of,a Category II or .Category 'III. stream� shall be <br /> allowea_ except as' otherwise provided by Section 5 of <br /> this Ordinance; or <br /> b. The Planning Director may, using review Process <br /> II.C,. allow alteration or relocation of� Category II or <br /> ' Category Ili. streams .only. when .the. applicant can ' <br /> demonstrate that the alteration o:_ relocation .enhances <br /> the funct'ional values of the stream. <br /> c. . Culverting in a stream shall only be permitted. as <br /> provided ,liy section 5 of this ordinance, or to provide <br /> ' access to a lot or �i sub�tantial portion of a'lot;when <br /> `. no. other. .feasible means of_access •exists: Use� of ' ' <br /> oommon• access .points shall be required .for �abutting . <br /> - lots which have no `other feasible means' of access. <br /> Culverting shall be limited to the minimua .number of <br /> - stream crossings..required -to�.permit reasonable access. <br /> 'The type culvert •used .shall be as required by the <br /> department of fisheries or .Department of Wildlife. <br /> It appears that regardless of whether or not the stream <br /> ' would be classified 'as a Category II or Category III stream, , <br /> the proposed culvert would be allowed under the City�s- ESA <br /> , ' .. . 3 .. ' <br />