HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-13 YPC Packet1") "M' t 1
COM'Ut° "17T DF ill'],. 1'fr"r" '7" 'ARE$lf'] '7 l FILE"
9111001
Piton:. 6183 - ":;gym.:%" : " 1,115111410,10115
P
as�µ,��'�il��m��M,'"f�4����,r
City of Yakima Planning Commission
STUDY SESSION
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday February 27, 2013
3:30 - 5:00 p.m.
YPC Members:
Interim Chair Ben Shoval, Co -Chair Bill Cook, Ron Anderson, Al Rose,
Scott Clark, Dave Fonfara, Paul Stelzer
City Planning Staff:
Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director/Planning Manager; Bruce Benson, Supervising
Planner; Jeff Peters and Joseph Calhoun, Associate Planners; Chris Wilson, Assistant Planner; and
Rosalinda Ibarra, Planning Technician
Agenda
I. Call to Order
II. Audience Participation
III. Distribute Adopted By -Laws as Amended by Council on February 19, 2013
A. Election of Chair & Vice -Chair
IV. Shoreline Master Program Review
A. Task #1: Review & Acceptance of Applied Shoreline Environmental
Designations and Maps
B. Task #2: Review & Modification of the Shoreline Use Matrix Table
V. Other Business
VI. Adjourn to March 13, 2013
�rv��u�pu.u,l
'i'P'11GN-1N SHEET
�W
City of Yakima Planning Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday February 27, 2013
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Study Session
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY
Page 1
CITY OF YAKIMA
PLANNING COMMISSION
BYLAWS
(Adopted by the City of Yakima Planning Commission on March 9, 2011;
Amended by City Council, February 19, 2013)
SECTION I: GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES
These Bylaws establish the rules and procedures under which the City of
Yakima Planning Commission (YPC or Commission) executes those duties and
functions set forth in Chapter 1.42 of the Yakima Municipal Code.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION, TERMS, OFFICERS, AND STAFF
A. The City of Yakima Planning Commission shall consist of seven members
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The term of
office for the initial members appointed to the Commission shall be
designated from one to six years in such a manner as to provide that the
fewest possible terms will expire in any one year. Thereafter the term of
office for each appointive member shall be six years.
B. The members of the Commission shall be selected without respect to
political affiliation.
C, No person shall serve more than two consecutive six-year terms, provided
that a person who is appointed to fill an unexpired term of less than two
years is eligible to serve two successive six-year terms; and provided
further, a person who is ineligible to serve for having served two
consecutive terms may again serve after two years have elapsed from the
end of the second such term.
D. The Commission will, by majority vote, elect a Chair and Vice Chair at the
first meeting of each year who will serve throughout that year. The Chair:
1. Decides all points of order and procedural matters subject to rules and
bylaws.
2. May appoint committees as necessary to investigate and report on
matters before the Commission.
In cases where the Chair is absent the Vice Chair will serve in their place
and will have the same powers and duties.
E. Commission Staff assistance shall be provided by the Department of
Community and Economic Development with additional assistance and
information to be provided by other City departments and consultants as
may be necessary to aid the Commission in carrying out its duties and
responsibilities under this chapter.
F, The Commission members shall not receive any salary or other
compensation for services rendered on the Commission, but necessary
expenses actually incurred and within the budget as set by the annual
budget ordinance shall be paid.
G. Vacancies occurring, other than through the expiration of terms, shall be
filled for the unexpired terms. Members may be removed by the Mayor with
the approval of the City Council for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or
malfeasance in office. Other reasons for removal may include:
Absence from three consecutive regular meetings or six regular
meetings in a twelve-month period which shall be regarded as
constituting resignation from the Commission. This information will be
forwarded to the Mayor and City Council by Staff. Reinstatement may
be sought through a hearing by the Commission. Excused absences
(sickness, death in the family, business trips or emergencies) will not
affect the member's status, except in cases of an extended illness or
absence the member shall be replaced. When a member is
approaching the maximum number of absences they will be notified
by Staff. Verification of attendance will be based exclusively on the
minutes of each meeting.
2. Participation in a legally demonstrable case involving a conflict of
interest.
H. No member of the Commission shall represent the Commission in its official
actions except as specifically authorized by majority vote.
Commission members shall refrain from discussing or expressing opinions
on matters on the Commission's agenda outside of Commission meetings
except as authorized in (H) above, or on direction from the Chair.
J. To avoid any conflicts of interest, no Commission member shall vote on the
determination of any application or determination in which they maintain an
employer/employee relationship or where they or members of their
immediate family have a financial interest.
K. Commission members shall not vote on any issues before the Commission
unless they have been in attendance at previous deliberations on the
subject or shall have the approval of the Chair contingent on the Chair's
determination that the member has familiarized themselves with the subject
and the minutes of any meetings where the subject was discussed.
2
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING REGULAR MEETINGS
A. Pre -meeting
1 If there are agenda items, regular meetings will be held at 3:30 p.m.
on the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month in the City
Council chambers. In case of scheduling conflicts the meeting
place may be changed at the discretion of the Chair with ten days
advance notice given to Commission members and the public. If
the designated meeting date falls on a weekend or an official
holiday the meeting may be changed to a time and place as
determined by the Commission at the preceding month's meeting. If
such a change occurs, the regular meeting place will be posted as
to the new time and place.
Z If there are no agenda items, the Chair may cancel the regular
meeting after giving all Commission members and the public 24
hours advance notice. However, if a majority of Commission
members express the desire to hold the meeting, it shall convene as
scheduled. If the meeting is canceled, a notice to that effect will be
posted at the regular meeting place at the regular time.
3. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or by a majority of
Commission members. Commission members will be given at least
48 hours advance notice of the time and place of such meetings.
4. All regular and special meetings will be open to the public and the
date, place and agenda will be publicized in accordance with the
Open Public Meetings Act (Chapter 42.30 RCW). The agenda for
regularly scheduled meetings shall be posted and advertised 48
hours prior to the regularly scheduled meetings.
5. The order of agenda items will be determined by their order of
receipt or as Commission Staff deems appropriate.
6. Staff shall be responsible for notifying principles in each matter as
specified under the rules for review procedures.
B. Regular Order of Business for Meetings
Business will be conducted under Robert's Rules of Order except
where this contradicts with the Bylaws or other special rules
adopted by the Commission, which then take precedence. All
issues will be decided by simple majority vote except amendments
to the Bylaws, which require a vote of two-thirds of the membership.
2. Four members or 51 percent of the non -vacant membership of the
Commission constitutes a quorum. Meetings without a quorum will
be recessed to the earliest possible date.
3. Minutes will be taken during all Commission proceedings.
Additionally, the meetings may be videotaped to further clarify the
minutes.
4. The regular order of business shall be as follows:
a. Call to order
b. Adoption of minutes
C. Report of committees (if any)
d. New business
e. Old business
f. Adjournment
5. The regular order of business for consideration of preliminary
subdivisions, comprehensive plan amendments and rezones shall
be as follows:
a. The Commission Staff person shall offer a preliminary
statement or Staff Report concerning the application.
b, The applicant or the designated agent of the applicant
presents statements in favor of the application including any
relevant exhibits.
C. Public comments.
d. Rebuttal by all concerned parties.
e. Deliberation by Commission.
f. Motion for action.
g. Vote.
During the course of the meeting, the above procedure may be
temporarily modified by the concurrence of all parties and the
Commission.
6. The Commission shall act on each application at the meeting unless
the Chair or a majority of the Commission decides to defer
consideration to a later date. Requests for continuance may be
granted if all parties agree. The continuance will be publicly
announced by the Chair, and the matter is automatically set on the
agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. In such a case,
no further notice is required for the principles in the case.
4
C. Post -meeting
Staff will be responsible for notifying participants as called for under
rules for specific review procedures.
2. Staff will be responsible for forwarding materials to participants as
called for under rules for specific review procedures.
3. Staff will be responsible for distributing the minutes of the meeting.
YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Stakeholder Meetings
February 13, 2013
In an effort to maximize the utility and applicability of the City of Yakima's updated Shoreline Master Program
(SMP), the City scheduled a series of meetings with a variety of stakeholders, the consultant team, and City staff on
February 13, 2013. One stakeholder group, the Yakima Greenway Foundation, could not meet on the 13th, and
instead a conference call was held on February 5, 2013. In addition to the stakeholders listed below, Jeff Peters,
City of Yakima; Lisa Grueter, BERK; and Amy Summe, The Watershed Company, participated in each of the
meetings. The following notes summarize key points.
YAKIMA GREENWAY FOUNDATION
Al Brown
1. Discussed the Foundation's relationship to the levees and planned levee setbacks. Greenway is mostly in
a position of reacting to Corps' and County's levee setback proposals. Most of the Greenway elements
are on the levees, but some are in the floodway and in danger of needing to relocate due to channel
movement and flooding. Where the highway is essentially the levee, the trail would be relocated as close
as possible to the highway.
2. Interested in provisions that would allow trails to be relocated as necessary to accomplish restoration
projects such as the levee setbacks, even if the relocated trail would remain in the floodway and might
impact wetlands (recognizing that the levee setback would result in habitat/wetland creation). Ensure
that Ecology would support such proposals.
3. The Greenway doesn't have any significant capital projects planned —again, most projects would be
reactions to channel widening.
