HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-13 YPC PacketPlaanfibag D
b -a daaaa
129 !` orila Saaaaaaaiad '�'freel, bul Floor Yakiiiaaa, 98901
Plione �509) 375-6183 it, Fe(x 0`09) 575-0/05
City of Yakima Planning Commission
PUBLIC MEETING/STUDY SESSION
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday March 13, 2013
3:30 - 5:00 p.m.
YPC Members:
Chair Ben Shoval, Co -Chair Dave Fonfara, Ron Anderson, Al Rose,
Scott Clark, Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook
Cfty 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
Anda
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Adoption of January 23, 2013 Meeting Minutes
IV. General Audience Participation Not Associated with an Item on the Agenda
V. Announcement:
• This meeting is a study session on the City's Master Program in which the
general public is invited to participate and comment.
VI. Staff Presentation and Distribution of Materials
VII. Shoreline Master Program Review
• Task #1: Continuation of Review & Modification of the Shoreline Use
Matrix Table
VIII. Other Business
• Discussion of Future Yakima Planning Commission Meetings
IX. Adjournment
yi!dd ,na
SIGN -IN SHEET
City of Yakima Planning Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday March 13, 2013
3:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m.
Study Session
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY
II M"m
r ! vl y ,I
ME, Ell
e
........ �..._...................
..... _.
- ---------- . ..... . ......... - ----------- ---
. ....... . ....... ....................... . .... . . . . . .... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......................................................
..............
. .............
......... .................
. . ....... ...............
. ............... . ......... . . ........................ . . . . . . ......... . .. .................................................. .
.... . ... . ..... . ......................... ...
Page 1
YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designations &
Use and Modification Matrix Framework
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS
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 Planning Commission discussions on February 13 and February 27, 2013, our recent activities have
included:
• Shoreline Jurisdiction investigations:
1. Receiving information from Central Pre -Mix and Buchanan Lake Trust regarding permitted use of the lake
for authorized mining -related activities resulted in removal of Buchanan Lake and associated shorelines
from current shoreline jurisdiction. However, the map shows pre -designations which will apply when the
site is no longer an active, legal mining use and the lake and its associated uplands become part of
shoreline jurisdiction.
2. Myron Lake, Berglund Lake, and other small lakes that were mapped per Ecology direction as "shoreline
associated waterbodies" have been removed from shoreline jurisdiction based on corrected guidance
provided by another Ecology staff. Only portions of lakes smaller than 20 acres that are within 200 feet of
a shoreline waterbody or within designated parts of the floodway/floodplain are also part of shoreline
jurisdiction.
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company
3. Cowiche Creek: No new information — map continues to provisionally show Cowiche Creek as a shoreline
stream.
4. Blue Slough: No new information — map will continues to show Blue Slough as a shoreline stream.
• Environment Designation Map revisions (see attached map):
1. Based on discussions with City staff and the Planning Commission review on February 27, 2013, we
have added an Essential Public Facilities designation that encompasses state and federal highways
and the wastewater treatment plant.
2. Non -state and federal roadways which were shown as High Intensity in the last map version have
been altered to reflect the designation of the area through which the roadway passes. Repair,
maintenance, and expansions of existing roadways will be allowed in all environment designations.
3. We have continued to refine the boundaries of the Floodway/CMZ designation and other
designations based on maps of recognized levees. Of particular note are additional modifications on
the west side of the Yakima River between the river and 1-82, such as conversion of Rotary Lake from
Floodway/CMZ to Aquatic.
4. The portion of the wrecking yard property in shoreline jurisdiction was updated to High Intensity.
5. Pre -designations of the Buchanan Lake Trust properties are Aquatic for the lake itself and High
Intensity for the shoreline portions of the parcels to the north and south.
6. A "hatch" has been added to the pre -designated shoreline areas for clarity.
IIw E 1 JIMINAIRY USE AND WMI F DI ' T II °", N AAA nu
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 Guidelines. Using SMP Guidelines and City zoning concepts, we have preliminarily filled
in the "cells" for discussion. We will review this chart along with a 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.
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company
" "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 "N/A" on the use and modification matrix.
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?
• 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/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company
Preliminary Use and Modification Matrix — City of Yakima SMPa
c
0
Y
Shoreline Use or Modification v00
L g
— m
i C
U. C V C
V M f0
Q^
Key: > Y a`, u Y
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemptiona' °C c N
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit —'. u0 m U
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable t Wm o v
Specific SMA/SMP Rules Shall Limit` Should Limit °D ^ o a c 0
2 W L D ° r
Agriculture
Agricultural Activities (RCW 90.58.065) S X S S S N/A
Agricultural Market, Agricultural Stand (Zoning) S X X S X N/A
Winery and Brewery (Zoning) ............._.. ........_._ . ..S .... X X � S .... .... ......
X N/A
Agriculture -Ind ..................
ustrial
��............. .... � _. ........... ._ .....
Agricultural Chemical Sales/Storage (Zoning)b S X X X X N/A
Agricultural
....�_...r— ---------
al Related Industries & Storage (Zoning)b S X X C X N/A
Concentrated FeedingZoning,.Regional
..SMP) X X X ,..... __�-�-...... _ ............... X X N�����.....
