HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-248 Findings - Protection of Wetlands & Riparian Corridors
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
December 15, 2009
In the Matter of Amendments to the City of Ashland
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use OrdinancES to Update
Land Use Regulations Concerning the Prctection of
Wetlands and Riparian Corridors, including Significant
Wetlands and Significant Riparian Corridors
)
) FINDINGS OF FACT AND
) CONCLUSIONS OF LA W
)
)
PURPOSE:
Complete Periodic Review Work Task on GoalS.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
On March 28,2008, a notice of the Public Workshop and Public Hearing was sent by first
class mail to approximately 1,800 owners of properties that may have the use of the
property impacted by the proposed rules in accordance with ORS 227.186. Additional
public information efforts included a "Frequently Asked Questions" handout on the
proposed rules that was mailed with the 1,800 notice& and a project web page was
established at the same time the March 2008 notices were mailed The project web page
included the proposed rules and map amendments so that recipients of the notice could
go on-line to look up the proposed Chapter 18.63. The web page has been updated
throughout the public hearing process with meeting maerials as well as the record.
Notice was published in The Ashland Daily Tidings on April 17, 2008prior to the
Planning Commission public workshop and public hearingand on April 6, 2009 prior to
the City Council public hearing Notice was also sent to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on February 20, 2008 and March 31, 2008.
A Public Workshop was held at the Planning Commission on April 22, 2008 and public
hearings were held at the Planning Commission on May 13, 2008 and continued to May
13, June 10, June 24, June 22, Sept 9 and October 28. Public Hearings were held at the
City Council on April 21, 2009 with the record left open to May 19, 2009.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The decision of the City Council together with therecommendation by the Planning
Commission was based on consideration of the followng factors:
A. Consistency with Oregon land use laws and regulations including specifically
Oregon Statewide Planning GoalS as implemented by OAR Chapter 660,
Division 23.
B. Applicable policies of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 1
EV ALUA nON AND COUNCIL FINDINGS:
A. Oregon Statewide Planning GoalS and the GoalS Rule (OAR Chapter 660, Division 23).
1. The City has inventoried wetlands and riparian resources. The City conducted a
stream inventory in 1987, which was subsequently adopted as the Ihysical and
Environmental Constraints Riparian Lands Map on May 21, 1987 by Ordinance 2419. At
the same time, Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints was also adopted
by Ordinance 2419, which established all streams inventoried and identified on the
Physical and Environmental Constraints Riparian LaneS Map as significant water
resources, and established protected and regulated riparian areas surrounding those
streams. Chapter 18.62 established a permitting process for development in the
protected riparian lands, and Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands
addressing tree preservation, minimizing fill and culverting and retaining the general
topography of the riparian areas. Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints
was replaced in its entirety in July 7, 1989 by Ordinance 3528. However, the regulations
addressing the riparian lands and the Physical and Environmental Constraints Riparian
Lands Map were retained and were not changed. The City adopted digital versions of
the Comprehensive Plan Maps on Aprill, 2008 by Ordinance 2951 including the Physical
and Environmental Constraints Riparian Lands Map. The title of the map was changed
to Physical and Environment Constraints Floodplain Corridor Lands Map, but the
riparian lands stream inventory and designations were not changed.
In 2003, the City conducted a Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI). Approximately 1,500
letters were mailed to properties with potential natural resource sites, requesting the
property owner to permit access to their property to conduct fieldwork. The City then
determined which wetlands are locally significant following methods prescribed in
Division of State Lands administrative rules. The LWI also includes information on the
riparian corridors induding an evaluation of the general stream characteristics,
hydrology, adjacent land form and vegetation. Subsequently, notices were mailed a
second time to the approximately 1,500 property owners with potential natural resource
sites informing them of a public open house meeting on November 2003 to discuss and
update citizens on the status of the inventory and project
The Oregon Division of State Lands (ffiL) approved the LWI in March 2007. The City is
adopting the Water Resources Map as a Comprehensive Plan Map which identifies the
significant wetland and riparian corridor resource sites, as required by OAR 66G023-030.
The Water Resources Map combines the mapped stream inventory from 1987 as
depicted on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Floodplain Corridors Map and
the wetlands identified in the L WI.
2. The City developed a program to achieve GoalS for water resources and
conducted the necessary ESEE analysis as required by OAR 660-023-040 with the update
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 2
of the Chapter IV Environmental Resources of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan
(Ordinance 2650, October 15,1991). The ESEE analysis in the updated Environmental
Resources chapter of the comprehensive plan addressed the environmental energy,
social and economic consequences of policies that linit or prohibit conflicting uses in
wetlands and riparian corridors. Based on the evaluation of ESEE consequence1; the
City decided to protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors.