4. Anticipated activities in the Greenway that should be considered in regulations development are:
• New picnic benches (covered and uncovered)
• Trail repair/maintenance
• Installation of water line to support dog water fountain at off -leash part of park
• Pumping of concrete vault toilets
• Need for repair or alternative solutions to armoring that protects trail sections that abut bridge
foundations (gabion baskets, barbs/groins)
• Mowing/fertilizing lawns and maintaining ornamental vegetation
• Removal of hazard trees along paths through riparian areas — wind or beaver damage. When
possible, the Greenway leaves hazard trees to fall naturally unless it might fall on a trail. Sometimes,
the trees are felled and left in the habitat area.
• Removal of non-native vegetation — such as stands of Russian olive, hybrid willow
• Parking lot maintenance — sweeping, restriping, shoulder upkeep, filling cracks
• New trails in the UGA on the Naches — the "Rail to Trail" project converting 10 miles of old rail line
• Rehabilitation of areas that are damaged by too much use — unauthorized pathways to water, etc.
February 22, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK 1
New boat launch and repair/maintenance of existing launches. There are only two area launches on
the Yakima. Important for access by search and rescue operations. The channel movement has left
other launches high and dry.
YAKIMA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT
Joel Freudenthal
1. Provided history of formation of the Yakima Greenway Foundation and its relationship to the County via
State legislative action and establishment of the "Washington State Yakima River Conservation Area."
Also discussed other agreements that the City has with the County for Sarg Hubbard Park, wastewater
treatment plan, etc.
2. Provided history of levee development and subsequent catastrophic flood events that ultimately resulted
in County having ownership or easements for all land encompassed by the levee prisms and the space
between the levees.
3. Flood control district or other public entities have been acquiring more lands and easements to enable
levee setbacks for flood control and habitat improvement, particularly in the southeast portion of the
City's UGA.
4. The flood control district is working with the wastewater treatment plant as the planned levee setback on
the east side of the river will eventually lead to the plant's discharge being located high and dry as the
river migrates eastward into the reconnected floodplain area.
5. Discussed Blue Slough, which is a historic diversion of the Yakima River that has been dry for four years as
a result of Bureau of Reclamation management. The channel is "artificial and perched."
6. Discussed the very different hydrologic characters of the Yakima and Naches Rivers. Yakima River is
"straight -jacketed" between levees, so the meander patterns are fixed —flows "smash" against the levees
and stay there. Big flood events are then followed by large releases from upstream reservoirs on the
Yakima and Naches — staggered so that the reservoirs do not release their accumulated flood storage
concurrently. Some large flood events are not controlled because the downstream gage does not see the
highest of the flows because of diversions just upstream. This pattern is bad for habitat and bad for other
instream structures. The multiple large flow pulses through the system leave only the largest substrate
materials in the channel (too large for spawning/habitat) and only the finest materials (too small for
habitat) end up being deposited outside the channel.
7. There are only 9 miles of certified federal levee in the State, and 7 of those are on the Yakima system.
The County is responsible for normal/routine/annual maintenance of those levees, but the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers acts if there is a levee failure or some other less -routine event.
8. The federal flood maps were developed in 1985, but used 1974 data. The maps were updated in 1999,
but the only changes made related to some levee improvements on the Naches. Result is that FEIVIA's
mapped flood elevations are about 6 feet lower than reality.
9. The flood control district is applying for a $5.2million grant from NCAA to re -work the area south of SR 24.
10. Flood control district does not typically use dredging to accomplish any flood control objectives —dredging
in this system would tend to increase energy. In fact, there are some areas of captured substrate
upstream (e.g., above Nelson Dam and on the Naches upstream of 1-82 and the railroad crossing) that
would be useful to see move downstream into the Yakima. However, they might move material around in
the channel to accomplish different purposes. WSDOT sometimes does spot dredging for channels to
spread sediment out.
February 22, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK
11. The flood control district has seen few permitting problems. They support the "gap to gap" goals. Other
federal and state agencies are on board. They do nearly all work outside of fish windows. The County SMP
generally works — an issue though is complexity. It is harder to permit incremental steps (e.g. Upper
Naches Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan) — levee collapse at Park. "Glued" the levee
together, until they could buy out land owners and do a more comprehensive flood hazard management
improvement that would remove the levee.
12. Joel noted that Yakima is a desert city, and the Yakima River is the most important piece of infrastructure
in the City and has an economic impact —the flood control district tries to maintain its sediment and
energy in balance. The goal for flood control of energy distribution and fish habitat improvement is the
same.
WASI�iINGGM D I° "°'IIIc°°IMEN (')F�'TRANSFIC"YIITA I"°'1111 IIY
Bill Sauriol
1. A key WSDOT interest is to have a mechanism for a programmatic permit covering all of their routine
activities that could fall under one of the State exemptions from a shoreline permit — WSDOT provided an
example of the documentation that recently secured them a 5 -year programmatic exemption for
maintenance and repair activities within the roadway prism in Yakima County. This streamlines their
activities and reduces government time constantly reviewing activities of WSDOT to confirm that they
meet exemption criteria.
2. It would be helpful to have clarity regarding the WSDOT requirements for notification of the local
government for those categories of work that don't specifically require documentation of the exemption.
Perhaps some clear thresholds or examples of documented vs. non -documented exempt activities.
3. Discussed whether some kind of phasing allowance could be incorporated into the Transportation section
of the SMP regulations.
4. Also noted that management of federal highways in non -coastal counties is federal activity on federal
lands, and technically may not even be subject to the Shoreline Master Program at all. However, SMPs do
not preclude transportation, and it is recognized that other policies and laws may be more important (e.g.
federal laws).
KIN' ""IIII'° IIIIIIIIII I IMEM XM I
Scott Shafer and Ryan Anderson
1. Long-term goal is to no longer need the levee — if it fails, leave as is and install any needed grade controls.
2. Discussed Billy's Pond, the proposed side channel with habitat improvements, the proposed extended
mixing zone project south of the treatment plant, and status of permits including the streamlined HPA.
3. Would like to have the option of a long-term maintenance plan to cover exempt activities that they
anticipate doing on a routine basis — such as actions to maintain the habitat project in its designed form
once constructed, or to remove clumps of soil/invasive species that block outfalls, among others
John Marvin
February 22, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK
1. Interested in status of a past County moratorium for development on Cowiche Creek related to sewer and
water service.
2. Interested generally in anticipated levels of possible future development in the City and the UGA,
including new homes, businesses, and agriculture (is that relevant on City and UGA shorelines?).
3. Yakama Nation does not anticipate any future salmon -recovery aquaculture operations in Yakima or the
UGA.
4. Noted that there is no need for dredging of Yakima shorelines for navigation purposes, but may be
considered for restoration- and flow-related purposes.
5. Discussed in -water facilities such as boat launches, particularly for emergency access.
6. Interested in whether the City will be including the SMP Guidelines requirement for providing public
access in land divisions creating more than four lots.
7. Referenced comments on goals and policies such as concern with "suitable acres for industrial' and future
allowances for mining.
llruvate homeowners
1. Residents noted that their ongoing maintenance needs generally limited to supplementing bark on trails,
repairing existing shoreline stabilization (only in front of the residential areas) and piers, and managing
water quality and aquatic vegetation (milfoil and algae).
Aquatic vegetation control for milfoil included variety of mechanical mechanisms, but success was finally
achieved with introduction of grass carp. However, this increased clarity and resulted in algae blooms.
The residents are coordinating with a variety of agencies to come up with a solution — suggestions have
included introducing native water lily, "floating islands" [we informed them that Buchanan Lake was
installing one]. Their interest is in making sure that the SMP allows them to install necessary
measures/practices to achieve a balance in the lakes. The problems are mostly in the shallow canal areas
in front of the residences — the deep -water portions of the lakes do not have problems.
3. Related to water flow, there is not much in the lakes. There is some buried piping with valves that keeps
water moving. The Lake Aspen outlet is in the NE corner and passes under the freeway. The lakes turn
over two times per year.
4. Water is pulled from Lake Aspen to irrigate common areas.
5. The lake HOAs own the lake bottom, so they are legally allowed to keep the general public out of the
waters. There is a buoy barrier and signage.
6. There are water quality concerns related to construction occurring at the west end of Willow Lake.
7. WDFW did a water quality study on Willow Lake, and approved stocking of trout. There are also
smallmouth and largemouth bass in the lakes.
8. Lake Aspen HOA has detailed covenants which they will provide to the City to assist with development of
regulations that align with their standards when appropriate (e.g., dock standards; width of common
area/utility area along edge of lake where grass is maintained and there are rock walls).
9. Interest in constructing a bridge or floating dock connector to the island on Willow Lake which is occupied
by weeds and geese. May also be interested in removing that island.
February 22, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK 4
10. Maintenance dredging is not needed in the lakes.
11. No motors are allowed on Lake Aspen, Willow Lake allows electric motors. They have decals on boats that
are approved for use.
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS
Chris Parsons
1. State Parks provided the City with a copy of the CAMP report for Sportsman State Park — expressed desire
for regulations/standards to allow for implementation of the CAMP.
2. The Park has a Noxious Weed Plan —the State utilizes biological controls when possible, rather than
chemical
3. Interested in boat launch allowance in the SMP — and expressed willingness to work with City to obtain
grants.