_. ...N/A
Operation (., m�..�...r� ...................
_...... ................ .............................. ........
Cm
Aquacultured
tearing (Regional SMP)
Commercial
Non-commercial
a Generally, we could have shaded nearly every cell as "caution" where the SMP Guidelines provide for some performance
standards, but in the interest of identifying where State rules provide specific direction limiting a use/modification, we were sparing
in the "caution" shading. Please note there are some principles that were followed in crafting the proposed use matrix assignments:
i) SMA/SMP Guidelines direction on preferred uses in shoreline jurisdiction; ii) ability to craft conditions that would demonstrate no -
net -loss of ecological functions; iii) compatibility with zoning code; iv) consideration of allowing by conditional use "the opportunity
to require specially tailored environmental analysis or design criteria for types of use or development that may otherwise be
inconsistent with a specific environment designation within a master program or with the Shoreline Management Act policies"; and
v) recognition of other applicable environmental regulations (e.g. limits on structures in floodway according to flood hazard
regulations), as well as compatibility with Yakima County's Regional SMP in terms of the Floodway/CMZ designation, which Ecology
has indicated an interest in maintaining.
b We suggest a conversation about similarities or differences in agricultural related storage and chemicals versus commercial or
industrial uses with such activities.
`SMP Guidelines require general standards for archaeological resources that apply to all designations. In the consultants' experience
it is unusual to address archaeological resources as a "use" as has been accomplished in the Regional SMP. Rather it is more
common to have institutional uses treated similar to commercial uses, and to provide standards for archaeological/historic activities
to be addressed with the primary use/activity (e.g. to require consultation with the Yakama Nation and State and to conduct
archaeological studies in areas of sensitivity when land disturbance is proposed). After reflecting on Planning Commission input and
City staff discussion, we propose to address institutional uses similar to commercial uses and to address archaeological resources in
the general standards/regulations that have yet to be prepared.
d Stakeholder input has shown little likelihood for aquaculture (e.g. Yakama Nation). However, should the opportunity arise, we
suggest breaking out commercial and non-commercial aquaculture and allowing for non-commercial aquaculture (intended as part
of habitat restoration or something similar).
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 4
X
S
Shoreline Use or Modification
Key:
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
Specific SMA/SMP Rules Shall Limit Should Limit
Processing (Regional SMP)
Packing & Storage (Regional SMP)
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities
Boat Launches (Regional S
e
Private
Public/Community/Co m.. m. e. r..............__w�
tial
Pier/Dock
Pier/Dock, Single -Family Residence Facility to Access
Watercraft (Regional SMP)
.. ......... ...... .......... uu_.
Pier/Dock for Water -Dependent Commercial, Industrial,
Aquaculture, or Recreational Use; or Public Access (Regional
SMP)
Commercial and Service Uses
ww...... ..............m.......... .............. ,,.....
.
Retail, Trade, and Service
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
................ _......... ._ ...............................
Non -Water -Oriented
Non -Water -Oriented, General (Regional SMP)
Non -Water Or__...__ _.....................
Tented Uses, Separated from Shoreline
(Regional SMP)
Mixed-use 6mmproject that includes a Water Dependent
Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture, or Recreational Use
(Regional SMP)
...........................___--------
Outdoor manufacturing,.__.........
processing and storage f......................................
Community Services and Institutional Uses (Zoning Code)
Water -Oriented Guidelines)
Non -Water -Oriented
Non -Water -Oriented, General (Regional SMP)
Non -Water -Oriented Uses, Separated fromShoreline
(Regional SMP)
Mixed-use project that includes a Water -Dependent
Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture, or Recreational Use
(Regional SMP) g
C
O
Y
d
&
— m
u }, > G1
V M M
> L N
ami a v o >
c
L a) NN i
L .0AO o cr
X X X X X X
See Industry/Manufacturing/Stora ....uu
ge
X C X X See upland
designation
S S
N/A X S X X S
S X S X X S
S
S
X
S
X
C
C
C...._...........
X
C
X
. ..................... X
S
I S
X
S
X
I N/A
S
S
X
S
X
C
e Based on input from stakeholders and the Planning Commission, we propose to make allowances for boat launches, especially
public/community/commercial launches that could aid in emergency access.
f We would like to have a discussion with the Planning Commission about these types of uses (e.g. wrecking/dismantling yards), as
part of the discussion about what uses the Commission would like to see more of/less of in the future within shoreline jurisdiction
(which could be a fraction of a parcel).
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 5
Shoreline Use or Modification
Key:
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
Specific SMA/SMP Rules Shall Limit Should Limit
Health and Social Service Facility (Zoning Code)
n
Mixed -Use Building (Zoning)h
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal
Dredging for Water -Dependent Use and Public Access (Regional
SMP)
Dredging for existing Navigation Uses (Regional SMP)
Dredging for Habitat Restoration (Regional SMP)
Dredging, Other (Regional SMP)
Disposal of Dredged Material
Dredging Maintenance Plan
....... ...............