3. The new Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones is intended to limit land
use and development activities in wetlands and riparian corridors in accordance with the
safe harbor provisions of OAR 660-023-100 (4)(b) and OAR 660-023-090(8). Existing
Physical and Environmental Constraints regulations are "reserved" br claims, (e.g.
Measure 49).
4. In Ashland, all streams inventoried and identified on the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Riparian Lands Map have been protected as significant water
resources since 1987. The current update of the regulations provides consistency with
the requirements of OAR 660-023-0100(4)(b) (saf~ harbor provisions for wetlands) and
OAR 660-023-0090(8) (safe harbor provisions for riparian corridors) as well as OAR 660-
023-050 (standard Goal 5 process for wetlands and riparian corridors). The proposed
amendment creates protection zones around and adjacent to the significant wetland or
riparian corridor resource. The proposed amendment limits or prohibits land uses and
development activities within the protection zone (buffer) andsignificant resource. The
protection program is based on clear and objective stanrnrds that have been adopted as
Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
5. Chapter 18.63 provides safe harbor protection for significant riparian corridors
and associated wetlands, and establishes protection zones of 50 feet consistent with OAR
660-023-090(5). Chapter 18.63 imposes limitations on development activities as required
by OAR 660-023-090(8). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has listed Ashland
Creek Bear Creek, Emigrant Creek Kitchen Creek, Neil Creek and Tolman Creek as fish-
bearing waterways.
6. Chapter 18.63 provides protection zones of 50 feet for locally significant
wetlands.
7. There were many issues raised during the public hearings. The City Council
finds and determines that all substantive issues' were adequately addressed by City staff
in the numerous staff reports and staff responses, and other materials in the record,
whether such responses were made orally at the hearings or provided in written form as
set forth in the record. All staff reports, staff materials, and other staff responses are
hereby accepted by the City Council and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 3
The significant issues raised during the public hearings are summarized below and are
addressed in the record.
(a) A concern was raised by Bonnie Broderson regarding not using the most
recent findings to designate streams as fish bearing or non-fish bearing, and that
the Oregon "Fish Wildlife's StreamNet database as its authority and that the
database has not been updated for over eight years" (written comments from
Bonnie Broderson, May S, 200S). Additional reference was made to recent
surveys by Oregon Fish and Wildlife in Oay, Hamilton and Wrights Creek. As
described in the Ashland Local Wetlands Inventory and Assessment and
Riparian Corridor Inventory July 2005/Revised February 2007, the City consulted
maps and information from state and federal agencies as well as aeriJ maps as
required by OAR 660-023-0090(4) to determine fish habitat. Additionally, the
City contacted Oregon Fish and Wildlife to obtain information on fish surveys in
Ashland. As described in the July 2S, 200Sletter from Dan Van Dyke, District
Fish Biologist, fish use has been confirmed in Clay, Hamilton and Wrights Creek.
However, the locations are all within .30 river miles of Bear Creekand outside of
the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and city limits. For Clay Creek, fish
use is confirmed "not far from the confluence with Bear Creek," which is
approximately .19 of a mile north of the UGBand .36 of a mile north of the city
limits. For Hamilton Creek, fish use is confirmed up to a culvert barrier where
the creek flows under East Main Street, and East Main Street is the boundary of
the UGB and is .53 of a mile north of the city limits. For Wrights Creek, fish use is
confirmed up to river mile 0.2, downstream of Highway 99, and Highway 99 is
the boundary of the UGB and city limits.
(b) Takings concerns were raised several times. In terms of impact to private
property owners, increasing the size of the riparian buffers and requiring
wetland buffers can potentially impact the size of the developable area. For
properties adjacent to the six streams with delineated floodplains, the impact will
be negligible because the existing floodplain boundaries aregenerally wider and
existing regulations already limit further development. The proposed Water
Resource Protection Zone Chapter IS.63 includes provisions for the transfer of
density in the water resource protection zones to lands outside the water
resource protection zone within the same development for land divisions.
Additionally, the Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction and Hardship
Variances provide two processes to address lots existing before the effective date
of the ordinance that will not be able to meet the proposed requirements. The
variance provision of Chapter IS.63 is intended to address situations in which the
application of Chapter IS.63 unduly restricts the development or use of a lot, and
-renders the lot not buildable. As required by OAR 660-023-090, the procedure
and criteria for variance approval is well stated in the proposed ordinance.
