502 104TH PL SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

( — be ctassifled as a catapory 3 s:ream with e 25 foot setbeck whereas if it were determined thet salmonid flsh did use the etream it would be a category 2 stream with a 100 foot setbadc. For clari(icatlon ot the zoning code, it would be helpful to establish the time hame relevan! to establish salmonid flsh use and estabifsh methods to make such a determinatlon. For exemple are lormer salmonld tish use in yaars past or potential fish use In the tuture relevan6 or is present fish use of the speciflc stream reach in question the applicable consideratlon7 Unless stream setbacks have a bearing an wetland setbecks which then evply back to the stream again (as discussed below), the stream classiAcatlon and the implled strai�m setbacks are relatively unimportant in determining the useable areas of ihis particular site, however. The setbacks assigned to the wetiands based on their own characteristlos Includlnp thelr extent, conflguration, end ciessi(icatfon supersede even the widest poesible stream setback (100 feet) for nearly all of the site. Only a relatively small site arefl about 25 by 25 }eet (along the north property boundary end Irrelevent to any slte development proposals) would be attected by eny stream setbadc width ver7ation measured }rom the stream Itself. This brings us to the most Important Item that would help to resolve the Issue of liow much of Ihe site is avallable for development - a clarificatlon on the meaning of a section of the zoning code deeling with minimum stream and wetland bufiers, specifically section 37.150.B.5. At the site meetinq last week, you indicated that It would be helpful to obtsin en edministrative Interpretetlon of thet aection, es there eppears to be two tundamentally ditferent Interpretations. The key sentence reada as follows: Any stream edJoined by rlperian (streemside) wetland shall heve the buHer which epplies lo the wetland unless lhe stream butter requirements ere more protective, In which case the stream bufler requirementa shell epply. The Interpretation we favor Is the one whereby stream end wetland buNe►a would flrst be applied independently to e site and then, at any plven locatlon, whiciiever one wes iertheat away from the stream would apply to lhe site, It should be noted thet the context ot the passage Is concerned wilh establiahing stream setbecks, not wetland setbadcs, which ere established elsewhere. The problem wilh interpretlnq that sentence could Ile in an implied but mlasinq phrase et the end of ihet sentence. We feel that slnce from Its context the sectlon In questlon is meant ta eutablish 81fSBm setbacks, It shauld read es follows for clariflcetlon: Any atreem ad�oined by riparian (streemalde) wetland shall have the buMer which applles to the wetland unless the stream buifer requirements ere more protective, in which case the stream butter requirements shell apply ro the streem. An alternative interpretation Is thet e rlparian wetland Is to be asalgned a setback no less than the stream with which H ia assoclated. In other words, a riparian wetland adJacent to a salmonid flsh bearing stream should be asslgned a setback of 100 feet, the seme es the streem with which N Is essociated. Again, by Its wording and from its conte�:t, we feel that ihe above passage from sectlon 37.150.8.5 is intended to establish stream setbacks, not ta madify °Iles to establish wetland setbecks. This elternate Interpretatlon assumes the Implied phrase app wetlands, as in: Any stream adJoined by riparian (streemside) wetland shall heve the buHer which epplies to the wetland unless the stream bufter requirements ere more protective, in which case the stream butter requiremenls shall apply ta fhe wetland.