Fill�WW
Waterward of the OHWM
Upland of the OHWM (Regional SMP)
N/A C N/A N/A S/Cz S/Cz
S S S S I S/CZ N/A
Flood Hazard Reduction Measures
C
O
Y
..........
Y_
U
M
1,
y
C
y
U
C
41
C
r_
S
r_
S
U
a
17
ai
v
9
`
a
M
t
U
W
Y
C
m�m
C
CU
Oj
M
Y
f0
c
C
(QJ
Forest Practices
......-
N/A
N/A
`v
N/A
y
y
Industry / Manufacturing / Storage
IW
L
IJ.. _.0
CS
S
S
X
X
X
X
S
X
X
X
X
X
.... ......................����..... _....._.__...�........
General (Regional
Regional SMP)
S/C"2
C
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
C
.
_............. . .
Separated from Shoreline (Regional SMP)
S
.m m......nn..w....... ..............
X
.
X
.................
C
--._.._.
X
.n .
N/A
S
S
X
X/C°
X/C4
X
Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture, or Recreational Use
S
X
X
C
N/A C N/A N/A S/Cz S/Cz
S S S S I S/CZ N/A
Flood Hazard Reduction Measures
..........
%lodification of Existing Flood Hazard Facilities (including
relocation farther landward)
....... ..,
S
m ...
S
S
r_
S
S
N/A
New Facilities
C
C
C
m�m
C
._...
C
...... .
N/A
Forest Practices
Forest Practices
......-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Industry / Manufacturing / Storage
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
S
X
X
C
X
C
Non -Water -Oriented
.... ......................����..... _....._.__...�........
General (Regional
Regional SMP)
S/C"2
�
X
X
m,,,,,,,,.,.... �....�
X
................... ��
X
� ....__� w�
X
...... _.............. _
Outdoor manufacturing, processing and storage f
....... .-- _...,m.., ... .... ........
......... _
—
.
_............. . .
Separated from Shoreline (Regional SMP)
S
.m m......nn..w....... ..............
X
.
X
.................
C
--._.._.
X
.n .
N/A
_...�..
Mixed -uses project that includes a Water -Dependent.... ....
............_ �................_
......... ----
.rr» __......
Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture, or Recreational Use
S
X
X
C
X
C
(Regional SMP)
9 In this context, "mixed-use" under SMP Guidelines requires that such a development include and support a water -dependent use.
We will note this in the definitions (pending). We are considering establishing a guideline for ensuring that the water dependent use
is a substantial part of the development.
h In the City's zoning code, this use is the more traditional view of mixed use: "Mixed-use building" means a building in a commercial
district or planned development used partly for residential use and partly for a community facility or commercial use.
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 6
Shoreline Use or Modification
Key:
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
Specific SMA/SMP Rules Shall Limit Should Limit
In -Water Structures'
To protect public facilities
. ........................
To protect or restore ecological functions
To monitor flows water quality, or other habitat characteristics
Other
Mining
Surface Mining (Regional SMP) �'�_.........-��...............��
..
Underground Mining (Regional SMP)
for .. (Regional g• -,,,.�..............
Mining Habitat Restoration onal SMP
Recreational Development
...............
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
High -Intensity (Regional
...SMP) .................................................
Moderate -Intensity (Regional SMP)
Low -Intensity (Regional SMP)
Recreation Maintenance Plan
�_.......�.�n-�W ............................................................. �.�....................................
No ater-Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
--
General
Sites separated from shoreline
Indoor (Regional SMP)
.......................................................... .............. .......— ----
Residential Development
Single -Family Dwelling (Zoning Code) .-..-_-......._----------------------------------------
Accessory Dwelling Unit (Zoning Code)
Duplex (Zoning Code)
Multifamily Dwelling (Zoning Code)
Manufactured Home Park or Subdivisions (Regional SMP)m
C
0
i
N
�. g
— m
> v
MC V C
LL a
M M
L
r L y y U Y
CL C L
cu C
c0 O Glto
2 w L
C C C C C C
S S S S S S
_..
---------------
S
.wu- -----
S S S S S S
CC C X X........,- ..........................�..
C ......
...... ....
X X X X X
X X X _mm_- _X
- X ..............
_.......................-X
S S S S/Cz S/Cz S/Cz
S S S S S C S/Cz
............. . ....................
S S S S S S
S S S S S S
S X S S"C_.nm_..... N/A.
See Commercial and Service Uses
Broadened category from "in -stream" to "in -water" and now addressing Aquatic - Lake designation
J Note: When definitions are prepared, we will distinguish the processing of mineral materials for construction purposes as industrial
from mineral extraction, which is what is considered under the mining category.
k SMP Guidelines indicate that in the similar "Natural' environment designation, single-family residential may ,only 'be allowed by
conditional use permit. The use could also be made more restrictive (prohibited). Since flood hazard regulations restrict the ability to
have permanent structures in the floodway, it seemed appropriate to outright prohibit single family uses.
In the zoning code, a duplex requires a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit in the SR and R1 zones. Since the Shoreline
Residential environment designation applies largely to already platted areas (e.g. Lake Aspen) and the use pattern for traditional
detached single family is established or restricted by CC&Rs, we propose to make it prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 7
S
X
S
S
X
N/A
S
X
S
S
n,,,.