Finally, vacant lots with non-conforming building envelopes and driveway plans
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 4
that were approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance are exempt from
the requirements of the proposed ordinance for a period of three years.
(c) To address concerns raised regarding a one size does not fit all approach, and
to address urban conflicts in particular in existing neighborhoods where houses
and developments are very close to significant wetlands and riparian corridors a
Water Resource Protection Zone reduction is included in Chapter 18.63 in
accordance with OAR 660-023-0090(8)(c). The Water Resource Protection Zone
reduction provides additional flexibility in the water resource protectionzones
when it can be shown efforts have been made to avoid the protection zone,
minimize impacts to the protection zone and restoration and enhancement will
provide long term equal or better protection for the resources.
(d) Concerns regarding the definition of top of bank were raised several times. In
the original draft of Chapter 18.63, the top of bank definition is the stage or
elevation at which water overflows the natural banks of streams or other waters
of the state and begins to inundate upland areas, and in the absence of physical
evidence of the top of bank, the bankfull stage or line of non-aquatic vegetation is
used. Additionally, the top of bank was used for measuring the stream bank
protection zone of the three classes of streams. Throughout the public hearing
and review process, the definition was revised to includea list of physical
characteristics that indicate where top of bank is located. Additionally, the
measurement for the stream bank protection zone for two stream classifications
(i.e. Local Streams and Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams)was changed to the
center line of the stream. The top of bank was retained to measure the stream
bank protection zone for Riparian Corridors continue to be measured 50 feet
from top of bank, in accordance with 660-023-0090(5). Staff produced research
indicating the top of bank is a widely accepted physical feature that is used as a
basis for measuring riparian buffer zones, including examples of adopted top of
bank definitions used in communities in Oregon including Corvallis, Eugene and
Medford.
(e) Concerns were raised regarding increasing the rnrrent setback requirements
for the streams. The proposed Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones
revised existing regulations so that the size of the buffer area for streams will
generally increase. In the case of Riparian Corridors the increase i; from 20 to 50
feet from top of bank, for Local Streams the change is from 20 feet from top of
bank to 40 feet from the center line of the stream, and for Intermittent and
Ephemeral Stream the change is from 10 feet from top of bank to 30 feet from
center line of the stream. For Riparian Corridors with 50 feet wide protection
zones, staff presented information showing the floodplain was typically
significantly wider than the existing flood plains. The flood plains are protected
by existing regulations in Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 5
from development activities. Staff presented information regarding the functions
of a riparian area induding the reduction of the chance of damaging floods,
improvement in water quality and providing habitat and food for fish and
wildlife. The majority of creeks in Ashland have setbacks ranging 10 to 20 feet
from the creek under existing regulations. Staff presented examples of the
intrusion of structures and impact of structures in the riparian corridors under
current setback requirements for Local Streams and Intermittent and Ephemeral
Streams. Testimony was received from Jeannine Rossa, a professional Fish
Biologist and Stream Ecologist, indicating that a 50-foot buffer encompasses the
active corridor of most small to medium sized streams. She added that the
science behind how much area to protect recommends one full tree height,
because that is essentially how much wood is going to fall into the creek. She
added federal land utilize this tree height measurement. The conclusion was that
structures placed within 10-20 feet of the creek under current requirements
typically result in negative impacts to the riparian corridor (e.g. construction
impacts, structure maintenance impacts and construction IT prohibited
structures). In testimony by Jeannine Rossa she commented that the smaller
stream in Ashland have been straightened and somewhat channelized over the
years due to development, and while that can not be changed very easily,said
that the ecological function can be improved. The conclusion was that the buffers
should be increased in width to maintain the functions of the streams and to fully
address the following goals from the Environmental Resources ChaJfer of the
Ashland Comprehensive Plan: 1) Profect the qualify of riparian resource lands, and
preserve their wildlife habitafs, and 2) To preserve exisfing wildlife habifafs and natural
areas within fhe city wherever possible.
(f) Concerns were raised regarding the use of stream corridors for the conveyance
of Talent Irrigation District (TID) water on Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams.
Specifically, opponents argued that without TID water, many of the Intermittent
and Ephemeral Streams would not exist and should not be considered natural
streams deserving protection. According to data from the Ashland Engineering
Division, TID uses nine of the 28 streams identified on the Water Resource Map
for the distribution of irrigation water to customers and the return of unused
irrigation water. The streams used for TID water delivery and return are
Ashland, Tolman, Cemetery, Clay, Hamilton, Wrights, Golf Course, Paradise and
Roca. Therefore, three of the 20 streams classified as Intermittent and Ephemeral
Streams are used for TID delivery and retum - Golf Course, Paradise and Roca.