4. Routine maintenance activities that might benefit from option to have long-term shoreline permit include
vegetation maintenance and trail maintenance. Maintenance plans should include requirement for
notification to City.
February 22, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK 5
SMP Public Involvement Process
1. Staff gathers information from the public and property owners though
mailings and private stakeholder meetings.
2. The Planning Division, consultants, and Commission work to develop the
first draft of the use regulations (i.e. permitted use table and SMP
designation map).
3. The first draft is circulated to interested property owners and stakeholder
groups for comment.
4. The Planning Division and consultants respond to the comments from the
public and interest groups and make necessary revisions to the draft
chapters and maps.
5. The Planning Divisions responses and SMP revisions are sent to the
Commission for review.
6. The draft chapter is finalized for overall public review, comment and notice.
7. Steps 2-6 are repeated for each chapter or sections until the draft is
complete for public review.
8. Environmental Review is conducted on the draft with a 20 day public
comment period and 14 day appeal period.
9. The Planning Commission holds is public hearing where public testimony
may be taken.
10.The Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the Yakima City
Council.
11.The Yakima City Council holds a public hearing.
12.The adopted document is forwarded to the Washington State Department
of Ecology which provides its own review and appeal procedures.
/
�r i� 1,��''�,
DATE: February 6, 2013
TO: Craig Gildroy, Planning Director, City of Chelan
FROM: Lisa Grueter, AICP, Manager
cc: Amy Summe, Environmental Planner, The Watershed Company
r^ 4k.8.dti', UVA 48'I ?
RE: Shoreline Master Program Local Adoption and State Adoption — Options and Schedule
The City of Chelan has been working on a local Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update consistent with the
Shoreline Management Act (SMA; RCW 90.58) and SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26). The Planning
Commission has made recommendations regarding the SMP to the City Council. At a joint session on
January 23, 2013, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the Planning Commission
recommendations and also asked several questions about the SMP process, such as the due date, potential
timeline extensions, and concerns about whether the City's local conditions warrant SMP regulations.
This memo addresses the following questions:
• SMP Update Deadlines: Can the City extend its review past the grant deadline of June 30, 2013? What
if the City did not act to approve the SMP by the SMA deadline of December 1, 2013?
• Ecology Review and Rulemaking: What happens after local adoption with Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) review? What are the consequences of Ecology taking over SMP
preparation for the City through rule making?
In addition, this memo provides two alternative schedules for SMP adoption and potential added costs
should the City extend its review (e.g. due to meetings or additional SMP drafts).
In a separate memo we have addressed potential scopes and budgets regarding additional dock evaluations
and private property rights research.
SMP Update Deadlines
The City has executed a grant agreement with Ecology. It shows SMP local adoption occurring by June 30,
2013. City staff have been working to meet this deadline with Planning Commission review occurring fall
2012 and City Council review occurring from January to June 2013.
The legal deadline to accomplish local adoption of the SMP is December 1, 2013 (see RCW 90.58.080).
The City can request an extension of the deadline in the grant agreement to the legal deadline; the City
would need to prepare a letter to Ecology requesting the extension and including a schedule identifying key
dates including the 60 -day notice of intent to adopt. (pers. com. Clynda Case, Ecology, January 30, 2013)
An updated schedule through June 30 and an alternative schedule through December 1 are provided
below. In addition, please see the discussion below regarding if the City misses the December VY deadline.
Ecology Review and Rulemaking
Following City adoption of the SMP, Ecology would determine the SMP submitted is complete, and if so
hold its own review and public comment period.' The general steps for Ecology include:
• Provide public notice and opportunity for comment — this can include a public meeting as well as a
written comment period. It often catches the interest of stakeholders with statewide interests (e.g.
Futurewise). If held, the public meeting would be held in the city or county. The written comment
period would extend for 30 days.
• Prepare decision packet — Ecology would either 1) approve as submitted; 2) approve with required
changes but allowing the local government to either agree to the changes or submit an alternative
proposal; or 3) deny the alternative proposal. The City could appeal Ecology's denial to the Growth
Management Hearings Board.
• Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval - if Ecology requires changes to a
proposed SMP amendment, Ecology would work closely with the local government to develop mutually
agreeable language consistent with the SMA and SMP Guidelines to allow the city or county to
complete the approval process.
If the City exceeds the legal deadline (December 1, 2013) or if Ecology determines the SMP applicable to
shorelines of statewide significance (includes Lake Chelan) does not provide for optimum implementation
of SMA policies, Ecology can adopt an SMP it prepares by rule. (See WAC 173-26-070.) The rule-making
could address the full SMP or a portion of it.
Rulemaking is a drastic action that would mean the local government loses local control and flexibility in its
SMP preparation, and yet the local government would be obligated per the roles defined in SMA and SMP
Guidelines to administer the state prepared SMP. The City would also have financial implications. If the City
missed the deadline of December 1 and Ecology started rulemaking, Ecology could require the City to pay
back the grant funding it received. In addition, because the SMP is considered part of the Growth
Management Act (GMA) Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, if a local government has
failed to act, it could be found out of compliance with the GMA and restricted from receiving grants such as
for public works projects. Additionally, as part of the rule-making process, Ecology may have to prepare its
own analysis report, cumulative impacts analysis, etc. that could mean a different set of scientific
conclusions than what the local government had prepared. (pers. com. Clynda Case, Ecology, January 30,
2013; pers. com. Sarah Hunt, Ecology, February 1, 2013; see also RCW 36,70A.130)
Below are some case studies of jurisdictions with different SMP histories.
' See Ecology's web page for more information:
htto: wvww.ec .wa -govlorog rarns sea sh ore Imes sm tool b ox1process hase6.btm1.
The City of Bothell's SMP was approved as is with no revisions. The City heard both from stakeholders
that pushed for greater ecological protection and those philosophically opposed the SMA (including
one member of the shoreline advisory committee). All participants were constructive; for example, an
attorney opposed to the SMA was helpful in developing incentives and SMP language that was mindful
of private property rights. Bothell's SMP included some well-designed buffer strategies that reduced
buffers on degraded lands and increased buffers on high value natural areas. It included public access
density incentives, a feature developed in response to City Council review. All provisions were carefully
negotiated with Ecology so that by the time the SMP was submitted no sticky issues remained.
(Approval is in a letter from Ecology to the City dated January 23, 2013; see the City's webpage, here:
htt www.ci.both Vl,wa.us Cit Services PI!annin AndD,evelo nient SMPU.ashx? =1549.)
The Douglas County Regional SMP was approved with changes negotiated after local SMP adoption.
The Douglas County Regional SMP included both a critical areas ordinance update applicable beyond
shoreline jurisdiction and a SMP. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) did not incorporate the
buffers based on a buffer science analysis prepared by its consultants and instead incorporated smaller
buffers based on biologist input on behalf of the development community (eventually the County hired
the second biologist). Ecology sent a letter with over 40 pages of required changes; there were several
issues of concern with buffers a high concern. Douglas County sent in alternative proposals. Ecology
and Douglas County negotiated the alternative language. For example, the two parties negotiated a
zoned shoreline buffer system. Also the County removed provisions for the general critical areas
ordinance update and focused on the SMP only. Once the language was negotiated, the County
Planning Commission and BOCC conducted a new local adoption process. Ecology then accepted the
revised SMP proposal as is. (pers. com. Clynda Case, January 30, 2013.)
The Renton SMP was approved with changes negotiated after local SMP adoption. The City prepared
a SMP that contained an issue of concern for Ecology — dock dimensions. The City preferred a dock
dimension that did not match the US Army Corps Regional General Permit nor the science based
approach of State and Federal agencies. Ecology required changes. The City proposed alternative
language that was unacceptable to Ecology. Ecology and the City negotiated for 1 year (the City did not
adopt by the State legal deadline but because the conversation was ongoing Ecology did not take rule-
making action). Eventually, the City accepted the Ecology required change on docks and the SMP is now
in effect. Ecology did not want to initiate rule-making and kept working with the City. However, Ecology
would have initiated the process reluctantly if there had not been an agreement. It's likely it would
have been a limited rule which would have addressed docks and shoreline buffers. Ecology was
uncomfortable with some of the City -proposed buffers but chose to accept the City's approach at the
time of Ecology review. If it had come to rule-making it's possible that Ecology would have revisited
buffers as well as docks. (pers. com. Barbara Nightingale, Ecology, January 30, 2012; City web page,
htt : www.retitonwa,. ov business default.as x?id=1SSOg).
Ecology initiated rulemaking with Spokane County, but then Spokane County restarted its local SMP
Update. Spokane County prepared a local SMP Update. It had serious flaws according to Ecology staff.
A letter with required changes from Ecology was sent to the County. There was no agreement. Ecology
then prepared its own full SMP for Spokane County and initiated rule making. The Ecology prepared
Draft SMP was fairly strict and based on the science prepared by Ecology. Spokane County then was
concerned with the proposed SMP prepared by Ecology and the loss of local control, and worked with
Ecology to have it withdraw the rule-making and restart a locally prepared SMP. After the County
prepared a new SMP, Ecology reviewed it and found some required changes. The County prepared
alternative language. Eventually there was agreement and the County accepted Ecology's required
changes. (pers com. Clynda Case, Ecology, January 30, 2013; pers. com. Sarah Hunt, Ecology, February
1, 2013; Spokane County website is here: http:Uwww.sookanecounty.org/bplcontent.asox?c=2323,.)