X
N/A
S
X
X
C
X
N/A
/A
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
Broadened category from "in -stream" to "in -water" and now addressing Aquatic - Lake designation
J Note: When definitions are prepared, we will distinguish the processing of mineral materials for construction purposes as industrial
from mineral extraction, which is what is considered under the mining category.
k SMP Guidelines indicate that in the similar "Natural' environment designation, single-family residential may ,only 'be allowed by
conditional use permit. The use could also be made more restrictive (prohibited). Since flood hazard regulations restrict the ability to
have permanent structures in the floodway, it seemed appropriate to outright prohibit single family uses.
In the zoning code, a duplex requires a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit in the SR and R1 zones. Since the Shoreline
Residential environment designation applies largely to already platted areas (e.g. Lake Aspen) and the use pattern for traditional
detached single family is established or restricted by CC&Rs, we propose to make it prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 7
Shoreline Use or Modification
.................5.......................................5..............................................5...........................................5...........................................5...........................................5...............m......
a,
°0
...............................................
S
_Houseboats and Over -Water Residential Uses (Regional SMP)
N/A
Y
_
N/A
X
X
............. .. ....... ... .. .. . ...... m ...... ... , ........,.....,... �. �. �. �., �. ,.. m . �., ,.
...`i
S
u
f0
}
C
T
U
N
C
S
.....
KeII
S
�1
p
M
M
u
Y
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption
S
a'
c
N
N/A
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
S
'Y_°
5
u
T
3 u+
S
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
L
S
�'
S/C S/C
c a,
S/C3
Specific SMA/SMP Rules Shall Limit Should Limit
W
IF
�,
o
r
a
c
° —
o
m
.................5.......................................5..............................................5...........................................5...........................................5...........................................5...............m......
........____.............................. __M ......... ......... ......... .................
Off -premise (Regional SMP)
...............................................
S
_Houseboats and Over -Water Residential Uses (Regional SMP)
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
Residential Maintenance Plan
S
N/A
S
N/A
N/A
S
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement
S
S
S/C3 S/C3
S/C3
S/C3
Projects
S
S
S S
S
N/A
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
S
SS
S
S
S
Shoreline Stabilization
S
S
S/C S/C
S/C
S/C3
_.._ �............��...� �_��.......................... .._ ...............� �
Hard Stabilization
...................................................................
C
C
w......
C
w . ww .....�
C
�ww
C
-.
C
_..... .__....._....... _... _......__. ....
Soft Stabilization
.....................................
S
......
S
S
_uuuu
C
C
S
Repair and Replacement
S
S
S
S
S
S
Signs
On -premise for Authorized Use Re...ion.a.Ls.�P....m�........................................�
p (Regional )
.................5.......................................5..............................................5...........................................5...........................................5...........................................5...............m......
........____.............................. __M ......... ......... ......... .................
Off -premise (Regional SMP)
...............................................
S
S
X X X
X
Informational (directional, landmark, trail marker, etc.) (Regional
S
S
S S S
S
M P)
...................................
S
. .........
S/C3 S/C3
.... —
S/C3
Transportation and Parking
Access Roads Serving Permitted Uses (Regional SMP)
S
S
�S S
�S/C3
��.......N/A
_._. .......................�._._.__
Highways, Freeways, Arterials & Collectors (Regional SMP)
S
...................................
S
. .........
S/C3 S/C3
.... —
S/C3
_....._
S/C3
Bridges
S
S
S/C3 S/C3
S/C3
S/C3
Transportation Maintenance Plan
S
S
S S
S
N/A
Transportation Maintenance Facilities ....SMP)._...._...............................C....................�_.....uuuu__.
I" (RegionalS
X C
X
X
Railways (Regional SMP)
S
S
S/C S/C
S/C
S/C3
.. ........ �_�w. -------------
Parking for Authorized Use (Regional SMP)n
...ParkLn..........Re.....lo.na.l..........................................................................................����........_�........................��..��������.........�
....Par
Reviewed
as part of authorized use.
.....................................................................
k..an.d..Ri^de....lots..an.d.S.m.i.i.ar..Stand.A.lone g( g
C
S
X X
X
X
SMP)
Utilities
Utility Services Accessory to Individual Shoreline Projects
Reviewed as part of authorized use
(Regional SMP)
M Per SMA, the establishment of any kind of residential development/subdivision that would need flood hazard protection would
need to be restricted. Generally, after review of lots in the City it appears that there are no lots that would allow for a
park/subdivision, and very limited options in UGA, to establish a park/subdivision in shoreline jurisdiction outside the floodplain. It
should be noted that an existing owner of a platted lot could establish a stick built or manufactured home on a single family lot.
SMP Guidelines note, "parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to support an
authorized use. Shoreline master programs shall include policies and regulations to minimize the environmental and visual impacts
of parking facilities."
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 8
° According to SMP Guidelines, "utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants and sewage treatment plants, or
parts of those facilities, that are nonwater-oriented shall not be allowed in shoreline areas unless it can be demonstrated that no
other feasible option is available."