Therefore, it was determined that the assertion that all or most of the streams
classified as Intermittent and Ephemeral would not fbw if it were not for TID
water is inaccurate.
(g) Opponents raised charges that there is no evidence that local native plants are
beneficial to riparian corridors. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 6
availability of native plants. Staff presented the arguments for the advantages of
using native plants in riparian areas irrluding: 1) native plants are unlikely to be
invasive or overly competitive with other native plants, 2)they provide food
sources for native butterflies, insects, fish, birds and other animals, 3) they are
better adapted to local drought and flooding comitions in riparian areas, 4) they
reduce the need for pesticides, 5) they protect at-risk species and 6) protect
biodiversity. Research presented by staff and included in the record indicate that
healthy riparian areas include a variety of types and ages of plants including
trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers, and that those plants adapted to local
rainfall, climate, insects and soil conditions tend to be easier to care for because
they need less water and pesticides ("Taking Care of Streams in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho and Alaska", October 2002, Pacific Northwest Extension
publication). Chuck Fustish, STEP Biologist of Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife submitted written comments regarding the need tolimit the use of non-
native species to minimize the possibility of new exotics spreading via the
sterams. The Council decided to require 50% native plants with all native trees in
stream bank protection zones for projects requiring mitigation. Additionally,
removal of existing native vegetation, am the replacement of removed non-
native vegetation with native plant species is required by Chapter 18.63 in
accordance with OAR 66G-023-0090(8)(b).
(h) Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of the native and prohibited
plants list, and questions were raised regarding the need for locally drafted plant
lists. The plant lists were based on the Vegetation List in Appendix 7 of the LWI
which identified specific native and noxious plants found in Ashland wetland
and riparian areas. Additional informatim on plants lists for the Rogue Valley
was from Stream and Wetland Enhancement Guideby the Water Resources
Department of Rogue Valley Council of Govemments(RVCOG). Sources for the
RVCOG materials included: SPROut- Sustainable Plant Research & OutrEach
Center http://www.oregongarden.org/SPROUT/SPROUT_ Home.html, Citizens
Guide to Stream Restoration, Izack Walton League, 1995, Gardening wifh Native
Planfs of the Pacific Northwest Kruckeberg, University of Washington Press, 1982,
Going Native: Biodiversity in Our Own Backyards, Rice, Wilson 4 West, 199.,
Redesigning the American Lawn, Dorman, Dalmori and Gaballe, Yale University
Press, 1993, The Nafura/ Habifaf Garden, Druse, Clarkson Potter Publishers, 1994
and the USDA National Plant Database System: http://plants.usda.org. Several
professionals with plant expertise specific to the Ashland environs were
reviewed and made suggestions on the draft plants lists including Donn Todt,
Ashland Parks Horticulturist, Ann Rich, Assistant Ashland Parks Hortiditurist,
Chris Chambers, Ashland Fire Forest Resource Specialist and Dr. Frank Lang,
Professor Emeritus SOU. Staff reported that the general recommendation of the
professionals consulted with plant expertise is that the preferred method is to
develop plant lists specific to the ecosystems of Ashland, as opposed to relying
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 7
on state lists of a more general nature.
(i) Opponents argued that the ordinance was developed by city planning staff
and did not include sufficient technical review and inputby persons with
scientific expertise in stream ecology, botany or hydrology. Chapter 18.63 was
reviewed by a variety of specialists with scientific expertise and experience with
stream environments including Paul Fishman, Ecologist, Kent Smith,
Hydrologist, Jeannine Rosa, Fish Biologist, Amanda Puton, Natural Resource
Specialist, Frances Oyung, Ashland Watershed Assessment and Action Plan
project team, John Ward, Ashland Watershed Assessment and Action Plan
project team, Ann Rich, Assistant Parks Horticulturist andDonn Todt, Parks
Horticulturist. While the science of water resources is one component to consider
in updating the local wetland, stream and riparian corridor regulations, the
workability in planning applications, compliance with the Oregon Statewide
Planning Program and integration of community values are of equal importance.
In this area, the Planning Commission as well as city planning and legal staff
have spent considerable time in public hearings, and review and revision of the
new ordinance.