The City of Chelan has worked extensively with Ecology on key issues to come up with a balanced approach
on major topics such as buffers, mitigation, and other topics (see the December 2012 matrix provided for
the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting held January 23, 2013). Even with Ecology's
reluctance in some areas, the City staff and consultants were able to develop several solutions; if rule-
making were to commence, some items of agreement could be re -opened by Ecology. If rule-making occurs
items important to the City may be re -opened and the City may need to negotiate on all items, which
would add City staff and consultant time. Ecology may not only take up issues they disagree with but also
other issues. It is also unknown if after December 1, 2013 if Ecology would continue to work closely with
the City or go with rule-making. It should also be noted that we have had a single Ecology Project Officer for
the last several years who is leaving Ecology (Clynda Case is moving out of state). We do not know who will
be new Ecology Project Officer assigned to Chelan and whether they will agree to the work completed,
particularly if issues are re -opened after December 1, 2013.
Alternative Schedules
The following pages show two schedules, one completing by June 30, 2013 and the other completing by
December 1, 2013. There are cost implications to extending the timeline. In a separate memo we have also
outlined the cost to evaluate additional topics of concern that would apply with either schedule if the City
decided it wished to evaluate other areas of concern prior to adoption.
Cost Implications of Schedule Extension
By extending the schedule, additional effort would be needed from the Consultant team to prepare an
additional SMP draft (following from responses to comments), and particularly to attend additional
meetings. In addition, there would be added team coordination, including the preparation of this memo
developing options. Please see the chart below for those costs; the chart follows our current scope
numbering system and since only certain tasks are affected the full list is not shown below.
Grueter Summe GIS Total Hours and
Estimated Cost
5144 511.x. 57+9 I by Task
Task 1: Shoreline Master Program - Added Draft
10 $ 4
Subtotal 10 8 4 22
Assumes general changes in responses to comments - specialty topics of docks and other items in separate estimate. $2 6g4
Task 3: Local Review Process
Public Meetings -Added Support 30 24
Subtotal 30 24 0 54
Assumes 4-5 additional meetings; specialtytopics with their own works essions areaddressed in a separate estimate.
Task 5: Ongoing Tasks: Progress Reports, Team Conference Calls/Meetings - Added Coordination including Options Memo
30 4
Subtotal 10 4 0 14
$1,907
Total Estimated Hours 50 36 4 90
Cost (Hours"Rate) $7,223 $4,158 $315 $11696
Subtotal Consultant Cost $11,696
Project Expenses @ -5% of project budget $600
Estimated Project Total $12,296
Chelan SMP Schedule: June 30, 2013 Completion
11-11
Miagoll
Task 1* Shoreline Master Program P." sion he—mgd-ft
Task 2- Curnulative kr4mcts; AnWVAs, atV-spedfic Analysts
Task 3: Local Review Process
Subtask A. Public Meeting Support
Joint Workshops- Pla nning Commission and City Council
Planning Commission Hearing& Deliberation
City Council Hearing& Deliberation Vr j
Subtask B. SEPA Checklist and Draft SEPA Determination
Subtask C.
EM
Subtask D. Ordinance/Resolution Support
Subtask E. Draft 60 -day Notice of Intent to Adopt
ask S: Ongoing Tasks: Progress Reports: Team tottfererllce Calls[Meettrt� ' � ,
4ir -
^ Hearing * Meeting/Deliberation
Chelan SMP Schedule: December 1, 2013 Completion
Twk 1 ShomUrw Mam, Program 0
Twk2: eunwJladve
111"Pilicts Arralvs7s, Ckv-wedk An"s
k3: 4.-A Roieur Ptoom
5.bt.*A-Pebr.Meelkng��
Joi rt Works hoos - P1 a n ni ng Commi ssi an and City Council
Planning
City Council Hearing& Deliberation
Subtask B. SEPA Cheddist and Draft SEPA Determlnavtlon
De
so b tk 0- oroo�-f* wh, SLVpw.
S—t-k E Drat 60,&-y Nt 1- of Inu a to Adopt
l7ask 5-. Ongai!g Tacks: ""SS R&p0rt16 Team Cardeirence C00ftelklap 1
—L�
N Hearing Meeting/Deliberation
"AK MA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT PROPOSED SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS
17.03.010 Floodway / Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) [same as County SMP]
A. Purpose: The Floodway/CMZ environment is intended to protect the water areas; islands, associated
overflow channels, and channel migration areas. This environment provides for the movement of the
river within its floodplain, and emphasizes preservation of the natural hydraulic, geologic and biological
functions of the City's shorelines that are constrained by biophysical limitations.
B. Designation Criteria: The Floodway/CMZ designation is assigned to shoreline areas that are within a
mapped Channel Migration Zone and/or within a designated FEMA Floodway. The extent of the
Floodway/CMZ designation should never extend beyond the limitations of the Shoreline CMZ found in
WAC 173-26-221(3)(b). Areas separated from the active river channel by existing legal artificial channel
constraints should not be considered as part of the CMZ. In addition, areas that are separated from the
active channel by legally existing artificial structure(s) including transportation facilities, built above or
constructed to remain intact through the one hundred -year flood, should also not be considered part of
the CMZ.
C. Management Policies:
1. Commercial, industrial, mining, nonwater-oriented recreation, roads, utilities, parking areas, and
residences should generally not be located in the Floodway/CMZ environment. Other uses (recreation,
resource, etc.) should be carefully limited to protect shoreline functions.
2. Activities that may degrade the value of the Floodway/CMZ environment should be limited, and
development in hazardous areas should be restricted.
3. Modifications that harden or fix stream banks and channels should be discouraged.
17.03.020 Urban Conservancy [similar to County's language and WAC]
A. Purpose: The Urban Conservancy environment is intended to protect and restore ecological functions of
open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while
allowing a variety of compatible uses.
B. Designation Criteria: Specific criteria for designation of the Urban Conservancy environment include
areas or properties that:
1. Lie in the city limits and urban growth areas;
2. Are planned for development that is compatible with the principals of maintaining or restoring the
ecological functions of the area;
3. Are suitable for water -enjoyment uses;
4. Are open space or floodplains, or;
5. Are areas that retain important ecological functions which should not be more intensively developed.
February 13, 2013 1
C. Management Policies:
1. Allowed uses for the Urban Conservancy environment generally include uses which preserve the natural
character of the area, and promote the preservation of open space, floodplains or sensitive lands.
2. Uses allowed under this designation should focus on recreation.
3. Commercial, industrial and residential uses should be limited, and when allowed result in restoration of
ecological functions.
4. Public access and recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant
ecological impacts mitigated.
17.03.030 High Intensity [based on WAC, similarities to County's Urban designation]
A. Purpose: The purpose of the "High Intensity" environment is to provide for high-intensity water -oriented
commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and
restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
B. Designation Criteria: Specific criteria for designation of the High Intensity environment include areas or
properties that:
1. Presently support high intensity land uses including commercial, industrial, urban recreational,
transportation, or high-intensity water -oriented uses.
2. Are planned to accommodate urban expansion of uses listed in #1.
C. Management Policies:
1. Water -oriented commercial, industrial, and recreation uses should be given high priority in the High
Intensity environment. First priority should be given to water -dependent uses. Second priority should be
given to water -related and water -enjoyment uses. Nonwater-oriented uses should not be allowed
except as part of mixed-use developments. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be allowed in limited
situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites
where there is no direct access to the shoreline. Public benefits such as ecological restoration or public
access may be required in association with nonwater-oriented development.
2. New stand-alone residential uses in the High Intensity environment should be discouraged.
3. When considering shoreline environment designation amendment proposals, full utilization of existing
high intensity areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive development is allowed.
4. Development in the High Intensity designation should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development should include
environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any relevant state and federal
law.
5. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as part of development in the High
Intensity designation unless it already exists to serve the development or other safety, security, or
fragile environmental conditions apply.
6. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate
development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative
separation.
February 13, 2013
17.03.040 Shoreline Residential [based on WAC, some similarities to County's Urban designation]
A. Purpose: The purpose of the "Shoreline Residential" environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. An additional purpose is to
provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
B. Designation Criteria: Assign a "Shoreline Residential" environment designation to areas that are
predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for
residential development.
C. Management Policies:
1. Development standards addressing the development envelope, water quality, and vegetation should
assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations
and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other
comprehensive planning considerations.
2. Multifamily and multi -lot residential and recreational developments should provide public access and
joint use for community recreational facilities.
3. Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and/or
planned future development.
4. Commercial development should be limited to water -oriented uses and allowed only when the
underlying zoning permits such uses.
17.03.050 Aquatic [based on WAC]
A. Purpose: The purpose of the "Aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique
characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of shoreline lakes.
B. Designation Criteria: Specific criteria for the Aquatic designation are lands waterward of the ordinary high
water mark of shoreline lakes.
C. Management Policies:
1. Allow new over -water structures only for water -dependent uses, public access, or ecological
restoration. The size of new over -water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to
support the structure's intended use.
2. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources,
multiple use of over -water facilities should be encouraged.
3. Uses that could adversely impact the ecological functions of critical freshwater habitats should not be
allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, and then
only when their impacts are mitigated according to mitigation sequencing as necessary to assure no net
loss of ecological functions.
4. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water
quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.
5. When considering development or activities in the Aquatic environment, the City should favor
development and activities associated with preferred uses of the Shoreline Management Act and apply
development standards that consider water quality, navigation, presence of aquatic vegetation, existing
critical habitats, aesthetics, public access, and views.
February 13, 2013 3
YAKI A SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designations &
Use and Modification Matrix Framework
lllh°°� �'�IIII�' 111111 �IIII' ��'°"�IIII"I�' VIII 1111
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Guidelines (WAC 173-26)
includes six recommendations for shoreline environment designations: Natural, Urban Conservancy, Rural
Conservancy, High Intensity, Shoreline Residential, and Aquatic. While each jurisdiction may use alternate or
parallel environment designations, these alternate designations should provide equal or better implementation of
the Shoreline Management Act.
The Yakima County Regional SMP includes the following range of designations: Urban, Rural, Conservancy, Natural,
Floodway/Channel Migration Zone (CMZ), and Urban Conservancy. The categories preliminarily applied in the City
and actually applied in the Urban Growth Area (UGA) are Urban, Rural, Conservancy, Floodway/CMZ, and Urban
Conservancy. The City of Yakima adopted only the technical analysis associated with the Yakima County Regional
SMP, but is currently preparing an SMP more applicable to the City's planning needs.
Compared to the Regional SMP, we suggest a couple of category changes or additions for ease of administration of
use matrix and match to uses on the ground. We suggest that Urban be split into High Intensity (more for
commercial/industrial areas) and into Shoreline Residential (apply to areas where that is the predominant use).
We also propose to add an Aquatic environment for areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) on
lakes; this use environment is important to define to address in -water uses and modifications such as piers/docks.
Riverine aquatic environment would be addressed by Floodway/CMZ designation. The City is allowed to pre-
designate shoreline environments in the Yakima UGA; upon annexation, the City's SMP would apply to those areas
and would not require further amendment.
We recommend pre -designation of the UGA to provide a holistic plan for the shoreline and make efficient use of
the public's time and available funding. It appears that areas of Rural and Conservancy have been assigned in the
UGA, and we will explore the most appropriate environment designations for these areas, which could be Urban
Conservancy or Natural, or another category developed specifically for the City of Yakima SMP.
Following the Nanning Commission discussion on February 13 2013 our recent activities have included:
'........... Environment s!gn,atioMaprevimsigns see
...:._...t N tl ��f��n,.Dgon,,,!i nf„Ecolo that Buchanan Lake should not be ma ed
as �atiQr: to cluatic.
2. Chara.i p: tlj envNiLaLc l rjto,.siRLafiqp a 1@Ln ` of Buchanan Lake to the mnorth to.HJ Intensity.
iotle' aarray'scrrrnt si rrrner�tafeavironrnentlewalattclmns has,alsoI�r�nmr� prfllmdgfi for
cc rnp rr n. M rll al ref laildmmt r nnrs 1pm rlIli ha2,nwm_gyid and at the Februa.LY 7� � SWj�laolrslWr� rllWrrolts ioq�.
meeting.
..m hor ?ine Juris li t: cr uinvestig giglrs .
I...__ m owiche r elk: We have been researchinp internet sources for information about the mean annual flout/
of CowiLt iItCj Eu qj was fff tgmmdi C rss rased oa„a Er lr f stra�a.rn gL µ.fish Fin a, 'a
d_Iscot.inuous a rfa rrwrawtc` ar rd re i” str f lrrw nc z mean di c�~w e e is abo� ut11.5,.cubic feet g� f
f fend c:Es... ti r�r l carts 1s r�crtewNwogiop r vfaraable seasonal discharges of' -2 to 136' cfs. A 2003 USG .
stgdy of S pkheast Washingtons�r�anl au�ei rnv,,e s did not identif Cowiche Creek as a shoreline stream
February 6, 2013/Undated February 19, 2QL 3' Prepared by BERK/TWC
meeting �"Lie.ctvla inig i s men �annU o ra�guiremenat Inve Ftp ��tllopi continues as of thi ra7ea�a r,' vire
,hLt L „ final deteinntigyiFNsrAgj_,mwmissionmeeting..
y/i
Blueoug ' L�l�Iave been researching Internet sources for information about the status of Flue Slo11011,
which we learned, from the Coun,ty had kwe rirfnymLor ,ILy,,,, a"ast ��a�sma years twrM mto Bureau of Reclarnma�tion..
Enema &e1 eaat A o this.nieyio, :t I olo, ks I'iikemITl�heITBllue S ljjqEkI sw�rl,lia'nodil`ie d mow m ol f_awwh t'o,riwg_Yakirna Ri ve r
idle i tunnel, and isunman the emss of b�*i„ne restored to allow witwto function as itwwonce ,did. If that is the
� se wtNr u l Ir,W lru l should rematn in shoreline unro,,d�,ctuon Way ho to have more infnrr°atwatioln
February 27, 2013, Plannioryin*sion rn ettirwg
RlllIE'Ill flI%NM�IY USE I %IIC°') MOD4IICATIONI”"'1111'°IIII.
The SMP Guidelines suggest the use of a matrix, similar to that found in a zoning code, when identifying in which
shoreline environments various uses and modifications are allowed. The shoreline environment designations will
function as an overlay on zoning; the more restrictive use allowances will prevail. Our recommendation is to make
the use allowances similar between the Zoning Code and SMP where feasible. However, it should be noted that
Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are locally approved, whereas a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
requires Ecology approval following local review. Thus, a straight translation of Zoning Code conditional use to a
SMP conditional use would add a layer of State review.
We have developed a framework use and modification matrix below. The categories of uses and modifications
follow from the SMP Guidelines, but the detailed sub -categories are based on a variety of sources —Zoning Code,
the Regional .SMP, or SMP Guidellnes. Using SMP Guidelines and Cily zoning concepts, w+v> e have preliminarily
filled in the "cells" for discussion. We wilt review,
this chart along with thea revised Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designation Map at the Planning
Commission meeting in . late, February.
For reference, the permit types in the table are defined as follows:
• "Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption" requires a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit or a Shoreline Exemption, and are shown as a "S" on the use and modification matrix. These are
approved at the City level. Ecology may appeal the local decision, but generally these are uses or modifications
that are more routine or that have less potential for impact, or that have detailed performance standards that
are prescribed in the SMP. An example of a typical use requiring a Substantial Development Permit could be a
trail outside the floodway.
• "Conditional Uses" require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and are shown as a "C" on the use and
modification matrix. These would be evaluated by the City and a local decision made, but Ecology would have
the final approval authority. (Also, it should be noted that unlisted uses that are not clearly prohibited would
be reviewed as conditional uses by default.) Conditional uses tend to be activities that may have a potential
for incompatibility or environmental impacts that require more scrutiny and preparation of project -specific
performance standards or mitigation. Possible conditional uses may include mining activities or a boat launch
if it required fill waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
• "Prohibited" activities, uses, developments, and modifications are not allowed and are shown as an "X" on the
use and modification matrix.
• "Not Applicable" uses or activities are shown as "NLA" on the use and modification matrix.
February 6, 2013/Updated February 18,_2W Prepared by BERK/TWC
QUESTIONS
As we review the Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designation map and Preliminary Use and Modification
Matrix, we would like to discuss the following with the Planning Commission:
• Do the preliminary locations of shoreline environment designations match your expectations of current and
planned land uses?
• Are there particular uses or modifications you feel require more review/less review? Does it depend on
location (e.g., river vs. lake)? Where?
In terms of shoreline uses, what would you like to see more of? What shoreline uses do you like? What's
missing?
0 Are there uses or activities you believe should be prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction uplands? Are there uses
or activities that should be prohibited in just the river or lakes?
• There is a balance between flexibility and certainty. For example, a community could propose fewer
use/modification categories and sub -categories and more detailed definitions, which may allow more
flexibility as activities change in nature over time (but still fit into a category). On the other hand, a community
could propose more detailed categories and subcategories of uses/modifications that synchronize more with
the Zoning Code and that provide more certainty and direction about what is allowed. What are your
viewpoints between flexibility and certainty and broad versus detailed uses and modifications?
February 6, 2013] d9ted February 18, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC
Preliminary Use and Modification Matrix — City of Yakima SMP
Shoreline Use or Modification
N
N
a_
d
f0
Y
J
......... _....._ ......... _.._ .... �.. ------ . _. �.� �.� �. . �...� ........... . .., .. ., ... ...... . . . .... _..,....
++
�
CC
H
C
U C
\ N
�
Key:
Leo
c
3 2
3
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption
=c
°o
a
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
vLi
'i
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
Agriculture
Agricultural Activities (RCW 90.58.065)
S
S
S
S
N/A
Agricultural Market, Agricultural Stand (Zoning)
S
X
S
X
N/A
Winery and Brewery (Zoning)
S
X
S
X
N/A
Agriculture -Industrial
....
Agricultural Chemical Sales/Storage (Zoning)
S
X
X
X
N/A
Agricultural Related Industries & Storage (Zoning)
S
X
C
X
N/A
Concentrated Feeding Operation (Zoning, Regional SMP)
X
X
X
X
N/A
Archaeological
Interpretive Center (Regional SMP)
S
C
C
X
X
Restoration of Historic Structures (Regional SMP)
S
S
S
X
C
Archaeological Excavation (Regional SMP)
S
S
S
C
C
Aquaculture
Rearing (Regional SMP)
X
X
C
C
S
Processing (Regional SMP)
X
X
X
X
X
Packing & Storage (Regional SMP)
See Vnd sty l' anufac�tud I Stora e.