P According to SMP Guidelines, "transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines,
shall be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible and when necessarily located within the shoreline area shall assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions."
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 9
Shoreline Use or Modification
v
0D
—
m
V
�
y
M
d
C
C
Key:
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Exemption
�
a
a'
:2
o
�
�> N
Y
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit°
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
t
a
O
o D,
C
Specific SMA/SMP Rules Shall Limit Should Limit
OD
v�
,
-2
p
M c
Utility Services to Projects outside Shoreline Jurisdiction (Regional
S
S
S
S
C
C
SMP)
Power Generating Facilities (Zoning Code)°
S/C3
S/C3
h_ X
C
X
C
Utility Transmission Lines (Regional SMP)
S
S
C
C
C
C
Utility Services, General (Zoning Code)P
S/C3
S/C3
S/C3
S/C3
C
C
Utility mMaintenance mmPlan
S
S
S
S
S
S
... .............
Wastewater Treatment Facility°
C
S
X
S
S/Cz
X
1 A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is allowable when a non-water-oriented 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.
2A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is allowable if it's a shoreline restoration plan or if it occurs 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.
3 A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is allowable for activities that expand existing facilities. New facilities
require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
4A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is allowable for activities that are part of a shoreline restoration plan.
Otherwise, the use is prohibited.
5 Construction of a manufactured home on an existing lot is permitted as a "Single -family Dwelling."
° According to SMP Guidelines, "utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants and sewage treatment plants, or
parts of those facilities, that are nonwater-oriented shall not be allowed in shoreline areas unless it can be demonstrated that no
other feasible option is available."
P According to SMP Guidelines, "transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines,
shall be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible and when necessarily located within the shoreline area shall assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions."
February 6/Updated February 18 and March 11, 2013 Prepared by BERK/The Watershed Company 9
YAKIMA 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 of the Yakima and Naches Rivers. 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 Essential Public Facilities [new designation suggested by City Staff]
A. Purpose: The Essential Public Facilities environment is intended to support planning and maintenance of
existing essential public facilities.
B. Designation Criteria: The Essential Public Facilities designation is assigned to lands containing those
facilities that are typically difficult to site or relocate, such as state or regional transportation facilities and
waste water handling facilities.
C. Management Policies:
1. Essential public facilities and their accessory or supporting uses are allowed in the Essential Public
Facilities environment.
2. Allowed new development in the Essential Public Facilities designation should assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
3. New and expanded development should include environmental cleanup and restoration of the
shoreline to comply with any relevant state and federal law.
4. Expansion and improvement of existing facilities should be allowed, with mitigation sequencing applied
to avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to the extent consistent with the specific facility and public
needs, with mitigation required for any remaining adverse impacts.
17.03.050 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.
17.03.060 Aquatic [based on WAC with modification]
A. Purpose: The purpose of the "Aquatic" environment is to protect and manage the unique characteristics
and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark of the City's shoreline lakes. The
City's shoreline lakes are all artificially constructed features developed as part of gravel extraction
operations.
February 13, 2013 3
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 -oriented 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 ecological functions of these unique shoreline lakes 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.
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, presence of native aquatic vegetation, aesthetics,
public access when applicable, and views from adjacent public lands.
February 13, 2013 4
7727F
—
t
`I
q " " ��„
i F
Sources: Esri, UeL�orelr„
1:
WATFRSH C n
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 map.
Proposed Environment Designation High Intensity
,.
Aquatic
High Intensity - Buchanan Lake
Aquatic - Buchanan Lake
High Intensity - UGA
Essential Public Facilities
L ....
Shoreline Residential
Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake
®
Shoreline Residential - UGA
Essential Public Facilities - UGA
[ .I
Urban Conservancy
Floodway/CMZ
Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake
Floodway/CMZ - UGA
Urban Conservancy - UGA
Potentially Associated Wetland
Parcels - light grey outline
City Limit
I— I UGA
0
Original Scale: 1:51,000 @ 11x17.
Please scale accordingly.
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
Date: 3/8/2013
Name: Environment designation
City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program - I of 31 0 0 Miles 0.25
i
WATF ICSH f f7
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 map.
Proposed Environment Designation High Intensity
g
High Intensity - Buchanan Lake
Aquatic
Aquatic - Buchanan Lake High Intensity - UGA
Essential Public Facilities � I Shoreline Residential
Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake ® Shoreline Residential - UGA
fnEssential
Public Facilities - UGA
,;;,,I
Urban Conservancy
51
Floodway/CMZ
Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake
IN
Floodway/CMZ - UGA
Urban Conservancy - UGA
Potentially Associated Wetland
Parcels - light grey outline
City Limit
1-1 UGA
Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17,
Please scale accordingly.