(j) Concerns were raised regarding inadequacy of the citizen involvement
process, and the need to involve technical advisory committee. In terms of public
participation, the project began with two public open houses to discuss the
project and the wetlands and riparian corridor inventory work in June 2003 and
March 2003. Subsequently, the Wetland and Riparian Technical Advisory
Committee was formed, and commented on the format and content of the
ordinance. Finally, beginning in April 2008, the formal public hea-ing process
began. The Planning Commission held a public workshop on April 22, 2008;
public hearings on May 13, 2008, June 10, 2008, June 24, 2008, July 22, 008,
September 9, 2008 and October 28, 2008; and deliberations on October 28 and
November 6, 2008. In addition, the Planning Commission held two site visits on
July 7, 2008 and July 17, 2008. All Planning Commission meetings and site visits
were properly noticed. The City Council held a public hearing on April 21, 2009
with the record left open for written comments to May 19, 2009. The City
Council held deliberations on May 19, 2009, July 21,2009, August 18, 2009 and
September 8,2009. In addition, the City Council conducted site visits on April 9,
2009 and April 15, 2009. All Planning Commissim meetings and site visits were
properly noticed. Hard copies of all project materials have been on file for public
review throughout the process, as well as on the project web page at
www.ashland.oLus/waterresouces. The project web page has been updated
throughout the public hearing process with meeting materials as well as the
record. See finding (i) regarding professional technical involvement in Chapter
18.63 development.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 8
l
(k) Concerns were raised regarding the integration of the flood plain regulation
in Chapter 18.62 and Chapter 18.63 into one chapter. The conclusion was that the
regulations should be separated because the chapters serve different purposes.
The flood plain regulations are for public safety purposes, and while the water
resource protection zones have some flood control functions, the additional
function addressed are water quality and providing habitat and food for fish and
wildlife.
(I) Concerns were'raised regarding an educational component to provide
property owners with information on wetland and riparian corridor land
management. Arguments were made the regulations should not be requirements,
but rather guidelines with educational program. The Council recognized the
need for more training of the land owners about wetlands and stream
management, as well as assistance with restoration and enhancement projects,
The Council considered the idea of guidelines and education in lieu of standards,
protection zones, and rules, but in the end determined there was history to show
that education and enforcement are not stand alone solutions, and must be
buttressed by effective regulations.
(m) Opponents argued that the changes to Chapter 18.62 Physical and
Environmental Constraints were not sufficiently noticed. Chapter 18.62 as well
as Chapter 18.108 Procedures were revised for consistency with the new Chapter
18.63. The amendments to Chapter 18.62 involve the deletion of the riparian
corridor development standards because the new Chapter 18.63 is an update of
those previous development standards, Additionally, some terminology is
modified for consistency with Chapter 18.63. The changes to Chapter 18.108
involve the addition of the three new planning approvals included in Chapter
18.63 to the list of Type I and Type II procedures. The amendments to Chapter
18-63 and 18.108 simply provide consistency throughout the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance (ALUO), and do not involve the addition of new regulations which
would affect the permissible uses of a property.
(n) Concerns were raised by building owners in the downtown and on Water
Street regarding the ability to replace their nonconforming structures in the event
of a flood, natural hazard or fire. In converse, environmental concerns were
raised regarding not allowing nonconforming structure; and uses to remain in
perpetuity, and the need to have a goal of removing nonconforming uses and
structures in water resource protection zones; Many of the properties in question
are historic structures built in close proximity to Ashland Creek, of which have
sustained damage in flood events, most recently the 1997 New Year's flood. In
the original draft of Chapter 18.63, a planning approval was required to replace a
nonconforming structure. The ordinance was revised to exempt the replacement
of nonconforming residential principal buildings and nonconforning non-
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 9
residential structures, while the requirement for a planning approval was
retained for the replacement of nonconforming accessory structures in residential
zoning districts.
Conclusion: For the above stated reasons, and based on information found in
the record of these proceedings, the Council finds and determines that the
proposed wetland and riparian corridor program complies with GoalS and its
implementing rule. The program consists of imentories of significant wetlands
and riparian corridors, and comprehensive plan policies that commit the City to a
protection program embodied in Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.63
Water Resource Protection Zones. The City has updated existing regulations to
provide consistency with the requirements of OAR 66o-023-0100(4)(b) (safe
harbor provisions for wetlands) and OAR 660-023-0090(8) (safe harbor provisions
for riparian corridors) as well as OAR 66o-023-0S0 (standard GoalS process for
wetlands and riparian corridors).