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities
Boat Launches (Regional SMP)
C,
Pier/Dock
_,.
Pier/Dock, Single -Family Residence Facility to Access
N/A
S
X
X
S
Watercraft (Regional SMP)
Pier/Dock for Water -Dependent Commercial, Industrial,
....... ..........
......................
Aquaculture, or Recreational Use; or Public Access (Regional
S
S
X
X
S
SMP)
Commercial and Service Uses
Retail, Trade, and Service
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
S
X
S
X
�C
_.............. .
Non -Water -Oriented, General (Regional SMP)
S C1
X
C
X
X
Non -Water Oriented Uses, Separated from Shoreline
S
X
S
X
X
(Regional SMP)
Mixed use project that includes a Water Dependent
Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture, or Recreational Use
S
X
S
X
C
SMP
(Regional )
February 6, 2013 U dated Februwf 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 4
Shoreline Use or Modification
7i
I U
4A
In
M
C 4)
M
------------- .......................... ......
In
C
C
0
_J
Key:
CM
C
.2
M
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption
X
0)
0
M
0 M
0 tw
Cr
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
Community Services (Zoning Code)
Water-Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
...............................
S
X
S
X
C
. .
Non-Water-Oriented, General (Regional SMP)
. . . ........... . .
C
X
C
X
X
Non-Water-Oriented Uses, Separated from Shoreline
S
X
S
X
X
NLA
(Regional SMP)
Mixed-use project that includes a Water-Dependent
...... . ........... . ..
Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture, or Recreational Use
S
X
S
X
C
(Regional SMP)
Health and Social Service Facility (Zoning Code)
S
C
C
X
.
X
...............
Mixed-Use Building (Zoning)
S
C
.
A
X
:
................................. ____
X
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal
Dredging for Use and Public Access (Regional
N
WA
Wt,
C
C
SMP)
Dredging for existing Navigation Uses (Regional SMP)
NJ A
N1
X
C
............................ . .
Dredging for Habitat Restoration (Regional SMP)S
.................................................... . . . . . . . .
S
............................ .
Dredging, Ge+ieQ,-Qt her'(Regional SMP)
N
NLA
N
. ........... ...
X
X
pi t ill of Dred ed Materjai
S
X
XLc
XLc
X.
Dredging Maintenance PlanVii,
N
. . . . ............ . .
NSA,
S
S
Fill
&"Within the OHWM
NLA
NLA
..........
RIM t, h 4n - 44e- 0 KW,,M,,-Gi&a w,44l� ff,4 n a 4, SM P)
........................................................................
F4-GOutside the OHWM (Regional SMP)
S
S
.. ........................................ . . . . . .
S
NLA
Flood Hazard Reduction Measures
Modification of Existing Flood Hazard Facilities Linc_judin
_g
S
S
S
S
NLA
relocation fardler�i_ndwajJ
New Facilities
C
C
C
C
NLA
Forest Practices
Forest Practices
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
Industry / Manufacturing_/ Storage
Water-Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
S
X
C
X
c
Non-Water-Oriented
.....................
General (Regional SMP)
. . ...........
X
X
X
X
Separated from Shoreline (Regional SMP)
S
. ......
X
...
C
X
N/A
I February 6, 2013Lgggated February 18 �201,3 Prepared by BERK/TWC 5
Shoreline Use or Modificationu
e
N
61
C
M "
Y
... ,.,.... .._.....W__.._-........__--_..,.. ........ ............... .«.. .««,,,
0!
++
d
C
vii
C
U p
� N
J
Key:
m
c
3 c
M
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption=
c
.P_
C = Shoreline Conditional Use PermitvLi
U.
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
Mixed-use project that includes a Water -Dependent
Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture, or Recreational Use
S
X
C
X
C
(Regional SMP)
In -Stream Structures
iertGn�t�Rkd too protect public facilities
C
C
C
C
NLA
'1p tarotect car restos° _ gglg , cat fuii tions
. ._...
S
S
S
S
NJA
_nc n�4 r jVgv s a t r„etLa Ali , o� othe.r.h�abitat charart dst cs
S
..
S
_...5.. _......
5......
/m
Other tnstrarsstrctars
C
X
X
N:/
Mining,
Surface Mining (Regional SMP)
C
X
X
X
X
Underground Mining (Regional SMP)
........ _
X
X
X
X
X
.................
Mining for Habitat Restoration (Regional SMP)
S
__ WW__
S
S
S
S
Recreational Development
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
High -Intensity (Regional SMP)
S
S
S Cz
S
S Cz
......... ..................
Moderate -Intensity (Regional SMP)
S
_......................... ..-
S
S
S CZ
S C'
Low -Intensity (Regional SMP)
S
S
S
S
S
Recreation Maintenance Plans
S
S
S
S
S
Non -Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
General
C
X
C
X
X
Sitesserrated ftom,shoreline
S
S
S
C
NLA
Indoor (Regional SMP)
See Commercial and Service Uses
Residential Development
Single -Family Dwelling (Zoning Code)
S
S
S
X
N/A
Accessory Dwelling Unit (Zoning Code)
S
S
S
X
N/A
Duplex (Zoning Code)
S
C
C
X
N/A
Multifamily Dwelling (Zoning Code)
S
X
X
X
N/A
Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision outside Floodplain
(Regional SMP)
S
S
S
X
N/A
Note: When definitions are rials for construction
mgres as industrial from mineral extraction which is what is considered under the mining ategory.
February 6, 2013 U dated February IS �2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 6
Shoreline Use or Modification
c
,�
H
C
�
n
N
U 0
........... ................. .._.. ., _.,. .,_...__.._..... _.. _. ,....
+�+
c
�
C
0
\ N
u
Key:
m
°
c
3 0
3
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption=
c
°o C
a
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
vti
tQ
LL
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision within Floodplain
(Regional SMP)
C
C
C
X
N/A
Houseboats and Over-Water Residential Uses (Regional SMP)
N/A
N/A
.......
N/A
X
_ ..
X
........
Residential Maintenance Plan
_.
S
_ .......
S
N A
-.,
S
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement
Projects
pShoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects S
S
S
S
S
Shoreline Stabilization
Hard Stabilization
C
C
C
C
C
u
Soft Stabilization
S
....... ..._.
S
C
....
C
....-. ,
S
Repair and Replacement
......
S
S
S
S
S
Signs
On-premise for Authorized Use (Regional SMP)
S
S
S
S
S
..............
Off-premise (Regional SMP)
........
S
X
X
X
-
X
Informational (directional, landmark, trail marker, etc.) (Regional
................... _..
SMP)
S
S
S
S
S
Transportation and Parking
Access Roads Serving Permitted Uses (Regional SMP)
S
S
S
SLC!
N
Highways and Freeways (Regional SMP)
........ —
5
S C3 -
Bridges
__.... _
S
_
S C3
S C3
..........
5L!
51C-!
Transportation Maintenance Plan
S
S
S
..........................
S
S
Transportation Maintenance Facilities (Regional SMP)
C
X
C
X
X
�_ _...........-m __
Railways (Regional SMP)
...............
S2
S C3
-
5 C3
5&
Parking for Authorized Use (Regional SMP)
...... - .....
Raru�vw:d as
part
of authorized
use.
Park and Ride lots and Similar Stand Alone Parking (Regional
SMP)
C
X
X
X
X
-
Utilities
Utility Services Accessory to Individual Shoreline Projects
(Regional SMP)
Reviewed as paq of authorized! use.
__ ........
Utility Services to Projects outside Shoreline Jurisdiction (Regional
. ................................ ........ .
SMP)
S
S
S
C
C
-
.. ........ .....
Power Generating Facilities (Zoning Code)
5L
.......
X
C
X
C
Utility Transmission Lines (Regional SMP)
S
C
C
..............
C
C
Utility Services, General (Zoning Code)
S C3
5 C3
5 C3
C
C
February 6, 2013 4i dated FebruarL18 2013 Prepared by
BERK/TWC
7
Shoreline Use or Modification
----------^----~------------------^~
Key:
s~Shoreline Substantial Development Permit orExemption
C=Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
X~ Prohibited N/A ~ Not Applicable
Utility Maintenance Plan
Wastewater Treatment Facility
x
benefit, such alRlyjpblligcL�gggc�essfor substantial numbers of oersons or shoreline ecol 6cal restoration Otherwise a
2 A Shoreline �qbstantial Pevelopment Permit is allowable for activitieLLhat are part of a shoreline restoratiqDAlan
line Conditional Use Permit.
Permit,
I February 6, 2013LUodated February 18, 2_013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 8
U.
x
benefit, such alRlyjpblligcL�gggc�essfor substantial numbers of oersons or shoreline ecol 6cal restoration Otherwise a
2 A Shoreline �qbstantial Pevelopment Permit is allowable for activitieLLhat are part of a shoreline restoratiqDAlan
line Conditional Use Permit.