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
Date: 3/8/2013
Name: Environment designation
City ii iiiProgram
E
Proposed g le
Aquatic
Environment Designation r `� High Intensity
�
High Intensity - Buchanan Lake
� �' _ _•'. 1 I"1" I:w �� I L..' High Intensity - UGA
Aquatic - Buchanan Lake
w M Essential Public Facilities [:] Shoreline Residential
i r All features depicted on this map are approximate. They have KEssential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake
® Shoreline Residential - UGA
rm r not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for ® Urban Conservancy
f❑ aur u planning purposes Y p Essential Public Facilities - UGA Y
Sources Esn, DeLbrme lannin ur oses onl . Additional site-specific evaluation mayUrban Conservancy -Buchanan Lake
W/JWTf w Iroteonmiap be needed to confirm or verifyinformation shown on this ma ❑ Floodway/CMZ
p•
M Floodway/CMZ - UGA Urban Conservancy - UGA
Potentially Associated Wetland
Parcels - light grey outline
1R City Limit
I_ I UGA
0 0 0,25
Miles
Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17,,
Please scale accordingly,
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
Date: 3/8/2013
Name: Environment designation
City i i rProgram - 0 5
0 0.
Miles
All features depicted
de icted on this map are approximate. They
have
not been formally
delineated or surveyed and are intended for
`t Sources Esn DeLorme, planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation may
Iger+ria be needed to confirm or verify information shown on this map.
Proposed Environment Designation High Intensity
"Nr�n°
Potentially Associated Wetland
Parcels - light grey outline
City Limit
1_1 UGA
Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17,
Please scale accordingly.
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
Date: 3/8/2013
Name: Environment_ designation
Aquatic
�� r,
High Intensity Buchanan Lake
9 Y -
Aquatic - Buchanan Lake
a
High Intensity - UGA
Essential Public Facilities
Shoreline Residential
Essential Public Facilities
- Buchanan Lake ®
Shoreline Residential - UGA
Essential Public Facilities
- UGA F-]
Urban Conservancy
Floodway/CMZ
Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake
Floodway/CMZ - UGA
Urban Conservancy - UGA
Potentially Associated Wetland
Parcels - light grey outline
City Limit
1_1 UGA
Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17,
Please scale accordingly.
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
Date: 3/8/2013
Name: Environment_ designation
3/13/2013
City of Yakima SMP
Update
Planning Commission Meeting
March 13, 2013
THE
mm'11,111 B�ERK 2 WATERSHED
COMPANY
Review & Obtain Planning Commission Direction on:
* New "Essential Public Facilities" environment designation
* Revised Shoreline Jurisdiction/Environment Designations Map
Draft Use Matrix
Draft Environment
Designations
Updates to Shoreline Jurisdiction
Removed waterbodies
Map refinements/corrections
* Addition of Essential Public Facilities designation
* Reduction of Floodway/CMZ in recognition of levee
Rotary Lake
Wrecking yard property
$ Pre -designation hatch
Other minor changes
Ownership Information
Distribution of Parcel Ownership in
Shoreline Jurisdiction
"Publk
OPrbate
rp, other
Distribution of Parcel Ownership by
Environment Designation - Floodway/CMZ
wp.bl r
g WWW
podler
3/13/2013
2
Draft Use Matrix
General revisions based on:
a Planning Commission meeting 2/27
• Staff recommendations
Special topics
Addition of Essential Public Facilities Column
* Outdoor storage/manufacturing uses
* Others
Archaeological Activities
Aquaculture
Boat Launches
Residential subdivisions / manufactured home parks
3/13/2013
3
March 13, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK
City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Planni_ g Commission Questions/Comments From
March 2013: Preliminary Shoreline Environment
Designations & Use and Modification Matrix
Commissioner Ben Shoval:
1. Table Change: Archaeological: Interpretive Center on page 4 is proposed to
be changed to a Substantial Development Permit under the SR and UC
environments.
Staff Recommendation: Agree
2. Table Change: Boating and Private Moorage Facilities: Boat Launches on
page 4 is proposed to be changed to a Substantial Development Permit for all
shoreline environments with the exception of FCMZ.
Staff Recommendation: Boat Launches where separated into two categories
Private and Public/Community/Commercial to preserve the emergency access
needs of emergency service providers, but also restricting public boat launches
from being able to be located on private lakes or water bodies without a more in-
depth process where allowed.
3. Table Change: Commercial and Service Uses: Mixed -Use Building on page
5 is proposed to be changed to a Substantial Development Permit for the SR
environment.
Staff Recommendation: Allowing the Mixed -Use Building use in the SR
environment is not recommended by staff as most of the affected shoreline areas
with this designation are located around Lake Aspen, Willow Lake, and the
Terrace Heights areas. These areas are almost entirely developed with single-
family homes or condominiums, and the City's zoning ordinance is prohibitive of
commercial development in the residential zoning districts.
4. Table Change: Residential Development: Duplex on page 6 is proposed to
be changed from a Conditional Use Permit to a Substantial Development Permit
for the SR and UC environments.
Staff Recommendation: City staff does not recommend this change (see footnote
1 on March 11, 2013, Matrix Table for explanation).
5. Table Change: Residential Development: Multifamily Dwellin'gon page 6 is
proposed to be changed from not permitted to a Substantial Development Permit
for the SR and UC environments.