EV ALUA nON AND COUNCIL FINDINGS:
B Consistency with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
1. The LWI was adopted as a supporting document to the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan
2. The proposed implementation program is consistent with and adEquate
to carry out Goals and Policies in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter IV Environmental Resources
Goal: Protect the quality of riparian resource lands and. preserve their
wildlife habitats.
Policy 18: Identify, protect and seek conservation e<Bements
throughout significant riparian areas (streams, stream banks and flood
plain areas), and wildlife habitat areas.
Policy 19: Encourage more public access to waterways but define
what public activities can take place. Ensure that such access doesnot
result in water and visual pollution.
Policy 20: Where possible, utilize water-related areas for visual relief
pockets of wildlife habitat, landscaping amenities, natural site design
elements, recreational uses, bike paths and pedestrian and jogging
trails.
Findings of Fact and Conciusions of Law
Page 10
Policy 21: Utilize local resources to form a technical advisory
committee to identify plants and animals which rely on riparian
habitat for their continued existence. Retaining these areas in a
natural state should be of high priority and developnent should
consider and accommodate the habitat utilized by these plants and
animals.
Goal: To preserve and protect significant wetlands and to mitigate
potential impacts on these areas due to development and conflicting uses.
Policy 22: Evaluate the quantity and quality of wetland resources
inside the City Limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary
through the compilation of an inventory of significant wetlands.
Policy 23: Develop site review procedures and performance
standards using buffering techniques setbacks and mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts of development on significant
wetland areas.
Policy 24: The City should actively pursue the use of Transfer of
Development Rights dedications, direct-lease arrangement and
purchase or other acquisition strategies as viable methods for
preserving and insuring public access to significant wetland areas.
Policy 25: Examine the Physical and Environmental Constraints
chapter of Ashland's Land Ordinance concerning wetland and
riparian areas, and insure that existing zoning regulations maintain
these valuable areas in a natural state.
Policy 26: Utilize local resources to form a technical advisory
committee to identify potential plants an:! animals which rely on
wetland habitat for their continued exstence. Retaining these areas in
a natural state should be of high priority and development should
consider and accommodate the habitat utilized by these plants and
animals.
Conclusion: The Council finds and determines that the proposed wetland and
riparian corridor program complies with applicable Ashland Comprehensive
Plan Goals and Policies. The program consists of inventories of significant
wetlands and riparian corridors, comprehensive plan policies that commit the
City to a protection program and regulations implementing the protection
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 11
program in Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.63 Water Resource
Protection Zones.
OVERALL COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS
1) The inventory of significant riparian corridor resources was completed, adopted and
submitted to the State in 1987. Additional information on the riparian corridors
including an evaluation of the general stream characteristics, hydrology, adjacent
land form and vegetation is included in the Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI).
2) The LWI has been completed and approved by the Division of State Lands on March
21, 2007.
3) Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5 is met with the completion of this action.
4) Ashland Comprehensive Plan goals and policies have been met as regards Goal 5
natural resources with the completion of this action.
5) Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable have been complied with
as is applicable and/or possible with the completion of this action.
6) The sections of Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.62 Physical and
Environmental Constraints regulating the protection of riparian corridors have been
repealed and replaced with Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones
7) Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 197 and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660,
Division 023 has been fulfilled as reguds Goal 5 natural resources with the
completion of this action.
8) Testimony and evidence in the record supports the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and the final decision of the City Council.
9) OAR 660-023 only requires that the listed significant resources must be protected.
10) The proposed implementing rules incorporate OAR 660-023-100(4)(b) requirements
for Wetlands and OAR 660-023-090(8) requirements for Riparian Corridors as well as
OAR 660-023-050 (standard Goal 5 process for wetlands and riparian corridors).
11) The proposed protection zones are justified by testimony and evidence in the record
but are not absolutes.
12) The Ashland Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the new Chapter
18.63 and other amendments to the existing Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based
upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby APPROVES the
ADOPTION of the following amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and
Ashland Comprehensive Plan as reflected in three distinct ordinances
. Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones is to be added to the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance.
. Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints and Chapter 18.108
shall be amended to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.63 Water
Resource Protection Zones
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 12
. Chapter IV Environmental Resources of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
shall be amended to add new and updated resource maps and adopt the
Local Wetlands Inventory as a supporting document.
Ashland Citr Council Approval
Jo
/2-~/~ () 7
Date
Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this 15th day of December, 2009
~~
IZ-/S.--07
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Date
/7.-/ IS / oct
Da{e
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 13