Permit,
I February 6, 2013LUodated February 18, 2_013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 8
CITY OF YAKIMA, SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designation — Case Studies
INTRODUCTION
The following case studies have been developed to support Planning Commission understanding and discussion of
the preliminary draft Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix. These studies are a sample of possible projects that
seemed likely based on our conversations with City staff and stakeholders. However, the studies are produced at a
high planning level, and the final outcome of these hypothetical projects would be dependent on the actual project
proposal, final environment designations map, final shoreline use and modification matrix, and the detailed
standards contained in the Shoreline Master Program.
February 21, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company
CITY OF YAKIMA, SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
CA&A11111 S I IIII SRI IIII'° E °°wllll'° IIIIIIIIII f°°RAI 1REL(" TIII
Location Map
Trail, north side of Berglund
Lake and continuing east
Preliminary Environment
Designations
Aquatic
FWod"/CMZ
High Inter°psay
Shor@Wo ReWenbal
Urban Con r fvr ncy
Proposed Use or Activity Trail re-routing near Berglund Lake and Highway
Preliminary Use Matrix Moderate -Intensity Recreational Development:
Allowance Urban Conservancy environment — S (S = Substantial Development Permit)
Floodway/CMZ environment - S/CZ (C = Conditional Use Permit)
Note: z A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is allowable for activities that are part
of a shoreline restoration plan or when occurring in improved rights of way, levees,
previously legally degraded land or existing impervious area. Activities not within these
exceptions would require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
Discussion In the Floodway/CMZ, the trail re-routing would occur along previously degraded
areas and a levee.
February 21, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 2
CITY OF YAKIMA, SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
February 21, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company
Location & Photo
CITY OF YAKIMA, SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
Commercial Office, northeast side of Lake
Aspen
Preliminary Environment Designations
Aquatic
1_ FloodwaVtCM1
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Cansewancy
Proposed Use or Activity
Preliminary Use Matrix Allowance
Discussion
411,
Building expansion lateral towards southeast (no closer waterward)
and shoreline stabilization repair
Retail, Trade, and Service, Non -Water -Oriented, General
High Intensity — S/Cl
Note: lA shoreline substantial development permit is allowable when a non -
water oriented use provides a public benefit such as public access or shoreline
ecological restoration. Otherwise a shoreline conditional use is required.
Shoreline Stabilization, Repair and Replacement
High Intensity - S
Building expansion allowed with a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit given the existing cantilevered plaza and allowance for
employee and public use during business hours.
Repair of existing shoreline stabilization would be exempt from a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit provided it meets the
exemption criteria.
February 21, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 4
CITY OF YAKIMA, SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
CASE S""'I""'UDY 4k „'IIIb°° III IIIIIIIIII I II II I° USE
Location & Photo
Central Pre -Mix, north side
of Buchanan Lake
I'
Preliminary",,1 yl�s/�v���
Environment
DesignationsAquatic
FIoodw&y
/
1C�
High Inters yShoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy 82 �'
r
Proposed Use or Activity Expansion of an existing processing structure
mIndustry / Manufacturing / Storage, Non -water -oriented, General - S/C1, 2
Preliminary Use Matrix 1 A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is allowable when a non -water -oriented
Allowance use provides a public benefit, such as public access for substantial numbers of persons or
shoreline ecological restoration. Otherwise, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is
required.
2 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is allowable for activities that are part of a
shoreline restoration plan or when occurring on improved rights of way, levees,
previously legally degraded land, or existing impervious area. Activities not within these
exceptions would require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
Discussion Provided that the structure expansion would take place in already -degraded area and
recognizing safety/security concerns, as well as proximity of visual public access from the
Greenway and 1-82 to the adjacent Buchanan Lake, the work would likely take place with
a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit without additional provision of public
access or restoration. Previous Buchanan Lake restoration actions (vegetation) could
also be considered.
February 21, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company
,e 1
VIVA t"f tt x,1'11, U
f
All features depicted on this map are approximate. They have
not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for
planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation
may be needed to confirm or verify information shown on this
— —, Q ® as p IN VP'
Proposed Environment Designation I All Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outline
"''l Aquatics
Potentially Associated Waterbody q City Limit
Floodway/CMZ
UGA
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy
Original Scale: 1:51,000 @ 11x17,
Please scale accordingly.
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
Date: 2/21/2013
Name: Environment designation
The status of Cowiche Creek as a shoreline stream
meeting the minimum requirement of 20 cfs mean
annual flow is currently under investigation by
Washington Department of Ecology and the City.
ity of i
J')
V 1�1tlt�;lil�l:�
All features depicted on this map are approximate.. They have
not been formally delineated or surveyed and are 'intended for
planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation
may be needed to confirm or verify information shown on this
Poposed Environment Designation ( All Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outline
C� rAquatic Pl Potentially Associated Waterbod
FloodwaylCMZ Y City Limit
UGA
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy Date: 2/21/2013
Name: Environment designation
Miles
Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17,
Please scale accordingly.
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
All features depicted on this map are approximate. They have,
not been formally delineated or Surveyed and are intended for
planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation
may be needed to confirm or verify Information shown on this
Shoreline Master Program - 2 of" 3
Proposed Environflnent Designation All Potentially Associated Welland Parcels - fight grey outline miles
",",""'"IllI Aquatic O @ riginal Scale, 1,16,800 11x17,
PotentiallyAssociated Waterbody City Limit Please scale accordingly,
Floodway/Clel Z
UGA
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
'Urban Conserwancy Date: 2/21/2013
Name: Environmentdesignation
ama7
City OfWtkim Shore in
�� ; Q 0.25
Miles
w", Proposed Environment Designation q
� � II Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outline
Original Scale: 1:16,800 11x17,
��.t
r � � o �„ � 't � u�. � Aquatic � l @
tJt ro; favi Potentially Associated Waterbody� City Limit Please scale accordingly.
r �� ��� Floodway/CMS _
UGA
r �- = All features depicted on this map are approximate. They have Y High Intensity
r M �, a not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for
` "S°"" `'S� r ' ``, 0;'m`� Shoreline Residential Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
�unviia�(Wt L " � I' -specific ,, � planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation
may be needed to confirm or verify information shown on this"ref Urban Conservancy
Date: 2/21/2013
Name: Environment designation
N
w
2,
ILI
is
ell
G �4;# F�Kt4,a�l i EPtiWX"Yi
w
A;,a �um+"" ' ww,",., `7�,� ,�^,✓°' d'.• .� v .r / „ i
..,,,.�.�....... M�,.i se / ��, a.. vd I;� + ,ai.': ^ . rd ✓'. �r°' r'.+"' +,. ��,d"
d,� � � ee, yt",?. "4w.,y„ 1. ""^�M,, +tl�,�""",�,w ....,. � �` ,..�L.., r. "., w+,Y��.� _. �' .w _ ..=..„ d� � "" '`"��,-•� .: 4.,. -, A ,� ��^": ��r
goo,. ,�,
",,.; �'� `*�� _°,... �»`• ,. �,,, �" ,"�1 � � � r�",,� ,,� �"` .,, ,. �
..,.
r
.�
,,,,, ,,,,.. 4 w..,.M,M,,,,, 1'< � � s ,,. g IM N..�a �5 ,... � ���.a"'� ,M f ✓� r .,,,, „.,.
a y p
„97dd. ' #..1� 4.,,,���,
Imo-....._,,.�.��_....www,.„�„„„�,„�,....�•�_..._ ,v „,m,�,,r-", rr� �;�?w., � °r °v�
MAUJIX)NAW'E
!. � The status of Cowiche Creek as a shoreline stream �d :, ,� ry µ ��' '�., "ry", m
m
meeting the minimum requirement of 20 cfs mean A �� Fpw 7 ..........................
...... . .. ......... .
.,.rn , m.
°w Cown�m�rY ;J
annual flow is currently under investigation by
Washington Department ment of Ecology and the City.
ry"b �q-. v, 4 p "..�, "" I.�+MIVk"rt:L. xT
.......�,..-�w..�., ,�........-.. ...... ............ ." �, �..,.,» �' .�r ,.M �r' � � vt� �ry�r.... A �� f .;'a�"'w,,;. �u � T ^+, r' V �U1&RP,r.,: ST
f.'7EiCl� #�,�
'a--�,�,� "'tiN, roM,"., .fib ""' d., /fin e' o'•r ..,.,�,. �_.._ ...---,........ __....'.
CASTLEME
,'„�
....M ,.mm.
:a
z
:�,
oia
4-5
r.. ynr -; '4 a h4,r¢' •" ,... ,� .. ,..,..._ . ,, �r .... .:.:.... ... ..8 NtT u
�. ...�.,.,_ �...,..... ... ,
wr ! I C7
m,�,....„ .a F:nAd v.........
„„ a Arv�# Pyr uax
..,:.. ,” w :rv, .a," .rtiY` .,:, SAV'{il'.�aNY d is :.. i�,P F"I �.Y f..,. ...,.,.... .__...,. W AUT
S
.....,, �" • ,..
d,�,.��d�lk 64ry"...� � w,"r � wa �w!��
fig c:r Q � r " #
�. 4,... ._, :....._Z _.. �E
. �.. .. ,.. JrGtT)F,RR �� m .... ,...,..-..A
ma r ti,P .La _.., M° r NEhr✓a'Y 1. MA M1 &'J�WE:
.� M aPr
wF�»w
r.......
.. ,. ._w...4.....
s; �anirr� rwa F
.....::�. . _ .� �_., .. _:.... �.. � ..... tl � � �..., i , ."..," ". ...,...... aawtaAVE
City o iShoreline" Master Program - 1 5
Mil
es
Ownership Type Railroad Yakima Greenway Foundation Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17,
i WATERSHED....,
Canal/ Irrigation
_ � 9 State � � (All Potentially Associated Wetland Please scale accordingly.
V ," _ ►'1� City of Yakima Washington State Department of Potentially Associated Waterbody
All features depicted on this map are approximate. They have County Transportation Parcels
not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
. Source 5 dbrrn m�e planning y p Federal Washington State Fish and Wildlife
PWIM
` — Sources Esri, 1eLsrrrhe. City Limit
p y g purposes only. Addition site-specific evaluation Washington State Parks Date: 2/25/2013
may be needed to confirm or vers information shown on this Name: Ownership map
I_
%ji 111Vi i i A. ,
.. �(
� � / „... �."°� �,r' i �,..� °� �,„,�° ani b � ........... �"" , "�^1,��" : , ✓"' ,,. �. � "n' �""
_49
, ^ + , ,r
,✓; ALMI
�; �.�,• *.�`" " '� +" �. .^"� N` �' �
0-.
_ .
g
m.
k
�.,
F
MEE I T014 BI VO,. .,....,,..�..n �,,.,...,�
Ati�y
pyw �, n Rar qwn ft r9 ru
II w
gN„F��,�d'.,�... .�.a ra vev„” ., ... .,.. *;. P2'tf_flC;�4.bMti P f^d �I.`�,.." ✓ r',. .^„� d�pAkl;nFn.�^'.. A.AY
a'rv�u�k�r � �y at
44
z. �: r„r "� ¢a✓�i�r~rgervaa<~,rr � � E-
",tip
,..
R1
�� ,' pp4� ���,�� � �� ��: u, ,” ,��” �� -� .. �� . ��•�� �� �°.., gyp, �;�� ..�. �A��rRE1 III
.�..,.m
""�,„ p.s....,,, ravHf oL .. .�,�.,y v ✓°� .�.� '�.' r° x" ...M. �..�., .. �� 9...
p'dA A
,"
... ,,,.„ YCd�.m,.il LA,t00
�h
,..,.,.,,. n.Run�roKs.
W:
_.......__._......... ., wun,l 4..... .N.,::..?�,�,%:..... m w,.., w wdwant m �'a,...:..,,.�:� ,,M- B�,,.,..� iri,✓ r
fu M,� � �� qte, ." 1, 7y q',, �'�<
$" Ate S+p.. "`�
...�., � ' � °.,..m. � ,�;C.. .., � '; 4;.� ,,,,,,"
nNCB,AVE u.N<+. MF AV ; y ,:,:,
.._...-_ a
..,.�.....
W, a.9 3 .G, Y „}.u..,,, 4..� q W�, „ 4tYgµ M1VS
sruszr NKSA r na.urr - �' ti oo," ..- ,,� .....
m . r,n � raa< AVE'
,....
AR fir,., :.., ........,,� .... � [C.Fz....,,
rN(;Lrrvia0n3u $F d'FiCRR AV
r . .. .... .... ..... . �. _... ............., F, x ,
� u
15 DR
n_ a.
AVE
@ .,. ,,. � V �...� V i �w � iM. r '. y"{ ✓r . e� „'�� �. ....
`"r� q,.tl i"bii"k; � �.. r .�...,:.;.��: �„�. �.,,..�. :���. ....�:.:.�.. m.,.,.m....,..w•���v..�..i�........w... W... �,. � �,�.. � �+`�. �, SII V '6 «4 w� '�» ����..„ ,✓,,w ,�.�. n� r� d �'. Y X`.,,, ACL
tz
,n. L m. Zf. :W.. , ,.. : r ,, _.ni
AMY
Fat �matr�neF 4agtl
ars#,
�..14
�' ,. :,,. t, � � ✓s,�..,
.m ....w
..._.,... m .�,.,..:..�..._.. .....y..m,........ i.,p:. .x. ,r,. + ;., .... ,.:. a .. lP :fir r 5. SY dtGY f!. "Y 1i... r'
'FePCpuf .. x: A4n.4. '� .'.:.� pa^ u.��,.,.,,: .. t kh3t..f,... � Crn '$ .a ��". � � .. .. a� Y'9,�
J VJI J'dWf+. ..., ......... ... ._. .., a.. q.. i@...... ,..�,. „.. ,�. ..., a A
fr'� '�,..i. ., �^ °� / �� �^.
rF.. ,.,,,,,,�,,.,,,,,,, .
r, f
k
a« z
..
.� x �:
a
SYCaVMC`af AVC
�. am �.� & r .M1I. Ck. i ?'': � W^. 'y, ��.,_„” _e '�V aatiw . a•,; �+:i , 'C,.:. ,^F
0 0,25
City of Yakima a Shore1 we ester Progra 2 o0
Miles
Ownership Type Railroad Yakima Greenway Foundation Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17.
i 0 Canal/ Irrigation State All Potentially Associated Wetland Please scale accordingly.
WATERSHED
"al City of Yakima E Washington State Department of Potentially Associated Waterbody
Y �:::....�..
Transportation
All features depicted on this map are approximate. The have �� County Parcels Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
not been formally
delineated or surveyed and are intended forWashington State Fish and Wildlife
Lq
may g purposes
to confirm or verify information shown on this
Federal al Washington State Parks �_........ City Limit Date: 2/25/2013
tanninn ur oses only. Additional site-specific evaluation
Name: Ownership map
������� � Private � UGA
�
___[-�-
____`
MIERAS RD
=
°
O 0.25
C,ity of'Yakwma Shoreline Master Program - 3 of 3
&0i|eo
Ownership Type $�� Railroad �� Yakima |
' � Original O/gna|Soa|�� 1:16,800 ON
' ^
|� WKFEKSHED N�] Canal/ Irrigation State - All Potentially Associated Wetland Please scale accordingly.
'- j j
City ofYakima 0�0 Washington Sbshu Department of Potentially Associated VVaterbndy
�Cal Transportation
All features depicted onthis map are approximate. They have [-- County Parcels Data source: City FVVS
Ll(�V' E 618*14 e0roa; , not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for -- 0�� Washington State Fish and Wildlife
� '
p_Iclu S, .
Sources: Esril"lee"IL" r e,lanning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation 0�� Fade'n| m�p �- City Limit Date: 2/25/2013
may beneeded t000n�rmnrverify informaUnnshown onthis -- 0�� Washington �-
�- Private m�� - | UGA Name: Ownership map
r V101. A AVE
AVE
. ..... ...........
.... . . . . . . . . ........... . .
MOW
Pl'�r V
<
I An V'ST
L'
�
___[-�-
____`
MIERAS RD
=
°
O 0.25
C,ity of'Yakwma Shoreline Master Program - 3 of 3
&0i|eo
Ownership Type $�� Railroad �� Yakima |
' � Original O/gna|Soa|�� 1:16,800 ON
' ^
|� WKFEKSHED N�] Canal/ Irrigation State - All Potentially Associated Wetland Please scale accordingly.
'- j j
City ofYakima 0�0 Washington Sbshu Department of Potentially Associated VVaterbndy
�Cal Transportation
All features depicted onthis map are approximate. They have [-- County Parcels Data source: City FVVS
Ll(�V' E 618*14 e0roa; , not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for -- 0�� Washington State Fish and Wildlife
� '
p_Iclu S, .
Sources: Esril"lee"IL" r e,lanning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation 0�� Fade'n| m�p �- City Limit Date: 2/25/2013
may beneeded t000n�rmnrverify informaUnnshown onthis -- 0�� Washington �-
�- Private m�� - | UGA Name: Ownership map
uity ofYakima, SiMP
Upidate
Planning Commission Meeting
February 27, 2013
BERK I'll
WATERSHED
COMPANY
2/27/2013
1
Environment Designation
Questions
01 Do the preliminary locations of shoreline environment
designations match your expectations of current and planned
land uses?
• In terms of shoreline uses:
• What would you like to see more of?
What shoreline uses do you like?
® What's missing?
Draft Use Matrix
Approach
• Recognize current conditions and uses
Consider planned uses, zoning, SMP Guidelines
Permit Types
Substantial Development Permit / Exemption = S
• Conditional Use= C
• Prohibited = X
Not Applicable = N/A
General Observations
• See designation purposes & management policies
• More allowed in High Intensity & Shoreline Residential than
Urban Conservancy
• More allowed in Aquatic -Lakes than Floodway/CMZ
• SMP Guidelines have permit type requirements for some uses
2/27/2013
3
Lake Aspen Commercial Office
Expansion
High Intensity /Aquatic
Retail, Trade, and Service,
Non -Water -Oriented,
General — S/C*
Shoreline Stabilization,
Repair & Replacement — S
""S" allowable when providing a
public benefit such as public access or
shoreline ecological restoration,
otherwise "C:'
Use/Permit Questions
Are there particular uses or modifications you feel require
more review/less review?
• Does it depend on location (e.g., river vs. lake)? Where?
Are there uses or activities you believe should be prohibited
in:
Shoreline jurisdiction uplands?
Only the river or lakes?
What are your viewpoints between:
• Flexibility and certainty?
Broad versus detailed uses and modifications?
2/27/2013
5