Staff Recommendation: City staff does not recommend this change as the
majority of the existing zoning is already fully developed with residential uses, or
in the UC environment the zoning is either Suburban Residential or Single -Family
which prohibits multifamily development.
6. Table Change: Residential Development: Manufactured Home Park or
Subdivision within Floodplain on page 6 is proposed to be changed from a
Conditional Use Permit in the HI, SR, and UC environments to a Substantial
Development Permit.
Staff Recommendation: City staff does not recommend this change (see footnote
m on March 11, 2013, Matrix Table for explanation).
7. Table Change: Transportation and Parking: Transportation Maintenance
Facilities on page 7 is proposed to be changed from a Conditional Use Permit in
the HI environment to a Substantial Development Permit.
Staff Recommendation: City staff does not recommend this change as
Transportation Maintenance Facilities generally involve activities which require
large amount of cleared space, and can involve activates which allow for use of
chemicals, and storage of large amounts of materials to maintain streets or roads
which can be harmful to the shoreline environment.
8. Table Change: Transportation and Parking: Park and Ride lots and Similar
Stand Alone Parking on page 7 is proposed to be changed from a Conditional
Use Permit in the HI environment to a Substantial Development Permit.
Staff Recommendation: City staff does not recommend this change, but has
modified the use category to clarify the difference between parking for a
permitted or existing shoreline use and that of a Stand Alone Parking Lot (see
footnote n).
Commissioner Al Rose:
1. Comment: Agriculture not a City use but County areas adjacent are
being considered.
2. Question: Why shouldn't Archaeological: Interpretive Center be
changed to a Substantial Development Permit in the SR and UC environments?
3. Table Change: Boating and Private Moorage Facilities: Pier/Dock, Single
Family Residence Facility to Access Watercraft and Pier/Dock for Water -
Dependent Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture, or Recreational Use; or Public
Access on page 4 is proposed to be changed from not permitted in the UC
environment to a Conditional Use Permit.
Staff Recommendation: Boat Launches where separated into two categories
Private and Public/Community/Commercial to preserve the emergency access
needs of emergency service providers, but also restricting public boat launches
from being able to be located on private lakes or water bodies without a more in-
depth process where allowed.
4. Question: Commercial and Service Uses: Health and Social Service
Facility on page 5 may not be appropriate as a Conditional Use Permit and may
be more appropriately not permitted in the SR and UC environments based upon
existing development patterns. Discussion with commission appreciated.
5. Question: Commercial and Service Uses: Mixed Use Building:
Consultants please proved example of how this fits with SR environment.
6. Table Change: In -Stream Structures: Other on page 6 is proposed to be
changed from a not permitted to a Conditional Use Permit in the UC and FCMZ.
Staff Recommendation: No change was recommended as the definition of the
uses will provide clarification as to what is allowed under the four categories.
7. Table Change: Residential Development: Single Family Dwelling on page 6
is proposed to be changed from a Substantial Development Permit to a
Conditional Use Permit in the HI and UC environments.
Staff Recommendation: No change is recommended as there is some property in
Terrace Heights that is proposed for UC and could support a residential single-
family home.
8. Table Change: Residential Development: Accessory Dwelling Unit on page
6 is proposed to be changed from a Substantial Development Permit to a
Conditional Use Permit in the HI and UC environments.
Staff Recommendation: No change is recommended as there is some property in
Terrace Heights that is proposed for UC and could support a residential single-
family home.
9. Table Change: Residential Development: Duplex on page 6 is proposed to
be changed from a Substantial Development Permit to a Conditional Use Permit
for the HI environment.
Staff Recommendation: Make change based upon full commission discussion.
10. Table Change: Residential Development: Multifamily Dwelling on page 6 is
proposed to be changed from a Substantial Development Permit in the HI
environment to a Conditional Use Permit.
Staff Recommendation: No change.
11. Table Change: Residential Development: Manufactured Home Park or
Subdivision outside Floodplain on page 6 is proposed to be changed from a
Substantial Development Permit to a Conditional Use Permit in the HI
environment.
Staff Recommendation: The two categories for Manufactured Home Parks were
combined into one use, and are proposed to be prohibited based upon the
reasoning provided in footnote m of the matrix table.
12. Table Change: Residential Development: Manufactured Home Park or
Subdivision within Floodplain on page 6 is proposed to be changed from a
Conditional Use Permit to a not permitted in any of the shoreline environments
Staff Recommendation: The two categories for Manufactured Home Parks were
combined into one use, and are proposed to be prohibited based upon the
reasoning provided in footnote m of the matrix table.
Commissioner Bill Cook:
1. Question: Would like some more explanation of the difference between Mixed
Use project that includes a Water Dependent Commercial, Industrial,
Aquaculture, or Recreational Use and Mixed Use Building.
2. Question: Would like more discussion on what Health and Social Services
entails and how a use like that would fit in the shoreline environments.
YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Shoreline Jurisdiction Ownership — By Parcels
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS
The draft shoreline jurisdiction, as shown on the environment designation map dated 8 March 2013, totals
approximately 1,679 acres in the City of Yakima and its Urban Growth Area. The following table shows the
distribution of parcel ownership by environment designation in the entire shoreline jurisdiction (Table 1). Note
that the table does not indicate how much of a given parcel is in a given designation within shoreline jurisdiction;
there are many parcels that contain only a small area of shoreline jurisdiction.
Table 1. Shoreline Jurisdiction Distribution by Environment Designation and Ownership.
Designation
No. of Numbered Parcels
Ownership
(Has Assessor #)
Total Parcels
Essential Public Facilities
20
34
City of Yakima
3
3
County
8
8
Federal
14
Private
5
5
Railroad
2
2
Washington State Fish and Wildlife
1
1
Yakima Greenway Foundation
1
1
FloodwayfCM2
205
205
Canal/ Irrigation
1
1
City of Yakima
14
14
County
42
42
Federal
18
18
Private
74
74
Railroad
3
3
State
2
2
Washington State Department of
10
10
Transportation
Washington State Fish and Wildlife
7
7
Washington State Parks
25
25
Yakima Greenway Foundation
9
9
High Intensity
83
91
Canal/ Irrigation
2
2
City of Yakima
2
2
County
3
3
Private
69
70
Unclassified
7
Washington State Department of
1
1
Transportation
March 13, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK
Designation
No. of Numbered Parcels
ownership
(Has Assessor #)
Total Parcels
Washington State Parks
4
4
Yakima Greenway Foundation
2
2
Shoreline Residential
167
170
Canal/ Irrigation
2
2
City of Yakima
10
10
Private
155
158
Urban Conservancy
172
195
Canal/ Irrigation
1
1
City of Yakima
21
21
County27
27
Federal
2
2
Private
96
96
Railroad
4
4
Unclassified
23
Washington State Department of
4
4
Transportation
Washington State Parks
8
8
Washington State Fish and Wildlife
3
3
Yakima Greenway Foundation
6
6
Grand Total
695
759
March 13, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK
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 13`', 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.
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.
Y A1'� IMA C O U� CJI Y IF 0 O O D C O NJITR O 0 , Z O NJI 0. 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 FEMA's
mapped flood elevations are about 6 feet lower than reality.
9. The flood control district is applying for a $5.2million grant from NOAA 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.
W A rS II V. 1 YUNI G TO SNI UviM Uvn II AI TIM Uvn II JIT "bm/P II I ""o A II "UI rS I4 "bm/P II "o T A TII O I rNI
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).
YNK, II IM A WASTEWATER TR V.. ATIM E IY JITII "INI'��1!T
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.
WILLOW 0..,A IK 0. A NJI D 0..,A IK 0., A&H E NJI lI°M IM E W O NJ� 0.; IR S ASSOC l //" . fl O NJI S
Private 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).
2. 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.
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
YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Stakeholder Meetings
February 25/26, 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 5 and February 13, 2013. Two additional meetings have been held with Central Pre -Mix on February 25,
2013 and with David Buchanan, property owner of Central Pre -Mix and Buchanan Lake, on February 26, 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.
Tammy Kane, Casey Klosterman, and Jana McDonald
1. Central Pre -Mix provided an overview of their current status as an active gravel mining/processing
operation, consistent with their valid NPDES and DNR authorizations. Implication — Buchanan Lake is not
presently a shoreline jurisdictional waterbody. (Central Pre -Mix worked closely with Tom Clingman at
Ecology on jurisdictional issues related to gravel ponds)
2. The lake is not undergoing gravel extraction at present; water is pumped out of the lake to irrigate
landscaping. The lake does not currently receive any operation -related discharges; all stormwater runoff
is contained on site.
3. Central Pre -Mix operation does have a reclamation pond as part of its DNR permit, although the terms are
vague and refer to site stability rather than providing a detailed site plan for post operation condition.
4. Central Pre -Mix will provide documentation to the City to support final determination by Ecology that
Buchanan Lake is not a shoreline waterbody and therefore associated uplands are also not part of
shoreline jurisdiction.
VCUG MJP°�!AJNJJ LAIKl TRUST (BILA
David Buchanan
1. Discussed BLT's ultimate goal for the north end of the lake to be developed to a higher and better use —
but not a public use.
2. Discussed the unique conditions of the lake and the presence of the four islands. Noted that the lake has
potential for buildup of nitrates and phosphates, especially with the current situation of a City stormwater
outfall emptying into the lake.
3. BLT has voluntarily planted about 3,000 trees around the lake over the past 10 years — approximately 10%
survival.
4. Considers that there is enough land area on the south side of the lake for some development consistent
with a High Intensity environment designation. Also, discussed whether HI designation might be
appropriate for east side of lake, but noted that there are no plans for development there and no
meaningful developable space.
March 8, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK 1
5. Boating — only non -motorized appropriate and allowed on the lake; wave action from motorized boats
would damage the fragile shoreline edge and established vegetation.
6. Discussed presence of wetland conditions by the southeast corner of the lake, associated with Floodgate
#4. BLT noted that Ecology (Cathy Reed) had indicated they are not jurisdictional wetlands.
7. BLT would like flexibility to develop a use such as a floating restaurant on the lake.
March 8, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK